Re: A Little More Political Humor
- From: ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:11:17 -0400
In article <1125508033.168353.29590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"ed" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
[snip]
> > but if some
> > corporation decided to fund free schools to help with this cause, the
> > market probably wouldn't reward them for it.
>
> that's because people don't think it's important; it they did, it would
> help them as a company. it's like employer sussidized health
> insurance- the market doesn't reward you for offering it, but you'd
> have a tough time drawing enough quality employees these days if you
> didn't offer it.
This is that right-wing myth again, that significant numbers of people
will express their preferences for certain social policies through the
market. In the real world, that just doesn't happen. Such a model
suffers horribly from the free rider problem. If you buy from some
company that does social good, other people also benefit from that good,
even if they're buying from companies which don't help out.
> > In cases where all or most of society benefits from such investments, it
> > makes sense to simply require all or most of the population to fund them.
>
> the problem is who gets to decide that all or most of society benefits.
That's what the whole democracy thing is for.
> > > > Think about is more as you investing in society. You get paid back in
> > > > the form of higher overall economic productivity.
> > >
> > > how do you identify yourself politically znu? socialist? communist?
> > > just liberal? from your posts, i would guess at least stronly
> > > socialist?
> >
> > I suppose I favor the sort of social democracy practiced in the
> > Scandinavian countries and, to a lesser extent, in the rest of Western
> > Europe. I guess that's "socialist", but that word has so much baggage
> > attached to it in the US that I've found describing myself that way
> > isn't a very helpful way to explain to people what my positions are.
> >
> > In terms of what I think might actually be realistic if democracy worked
> > a bit better in this country, I guess I'd point to Canada as the model.
>
> i'd point to canada as an example of what i don't ant to happen- not
> only does democracy not work better there, they take much more of your
> money and stifle more of your rights (even basic ones, like speech).
> if canada is so much better, how many people do you know that have
> moved to the us from canada, versus from canada to the us? i have a
> gaggle of canadian friends here around los angeles and they always
> claim it's better, but have no plans to go back. go figure. =D
Uh, that's not exactly an unbiased sample. I'm pretty sure most
Americans who have moved to Canada will tell you Canada is better.
> > > > > I don't see the connection to the wealthy with the other two
> > > > > programs.
> > > > > When we talk about wealthy, we're not necessarily talking about
> > > > > multi-millionares who own businesses.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much anyone who could be described as wealthy
> > >
> > > i've asked this before, but nobody's stepped up with an answer- at what
> > > point do you think someone is "wealthy" or "rich"? they make $50k a
> > > year? $100k? $250k? $1million? or is it based on net worth? how
> > > much? $100k? $500k? $5mill?
> >
> > It depends on a bunch of things, really. But broadly, I'd say it depends
> > on how much money you'd have available after expenses if you lived a
> > reasonable middle-class lifestyle. Pinning down exact numbers is tricky.
> > If it's more than half your income, though, I'd say you're rich.
>
> that's an assinine standard- like wealth based tax proposals, it
> penalizes those that are frugal.
Huh? I'm not proposing that taxes be based on how much money each
individual has left over after his or her specific living expenses --
that does, indeed, penalize those who keep their living expenses low.
I'm saying that anyone who would still have half of their income after
paying the average expenses of a middle-class lifestyle in their area
should probably be considered rich.
[snip]
> > It's hard; you have to have a pretty good reason for it now, like maybe
> > if you've got a bunch of kids and it's cheaper for the state to pay you
> > to take care of them than to pay someone else to take care of them while
> > you go off to work.
>
> and i would say that those folks should be cut off too- if you're too
> irresponsible to only have offspring you can afford to raise, you have
> no business receiving public funds. sure, we should provide support
> for the kids, but those cash benefits for the parents have to go in
> those cases.
Uh, and you want to do what with the kids? Put them into foster care or
something? That's probably going to end up costing more in the long run.
> > > > > I agree that wealth generates wealth. The old addage, you've got
> > > > > to spend money to make money is certainly true. I don't see the
> > > > > action of the rich getting richer as an inherant problem though.
> > > > > If you have worked your life to become wealthy, you have likely
> > > > > structured it to grow as you age.
> > > >
> > > > Again, you can't think of how this functions at the individual
> > > > level; you have to take a more broad view.
> > > >
> > > > If there were a very high estate tax, and wealth couldn't pool
> > > > indefinitely in corporations, or if there were significant direct
> > > > taxes on wealth, that might be a workable model.
> > >
> > > yeah, the good ol' punish the successful and frugal models. hate it.
> > >
> > > > Without those things, more and more money ends up in fewer and
> > > > fewer hands, and stays there practically forever.
> > >
> > > EXCEPT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN. we live in a very economically mobile
> > > society. families are very likely to move both up and down the
> > > economic ladder- in fact, most do.
> > > http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/fig-1.gif
> > > http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/fig-2.gif
> > > http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/tbl-1.gif
> >
> > I've addressed this issue previously. For starters, those figures are
> > likely to be misleading in several ways. One big one is, a kid from a
> > well-off family might not make much right out of college, but might be
> > commanding $150K/year after a few years in the workforce -- and might
> > get a couple million dollars when his parents die. That looks like
> > economic mobility on paper -- hey, this guy was making $25K and had zero
> > net worth, and now he's making $150K and has two million dollars! But
> > it's not actual class mobility.
>
> that's an interesting conjecture- do you have anything to base your
> statements on?
Uh, logic, and some common sense? What I just described is a very common
pattern.
> and i noticed you totally ignored that folks go down
> from the top quintile just as much as they move up from the bottom
> quintile. that fact is also strong indication that your opinion that
> wealth just keeps getting concentrated at the top is likely false.
What are the graphs measuring? It is wealth, or income?
> > Secondly, it's not clear to me that the structural problems introduced
> > by wealth concentrating in few hands are in any way ameliorated if those
> > happen to be different hands every few years.
>
> one of your main points is that wealth redistribution is a good thing-
> this shows that in a free market the wealth is already being
> redistruted w/out gov't intervention.
No, you're missing my point. It may be that the percentage of wealth
held by each quintile has an important effect on how society functions
regardless of how often specific individuals cycle through different
quintiles.
[snip]
--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
.
- References:
- Re: A Little More Political Humor
- From: ed
- Re: A Little More Political Humor
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Price gouging?
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Price gouging?
- Previous by thread: Re: A Little More Political Humor
- Next by thread: Re: It's Kate again with another question :-)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
