Thanks for conceding that point. Like I said, I’m not trying to prove that we need socialism (not at this point), I’m trying to understand why even a little bit of it has the effect of turning that con into a negative net balance (I mean, you have to balance it out against the pros before you can say anything about the net balance). Here’s how I think of it, and how I believe most liberals (or just non-economists) think of it:
This is how socialism is supposed to work in theory anyway. That blue wedge represents the taxes one pays on income (plus goods and services if you’re living in Canada). What the government is supposed to do in a socialist system is take that blue wedge and rotate it 180 so that the thick end gets redistributed to the poor and the pointy end gets redistributed to the rich, as in the “after” graph (of course, no money actually gets redistributed to the rich, but you get what I mean). The effect is a bit more of a flattened curve–everyone’s closer to equal.
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
But what you’re saying is that it actually works like this:
Everything goes down. We all get poorer.
What this seems to suggest is that even if the government imposes a tax rate of (say) 0.001% and gives the proceeds to even just one homeless shelter, the entire economy takes a hit and even the homeless end up worse off.
Now I know you said the government is exceptionally inefficient at reallocating resources appropriately, but I have to believe that some of our tax dollars do end up going to those who, in a socialist system, are deemed to require it. So I’m guessing the reality is probably something more like a mix of the two graphs above:
So while the economy as a whole does take a hit, the poor and needy do still get something. The curve flattens out and falls at the same time… but that means there’s the possibility that maybe the poor end of the curve gets raised at a faster rate than it falls, in which case the net effect for the poor is to enjoy at least a little bit of an improvement in their standards of living. I would think this possibility is there when we implement a little bit of socialism–obviously a system like full-on communism, for example, would have a curve falling too fast for any flattening to raise the poor up by any measure–but if socialism were implemented in such a way as to reduce the rate at which the curve falls, is it at least possible–according to your knowledge, Eric–that the rate at which the poor are helped can out-run the effects of the hit that the economy as a whole takes? If it can, then when it does, the falling of the curve is a con only, but if it can’t–if the curve always falls faster than the flattening raises the poor up–then the con is also a negative net balance, and socialism is harmful period (all this notwithstanding the rate at which charity might raise the poor up; if charity works better at raising the poor up than socialism does even in its successful moments, then I’ll take charity over socialism any day).
I see. So we should really look at the laws in the Constitution.
Eric, I’m trying to understand in what sense you think it is “necessary” for the government to provide the basic infrustructures of society (I thought I was helping you with the above). I traced this branch that we’re on back to here:
The bold texts are what lead me to believe you thought something basic, at least at the start, is necessary. Those plus these:
Admittedly, the sarcasm of the first bold text was lost on me, and the second is a poor basis for interpreting you as saying it is necessary for government to oversee certain basic elements of society (plus you were summarizing the book), but in what way should I interpret you here? Do you not agree with my assessment above–that it is necessary for government to at least temporarily oversee certain aspects of a republic in order to get it started?
I’m not sure I understand. If the price is lower than the production cost, as you say, I can only imagine it means Canadian drug companies are going to find cheaper ways to produce (probably at the expense of quality), but what does this have to do with “the US facing the cold”?
Ok, then I take this to mean I’ve finally understood where you’re coming from… finally!
I’m nothing if not supremely magnanimous… (and humble. )
The biggest missing measurement would be an over time aspect. While within a small amount of time yes, you might see a small lift in the wealth of the “poor” as money is given to them, and a reduction in the wealth of the “rich.” Over time, the reduction in the amount of wealth of the rich results in less investment from the “rich,” which ultimately, results in a reduction in the wealth of the “poor.” We cannot predict what the future holds, regardless how much Marxists tell you otherwise. We are however, great at projecting our current problems into the future. When we limit the amount of money that can be made we limit the amount of money made. Money is knowledge transfer…
Yes, though few people would want such a thing. There are roads and Military to pay for.
This graph is little different than the first.
