News America's aversion to socialism ?

[apeiron]

Agreed

Meaning you agree my conclusion was justified? Or that you are hoping that your evasive equation of "productive activity" with "pro-social attitudes" is quietly left to rest because otherwise it seems to challenge the whole edifice of your liberal economic argument?

Again, the question I put to you is what should we measure to know that we are maximising/optimising the right thing according to our social theory?

You appear to have ended up pointing to pro-social behaviour. If this is not the conclusion you want to arrive at, then you will need to tell us what was "unproductive" about those able-bodied idlers on benefits.

It seems pretty clear that they were unproductive in some famiilar GDP sense. But what is not clear is why your line of argument so sharply changed track.

 

[CAC1001]

This is great. You believe in a definition of production that is based on co-operative, pro-social behaviour. You are against selfish individualism.

What exactly is "co-operative, pro-social behavior?" And individualism should not be defined as selfish. A society based on individualism means self-reliance as opposed to a nanny state and means a focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual. It does not mean that said individuals will not help out their fellow humans via charity or that they will not be active participants in their communities and so forth.

Also, what do you mean that neo-liberal policies failed in New Zealand? Or was it just that the economy tanked big-time due to the fixing of the inflation that occurred? New Zealand, like the United States and Britain at the time, was experiencing a high rate of inflation during the 1980s, and had price controls, wage controls, restrictions on trade, and so forth.

I would think to judge the effectiveness of thhe neo-liberal reforms in New Zealand that were implemented at the time, one would more need to look at how the economy performs at a later date, not how it performed at the time, because at the time, in order to fix the NZ economy's problems, some major pain was needed. The same was true with the United States, Britain, and Chile as well.

In the U.S., to kill the inflation, the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates, which tanked the economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression, lasting from 1981 to 1982. Whole sectors of the U.S. economy were decastated as a result. In Britain, the Bank of England hiked interest rates there, and Britain, experiencing an even higher level of inflation than the U.S., saw its economy tank into a terrible recession that was devastating. Chile was experiencing an inflation rate in triple digits when the policy was applied there, which sent their economy into a seven year depression.

Today however, all three of the above economies are (or were) doing fine (until the financial crisis, itself partially government-caused). The United States, the UK, Chile, all are prosperous, wealthy, very strong economies (Chile the most prosperous in Latin America). At the time these inflation-fighting policies were being applied though, usually in conjunction with neo-liberal policies of privatization, tax cuts, ending of price controls, etc...to much of the general public, it gave the impression that such policies were a massive failure. They weren't, it was just at the time that's how it seemed.

New Zealand's inflation rate has since gone down to a very healthy level and today New Zealand is rated as one of the most economically-free countries in the world with one of the most satisfied peoples.

 

[WhoWee]

Meaning you agree my conclusion was justified? Or that you are hoping that your evasive equation of "productive activity" with "pro-social attitudes" is quietly left to rest because otherwise it seems to challenge the whole edifice of your liberal economic argument?

Again, the question I put to you is what should we measure to know that we are maximising/optimising the right thing according to our social theory?

You appear to have ended up pointing to pro-social behaviour. If this is not the conclusion you want to arrive at, then you will need to tell us what was "unproductive" about those able-bodied idlers on benefits.

It seems pretty clear that they were unproductive in some famiilar GDP sense. But what is not clear is why your line of argument so sharply changed track.

I simply agreed the discussion needs put to bed.

 

[CAC1001]

Consistent dysfunction. The two-party system in the US seems to be designed to let the elected officials collect tons of money while refusing to legislate.

Is it "dysfunction" really or just the normal behavior of a democratic system, which can be raucous, loud, dysfunctional-seeming, and so forth. It isn't supposed to function as one smooth system where one party rules and that's that essentially.

One tool in the conservatives' bag is to call any program that filters money down to the middle-class and the poor as "socialism". Programs that shove money up to companies and wealthy individuals are called job-creating programs.

Programs that literally shove money up to wealthy individuals and businesses are referred to as corporate welfare by conservatives and conservatives do not support such programs (remember, it was the hard right who wanted to allow the big financial institutions to be allowed to fail completely during the '08 crisis).

 

[Evo]

Turbo - you called me out on this post: my bold
"I recall years ago when the State first enforced the requirement that unemployed persons visit the benefits office weekly and offer proof they went on at least 3 job interviews during the previous week - a great many young fellows found it easier to get a job than to put up with the rules."

How do the words in bold "I recall years ago" infer or portray anything as being "new"? PLEASE cut the crap.

In turbo's defense, I took it the same way that he did, that you were implying that in the old days people had to show an effort in order to receive benefits and now they don't.

I still don't understand the intent of your post, was it a reply to a question?

 

[apeiron]

What exactly is "co-operative, pro-social behavior?" And individualism should not be defined as selfish. A society based on individualism means self-reliance as opposed to a nanny state and means a focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual.

If you read what I wrote, I would align the notion of individualism with local constructive freedoms - the competition part of the balance.

So yes, societies would want to create exactly that - pro-social individualism. People with maximum initiative, capability, etc. But also on the whole, oriented in their actions in ways that promote the greatest social good.

You see the local and the global as opposed - hence you use emotional terms like self-reliance and nanny state. I see them as mutual facets of the same system.

Also, what do you mean that neo-liberal policies failed in New Zealand?...New Zealand's inflation rate has since gone down to a very healthy level and today New Zealand is rated as one of the most economically-free countries in the world with some of the most satisfied peoples.

I could write a book about the subject. NZ has tumbled down the OECD productivity rankings, soared in the income inequality rankings, etc, etc.

But what I was trying to get discussed was the alternative approaches which we are now starting to explore. The work of Elinor Ostrom and the "Swedish model" as it gets called here.

 

[apeiron]

I simply agreed the discussion needs put to bed.

Oh well, then I should explain that the emoticon signified an expectation that you would seek to evade properly answering my question.

But the request to explain your sudden apparent leap in definitions of production still stands.

 

[maine75man]

And applied to Maine75man's case, what does this focus on the pro-social imply?

Does his story suggest a couple who are more likely to have these pro-social attitudes and so we should be pleased that they even have a treat of a very occasional steak as some kind of socialised reward?

Well honestly thank you , but I don't consider anything we get from food stamps or any other program to be a social rewards. They are means to an end for both us and the government. I have never received unemployment benefits before in my life and I'm not happy about getting them now. If I can get those benefits, go back to school, and finally finish a degree I will.

I could sit around and wait for my unemployment to run out faking my work search log (Yes those are still required no they don't have the manpower to check them.) instead I entered a program where I have to prove I'm going to class and getting passing grades and people actually check up on it pretty regularly. Furthermore when my wife was laid off she entered the program as well.

