America's aversion to socialism ?

[russ_watters]

I need to bow out for a few hours, so I can'give a detailed response now, but real quick:

1. I gave a basis for the individual rights definition, which includes several hundred years of academic quality political theory. I ask that someone who believes in collective rights provide a basis for it. Or is it just something being made up in
public politics in the past few decades?

2. With the usual caveats, there is a pretty good wiki on this concept that I think people should read: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_group_rights

 

[Hootenanny]

I am going to permanently bow out of the discussion. We have moved away from the original issue to the circular argument of essentially how we define freedom. There is no possibility of agreement on this. Unless we are all of the same political orientation, we are all more than likely going to have a different opinion, none of which are more valid or "correct" than any other.

 

[MarcoD]

No, that's not what I said, and it is only by altering the definitions that that can be true: In western political philosophy, freedom is an individual, not a collective thing. You can believe what you want, but that belief creates all sorts of problems when trying to deal with the functioning of western societies. In that case, I would ask that if people who favor socialism insist on using non-standard definitions for words, they provide a logical basis for those definitions, preferably one that comes from an established philosophy.

Actually, I agree with that. Which is why it is so hard to discuss socialism. In former eastern Europe it means communism, in the Netherlands it now (mostly) means labour and humanitarian rights and the welfare state, in the US it seems to mean government spending.

I also would like to add that I don't believe that whatever worked in the Netherlands might work in the US. The Netherlands is an old, very densely populated country, a small piece of soil with an aging population, or a big rural village. The US is a young continent with a youthful population and has a completely different history.

[Btw. Where I mean freedom I mean individual freedom as well.]

 

[mheslep]

I don't know where you get this information from, but http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls?GT1=43001" says differently

To the contrary, that graphic reinforces the Reagan claim which shows the number in poverty* fell sharply until the significant onset on the Johnson's legislation in the mid 60's.

*The term has a wildly different meaning now than it did in 1959. Now an American in poverty can have air conditioning, non-dilapidated shelter, a car, TV, never miss a meal, as is the case with about 3/4 of current poverty count. That was not the case w/ the 1959 definition.

 

[Gokul43201]

To the contrary, that graphic reinforces the Reagan claim which shows the number in poverty* fell sharply until the significant onset on the Johnson's legislation in the mid 60's.

Numbers are obfuscatory, rates are much more elucidatory (I think I made up that word). Of course, neither really says very much about the effect of a specific legislation when viewed with blinders to the other myriad causes and effects operating at the time.

From the wiki:

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.

 

[mheslep]

Numbers are obfuscatory, rates are much more elucidatory (I think I made up that word). Of course, neither really says very much about the effect of a specific legislation when viewed with blinders to the other myriad causes and effects operating at the time.

From the wiki:

I'd say the paragraph from Wiki obfuscates, as both the numbers and rates were heading rapidly down from 1959's 40%, leveled off in the 60's and have jiggled around 12% or 1969 rates ever since.

 

[daveb]

To the contrary, that graphic reinforces the Reagan claim which shows the number in poverty* fell sharply until the significant onset on the Johnson's legislation in the mid 60's.

What are you talking about? The graph shows a decline in both rate and absolute numbers until about 1969 when there is a small increase. The sharpest increase in numbers occurs from 1979 to 1983 as well as from 2008 to 2010 (I can't tell which has a larger increase). If you're saying the "significant onset" wasn't until 1979 to 1983, then I concede that point.However, the so called "War on Poverty" was well under way by that time. (Of course if you're saying that Reagan was right about "Poverty won", that is still being fought, IMO).

 

[Gokul43201]

I'd say the paragraph from Wiki obfuscates, as both the numbers and rates were heading rapidly down from 1959's 40%, leveled off in the 60's and have jiggled around 12% or 1969 rates ever since.

The paragraph I quoted is itself not obfuscatory in the sense that it merely states facts about what the rates were at different times. That was the point of contention I was addressing. If one tried to read a causality into it however, that is beyond the scope of my post.

 

[daveb]

Just leftists came along and started lying about it. Invented "positive liberty", for instance: a "right" to get yacht at somebody else's expense because one likes having a yacht.

Saying that leftists demand a right to a yacht is a strawman and disingenuous - I know of no one that has publicly advocated for such nonsense.

 

[redsunrise]

Illiteracy is a problem of the UK, not of the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, or any other northern European country. It doesn't generalize, except for that something is going wrong in the UK.

The welfare state: About a hundred years ago the south of the Netherlands was riddled with slums of drunk catholics who had too many children (at least to the north's perception), lived in poor housing conditions (one room per family), and men just ran away from that leaving the mother and children behind.

To me, there is no doubt in my mind that investing in that south with lots of welfare money now means that these conditions don't exist anymore, and there is a well-off productive society there.