I’m sure we could crunch the numbers in such a way that this is what it shows yes. Over time though, I think it falls apart.
Though not having them over time fits well with a liberal understanding. A snap shot taken, a moment in time froze… What all liberal policies rely on…
The amount of money given, lets say it’s $10… In 20 years, due to a high inflation, that is going to be largely meaningless. Meanwhile, the $10 invested in innovation, when it was worth more, would produce more, particularly 20 years in the future. So that the investment will be effectively worth $15, but the inflation would turn the $10 to $5 in its new value. Additionally, the supporters of giving the $10 dollars of someone else’s money away, are going to want to give $15 now, because that is the new “poverty line.”
(Numbers are arbitrary, not based on actual number crunching.)
Rather than the preamble, yes.
Yes, I think we need a base line, as I think of it. But, I think there needs to be a consent fight on where that line is. With many things changing as equilibrium is sought (I am pro politics, they must happen, we must fight over these things, true piece can never be reached). The problem is, we have never been temporary on any of these things. They have never been given some sort of kick start, then allowed to drop. Instead they become “rights” that people fight tooth and nail to keep going… See Affirmative Action.
Further, no support has been shown that they have actually helped a single person anymore than that person allows. Instead, it is assumed, in causality style, that because people did not directly suffer, it is because of these things. Gun control has the same problem… A friend of mine once suggested that all laws, particularly welfare laws, should automatically expire after 8 years, so they must be re-voted in. I like the idea, though I don’t think much would be accomplished with it.
(I still feel stupid for that sarcastic comment, a good example of how our assumptions are not always other peoples assumptions.)
Any proof that people starve? Are you maybe worrying about a non-problem? Americans, particularly the poor, have a problem with being overweight… We have so much food… A lot of the starving families are based on bad numbers.
Though, it should be noted, that the poor suffer more, because they already have less. By increasing everyone’s amount, even if they have less of a share, the poor gain considerably more, proportionally, than the rich.
Much like price floors, price ceilings do not work the way people want. When a price limit, that is the amount something can be charge for an object, the result is shortage. It’s one thing economists can tell you how to do. We can cause shortages and surpluses without question. Create a shortage by limiting the amount of money that can be made, create a surplus by limiting the amount of money that can be paid. The costs to produce drugs is a hard thing to pin down, yes, it may have only cost $.50 to make that pill when looking at what the pill is made up of, but did you include all of the research that was done? Not every pill is a success, did you include all of the costs of the failures? If we only look at the make up of the pill, and say it costs $.50, then only allow the maker to charge $.55 for each one. We are refusing to pay the costs of making the pill. This results in a shortage, as no one is making money, making that pill. It is like looking at a chair, knowing that it is only $15 worth of wood, and refusing to pay the $75 that the maker has put on it, even though we have no idea the skill level of the maker or the amount of time going into the chair, or the costs of the machines used to make it, we only know the cost of the wood… If the government put a price limit on chair to $16, the result would be no one would make good chairs.
When Canada put the price limit on medicine, so that no one gets put out in the cold (which were your words at the time), the result is that Americans paid the difference, and Americans stood out in the cold, so that Canada did not have too.
If I get nothing else across to you, this would be my choice of things. Costs do not stop happening, just because we refuse to pay them. Instead, we are saying, these things are not good places to apply resources, and no one will apply resources to them. While we may not care much when it comes to chairs, medicine is a pretty big deal, especially new medicines.
It took me long enough to make it clear.
I got a minor one, I was expecting Liz or UPF to respond with exasperation, not you. (especially as it was a reply to liz…)
Interestingly, 3/5th’s, though the value is arbitrary, is actually a good thing. It undermined the value to continue slavery. The people in support of slavery were reduced in the amount of pro-slavery votes that they had because of it. If they had been able to count all of the slaves as full people, they would have more political power to continue slavery. Truly, we, you and I, should want them to count for zero… At least if we wanted it to stop.
So, because they are attachments, I can not get the images to carry through. I left the names in, but people are going to have to reference your original post above.