Wic, Day care, and foodstamps all make it possible for my wife and I to focas on our school work and still make a good home for our son. Also since my wife started extreme couponing we have been able to start saving for a house. As I've said before we are able to take food benefits which are meant to be only supplemental and cover our total food budget with a little extra.

As far as being productive well as I've said before thanks to my wife's efforts we have food to donate every month to our local food pantry. We regularly work benefits for the local volunteer fire department and the youth and scouting council. We also both do work study as part of our financial aid. She works in the office and I tutor math. For me that money will run out before the semester is over but I doubt I'll drop the students I'm working with. My wife started a coupon club at school to pass on her knowledge. Oh and we are raising a child who from all current evidence will probably grow up to be a superhero.

 

[lisab]

Well honestly thank you , but I don't consider anything we get from food stamps or any other program to be a social rewards. They are means to an end for both us and the government. I have never received unemployment benefits before in my life and I'm not happy about getting them now. If I can get those benefits, go back to school, and finally finish a degree I will.

I could sit around and wait for my unemployment to run out faking my work search log (Yes those are still required no they don't have the manpower to check them.) instead I entered a program where I have to prove I'm going to class and getting passing grades and people actually check up on it pretty regularly. Furthermore when my wife was laid off she entered the program as well.

Wic, Day care, and foodstamps all make it possible for my wife and I to focas on our school work and still make a good home for our son. Also since my wife started extreme couponing we have been able to start saving for a house. As I've said before we are able to take food benefits which are meant to be only supplemental and cover our total food budget with a little extra.

As far as being productive well as I've said before thanks to my wife's efforts we have food to donate every month to our local food pantry. We regularly work benefits for the local volunteer fire department and the youth and scouting council. We also both do work study as part of our financial aid. She works in the office and I tutor math. For me that money will run out before the semester is over but I doubt I'll drop the students I'm working with. My wife started a coupon club at school to pass on her knowledge. Oh and we are raising a child who from all current evidence will probably grow up to be a superhero.

Whew, we soooo need more superheros these days.

The programs you are using are intended to operate just the way you're using them: they will create taxpayers who will, in all likelihood, pay back the system far more than it's paying you now.

 

[CAC1001]

If you read what I wrote, I would align the notion of individualism with local constructive freedoms - the competition part of the balance.

What are "local constructive freedoms?" Also, shouldn't the freedoms be universal?

So yes, societies would want to create exactly that - pro-social individualism. People with maximum initiative, capability, etc. But also on the whole, oriented in their actions in ways that promote the greatest social good.

Well that's how a market capitalist system generally works. You allow people to pursue their own self interests under the rule of law and protection of private property and it results in a society where things get done that advance the greater good.

You see the local and the global as opposed -

Opposed?

hence you use emotional terms like self-reliance and nanny state. I see them as mutual facets of the same system.

They aren't emotional terms, they're descriptive terms. Also, how would they be mutual facets of the same system? If you increase the state in terms of it caring for the people, you decrease the self-reliance aspect of the people. To increase the self-reliance aspect means decreasing the state. They are opposed.

I could write a book about the subject. NZ has tumbled down the OECD productivity rankings,

Is that because it has literally gone "down," or because the other countries have simply accelerated beyond it in terms of their own levels of productivity, thus leaving it behind? Here is an article by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which says that the issue of the low labour productivity in NZ has been a source of a lot of research, but that no one fully understands why it is that way right now: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2007_2011/2007mar70_1drew.pdf"

soared in the income inequality rankings, etc, etc.

Why is that a bad thing? In a free society, everyone is not supposed to come out with some equal amount of wealth and income. Large amounts of income inequality are normal in a free society. What you have to look at is the overall standard of living. For example, while much is made of income inequality in the United States, Americans are a very unequally wealthy people. By global standards, almost all Americans are wealthy, but within America, we have unequal levels of wealth and income.

If anything, I would say large income inequality is probably a sign of how NZ's economy has improved a great deal over the years.

But what I was trying to get discussed was the alternative approaches which we are now starting to explore. The work of Elinor Ostrom and the "Swedish model" as it gets called here.

The thing with Sweden though is remember that that is a very homogenous, and small, country. Up the population to the size of say the United States and throw in a whole slew of additional ethnicities, cultures, religions, languages, etc...and things would get a lot more complicated.

 

[daveb]

The article has more to do with problems in psychiatric diagnoses than in SSDI.

It's also anecdotal. True, yours is too, but you made thatcaveat.

 

[WhoWee]

In turbo's defense, I took it the same way that he did, that you were implying that in the old days people had to show an effort in order to receive benefits and now they don't.

I still don't understand the intent of your post, was it a reply to a question?

I was responding to aperion regarding (able-bodied) people who receive Government benefits - that don't work - hence the "unproductive rail" reference.

The quote in question can be understood in context when read along with the line it followed. my bold

"As per your question, I do think one way to entice people to return to the productive side of the economy is to limit choices (comfort) on the unproductive rail.

I recall years ago when the State first enforced the requirement that unemployed persons visit the benefits office weekly and offer proof they went on at least 3 job interviews during the previous week - a great many young fellows found it easier to get a job than to put up with the rules."

 

[Oltz]

I can confirm that at least In PA and NC they no longer require proof of search for work. the question is asked on the online form you fill out once every 2 weeks and that is the extent of the "did you look for work" check. My wife was on unemployment when she was laid off with the end of the stimulus funds (music teacher)

 

[apeiron]

Well that's how a market capitalist system generally works. You allow people to pursue their own self interests under the rule of law and protection of private property and it results in a society where things get done that advance the greater good.

So how are you measuring "greater good" here? What is it actually?

Your analysis is too simplistic because in reality, societies create frameworks where people are motivated to achieve certain ends. The freedoms they have are the ones they are given (through education, law, religions, all the other varieties of social constraint).

So market capitalism is geared to achieving something. The question then is this what people really want? Or what is good for them in the long run?

It may be. But I would certainly like to see it being more questioned.

They aren't emotional terms, they're descriptive terms.

I thing that is a conversation stopper. So self-reliant is not intended to strike a chord of quiet pride, nanny state a note of shame and revulsion? If you can't see that you are using loaded language here, I can recommend a few good books on the cultural construction of emotions.

Also, how would they be mutual facets of the same system? If you increase the state in terms of it caring for the people, you decrease the self-reliance aspect of the people. To increase the self-reliance aspect means decreasing the state. They are opposed.

What I said is that local construction and global constraints act synergistically. This interaction would happen across all scales.

So something like "self reliance" is a complex systems property. If that is what you want to achieve, it would be something you would want to see across all scales from the individual to the state.

