Hey look...conservatives in other countries fuck everything

[Deji]

well, you have a pretty good idea of what totalitarian communism is like. i don't think anyone here is advocating that

It's not just that. Socialism and totalitarianism are two separate things and both were there. In Soviet Russia (cue 4chan jokes), you had the quintessential socialist environment. Egalitarianism to the max, everyone gets paid roughly the same, whether they're the janitor, electrical engineer or a CEO. Also everyone had (the same shitty) free health care. Problem was, 90% of the people couldn't be arsed to put any effort in their work, because noone demanded it and noone really cared either.

It's kind of funny actually, when Estonia regained it's independence in 1991, the history and economics professors all said we would be better off than most Western states because we know what socialism really is. And, after nearly 20 years, some are stupid enough to want it back.

[Geebs]

Geebs: There is not a lot to be done, the 3 (obvious) choices are to increase the percentage amount spent on healthcare (less other services), reduce the amount of services provided (pay as you get sick) or increase taxes. The third option is viable only if the tax burden is already not that high, but Scandinavian countries like Sweden will run into difficulties if they try to increase the amount of welfare. I foresee it will still generate a lot of tensions in society, as people will be split up between old and young people. This concept is pretty straightforward, anyway.

I don't think that really constitutes an answer, that's a rather dry statement of the problem

I'm guessing that, since there are currently accusations flying in the US that even the doctors involved in medicare are ordering unnecessarily expensive treatments for the patient, you could argue that possibly the best way to cut down waste and optimise the use of budgets in a healthcare/social care system is to separate the professional's profit from their clinical duties, by providing care which is free at point of use and giving doctors a wage. Oh shit, I seem to be a socialist.

Err, and the problem with communist russia wasn't lazy workers, it was the super-rich 3% skimming off the top. Hang on a moment....

[Deji]

Err, and the problem with communist russia wasn't lazy workers, it was the super-rich 3% skimming off the top. Hang on a moment....

And you base this on? The problem was there was no free market, so everyone produced mass quantities of crap, but noone gave a damn, because the system worked until it broke. You should read up on what the USSR was actually exporting (hint: very little besides oil) and what happened to the manufacturing sector once it had to suddenly compete with Western products in a market (hint: KABOOM).

And "super-rich" in communist Russia? Lulz.

[R00k]

First off, as a clarification, I'm an economist by profession, so my views are strongly influenced by economic issues rather than social ones.

I believe in free market society with the absolute minimum amount of government regulation required for a community to function, i.e. I'm right-wing. Governmental regulation is generally ineffective compared to market forces and any sort of interference in market processes tends to distort motives. Which might, in some cases, be a good thing, but generally isn't. A heavily progressive income tax has been shown to be demotivational in terms of risk-taking and effort, i.e. the more you want to redistribute wealth, the less people actually want to create any. That's my real problem with socialism, it tends to lower the entire welfare of a nation by spreading it out more evenly.

I'm not talking about socialism (the only reason I mentioned it was because you did). Socialism is an ideology - not one or two business models or some governmental regulations. Socialism is the government controlling and administering the means of production. This idea of government-supplemented and/or -regulated systems being socialist is a false equivalency that opponents use to avoid answering tough questions, in my opinion.

It sounds like you would support getting rid of the postal service, publicly-owned land (i.e. parks), public schools, maybe even fire departments, and trust in the free market to handle these functions. Your only requirement is that a community "function," so I can only assume you would be content with large companies deciding public policy issues and everything else in society, as long as that society continues to "function" to one degree or another. Would you say that's accurate, or am I misunderstanding you?

BTW, a good analogue with socialism is the thread tnf started with the No Child Left Behind policy. Socialism is exactly the same policy - don't teach real math, because a small percentage of the general populace are dumb as bricks and you will make them feel bad, so you cater to those idiots at the expense of everyone else in the class by teaching everyone how to connect straws and mash play-do instead.

I don't agree with or endorse socialism. It's nothing more than a utopian ideal that some people believe we should always strive toward. In that regard, it is exactly like Laissez-faire economics. You have your side of the coin, and they have theirs. Being a fundamentalist or ideologue for either school of thought is nothing more than a form of absolutism. There is an overabundance of evidence that if you strip away government oversight from companies, they will lie, cheat and steal - the same as if you remove government oversight (i.e. laws and police) from people. So the idea that there are still people who believe that elimination of government regulation is an ideal to be strived for constantly surprises me.