Which would accurately describe any abortion rights rally, from where I’m sitting. But then, it’s not conservatives trying to regulate what people are allowed to say, so my perspective on what fits the definition above doesn’t matter!
Yeah, should take my phrasing with a grain of salt, especially where Canada is considered.
The anger comes from the political mindset, not even necessarily the ideology- at least, not ALL of the ideology. Even if short-term Affirmative Action would have been a good idea for a generation, if you know the left like I do, then you know they never had any intention of ending it after a single generation. It was destined to become what it is- a payout to ensure they get minority votes, and a way of calling people racist if they disagree.
You understand you just broke the law in your country, right? I mean, I don’t give a damn, just underlining the absurdity of it all.
I am generally wary of talking about sexual politics on here, BUT I have to say this- compare what leftists say about the role of culture in gender when talking about things like the above, and then look at what they say about transvestites, and how they have this deep-seated difference in their brain that justifies them being surgically mutilated to reflect what they think they are. As far as I can tell, leftist party-line is that sexual differences in behavior are cultural UNLESS you’re queer or transgendered, then all of a sudden your behavior is genetically determined. Almost as if they’re just making shit up as they go to serve some other political end.
I don’t have a degree in psych, but I know that we all have to eat, and breathe and shit, and that these have enormous influence over everything else we do, and these needs aren’t cultural! It’s obvious to anyone living it the real world that there are serious biological differences between the genders, these are genetic too, and those biological differences would lead, one would expect, to behavior differences- it wouldn’t make any sense if they didn’t. I don’t know if there is a direct link between genetics and behavior, but I don’t see why there would HAVE to be- the fact that women can give birth and men can pee standing up is sufficient to explain a heck of a lot.
Wouldn’t be the first time. They haven’t come knocking down my door yet (and you haven’t banned me ). I’m extremely low on the totem pole of my society–I’m a nobody–I could do a lot and nobody would care.
Sure, and even if the brains of men and women are exactly the same, differences in our bodies can significantly influence our behavior and mental states. Estrogen is produced in the ovaries, but it can easily bind to neurons in the brain, affecting behavior or mental states.
Affirmative Action was a good idea for a generation, but now it’s just institutionalized racism. Your anger at and constant disparagement of liberals notwithstanding, i basically agree your stance on this one.
And i don’t really think “hate speech” laws make a whole lot of sense because where do you draw the line? To me, i think inciting violence should be illegal, but legally banning name-calling is kind of an overreach of the law. So i agree with you there, too.
Yet, i’m still a liberal. Go figure. You probably think i must be up to something if i’m saying these things, since i’m part of the left. Perhaps what i’m saying indicates a strategic shift in liberal conspiracy tactics - you should publish an article about it in the National Review.
Or maybe, just maybe, not all liberals agree with one another on everything. And so perhaps your intimations of a vast leftist cabal scheming to win minority votes through affirmative action programs - while at the same time robbing us of our first amendment right to shout “nigger” at black people - are all so much anger and paranoia.
I don’t have much time, so I’ll try to be brief, if that’s possible.
Just throwing ideas around. Eric, you said the Preamble to the Constitution is rhetorical flourish. How about some of the laws that are the Amendments? (Which aren’'t all the laws by a long shot.) The XIII, XIV, and XV–the Reconstruction Amendments; the XVIII–Prohibition; the XIX–Women’s Suffrage; the XXIV–barring a poll tax in Federal Elections; the XXVI–lowering the voting age to 18–don’t these all have to do with promoting the general welfare?
Innovations in medicine. I don’t understand exactly what you’re getting at here. Could you explain, please? Also, when I was talking about invention, I was thinking of Eli Whitney or Elias Howe–inventors rather than innovators. There’s innovation in drugs as I’ve already said, so I don’t understand your gripe. And do you have any idea where research money for drugs comes from, as far as the ratio between tax money and charitable donations go?