Is that because it has literally gone "down," or because the other countries have simply accelerated beyond it in terms of their own levels of productivity, thus leaving it behind? Here is an article by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which says that the issue of the low labour productivity in NZ has been a source of a lot of research, but that no one fully understands why it is that way right now: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2007_2011/2007mar70_1drew.pdf"

Productivity growth has been poor so it is a case of being left behind by others. Radical market liberalisation did not deliver on its promises. However there are plenty of ways to explain this away if you want.

Why is that a bad thing? In a free society, everyone is not supposed to come out with some equal amount of wealth and income. Large amounts of income inequality are normal in a free society. What you have to look at is the overall standard of living. For example, while much is made of income inequality in the United States, Americans are a very unequally wealthy people. By global standards, almost all Americans are wealthy, but within America, we have unequal levels of wealth and income.

If anything, I would say large income inequality is probably a sign of how NZ's economy has improved a great deal over the years.

I realize this is a popular view with some folk. So popular that anytime I challenge it with data I get infracted here. I'll just say IMO that high inequality is not a desirable outcome to target. Just like no inequality. The interesting question is what level of inequality strikes an optimal balance.

The thing with Sweden though is remember that that is a very homogenous, and small, country. Up the population to the size of say the United States and throw in a whole slew of additional ethnicities, cultures, religions, languages, etc...and things would get a lot more complicated.

Which has diddly squat to do with the social theory I was talking about. Or in fact, scale and diversity would only make a formal systems approach to forging strong societies even more appropriate.

 

[mheslep]

... As people keep saying about the recent financial debacle, laisser faire capitalism is fine up until the point it breaks. ...

I can produce examples that reflect relative* laissez-faire with, say, the US electronics industry, internet based web services companies, and so on, but not in US banking, which is much more regulated than most industries, and operates under nothing close to laissez-faire.

Perhaps the bank bailouts were required, but I've yet seen convincing proof. TARP was a choice, one that may yet be regretted, as those banks may fail again if the treasuries they all hold now devalue with an inflation. Also most of the private bank money has been returned, aside from those dead beat creatures of government Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

*US labor law is anything but laissez faire, for any industry.

 

[apeiron]

...but not in US banking, which is much more regulated than most industries, and operates under nothing close to laissez-faire.

IMO, having covered the financial crisis myself, there is much evidence to the contrary. You've surely seen the interviews where the regulators confess they did not even understand the financial instruments they were supposed to be regulating.

I talked to our own governor of the Reserve Bank about it. He tells the story of being at the big regulators meeting in Lucern as things were breaking. He confesses he had to rush off and google to discover what sub-prime meant, that no-one in the room had realized the markets had stacked up a quadrillion in derivative bets.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone even try to claim that Goldman Sachs and its like were not the product of market deregulation/slack oversight. I think you might be living on a different planet here.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I think it might be useful to think realistically about the alternatives to a social safety net, if there are any.

The basic conservative argument stresses personal responsibility and accountability. At the same time, the job market ought to be as unregulated as possible, the argument seems to go, allowing business to prosper. Today, some in the Republican Party also argue against any minimum wage at all, taking the free market concept to its logical extreme, which is where dogmas tend to be taken by the fervent and the righteously enraptured. Yet without going that far, let's see how an average Jane or Joe might fare under existing conditions.

The federal minimum wage is set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages" in the last decade. That's $13,050 per year, but let's assume a little overtime and odd-jobbing raises income to $18,000, net of FICA taxes and with no federal or state tax due. That's $1,500 of disposable income per month (part of which will be spent on sales tax).

Now, not everyone is an entrepreneur, nor can everyone become the boss, so there will be a non-negligible amount of people earning more or less this amount for a majority of their working lives.

Being responsible individuals, they will need to pay rent, eat, buy and replace clothing, buy and replace furniture, including white goods (refrigerator at minimum), as well as save for the down payment on a house, in order not to become indigent when retiring. Add free market health care, home insurance, (possibly car payments, car insurance, and gasoline where there is no public transport), saving for retirement, and no child care costs since they are single. No smoking, no drinking, no going to the movies. Just the simple joys of working, eating, sleeping, and schlepping to and from work.

Now, take a city like Washington, DC, where janitors and other minimum wage earners work. Assuming the individual lives 10 miles outside of town to save on rent, say in http://rentbits.com/rb/t/rental-rates/apartments/germantown-maryland", he or she will face an average rent of $1,150 per month for a single bedroom apartment. That's $350 left over for all other expenses.

I don't think it takes much to see that beyond eating (poorly, oops, leading to junk food obesity and undue burden on the health care system, those rats!) and taking public transportation (oops, a little "socialism" has already been required to make this work), there is little or no money left over, perhaps enough for aspirin. Of course, one could share an overcrowded apartment and save some there, as well as sleep on the floor and save on bed costs, but I think you see where the numbers lead us.

So, what shall we do? Either we drastically raise the minimum wage (socialism rears its ugly head once again), which would in turn lead to price hikes across the board in many businesses, and make some types of business inviable. Or we simply say, when you are sick, die, when you reach retirement or are unable to work, starve, and if you ever need any financial help due to an unexpected event, such as a tornado destroying your home, go join Dorothy in Oz.

Just... die. Don't make any noise when doing it, and you damn better have insurance that covers the cost of your burial or cremation. By the way, suicide is a sin! So are abortions! And no stealing, bums, nor window washing at stop lights, nor public begging, slouch! You really should have been a stockbroker, loser! We at least deserve our bailouts.

Perhaps technology can replace them all with robots, and we can let them all die off after we run them out of town? Target practice, anyone? Running head starts are good sport, after all, no? Fertilizer? ...

Of course, we could have a bit of a social safety net, and let the many nice people who scrub our floors, serve us coffee, and attend to our whims at the mall not die in misery, allow them to retire with some small amount to cover their expenses, subsidize their food costs as a preventive health measure, and provide them decent health care... so our coffee won't suddenly have no one to serve it. Makes sense to me.

Too bad that's not a pure market sentiment. Guess I'm a dirty, liberal socialist schweinhund.

 

[WhoWee]

I think it might be useful to think realistically about the alternatives to a social safety net, if there are any.

The basic conservative argument stresses personal responsibility and accountability. At the same time, the job market ought to be as unregulated as possible, the argument seems to go, allowing business to prosper. Today, some in the Republican Party also argue against any minimum wage at all, taking the free market concept to its logical extreme, which is where dogmas tend to be taken by the fervent and the righteously enraptured. Yet without going that far, let's see how an average Jane or Joe might fare under existing conditions.

The federal minimum wage is set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages" in the last decade. That's $13,050 per year, but let's assume a little overtime and odd-jobbing raises income to $18,000, net of FICA taxes and with no federal or state tax due. That's $1,500 of disposable income per month (part of which will be spent on sales tax).