That's absolutely true, except that the change from that miserable and regrettable state of things happened not because of welfare state, but because of rising real incomes in capitalist economies. Once people had the way out of misery, they used it.

When person's situation is hopeless, they drink. I was born in a Soviet system, am pretty much survivor of Soviet welare state (yes, it was a huge welfare state, despite its totalitarian political nature). You could not find a strip of grass without a man dead drunk lying on it. Nothing made sense.

That's not the situation today. Drunks have virtually disappeared. Part of it is that you can't drink, employers kick you out instantly for drinking on the job. Part of it, life is not so hopeless anymore.

Nobody can prove anything about this, but to me it is self-evident that without a welfare state, many slums would still exist, like they do in other countries.

Why is the subject in question supposedly unknowable? I think that solid research into an issue could be done, it's just too politically explosive to do this honestly.

The lower-educated are against everything because the system just doesn't work for them. They'll never be millionaires, at least, the most of them won't, and they know it. Statistics like that say nothing, except for that they simply don't appreciate what this welfare state does for them.

Welfare state is too expensive to live just on taxes off the rich. Profits in capitalism typically are several percent of GDP. Welfare state is easily like 40%-50% of GDP. If you outright confiscated all the property of the rich, not just taxed them, you could pay for a welfare state for a few weeks in a fiscal year, a few months at best in many countries.

Yes, welfare state subsidizes the poor. But its costs also rob them of opportunities they would have otherwise.

 

[apeiron]

There is also a theory that because socialism redistributes money from the few to the many, it will inevitably and continuously expand in a democratic society, even if the policies are actually self-destructive in the long term. My fear is that this problem could cause western society to self-destruct and that the current problems in Europe are a harbinger of that.

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to see the evidence.

Meanwhile, it does not seem to be an issue in the US as yet.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/us-household-income

 

[Gokul43201]

Is a right to have a yacht different (in the principle that it necessarily involves a diminishing of someone else's freedoms) from say a right to a living wage, or a right to a retirement fund, or a right to an education?

 

[redsunrise]

Do you have a source for this? I'd like to see the evidence.

Meanwhile, it does not seem to be an issue in the US as yet.

http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm"

The solvency trick that Social Security Administration or their equivalents in many countries use is to use half of historical growth in entitlements, and double the historical growth of revenues as base for projection.

This is obviously rubbish, but few people read the small print.

 

[Evo]

Let's keep this to what is happening in the US, the American perspective.

 

[Evo]

redsunrise, read "your notifications".

 

[redsunrise]

The above seems to be a little misleading. This is from the SSA's webpage http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds."

"Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on January 21, 2005, "There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down."

 

[mheslep]

Is a right to have a yacht different (in the principle that it necessarily involves a diminishing of someone else's freedoms) from say a right to a living wage, or a right to a retirement fund, or a right to an education?

None of those are rights per the American Declaration of Independence; the opportunity to freely pursue all of them is.

 

[turbo]

Source: prof. Allen Smith. I hope our resident moderator will treat it as source, no?

Very inflammatory right-wing site that claims that the SS trust fund has been stolen.

I suggest that you read this.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.
In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

 

[mheslep]

...

Meanwhile, it does not seem to be an issue in the US as yet.

[...]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/09/us-household-income

First, non-adjusted household income is a little misleading when tracked over time, as household size has changed significantly over the decades with the increase in single parent families. Second, income brackets over time track a statistical group, not individuals which can and do move from group to group. This means that a country like the US with significant influx of low income immigrants could well show a constant '10th percentile' group over time in comparison to a country like Japan with little or no immigration.

 

[DoggerDan]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

Because when a pot is created into which both government and special interest groups can stick their fingers, they do. The result is these groups clamoring for more and more funds, justifiably, "of course," with the taxpayers, both individual and corporate, picking up the bill. It's called "funding creep," and it's not a theory. Rather, it plagues just about every agency known to man, whether it's the IT or accounting departments of a business, a program at a church, states looking for government funds, governmental agencies, or people in general who want to "get their fair share."

It's easy to identify and prosecute the thieves when they have to break down your doors to get at your hard-earned goods. It's much more difficult, and expensive, when they connivingly gain access to your wealth with the blessing of government programs.

Other countries with similar demographics like Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies. So, what makes them so appealing to Americans?

I doubt it's their track records. I think it's the (false) idea that "if we just had socialized healthcare and a retirement system everything would be ok!" It's the old "grass is greener" syndrome. Those who've learned to make the most of things as they exist aren't clamoring for a new system.

 

[apeiron]

First, non-adjusted household income is a little misleading when tracked over time, as household size has changed significantly over the decades with the increase in single parent families. Second, income brackets over time track a statistical group, not individuals which can and do move from group to group. This means that a country like the US with significant influx of low income immigrants could well show a constant '10th percentile' group over time in comparison to a country like Japan with little or no immigration.