Finally, for now, anyway, yes. America is fat. Do you know why? Is it possible that people who are fat may also be poorly nourished? Is it possible that fat people are poorly nourished or that poorly nourished people are fat because they only buy foods that put on the lbs. because it fills them up–and is inexpensive? Perhaps there should be color-coded food stamps–green ones for vegetables, yellow for fruit, white for milk/milk products and eggs, and so on. What do you think? I’m not being smart alecky here; I’m serious.
And this is for sure finally. Does preventive medicine really cost more than remedial medicine?
Yeah dude, clearly since you, a liberal, aren’t in favor of affirmative action, that demonstrates that the liberals that keep it in place aren’t doing it to manipulate the minority vote. What was I thinking. Clearly they are in favor of institutionalized racism for the good of all of us! Hate crime legislation is the same way. I’m glad you aren’t in favor of it, but that doesn’t change the fact that those that are, are Marxists pushing for authoritarian control over what politcal views are allowed to be expressed.
There's a documentary, Food Inc, and I remember one of the last sections of the film covers this Hispanic family of 5 (I think) and how they are all fat because they are poor. It talks about how since they can't afford real food, they are stuck going to Burger King and Wendy's every day- in other words, exactly what you're talking about.
Of course, the punchline is, the documentary was obviously made by people that have absolutely no perspective on poverty. Anybody who's actually BEEN poor knows that fast food and junk food are luxuries- you simply can't afford to eat that way if you're actually poor. Peanut butter sandwhiches, Mac & Cheese, and yes, fruits and vegetables* have always been and probably always will be cheaper than cake and Doritos and Burger King. Hell, you could have steak every night for the price of Burger King if only you are willing to do your own cooking.
I think the parts of the world that have [i]actual[/i] poor populations would laugh at the idea that it costs more to be skinny.
Assuming, of course, you haven’t been hoodwinked into buying only organic. If anything screws up the poor person’s diet, it’s current nutrition fads like that.
It doesn’t matter if they do. They are laws, Women’s suffrage “allows” women to vote. That they may “promote the general welfare” is irrelevant.
For example, Lowering the voting age to 18 doesn’t promote anyone’s welfare. It is just a grab at voters by liberals, whose ideology relies on inexperience to believe. 18 year olds are full of inexperience, and vote largely liberal.
New drugs, that do things like give us longer boners, and fix our heart problems. The innovation in medicines have lifted the lifespan of the average human years beyond it once was, creating so many more problems, social security is an example of that. When Social Security was created the age one received it at was after the average life span. If we did it that way now, people wouldn’t get anything until their 80’s.
Why do people innovate the drugs? Usually it’s to make money.
Does it matter? Should I care?
And here is where the tyranny and arrogance comes in. So, not only do they not have enough of what you think they should have, they don’t use what they are given the way you want them too. Do you just want to pass a law, disallowing anyone to make decisions for themselves, that you come in and make it for them, like a shitty, tiger parent? Helicoptering over every little thing they do?
When you treat people like children you are putting yourself in a position of power. And While you may have good intentions, there is no guarantee the next person is going to… And you’ve just given a monster the power to destroy peoples lives. Further, how do you know what is right and wrong for all the individuals out there? The truth is, you don’t. And the most you can hope for is the “experts” you put in charge don’t fuck things up completely, in counter to all the evidence from all past experiences of doing exactly that.
I agree, but that does not counter what is being said. Hitler was well-intentioned, while simultaneously making a power grab. If I believe that the best thing for everyone is that I’m in charge of their lives, it fits both qualifications…
Please note, I am not calling anyone Hitler, I am pointing out that tyranny does not require poor intentions.
Intentions mean jack-all, is a more accurate response.
Edit: Some other good examples; Jim Jones thought he was saving peoples souls. The Westboro Baptist Church does too.
Unless you’re trying to decide how to deal with a person. You would deal with someone who’s purposeful trying to lie and manipulate you much differently than you would someone who is simply mistaken or brainwashed.
