Reforming Democracy

Eric,

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:

cough cough [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.

You guys have great timing

When you guys killed me 2000 years ago; I might have went a bit overboard in trying to get your attention. There might be a few pleasant surprises in the near future.

Okaaaay.

Liz, I enjoyed this. It, in many ways, illustrates many of the things I’ve talked about, particularly the #1/last point.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661TPEvCCTU[/youtube]

Thanks for another great video, Eric.

So are we done with our exchange?

Probably…

If we really want to reform Western “societies” and economies, we must take into account the correlation between wealth, intelligence/knowledge and demography.

As I said: We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence).

What is said in that video is merely partly right because it suggests that the knowledge would depend of the so called “free market”, and again: that is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a “free market”. (2.) Knowledgte depends also on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.

When it comes to speak about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge for a “society” and its economy, then it is primarily important to do it (1.) in connection with culture, (2.) in connection with (the history of) culture, (3.) in connection with economy, … That does not mean that economy is somehow unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological and cultural issue (remember and see above: “long time”) - and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western “societies” -, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present (although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but will not have anymore in the future.

So first of all a “society” has to have people with knowledge and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with a trustful will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of this people because they have enriched the economy and via economy also the “society”.

And b.t.w.: In order to get the final direction, this thread should not be called “Reforming Democracy”, but “Reforming Demography” (see above).

I enjoyed it as well, Eric, although it really didn’t add much to my knowledge base. Sorry. I’m not sure where I learned some of the things I know; perhaps from my study of General Semantics, or maybe it’s because I’m an English/Theatre type and have a terrific imagination. (BYW, I thought my idea of color-coded food stamps was pretty innovative even if it was human engineering.)

And I’ll be sorry when the thread peters out ultimately, as it appears to be doing. I don’t think any of us has arrived at a solution–whether it’s reforming democracy or demography. History has shown, imm, that theories may be fine–like Sowell’s free-market theory–but they don’t always work as they’re supposed to. A large part of that is the nature of the human animal.

A free market economy would be great if it weren’t for people; the same is true for limiting government’s regulatory function–most people just don’t let morality get in the way of expediency. Added to that is the drive for ‘wealth’, not as knowledge, but as evidenced by buying ‘power.’ Ask people what one thing would make them happiest–9 out of 10 will probably say, “I wish I had the money to . . .”

Corporations are no different. New drugs are developed all the time, for example, but prices for drugs don’t go down–not even for drugs that have been on the market for decades. Generic drugs were supposed to be the answer, but the generic drug manufacturers went through a sort of ecological food chain eating frenzy. Little companies were eaten by bigger companies, which were then eaten by even larger companies–all the way up the chain until corporations absorbed them. Then the big guys fixed prices so as to be ‘competitive’–with each other.

I could go on, but I won’t bother. I’d only be repeating myself.

It’s been. . .

Enjoy,

Liz

I agree with you Arminius that culture is a very important factor to think about. I’m going to abstain from this thread for a few days, but when I get back I’d like to go into this.

“Affirmative action” is racism and sexism, the increased form of racism.

“Affirmative action” has such results (for example):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqCLr6MSBWk[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGv8PQr8Uo4[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzvlQ0hy7kg[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr_SgD5cORs[/youtube]
(“SCUM” means Valerie Solanas’ manifesto, “SCUM Manifesto”. And it’s evident what “#killallmen” means.)

And if you want to get of the top of racism and sexism, you only have to observe the white autoracism and male autosexism (the increased form of autracism), thus the autoracisms and autosexism of the male whites. Funny? No! Dangerous!

That “liberal” “professor” is white and male.

Do you have any question?

Wrong thread…

I disagree with your conclusion. While I’ll acknowledge that there is a correlation between Wealth and children produced by an individual, I do not think it amounts to anything significant. There is a larger correlation between not having children until marriage, instead of government limiting the amount of children a person can have, should we instead demand that they cannot have them until they are in a stable marriage? Or, should only the rich be allowed to reproduce, as they have more money to hand out to the children they have. Few would argue that Bill Gates should be so limited to two, he can hand out so much more to the two he has.