Now, not everyone is an entrepreneur, nor can everyone become the boss, so there will be a non-negligible amount of people earning more or less this amount for a majority of their working lives.

Being responsible individuals, they will need to pay rent, eat, buy and replace clothing, buy and replace furniture, including white goods (refrigerator at minimum), as well as save for the down payment on a house, in order not to become indigent when retiring. Add free market health care, home insurance, (possibly car payments, car insurance, and gasoline where there is no public transport), saving for retirement, and no child care costs since they are single. No smoking, no drinking, no going to the movies. Just the simple joys of working, eating, sleeping, and schlepping to and from work.

Now, take a city like Washington, DC, where janitors and other minimum wage earners work. Assuming the individual lives 10 miles outside of town to save on rent, say in http://rentbits.com/rb/t/rental-rates/apartments/germantown-maryland", he or she will face an average rent of $1,150 per month for a single bedroom apartment. That's $350 left over for all other expenses.

I don't think it takes much to see that beyond eating (poorly, oops, leading to junk food obesity and undue burden on the health care system, those rats!) and taking public transportation (oops, a little "socialism" has already been required to make this work), there is little or no money left over, perhaps enough for aspirin. Of course, one could share an overcrowded apartment and save some there, as well as sleep on the floor and save on bed costs, but I think you see where the numbers lead us.

So, what shall we do? Either we drastically raise the minimum wage (socialism rears its ugly head once again), which would in turn lead to price hikes across the board in many businesses, and make some types of business inviable. Or we simply say, when you are sick, die, when you reach retirement or are unable to work, starve, and if you ever need any financial help due to an unexpected event, such as a tornado destroying your home, go join Dorothy in Oz.

Just... die. Don't make any noise when doing it, and you damn better have insurance that covers the cost of your burial or cremation. By the way, suicide is a sin! So are abortions! And no stealing, bums, nor window washing at stop lights, nor public begging, slouch! You really should have been a stockbroker, loser! We at least deserve our bailouts.

Perhaps technology can replace them all with robots, and we can let them all die off after we run them out of town? Target practice, anyone? Running head starts are good sport, after all, no? Fertilizer? ...

Of course, we could have a bit of a social safety net, and let the many nice people who scrub our floors, serve us coffee, and attend to our whims at the mall not die in misery, allow them to retire with some small amount to cover their expenses, subsidize their food costs as a preventive health measure, and provide them decent health care... so our coffee won't suddenly have no one to serve it. Makes sense to me.

Too bad that's not a pure market sentiment. Guess I'm a dirty, liberal socialist schweinhund.

While I realize you just pulled a few numbers out of the air to make a point - perhaps a few too many liberties were talen with the example?

http://www.minimum-wage.us/states/District_of_Columbia
"The District of Columbia Minimum Wage is $8.25 per hour. The District of Columbia Minimum Wage is greater than the National Minimum Wage of $7.25 per hour, so employees in District of Columbia are entitled to the higher minimum wage of $8.25."

The first janitor for hire job search I pulled yielded this.
http://careers.didlake.org/x/detail/a2obafi37x5w
"Title: Janitor - Forrestall
Pay: 18.33
Schedule: 5:30am-10:30am; 5:30pm-9:30pm
AbilityOne: Yes
Location: Washington, DC"

Then Germantown is a bit far for a janitor to commute.
http://www.mapquest.com/directions#e0549aee7ae610d0d7decbad
"Suggested Routes
I-270 S
43 mins / 31.23 miles
***
George Washington Memorial Pky S
47 mins / 31.00 miles"

I agree with your approximation of Germantown rents.

Accordingly, $18.33 @ 40 hours @4.3 weeks per month = $3,152.76/month - slightly different numbers.

 

[apeiron]

Too bad that's not a pure market sentiment. Guess I'm a dirty, liberal socialist schweinhund.

What you think that there is no market in insulating yourself from social inequality?

The rich pay plenty to be gated away from the world, to send their kids to schools where they don't need to mix.

You could see welfare payments in the same light. Look, I know you are hopeless and feckless but I'm willing to sacrifice a little wealth if it means I don't have to deal with your problems.

As expressed here, the concern is then about sacrificing the least amount of wealth to achieve this end effectively.

You would only be a dirty liberal socialist if you actively cared about the plight of the "undeserving poor" as well as the deserving. You might then take the view that society creates the conditions that creates the people, as much as the people make the choices that lead to the problems.

And societies (acting as super-individuals) need to be accountable for what they are doing. They must show a (collective) personal responsibility for things.

The concept of a free market is simplistic. You just let a bunch of actors act, knowing that some kind of collective constraints will emerge at the global level to regulate their behaviour.

That much is so obvious that everyone gets it. But what does not get talked about is what it is exactly our social markets are meant to achieve. And whether those ambitions are generally agreed as right.

A market tuned to maximising happiness, or personal intellectual freedom, for instance, could look very different to one tuned to resource entropification, or GDP increase, or conservative social behaviour.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

While I realize you just pulled a few numbers out of the air to make a point - perhaps a few too many liberties were talen with the example?

http://www.minimum-wage.us/states/District_of_Columbia
"The District of Columbia Minimum Wage is $8.25 per hour. The District of Columbia Minimum Wage is greater than the National Minimum Wage of $7.25 per hour, so employees in District of Columbia are entitled to the higher minimum wage of $8.25."

The first janitor for hire job search I pulled yielded this.
http://careers.didlake.org/x/detail/a2obafi37x5w
"Title: Janitor - Forrestall
Pay: 18.33
Schedule: 5:30am-10:30am; 5:30pm-9:30pm
AbilityOne: Yes
Location: Washington, DC"

Then Germantown is a bit far for a janitor to commute.
http://www.mapquest.com/directions#e0549aee7ae610d0d7decbad
"Suggested Routes
I-270 S
43 mins / 31.23 miles
***
George Washington Memorial Pky S
47 mins / 31.00 miles"

I agree with your approximation of Germantown rents.

Accordingly, $18.33 @ 40 hours @4.3 weeks per month = $3,152.76/month - slightly different numbers.

.

The minimum wage and average working hours were not cherry picked. So the janitorial job you cite makes more. And? You can try to rework things all you like, the fact remains that it is very very difficult to reach the full cost of theoretical free-market totally unsubsidized life at minimum wage. Impossible, in fact. Some major costs of a ruggedly individual and responsible life aren't covered. Free and pure markets as touted by the right do not work humanely, no matter how one stretches it.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... A market tuned to maximising happiness, or personal intellectual freedom, for instance, could look very different to one tuned to resource entropification, or GDP increase, or conservative social behaviour.