Time, yes–over time the system might degrade further. You talked about “investments” from the rich, and I’m not sure what you mean by this, but the picture it conjured in my mind was that as the economy drops overall (the red arrow), the rich will have less, which means when it comes around to next tax season, they can’t be taxed as much, which means the poor don’t get as much. Over a long period of time, the amount that the poor get could dwindle down to 0 (I suppose this is why Ucci’s all right with temporary socialist intervention–if it worked).
Right, poor wording. Let’s say (X + 0.0001)% where X goes to everything else (roads, military).
The difference is that in the first two graphs (the before and after graphs), the curve is rotated about the exact center (the rich are taxed the most so they go down, the poor get those taxes in the form of social aid so they go up, thus the curve rotates–i.e. it flattens). In the “mixed” graph which you’re questioning, I did the same thing except dropped the “after” graph by a little in addition to rotating it (that’s what the red arrow represents). Note that the two graphs cross near the lower left, not the center–because it’s dropped.
Rotation without dropping (first 2 graphs in last post):
Rotation plus small drop:
Rotation plus huge drop:
What I was trying to convey with this is that even if the economy as a whole drops, the poor may still get something via social aid. It all depends on how much money the poor can get, and at what rate, balanced with how badly the economy drops due to the damaging effects of socialism. In the last graph above, for example, I tried to render a picture of what would happen if the damage to the economy was so severe that even the tax dollars that are supposed to go to the poor isn’t enough–the poor get poorer even then.
But you were right above–the effects of time are not taken into consideration with these graphs.
Right, and it’s obvious why if you think about it. In order to be in constant battle, you have to have two factions against each other, one saying “we need to draw the line here,” the other saying “no, we need to draw the line here.” In other words, where ever that point of equilibrium is supposed to be, neither faction is going to agree on it. So you must have one faction pushing to have the line farther to the right than it should be and the other pushing to have the line farther to the left than it should be–the equilibrium coming about in virtue of these two opposing force balancing each other. But when they become imbalanced, who’s going to referee? Who’s going to blow the whistle and say “Woaw, guys, we’re missing the mark!” Both factions are going to disagree as that “mark” isn’t where either faction thinks it should be.
Why would you feel stupid? I’m the one who didn’t catch on.
I was still talking in the context of the pie metaphor (you know, starving from not enough pie?).
Agreed.
Hey, I’m a slow learner… and like I said, this is all new to me (I took one economics course in university, and my best friend and I spent half the time making fun of our professor instead of listening).
You mean if they forced their slaves to vote pro-slavery, don’t you? Or were there slaves who felt comfortable in their enslavement and wanted it that way?
Thanks again for the Thomas Sowell videos. You aren’t kidding–he really is a very interesting guy.
The richest people often don’t “create” things, it is actually one of the arguments made by Marxists, and other leftists. That these people don’t deserve to make money, because they don’t “create” things. Instead they are investors. Putting their money into businesses, then taking a profit if the business succeeds, much like a bank loans money. Mit Romney made a lot of his money doing exactly that… Combined with other things… That is, he would give money to a company, often one that was going out of business. Mit and his company would come in, process numbers, and cut the extraneous costs, allowing the company to start being successful again.
This is why liberals were able to find people “fired” by him as he “down sized” the company. Often, these people would have lost their jobs anyway, it’s just instead, everyone at the company would loose their job…
It’s also why he stepped in to help with the Olympics in Salt Lake City, he was qualified… It is also why some people voted for him for president, despite other things he did (here I’m talking about me).
When taxes are taken from the rich, regardless of what is done with them, less of this money is then invested, simply because they have less. This results in less money being given to allow companies to succeed. Most companies need start up cash, particularly poor people companies. By limiting the amount of money the “rich” can keep, we also limit the amount of money invested in the poor…
Sadly, unlike this situation, were the poor own the money they make, minus the amount they owe to the “rich” we instead funnel it through the government, which takes its bit, then give it to the poor. It results in nothing being produced, nothing being earned. And, the poor don’t really own the money, instead they must exchange it for their votes, and control from the government, by people, like Liz, and UPF who are only acting with positive interests.