It isn't even good in economic terms. If you follow Laissez-faire to its logical conclusion, you wind up with a few massive companies that have bought all their competitors, and make it impossible for the economy to promote competition.
It's easy to say that anti-trust legislation is one of the few regulations that should exist in economics, but that begs two questions: 1) Who arbitrarily draws the line and decides which regulations are "Laissez-faire compliant" and which aren't (and if people or boards are chosen to make those decisions, how do you keep them from being influenced); and 2) We can see from the current state of U.S. politics that any non-regulated companies will tend to use their considerable resources to sway public policy in their favor, and I don't think there is any doubt that the more powerful ones would love to do away with anti-trust regulations completely, or water them down to the point that they have no teeth.

P.S. I don't care about world hunger or inequality, every lazy ass that doesn't want to work, but can, deserves to die from malnutrition as far as I'm concerned. I prefer a society where everyone (excluding seriously disabled, very elderly, people who physically cannot really do any work) has a choice between working and starving, not working or collecting welfare, which sort of gets you by.

So do you believe that there are enough great jobs in large companies for every person in the world to have one, if they only wanted to and applied themselves?
Or do you believe that there will always be good jobs and bad jobs, and people to fill both of them, and the people who can't get the good jobs don't deserve things like insurance?

And what happens when a country has 100 million viable workers, but only 70 million jobs? What would be the final solution then? Is that when it gets Darwinian, and it's time for people to start dying until the economy can pick back up?

I understand that you are an economist, so discussions like this are largely academic endeavors (and you certainly aren't alone in this among your peers), but do you really believe that good economists make decisions solely on economic indicators, without regard to the effects those decisions have on the people around us?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic in any way by asking - it just seems that this is a common thread among economists (and certainly among Laissez-faire proponents): that, since you are in the business of economics, it stands to reason that your positions will be influenced more by economic issues rather than social ones.

I just wanted to ask you, as an economist: do you believe that it is morally justifiable to place economic issues above social/humanitarian issues, when making economic decisions that can have large social/humanitarian impacts? Or is that more of just a good practice for academic discussions, such as these?

[seremtan]

well, you have a pretty good idea of what totalitarian communism is like. i don't think anyone here is advocating that

It's not just that. Socialism and totalitarianism are two separate things and both were there. In Soviet Russia (cue 4chan jokes), you had the quintessential socialist environment. Egalitarianism to the max, everyone gets paid roughly the same, whether they're the janitor, electrical engineer or a CEO. Also everyone had (the same shitty) free health care. Problem was, 90% of the people couldn't be arsed to put any effort in their work, because noone demanded it and noone really cared either.

It's kind of funny actually, when Estonia regained it's independence in 1991, the history and economics professors all said we would be better off than most Western states because we know what socialism really is. And, after nearly 20 years, some are stupid enough to want it back.

it's always worth remembering that a nation's social spending habits are conditioned by it's own unique circumstances. this came up when GOP hacks started attacking the NHS during the US healthcare debate. there's no way an 'american NHS' would ever be a serious option on the table, because the existence of the NHS is based on unique british historical circumstances following WW2. i suspect that the european propensity toward lavish social spending has a lot to do with wanting to avoid recreating the circumstances that led to the rise of fascism and the devastation of the entire sub-continent by war. america (for example) has never had to endure anything like that, so their perspective is different

[Geebs]

And "super-rich" in communist Russia? Lulz.

If you're saying that, under the communist regime, nobody was more materially wealthy than anyone else, you're far more of a socialist than I am

Of course, Russia is now a fully paid up capitalist society and it's a total coincidence that many of the bysnyeismen are related to, or actually are, party officials.

[GONNAFISTYA]

GONNAFISTYA: It is starting to become clear that our arguments differ due to different backgrounds.

Agreed. But my arguments come from a "who are we" approach instead of a "how much are we worth" approach. I have to say that what you do for a living and its sterile way of looking at things doesn't give me warm feelings in my crotch.

I have never been to the US, nor have any extensive knowledge of how the budget is spent. Thus, I'm not talking about space programs or defense costs when I speak about budget policy. Nonetheless, the problems are similar in most countries.

Yes because in most countries the same greedy fucks are playing the same game according to their rules...the rules they learned off each other.

Welfare over here, while not as extreme as in Sweden, is not exactly low-paying stop gap. If you get fired, you can get 70% of your wage for the next 9 months from the state, which means most people don't look for work (right) after they get fired. It is supposed to work as a safety net, but it is a considerable cause of ineffectiveness. It's even worse in Denmark, where you can sit on unemployment (you almost get as much as if you worked) for 2 years, then work for 2 years, then go sit on unemployment for 2 years again. i.e. you could spend half your life sitting on the state's purse and not be that much worse off.

I'm sorry but that particular argument will fall flat with me.