Now I'll sound like I am from the right, but hear me out. While what you propose sounds ok, it is also hard to define, and harder to achieve in practice. In order to maximize self-realization, for example, I'd suggest it is a case of personal due diligence in our own lives, and in how we teach the young, yet without indoctrinating them. I am as leery of social engineering as I am of pure market theory.

And as for pure markets, the CAPM model of financial markets was shown to be factually incorrect/inoperative in the last few booms and busts. In fact, it is behavioral theory that is making strides in explaining markets.

...

My social take is that we are all Jekyll and Hyde. Neither noble savages who are corrupted only by society (to be saved by the left), nor only fallen sinners in need of punishment administered by authority (to be saved by the right). The last thing we need are overarching social theories touting full explanatory power (dogma). I rather like the idea of muddling through, solving each issue to the best of our knowledge, and when designing social safety nets, taking game theory (cheating) into full account.

But I sure don't want to throw the poor to the dogs. I am my brother's keeper (out of self-interest as much as enlightened altuism), but I am not his barkeep either.

 

[kings7]

I haven't been dealing with specific cases/claims - just the plans themselves. All of the pre-AEP meetings I've attended indicate an expected increase in people seeking dual eligible plans for 2012 - because of the way Medicaid pays - the plans often provide enhanced network choices.

Kaiser has some good overview information.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemapreport.jsp?rep=73&cat=4

That's true. I did know about the network choices.

Thanks for the resource. I might be able to get some good information to my supervisor so we can plan accordingly a payment schedule revision for dual Medicare/Medicaid patients!

~S

 

[kings7]

...

That much is so obvious that everyone gets it. But what does not get talked about is what it is exactly our social markets are meant to achieve. And whether those ambitions are generally agreed as right.

A market tuned to maximising happiness, or personal intellectual freedom, for instance, could look very different to one tuned to resource entropification, or GDP increase, or conservative social behaviour.

You really hit the nail on the head when it comes down to the real issue.

As "philosophical" or "bohemian" as it sounds, no matter what system is designed, it will all eventually center on the core principles and beliefs of the people within that system.

Since there is such a thing as social consciousness, we have to be aware of what our markets are aiming for.

In this socioeconomic environment, does it look like we are aiming for some to succeed while others fail? Does it look like we're aiming to make life for the next generation better? Does it look like we're aiming to encourage creativity and growth in technology?

These are all things to consider when making policy.


This is why I've always thought that our leaders should have degrees in philosophy and science with strong backgrounds in business and law, rather than solely having degrees in business and law with a severe lack of conceptual forethought.

 

[maine75man]

Now, not everyone is an entrepreneur, nor can everyone become the boss, so there will be a non-negligible amount of people earning more or less this amount for a majority of their working lives.

As I see it in that sort of society their will be very few entrepreneurs. Far fewer people will be willing to take the risks involved in starting a business if failure means rotting in the gutter. This would stifle innovation and calculated risk which is supposed to be the life blood of any capitalist society.

Furthermore I'm thinking that in any society where the price of failure is unreasonably high only the unreasonable will take risks. Never mind starting a business how scary would it be to ask for a raise or take a chance and look for another job. So say goodbye for upward mobility. Oh was that important for the individual freedom and republican democracy you where trying to maintain?

That's why I firmly believe a social safety net is an integral part of both functional capitalism and anything close to a real democracy.

 

[mheslep]

So no "real democracies" existed prior to the 1930s and the advent of social security?

 

[WhoWee]

As I see it in that sort of society their will be very few entrepreneurs. Far fewer people will be willing to take the risks involved in starting a business if failure means rotting in the gutter. This would stifle innovation and calculated risk which is supposed to be the life blood of any capitalist society.

Furthermore I'm thinking that in any society where the price of failure is unreasonably high only the unreasonable will take risks. Never mind starting a business how scary would it be to ask for a raise or take a chance and look for another job. So say goodbye for upward mobility. Oh was that important for the individual freedom and republican democracy you where trying to maintain?

That's why I firmly believe a social safety net is an integral part of both functional capitalism and anything close to a real democracy.

This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class.

 

[lisab]

As I see it in that sort of society their will be very few entrepreneurs. Far fewer people will be willing to take the risks involved in starting a business if failure means rotting in the gutter. This would stifle innovation and calculated risk which is supposed to be the life blood of any capitalist society.

Furthermore I'm thinking that in any society where the price of failure is unreasonably high only the unreasonable will take risks. Never mind starting a business how scary would it be to ask for a raise or take a chance and look for another job. So say goodbye for upward mobility. Oh was that important for the individual freedom and republican democracy you where trying to maintain?

That's why I firmly believe a social safety net is an integral part of both functional capitalism and anything close to a real democracy.

I agree, such a safety net would empower people to take more risks. If you have 3 kids and a spouse, would you risk their health coverage by quitting a secure industry job to start a business on your own?

 

[maine75man]

So no "real democracies" existed prior to the 1930s and the advent of social security?

Where did I say that the social safety net was invented in the 1930's. Although now that I think of it I guess you could say that the social safety net was reinvented in the 1930's. When the measure that worked before then proved inadequate to prevent or deal with the fallout of a modern financial market crash. Certainly I wouldn't be the first to say that American Democracy might have failed if the economy hadn't turned around under the new deal.

 

[mheslep]

Where did I say that the social safety net was invented in the 1930's...

Does this mean that the social safety net has existed, and can exist, outside of the government? I agree. If it need not use the government, it should not.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree, such a safety net would empower people to take more risks. If you have 3 kids and a spouse, would you risk their health coverage by quitting a secure industry job to start a business on your own?

I know a corporate pilot that gave up a $150,000 per year package (including health insurance for his sick child) to purchase a struggling restaurant. His wife earns about $18,000/year with no benefits. As far as I know he hasn't done anything to maintain his license and his wife quit her job to help in the restaurant.

They paid $200,000 cash (leaving them $50,000 working capital) for the existing restaurant (business, equipment, and real estate) - then (borrowed against the restaurant and their home) invested an additional $350,000 to bring the facility up to current codes and re-make it into the concept he envisioned. The previous owner enjoyed a breakeven of about $400 per day and averaged about $600 daily. The pilot increased the breakeven to about $1,000 per day and still grosses $600 daily.

He didn't realize the cost of individual health insurance - especially given his child's illness, nor did he understand why nobody else wanted to buy the real estate nor why the previous owner didn't try to remodel the facility (both due to the cost of bringing facility to current codes).

After (about 4 years) they are in the process of losing both the restaurant and their home, all of their cash and retirement funds are gone, they sold their new cars and bought older models, their credit cards are maxed and closed (credit is gone), and they owe a large amount of medical bills. She is trying to find a job and he (apparently?) needs to be re-certified as a pilot.