I’ve said it before, I don’t’ believe in conspiracy theories. People don’t know how to keep their mouths shut, (the old saying, three people can keep a secret if two are dead comes to mind) but that does not mean, enough miss informed people, with good intentions can’t make singularly stupid decisions together. Funny enough, Men In Black (the movie) had a great line about this, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
Ok, so maybe the lines about aliens makes it not quite right but the intention is right.
Millions of people live on this planet, and they each make millions of decisions every damn day. Those decisions cost, because everything costs, it is just the way of the world, if we lived in infinite abundance, we wouldn’t have this problem. But we don’t. Those decisions cost. Because costs are knowledge, people think that passing all the choices people make to experts in a guided government are going to be able to make those decisions better than the individuals without “all” the knowledge… But no one can know all the knowledge, it’s just not possible, it’s too much data. Deciding to eat cereal instead of eggs and bacon, because of time constants is an economic decision, attempting to pass that knowledge to a government entity, then back down to the individual is impossible… But that is what would have to happen for the Government to actually be more efficient. So, instead we must rely on every individual making decisions for themselves, so that their failure and success may indicate to other what the best way to do things is… Humans, and every other kind of animal, has been doing this for so long it’s amazing…
This is one part of the problem with socialism, ignoring communism completely, socialism at its heart would allow humans to make those small decisions, but if a human becomes successful because of those decisions, the success is handed over to the government, who up to that point had no hand in the making of that success. By limiting the amount of success a person can achieve, results in a limitation on how much a person will achieve.
Yes, we can divert that success to failures, to keep people from falling down to far, which also reduces the cost of failure… Which means people are going to be more risky… Which may cause one to think, but then they take more risks… To which a reply of, but is that more successful? Sure, sometimes doing the dangerous stunt works out, think jack ass the tv show, it is a bunch of people taking risks in the name of being rich… And if they failed horribly, became maimed instead of becoming famous, then rich, they could just live off of the government… That is something socialism supports rather well…
Snort Even here we must fight on how much to were.
If you take the point as arbitrary, based on random chance from when you making the chart, combined with a lack of real numbers, instead conveying an idea of what is going on, there is no difference…
I hate going back here, but, read, Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. You, by now, understand what I mean when I call him the man. He rights clearly and effectively. It might help get these thoughts across… and, I don’t know that you care about this part, but he uses very little math. It is not super important to get how economics works across.
I don’t want a referee, because I cannot trust that such a person would be impartial. I point to you, you started off, and very much still, support a socialist ideal, yet I don’t imagine you see yourself as partial. How can you not be though? Name a person that not only has no opinion, but also has a deep understanding? I’ve floundered with getting these idea’s across to you, and, we can both agree, you are at least in theory open to the idea’s… But, what if we spend four years really smashing away at them, do you think you would come out the same?
It’s the skeptic in me that causes me to be conservative, and when necessary, libertarian. My skeptic would not believe a person claiming to be a referee on anything this important.
I’ve said it before, sarcasm does not carry through in writing. I said it as an admonishment to someone playing stupid games with me… Then I turn around an assume that my sarcastic comment would carry across… It is stupid, I understand that.
mmmm Pie.
Sweden has been having a big scare about the limited amount of new drugs being produced, in Sweden, despite the amount of money the put towards it.
My last economics class I spent writing a role-playing game… I passed it without needing to take the final… I think I was one of two…
To be fair to everyone else, at that point I had started obsessing about economics after a bad Macroeconomics teacher made me wonder what I was missing, that and I heard Thomas Sowell speak for the first time…
It’d be like giving a teenager a test on being depressed…
Representative government. The number of people in an area mattered for how many people got to be in the House of Representatives representing each group. The pro-slavery people wanted each slave to count as a full person, so that they could have more representatives. Anti-slavery people disagreed… 3/5th’s for all its stupidity is better than the full amount.