Or, could we instead stay the hell out of people’s lives, stop assuming we know what is best based on our biases… That is the entirety of my argument through this thread… Really my argument to everything that gives more power to government. At the very, very least, because one day someone in the government is going to decide the thing you like to do is damaging to you, and that shouldn’t be allowed. I bet I could find someone to argue that Philosophy boards are damaging to the participants.

I can accept all of that, even that the color-coded thing was clever, my problem is that it is human engineering. Which would be done by people, who suck.

Not really Sowell’s, it’s been around for a long freaking time.

Adam Smith wrote a book about it a long time ago, “The Wealth of Nations.” (1776)

But, in one, the people that suck only have the power to screw up their own lives. In the government run one, the people who suck are often in charge of everyone else.

Prove it.

FIxed pricing has never been proved to happen in a significant way in a free market. It only happens when the government steps in and allows them to do so.

I know the feeling.

Has it?

NEVER!

Me.

No. As I already said (here, here, here, here), each human should have the right and the duty to reproduce himself / herself; that should and would lead to an ideal case with the reproduction rate 1. If someone wants to have more or less than one child, he or her would have to pay for it.

If the reproduction rate is higher than 1, it would be reduced soon because there are enough humans who don’t want to reproduce themselves. If the reproduction rate is lower than 1, the state or a professionell corporation would have to add the reproduction rate by “reproduction managers” (“state mothers” or “professionell mothers”) who are paid by those who don’t want to reproduce themselves.

If we do not solve the demographic problem, we will get very much bigger problems!

I disagree.

You’re a victim, if you want to call it that, of human engineering in every aspect of your life, Eric, you know that! It’s called advertising. Even if it weren’t for advertising, you’re still manipulated. You can’t buy anything if it isn’t for sale and sales are manipulated, not just through ads, but through manufacturers, as well. Even the food on your table or in your fridge is what you’re forced to buy, because that’s all there is. You may have a lot of choices within those areas, but your choices have been made for you.

And, yes, a ‘free market’ has been around for ages–from before Adam Smith and the Industrial Age, even. (And I’ve read The Wealth of Nations.) It’s been tried in various forms many times, and it’s failed. We’ve all learned about the Great Depression in the US, but what about the Long Depression from 1873-1878? The problem, if there is one, isn’t that there are regulations, but there may be too many regulations. It’s like laws. We’re quick to make laws which often solve an immediate problem. The laws, however, remain for decades after ward. (I was serious when I said it was against the law in FLA to keep a crocodile in your bathtub.) The multiplicity of regulations and laws can certainly stifle real invention, but that’s not the only reason.

I wish I could find what I read about the generic pharmas; that they are consolidating, however, is no secret. As Ucci would day, it takes less than 30 seconds to google everything you’d want to know about it. And they do set prices, although the FDA is cracking down on the practice, now. Price setting is being stopped because the government is stepping in.

As for proving that the price of drugs hasn’t gone down even years after it was put on the market, I have my empirical knowledge only. Birth control pills have been on the market for almost 40 yrs. and the price is now much more than many women, even with insurance and generics, can afford. Newer drugs demand extremely high prices; it can cost $87,000 to be treated for HepC, that’s the wholesale price and only if a single drug, Sovaldi, is used. It’s most often used in conjunction with other drugs. Cancer? It’s been around for millennia. The cost of chemotherapy has risen sharply. So has radiation therapy.

–kaiserhealthnews.org That item is about breast cancer. My sister died of lung cancer, and the costs have gone up there, as well.

–http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150743/

Perhaps those two examples are really examples of human engineering at its finest. Of course, the second comes from a government publication. You’ll deny it for that reason.

Yes, Eric, it’s been. . .Illuminating, informative, ultimately futile? But it’s been, or I’ve only dreamt it all.

Enjoy something, please.

Liz

You can disagree as much as you want: You have no argument. Demography and economy have much to do with each other, but it is the demography that has the 51%. Or to modify your sig to a metaphor: “In a pure denography, 51 percent of the people get to pee in the economy of 49 percent of the people.”

You all want to prefer to live in luxury and therefore not to make the smallest sacrifice.
You all are partly to blame for the disaster that awaits us.
You all say: “After me, the flood.”
You all do not want to see anything because you are too luxury horny.

That’s a shame.