Because he quit a good job with full benefits to take a risk in a business they were not prepared for - they will now depend upon Medicaid for their sick child. IMO - we the taxpayers don't owe them anything else.

 

[maine75man]

This seems a convenient time to point out we have a very small class of entrepreneurs in the US that have a public safety net available - they are the drug dealers standing on the corner that don't have any legal means of support. Please label this entire post IMO - and note this is nothing more than an unintended consequence in that these people are not required to seek work while on public assistance. Again - IMO - for the entire post and I stipulated in bold a very small class.

Actually there are a couple programs that are part of unemployment to provide benefits for entrepreneurs. Instead of looking for work they must provide a business plan and work towards it. I honestly don't know exactly how it works but my sister-in-law used the program. I could do that instead of going to college maybe. Since Maine now has legal medical marijuana maybe I could go into that business. My area already looks like it's getting a dispensary though so maybe I'll try a grow operation. I had a lot of luck with tomatoes this year and I hear their pretty similar.

Or was that not your point. Where you trying to say that there are dishonest people who engage in criminal activities AND defraud the government. At that I am shocked, you think one morally reprehensible act would be enough for people. Next thing you'll tell me is they don't pay taxes.

 

[maine75man]

Because he quit a good job with full benefits to take a risk in a business they were not prepared for - they will now depend upon Medicaid for their sick child. IMO - we the taxpayers don't owe them anything else.

They're almost bankrupt any medical costs they incur will have to be covered by the system Medicaid or no. With Medicaid it's applied to taxes otherwise it's just passed onto people as inflated medical costs.

 

[mege]

They're almost bankrupt any medical costs they incur will have to be covered by the system Medicaid or no. With Medicaid it's applied to taxes otherwise it's just passed onto people as inflated medical costs.

Or, he could have kept his well paying job and has his medical costs would be covered through insurance that he was paying into. If the safety net wasn't there, he maybe wouldn't have taken the risk and passed on all of the costs to society as a whole (in the form of welfare/medicaid/etc).

We as a culture internalize the cost of physical pollution in the form of taxes, why not force the internalization of personal-risk as a cost somehow? What's the difference?

 

[CAC1001]

So how are you measuring "greater good" here? What is it actually?

People pursuing their own self-interest leads to what society wants getting produced.

Your analysis is too simplistic because in reality, societies create frameworks where people are motivated to achieve certain ends. The freedoms they have are the ones they are given (through education, law, religions, all the other varieties of social constraint).

I'd say people are only motivated, for the most part, to advance their own economic self-interest. Whether or not the society will work well depends on how the society is structured and what incentives the people have.

So market capitalism is geared to achieving something. The question then is this what people really want? Or what is good for them in the long run?

I don't know if one could really say market capitalism is "geared" for anything so much as that it is the system that structures the incentives where when people pursue their own self-interest, it generally leads to the improvement of the greater good.

It may be. But I would certainly like to see it being more questioned.

See what questioned? Market capitalism?

I thing that is a conversation stopper. So self-reliant is not intended to strike a chord of quiet pride, nanny state a note of shame and revulsion? If you can't see that you are using loaded language here, I can recommend a few good books on the cultural construction of emotions.

Am not intending for them to be loaded phrases at all, to me they are just descriptive of how a society can lean.

What I said is that local construction and global constraints act synergistically. This interaction would happen across all scales.

What do you mean by "local construction?"

So something like "self reliance" is a complex systems property. If that is what you want to achieve, it would be something you would want to see across all scales from the individual to the state.

If you mean the state should work to emphasize self-reliance, then yes.

Productivity growth has been poor so it is a case of being left behind by others. Radical market liberalisation did not deliver on its promises. However there are plenty of ways to explain this away if you want.

Was the market liberalization really "radical" though? Also, the lack of productivity may not be because of market liberalization, it could be because of other factors. Generally, market liberalization will lead to far better productivity than socialism or socialist-leaning systems, so I think there must be something amiss within the NZ economic system that is not in most other economically liberal countries.

I realize this is a popular view with some folk. So popular that anytime I challenge it with data I get infracted here. I'll just say IMO that high inequality is not a desirable outcome to target. Just like no inequality. The interesting question is what level of inequality strikes an optimal balance.

One can make arguments for problems caused by inequality. The financial economist Raghuram Rajan, of the University of Chicago (definitely not known for being a bastion of economists favoring big-government) in his book https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691146837/?tag=pfamazon01-20 makes just such a case.

That said, IMO if you have a society with zero social safety nets, then high inequality is bad, but once the society can afford to implement sound social safety nets, then I think inequality is just a normal thing that iwll result from economic freedom.

Which has diddly squat to do with the social theory I was talking about. Or in fact, scale and diversity would only make a formal systems approach to forging strong societies even more appropriate.

What do you mean when you say a "formal systems approach" to forging a strong society where there is lots of scale and diversity?

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, having covered the financial crisis myself, there is much evidence to the contrary. You've surely seen the interviews where the regulators confess they did not even understand the financial instruments they were supposed to be regulating.

But that's not a case of a laissez-faire system so much as a case where regulation wasn't able to do what it was supposed to do. Also, you had the role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the crisis. While lack of regulation (or lack of ability of the regulations to work) applied in certain areas, I think government policy applied in others. Banks were making a fortune making mortgage loans that were backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because they thought those were as safe as U.S. Treasuries at the time.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone even try to claim that Goldman Sachs and its like were not the product of market deregulation/slack oversight. I think you might be living on a different planet here.

The European countries never had a regulatory barrier with regards to combining investment banking and commercial banking.

I do not think we would have had this financial crisis occur if it had not been for faulty governmental policy. By making it where banks could give out bad loans and then sell them off, the incentives became completely perverted.

The Wall Street institutions themselves, they thought that the government would always bail them out in the end if worse came to worse, so they didn't act in a free-market manner, they acted more in a quasi-socialist manner.

 

[maine75man]

Does this mean that the social safety net has existed, and can exist, outside of the government? I agree. If it need not use the government, it should not.

Well actually I didn't say that social safety net that existed before the 1930's was outside the government. What I did say is that it was inadequate to deal with a modern financial crises.

Personally I believe that no matter how it worked in the past a modern social safety net can not be managed by solely private concerns. Sure many aspects of the system can benefit from the innovation and efficiency the private sector provides, but I have reservations about handing over full control.

First, while private industry should be interested in protecting innovation, upward mobility and reasonable entrepreneurial risk. I'm afraid some might fail to see how they benefit from these things. Particularly how these things might relate to market share, competition, and Labor relations. I mean business majors do pay attention in ECON 101 when they are told monopolies are a bad thing right. Or eighth grade social studies for that matter.