I have trouble believing anyone wants to be a slave, yet, people accept worse exchanges… Leading me to believe people want to feel safe, more than free… Not that I would give anyone a choice.
He is amazing. His writing is as good as his speaking… If only because he can provide more evidence to back up what can effectively only be rhetoric when speaking.
Yeah i understand that - but what i’m saying is that people actually think affirmative action helps minorities and hate speech legislation protects them. For the most part people who support such things believe that they are doing right by minorities - and i would also add most of them are not Marxists and probably have never read him anymore than i have. So, support for affirmative action and hate speech laws is not the result of a conscious cynical decision by a bunch of Marxists to surreptitiously outlaw conservative viewpoints and buy minority votes, rather it’s a decision by some people to support things that they think will help others. That doesn’t speak in favor of affirmative action or hate speech laws, but it does defend their supporters from the characterization being offered here.
I can accept that.
But is that enough (not my acceptance, the defense), if the consequences are the same, even if they are on the up and up? The “bad” policies supporters gain more power, allowing more “bad” policies?
It is one reason I do not support the increase in government, even in the name of goodness, regardless, power is being handed to people with very poor track records of doing anything well. Like handing Michael Bay a beloved franchise… Nothing promotes the idea that it’ll be good… (GOD DAMN IT!!! … Though I suppose because it is Bay, is more accurate.)
Even if there was absolute proof that socialism works, that a single entity could guide us to a “better place for all”/Utopia, I’d still have trouble believing our government should be the one doing it. The truth is, this is one of many reasons why, Communism fails, and will continue to fail. Why Socialism is just failure light…
Yes, making sure the DNC has a sizable minority voting bloc for generations to come, and restricting the political speech of opponents ARE good intentions for these people. It’s not like they’re trying to blow up the Moon or something.
Thanks for clarifying what you mean by the “investments” of the rich (I didn’t post the whole quote here–trying to save space). It sounds as though you and I have roughly the same concept: socialism results in the tax dollars of the rich, which would otherwise be invested more wisely, efficiently, and directly into problems that actually need it, being diverted towards ends and causes that are much less wise, more inefficient, and possibly even towards problems of socialism’s own making.
So socialism’s bad, is what I’m getting.
Good. I’m a very visual person, not mathematical (hence the lack of numbers in the graph–well, there is 0th percentile and 100th percentile…)
I’m not sure what you were getting at before recommending Basic Economics, but I get the impression you don’t quite understand where I’m going with the graphs. I ask you questions–sometimes technical, sometimes quite detailed–I might pursue a tangent of questioning that probably seems irrelevant to you or to miss the point–I sometimes whip up graphs to get the point across; your answers to these questions help me clarify the concepts you’re trying to convey to me. Your answer to my current question (to which I needed the graphs to make clear)–are there any circumstances or contexts in which socialism does raise the standards of living of those deemed to need social aid?–goes a long way towards helping me understanding your point of view in all its detail.
You seem to think I’m arguing against you–because I’m not embracing your main point (that socialism, in the end, is just bad)–but in fact, these arguments, these questions, and these challenges to your view, all serve to make your main point more clear to me–which is what I’m ultimately trying to do.
Who said anything about wanting a referee?
No, and I’m already very much persuaded (and inspired!) towards of your views (don’t take my reluctance to reveal that to mean I’m not being won over). Do I support a socialist ideal? It would probably seem so to you. Someone striving to remain neutral or balanced (not always succeeding) would seem very much a leftist to me if I were standing far to the right. But I have been quite forthcoming about my sympathies for the left in this thread. I “came clean” here (scroll to the bottom), giving my reasons for being a leftist sympathizer (my Canadian identity and my humanism), and then drew back on that claim here, hoping not to be thrown into the “religious liberal” bin that Ucci has in mind. So there’s no secrets here.