Sure, all sorts of things could be the case. And between us, I'm sure we could conjure up 100s of variables that go either way. But the gross figures don't give much evidence that the US has a "problem" with a socialist redistribution of wealth.

So Russ's "theory" about socialism in democratic countries seems a little unsupported. If its effects are so inevitable and continuous, where is the evidence? In which democracies is socialism successfully gnawing away at wealth or income (or even health and education) inequality?

Apparently this is the story in Europe. On the evidence, which countries are the ones being ravaged by redistributive socialism?

 

[Gokul43201]

None of those are rights per the American Declaration of Independence; the opportunity to freely pursue all of them is.

Exactly. In much the same way that there is no "right" to have a yacht, IMO.

 

[MarcoD]

Welfare state is too expensive to live just on taxes off the rich. Profits in capitalism typically are several percent of GDP. Welfare state is easily like 40%-50% of GDP. If you outright confiscated all the property of the rich, not just taxed them, you could pay for a welfare state for a few weeks in a fiscal year, a few months at best in many countries.

Uh? It isn't that 40%-50% of that GDP is wasted, it is rerouted. In a poor country, you redistribute some of the poverty, in a wealthy country, you redistribute some of the wealth. It seems to work for most of Northern Europe. I believe a billionaire spending a million just generates less economic activity than ten thousand people spending a hundred. You just shouldn't tax the whole system to pieces, of course.

 

[WhoWee]

The above seems to be a little misleading. This is from the SSA's webpage http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds."

It's not misleading - the funds for someone scheduled to receive benefits in 2020 will receive benefits at that time - the funds are not available now. However, they must continue to address the future solvency issues. (from the same source as your quote)

"Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity."

 

[mheslep]

Exactly. In much the same way that there is no "right" to have a yacht, IMO.

I agree, but I'm guessing we have a different interpretation a right, or its absence. No right by the individual to a yacht means to me one can not demand a yacht be provided by others. Nor does that absence by itself grant others the right to take the yacht away, or even take away the means to get one - without 'due process'.

 

[Gokul43201]

I agree, but I'm guessing we have a different interpretation a right. No right by the individual to a yacht means to me one can not demand a yacht be provided by others. Nor does that absence by itself grant others the right to take the yacht away, or even take away the means to get one.

Same interpretation here.

My post was meant to be in response to the statement: "Saying that leftists demand a right to a yacht is a strawman and disingenuous - I know of no one that has publicly advocated for such nonsense. (by daveb)

I was hoping to point out that while no leftist may have demanded the right to have a yacht, many (IMO) have been demanding a right to education, healthcare, a living wage, etc. And I consider these things similar in principle to the right to a yacht.

 

[Evo]

I was hoping to point out that while no leftist may have demanded the right to have a yacht, many (IMO) have been demanding a right to education, healthcare, a living wage, etc. And I consider these things similar in principle to the right to a yacht.

So only those that can afford to pay for even a basic education will get one? I hope for your sake that you never become seriously ill or are injured and can't work. What are people supposed to live on in these cases? I know I'm not independently wealthy, I don't have a spouse or family I can leech off of.

Or am I missing something and you're against that train of thought?

 

[WhoWee]

Same interpretation here.

My post was meant to be in response to the statement: "Saying that leftists demand a right to a yacht is a strawman and disingenuous - I know of no one that has publicly advocated for such nonsense. (by daveb)

I was hoping to point out that while no leftist may have demanded the right to have a yacht, many (IMO) have been demanding a right to education, healthcare, a living wage, etc. And I consider these things similar in principle to the right to a yacht.

I think your comparison is very good. A yacht seems like a ridiculous wish considering it's an expensive luxury item. However, when you consider the aggregate cost of education, healthcare, and subsidies over a lifetime - the costs might be comparable. The main difference is the "timing of the money" - to use a marketing term.

 

[WhoWee]

So only those that can afford to pay for even a basic education will get one? I hope for your sake that you never become seriously ill or are injured and can't work. What are people supposed to live on in these cases? I know I'm not independently wealthy, I don't have a spouse or family I can leech off of.

I don't think anyone is suggesting student loan programs be eliminated. IMO - anyone that receives assistance with their education should be required repay their share - and provide the same opportunity to the next generation.

 

[turbo]

So only those that can afford to pay for even a basic education will get one? I hope for your sake that you never become seriously ill or are injured and can't work. What are people supposed to live on in these cases? I know I'm not independently wealthy, I don't have a spouse or family I can leech off of.

Most Americans are in similar situations. If there is no basic social safety net, what is there? Around here, most towns have a "town farm" road. Indigent people were given very basic housing and board in return for working on the town farm. It was a place where poor people went to try to survive or die when there was no social network that would keep them from starving or freezing otherwise. I don't want to return to those days.