Meanwhile the government, at least a republican democracy should defiantly be interested in protecting the ideals of upward mobility and self determination. That's just eight grade social studies again so maybe I'm being naive.

 

[CAC1001]

Where did I say that the social safety net was invented in the 1930's. Although now that I think of it I guess you could say that the social safety net was reinvented in the 1930's. When the measure that worked before then proved inadequate to prevent or deal with the fallout of a modern financial market crash. Certainly I wouldn't be the first to say that American Democracy might have failed if the economy hadn't turned around under the new deal.

The economy didn't turn around under the New Deal (if anything, the New Deal only lengthened out the Depression). The economy turned around after WWII.

 

[CAC1001]

One thing that will influence entrepreneurship a lot in a country is the bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy laws have to exist so that you don't end up in debtors prison for going bankrupt. America's bankruptcy laws are very lenient. This is to incentivize business creation, although lots of non-business people abuse them.

European nations tend to have much more stringent bankruptcy laws, which results in more personal financial responsibility among the general populace I believe (because going bankrupt can really ruin you), but it also results in less business creation for the same reason.

I know a corporate pilot that gave up a $150,000 per year package (including health insurance for his sick child) to purchase a struggling restaurant. His wife earns about $18,000/year with no benefits. As far as I know he hasn't done anything to maintain his license and his wife quit her job to help in the restaurant.

They paid $200,000 cash (leaving them $50,000 working capital) for the existing restaurant (business, equipment, and real estate) - then (borrowed against the restaurant and their home) invested an additional $350,000 to bring the facility up to current codes and re-make it into the concept he envisioned. The previous owner enjoyed a breakeven of about $400 per day and averaged about $600 daily. The pilot increased the breakeven to about $1,000 per day and still grosses $600 daily.

He didn't realize the cost of individual health insurance - especially given his child's illness, nor did he understand why nobody else wanted to buy the real estate nor why the previous owner didn't try to remodel the facility (both due to the cost of bringing facility to current codes).

After (about 4 years) they are in the process of losing both the restaurant and their home, all of their cash and retirement funds are gone, they sold their new cars and bought older models, their credit cards are maxed and closed (credit is gone), and they owe a large amount of medical bills. She is trying to find a job and he (apparently?) needs to be re-certified as a pilot.

That's sad Hope they can work it out in the end.

 

[maine75man]

Or, he could have kept his well paying job and has his medical costs would be covered through insurance that he was paying into. If the safety net wasn't there, he maybe wouldn't have taken the risk and passed on all of the costs to society as a whole (in the form of welfare/medicaid/etc).

We as a culture internalize the cost of physical pollution in the form of taxes, why not force the internalization of personal-risk as a cost somehow? What's the difference?

A home, cars, disposable income, an important job respected by the community, that's not enough personal risk? What more should people have to put on the line to get ahead in this world?

It's very easy to see how the system benefits those who roll the dice and crap out. What people can't seem to see is the benefit everyone else gets by the mere presence of a safety net. If the social safety net wasn't there how many other entrepreneurs wouldn't have taken the risks that led them to be successful. How many jobs wouldn't have been created. How much smaller would the tax base be. How many good ideas and good products wouldn't be available in the market.

 

[maine75man]

The economy didn't turn around under the New Deal (if anything, the New Deal only lengthened out the Depression). The economy turned around after WWII.

I can't agree with that. As far as I know the Great Depression is usually judged as 1929-1939 ending just as the war started and two years before the US officially entered the war. GDP stopped dropping and started to rise in about 1933-34 according to this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg" right around when the New Deal was enacted. It wasn't an immediate recovery but to me it looks like good healthy growth similar to the speed at which the economy "crashed". It seems to be at pre-crash levels right on schedule in 38-39.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually there are a couple programs that are part of unemployment to provide benefits for entrepreneurs. Instead of looking for work they must provide a business plan and work towards it. I honestly don't know exactly how it works but my sister-in-law used the program. I could do that instead of going to college maybe. Since Maine now has legal medical marijuana maybe I could go into that business. My area already looks like it's getting a dispensary though so maybe I'll try a grow operation. I had a lot of luck with tomatoes this year and I hear their pretty similar.

Or was that not your point. Where you trying to say that there are dishonest people who engage in criminal activities AND defraud the government. At that I am shocked, you think one morally reprehensible act would be enough for people. Next thing you'll tell me is they don't pay taxes.

Earlier in this thread, you posted this:
"First in the interest of full disclosure I am currently unemployed as is my wife. We are both attending college full time and are receiving unemployment as part of retraining programs. She, I, and our 18 month old son (she was laid off the day he was born) are receiving Medicare (this is a step up for me my last job didn't offer insurance). We get subsidised day-care, WIC, heating assistance and food stamps as well."

Now you're thinking of quitting college (funded by taxpayers?) to start either a pot growing operation or a dispensary - using Government loan guarantees?

 

[WhoWee]

Or was that not your point. Where you trying to say that there are dishonest people who engage in criminal activities AND defraud the government. At that I am shocked, you think one morally reprehensible act would be enough for people. Next thing you'll tell me is they don't pay taxes.

my bold
Is the troll hungry? Does anyone believe the average drug dealer standing on the corner engaged in illegal activities pays income taxes? On the other hand, if you tell me they FILE a tax return to receive EITC and other re-distributions I might agree.

 

[Oltz]

I think it might be useful to think realistically about the alternatives to a social safety net, if there are any.

The basic conservative argument stresses personal responsibility and accountability. At the same time, the job market ought to be as unregulated as possible, the argument seems to go, allowing business to prosper. Today, some in the Republican Party also argue against any minimum wage at all, taking the free market concept to its logical extreme, which is where dogmas tend to be taken by the fervent and the righteously enraptured. Yet without going that far, let's see how an average Jane or Joe might fare under existing conditions.

The federal minimum wage is set at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages" in the last decade. That's $13,050 per year, but let's assume a little overtime and odd-jobbing raises income to $18,000, net of FICA taxes and with no federal or state tax due. That's $1,500 of disposable income per month (part of which will be spent on sales tax).

Now, not everyone is an entrepreneur, nor can everyone become the boss, so there will be a non-negligible amount of people earning more or less this amount for a majority of their working lives.

Being responsible individuals, they will need to pay rent, eat, buy and replace clothing, buy and replace furniture, including white goods (refrigerator at minimum), as well as save for the down payment on a house, in order not to become indigent when retiring. Add free market health care, home insurance, (possibly car payments, car insurance, and gasoline where there is no public transport), saving for retirement, and no child care costs since they are single. No smoking, no drinking, no going to the movies. Just the simple joys of working, eating, sleeping, and schlepping to and from work.