On the other hand, your efforts to explain to me the pitfalls and failures of socialism, along with the potentials and successes of the free market, are very much persuading me towards the right (so they’re not in vein). They’ve even inspired me, as I said, as the vision you’ve conjured up–that of a society growing in wealth and the poor and needy being taken care of via charitable acts–seems almost like a utopia. It’s an absolutely wonderful vision! It inspires incredible hope and awe! So as far as the economy goes, I’m more or less won over (which means I’m done with this line of questioning aimed at justifying socialism).
Where I still sympathize with the left is in my moral stance, which I explained here (scroll down to the last paragraph, the one before I address kowalskil), but from what you and Ucci have been telling me, this morality is more or less shared by both the left and the right (except maybe for the radicals on each end), so I don’t see why that should be so treacherous.
It’s very hard to stay neutral, Eric–though I denounced my identification with Ucci’s religious liberals, I still find myself pulled to the left a little, and though I’m resisting (on purpose), I find myself very inspired by your amazing right-wing utopia–I’m pulled in both directions. But I’m going to continue to at least try to be as balanced as I can.
Pride in my Canadian identity is something I can swallow (and believe me, it has taken quite a beating), but I won’t give up my humanism nor my morality.
Then Canadians owe Americans a huge apology. I wanted to be sure I understood what I’d be apologizing for before doing so, but here goes:
coughcough [size=85](<-- clearing my throat)[/size]
ON BEHALF OF ALL CANADIANS, I, GIBRAN SHAH, A LOWLY CANADIAN CITIZEN, APOLOGIZE FOR THE PRICE CAPS WE–CANADIANS COLLECTIVELY–IMPOSED ON THE PRICE OF DRUGS IN OUR COUNTRY, THEREBY COMPELLING AMERICANS TO BAIL US OUT OF WHAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN A TOTAL MEDICAL DISASTER. THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THE ENORMOUS HIT AMERICANS TOOK TO THEIR ECONOMY IN THE NAME OF RESCUING THEIR FRIENDS TO THE NORTH FROM WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISASTROUS SELF-INDUCED MOVE OF SELF-DESTRUCTION BORNE OF SHEER IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY.
That’s the best I can do. I know it’s not enough, but if you want more, you’re going to have to talk to my government.
^^ I hate people like you
I haven’t watched your latest Sowell video post yet, but I probably will sometime today.
i don’t offer it as a defense of bad policies. The consequences are what they are, unfortunately. i just want to point out that the policies themselves are not part of a cynical, conspiratorial scheme sponsored by stealth Marxists.
At the end of the day it all depends on taste and trust. A lot of people like Bay, and pay accordingly. A lot of people like public funding and trust the government in ways they don’t trust private corporations, and so vote Democrat. i like public funding and believe government has greater accountability than the private sphere. i would much rather have an elected president, governor, mayor, whatehaveyou, making decisions for the nation, city, state, whatehaveyou, than a CEO with a golden parachute on his back who therefore has no accountability. Neither is ideal, of course, but there is no utopian solution, as you have said.
That’s what i would say to any pure communist or pure socialist if i ever met one in this country, which i never have. At least, not any over the age of 25 or so. But regardless, it’s not about the shortcomings of government so much as it’s about people not wanting and needing all the same things, and allowing each person to pursue their own desires even if they are different from ours. Total communism/socialism, like total libertarianism, can’t happen effectively because human nature doesn’t allow for it. We are both individuals AND products of society, and so the best policies will always be a mix of socialism and libertarianism. i think for the most part mainstream American conservatives (as opposed to American libertarians) and mainstream American liberals (as opposed to the socialists in academe) agree on that latter point, they simply disagree on what the ratio of socialism to libertarianism ought be. This is why i think socialism/communism as used in the rhetoric of the right-wing are just political strawmen - for the most part, there aren’t many Americans that really WANT to see the US go entirely socialist, and even fewer who want to see it go entirely communist.
)
). I’m extremely low on the totem pole of my society–I’m a nobody–I could do a lot and nobody would care.
… Though I suppose because it is Bay, 
is more accurate.)