Now, take a city like Washington, DC, where janitors and other minimum wage earners work. Assuming the individual lives 10 miles outside of town to save on rent, say in http://rentbits.com/rb/t/rental-rates/apartments/germantown-maryland", he or she will face an average rent of $1,150 per month for a single bedroom apartment. That's $350 left over for all other expenses.

I don't think it takes much to see that beyond eating (poorly, oops, leading to junk food obesity and undue burden on the health care system, those rats!) and taking public transportation (oops, a little "socialism" has already been required to make this work), there is little or no money left over, perhaps enough for aspirin. Of course, one could share an overcrowded apartment and save some there, as well as sleep on the floor and save on bed costs, but I think you see where the numbers lead us.

So, what shall we do? Either we drastically raise the minimum wage (socialism rears its ugly head once again), which would in turn lead to price hikes across the board in many businesses, and make some types of business inviable. Or we simply say, when you are sick, die, when you reach retirement or are unable to work, starve, and if you ever need any financial help due to an unexpected event, such as a tornado destroying your home, go join Dorothy in Oz.

Just... die. Don't make any noise when doing it, and you damn better have insurance that covers the cost of your burial or cremation. By the way, suicide is a sin! So are abortions! And no stealing, bums, nor window washing at stop lights, nor public begging, slouch! You really should have been a stockbroker, loser! We at least deserve our bailouts.

Perhaps technology can replace them all with robots, and we can let them all die off after we run them out of town? Target practice, anyone? Running head starts are good sport, after all, no? Fertilizer? ...

Of course, we could have a bit of a social safety net, and let the many nice people who scrub our floors, serve us coffee, and attend to our whims at the mall not die in misery, allow them to retire with some small amount to cover their expenses, subsidize their food costs as a preventive health measure, and provide them decent health care... so our coffee won't suddenly have no one to serve it. Makes sense to me.

Too bad that's not a pure market sentiment. Guess I'm a dirty, liberal socialist schweinhund.

You do realize that in a "Free Market" that the employee knowing he can not live on that wage working at that distance with that cost of living has the choice and abaility to work some place else either for more money or in a cheaper location let's say West Virginia. In addition market forcing is a key component to "Free Markets" so when all the janitors realize they can not live on minimum wage in DC then all the offices that want a janitor will need to either pay more as an incentive to take the job or not have a janitor.

Hence the job posting that was shown earlier. Minimum wage is a legal barrier not an automatic rate everyone without a degree makes. The harder or less enjoyable a job is has equal bearing on the wage as where it is located and cost of living.

If i will not pick beans for $8/hr you either need to pay me more or find somebody who will or nobody picks beans then the beans rot and you loose your farm

Just like if you were told here go into the casion place any bets you like with all of your assets and you can keep anyhting you win, but when you walk out we will give you back x% of your losses and make sure that you are still "ok" for as long as you like/need/want for as many generations as it takes your family to be able to sustain itself with inflation and cost of living adjustments.

what percent of people go in and bet the house and car and quit their job if they had one?
what percent is "acceptable" ?

By taking away the "market" punishment for failure we encourage irresponsible risk taking

Some need to fail so others know you can "saftey nets" (more like safety hammocks) are a joke they need to be safety trampolines or safety swimming pools (you can stay in as long as you want but only as long as you can tread water then get out or go under)

 

[daveb]

my bold
Is the troll hungry? Does anyone believe the average drug dealer standing on the corner engaged in illegal activities pays income taxes? On the other hand, if you tell me they FILE a tax return to receive EITC and other re-distributions I might agree.

He was being facetious.

 

[WhoWee]

He was being facetious.

Are you certain? If you read all of his posts you may not reach that conclusion.

 

[daveb]

Well, not 100% certain, but that's how I read it.

 

[CAC1001]

I can't agree with that. As far as I know the Great Depression is usually judged as 1929-1939 ending just as the war started and two years before the US officially entered the war. GDP stopped dropping and started to rise in about 1933-34 according to this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg" right around when the New Deal was enacted. It wasn't an immediate recovery but to me it looks like good healthy growth similar to the speed at which the economy "crashed". It seems to be at pre-crash levels right on schedule in 38-39.

The New Deal did a lot of good stuff in the form of infrastructure and creating social safety nets, but it did some very bad things in terms of price and wage controls (which kept the unemployment rate artificially high), various central planning moves, and some large tax hikes. The New Deal was enacted prior to 1933 by President Hoover (FDR actually ran against Hoover's "excessive" spending, as Hoover was the first to clamp down on the economy, raise taxes, and increase spending a lot)). FDR took it to the next level.

I wouldn't say the economic growth during the 1930s was healthy. By modern standards maybe, but the 1930s economy was a young economy still, so what could have been depression-levels of growth then could be considered healthy today.

 

[maine75man]

The New Deal was enacted prior to 1933 by President Hoover

I'm not sure how your figuring Hoover enacted parts of The New Deal before 1933. The term "The New Deal" was first coined by FDR during his Democratic nomination speech. It was a campaign slogan.

Hoovers programs tended to be less social safety net and more corporate welfare like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Or attempts at market manipulation like the Agriculture Marketing Act or the protective tariffs that shut America out of the global agricultural market.

The New Deal was largely a product of FDRs first hundred days. According to the http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/video/fdr_01.html#v102" on FDR his only real guiding principle was to try anything that might work because what had been tried already definitely hadn't worked.

Hoover in fact loathed the new deal and actively http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/herbert-hoover-against-that-communist-roosevelt-karl-marx-john-maynard-keynes-and.html" it likening it to Communism, Socialism, and even Roman despotism.

 

[maine75man]

Now you're thinking of quitting college (funded by taxpayers?) to start either a pot growing operation or a dispensary - using Government loan guarantees?

Actually I said nothing about government loans. I was talking about switching from the Unemployment training program I'm into an entrepreneurial program. Same idea except rather then showing progress on a degree the beneficiary can work for themselves. You need a business plan, financing in place, and jump through a few other hoops. You also can't draw a salary or pay yourself or your benefits are reduced by an equivalent amount just like if you do any other paid work while on unemployment.

Of course I'm not really considering it (To tenous a legal standing for one). In principle though it would be a potential way to maximise by benefits so I'm surprised you'd be opposed. Starting a business that might be turning a profit before my unemployment runs out rather then working on a degree that will take at least 2 semesters longer to finish then I have left in unemployment. It wouldn't be the first time I've sold or processed drugs I've worked in a liquor store and a boutique coffee roasters.

 

[CAC1001]

I'm not sure how your figuring Hoover enacted parts of The New Deal before 1933. The term "The New Deal" was first coined by FDR during his Democratic nomination speech. It was a campaign slogan.

He coined the term, but the policies of government stepping into a good degree to try and repair the economy had already begun.