It's true that alot of people don't work immediately after losing their jobs...it's a stressful event and it's something that takes time to come to grips with and adjust for. Most of them take some time to breathe and focus on other neglected things before jumping (usually with enthusiasm) back into the job market. I literally know of only ONE person (personally) that flips from employed to unemployed on a regular basis and doesn't care either way...and he's a Canadian living in Canada, not Scandinavia. And he's only ONE person, certainly NOT a large percentage of the thousands of people I've met in my lifetime who don't think living on the dole is respectable. In fact the country I've been to with the most bums-per-capita was...drum roll please...the US. It's not a shot...just an observation on one of the most work-centric places I've been to.

Besides...unemployment benefits are something you pay into to receive, so I see it as an investment/savings for a rainy day fund that you pull from...not freeloading. I guess those old folks who begin - and continue til death - pulling from teh social programs (without even taking the time to work while on the dole) are even worse than freeloaders....they're old.

I lived in Denmark for 4 years and saw as many welfare bums there as any other country I've been to, not more...and especially not more of those who you say jump in and out of the system. The country is chock-full of healthy, bright, educated, employed and well-paid people. Their standard of living is - quite frankly - one of the best in the world and most of them support the social programs in their country because they've ALL reaped the benefits from it (even the ungrateful fucks who graduated business school paid for by the people of Denmark and poo poo the system that got them there when coming up with "policies").

My past company, Deadline Games in Copenhagen, recently went bust and I'm glad as hell that my friends there don't have to worry about losing their house because, as you so correctly described, they're not hard off for cash sitting on the dole and earning about 70%. (Unemployment benefits are 60% in Canada, another "socialist" country) And all of my friends at Deadline (80 of them) who lost their jobs will indeed one day be back in the workforce...as I can already attest with a few of them. They have ambition and self-respect and I don't see them sitting around collecting the dole because it's somehow "socially cool" to do. Some of them went back to school (all paid by the Danish government...including all university...which is why all those Danes are so bright) and - again - they don't have to worry about losing their house in one of the most aggressive (and desired) housing markets on the planet...while they get back into the workforce, smarter than before...improving teh overall market.

I simply cannot understand your arguments about Scandinavia, they're numbers and theories, not street-level experience of the effect of those policies. A long while back I had a discussion with Tormentius about his false-perceptions of Denmark, particularly the tax rates, so feel free to convince me otherwise.

As for the free market going bust, while the nature of a free market dictates there will be ups and downs, it's the nature of things. However, the prevalent opinion among finance people is that the current crisis would be a lot smaller (or even wouldn't have happened) if the US government had NOT intervened after the dot-com buble. Much of the problems that are the cause of the current crisis are a direct effect of too much too cheap money in 2002-2003 given out by the US. Not exactly the best argument AGAINST free market theory.

No offense but the "prevailing opinion among finance people" has lost some of its credibility in recent decades. In my opinion finance people are riding the respect bus because of their "lofty" career choice, not what they're doing to earn that respect.

And the dot-com bubble occurred because of low interest rates, care-free investing and moronic, rose-coloured outlooks on several companies all promising to monopolize the same market...which meant most of them would fail outright. In other words, the "prevailing opinion among finance people" at that time was flat wrong so it doesn't really matter if people think the government intervened too much AFTER it happened...they're probably wrong about that, too.

As to too much cheap money given out, it's because greed and graft simply won out again (earning 30% every year) and people couldn't/wouldn't stop themselves from raping a gushing money-machine, knowing full well it could explode all over them while they were balls deep in it.

It's actually because of those events - and more importantly recent events and revelations - that I'm starting to believe that Game Theory, like Communism and Capitalism, is also full of shit.

Most of your arguments are not toward right-wing ideology, but towards specific policy decisions made in the US that don't really have that much to do with rightist ideology (i.e. individualism) as such.

I agree that my arguments aren't entirely against a right-wing ideology (in that I believe that hard-core socialism and hard-core capitalism are both full of shit). That's why it was nice to see Japan join the chorus of many other western countries in recent years (not just the US) concerning social programs.

But, from the history of the last 100 years or so, it's those with a right-leaning affiliation on the political spectrum, corporatist mindset - and authoritarian/social dominator mindset...left or right - that are leading us over a cliff in affecting selfish policy...mostly with false, well-funded propaganda. I don't see progressives balking decreased pollution and insisting on maintaining bloated, wasteful programs that benefit only the rich.

There's a line from Duckman where "the Bad Guy" says he's from the Republican Party. Duckman is confused and asks what interests the Republican Party would have with "The Diabolical Plan" and he simply admits he had no reasons for being the bad guy other than "Republicans generally go where the evil goes". Poignant to say the least and correct in the worst case.

[Deji]

Oh boy.

R00k:
No, socialism is just what I said: the opposite of individualism. Any time the state puts their hand in your pocket to redistribute it evenly, it's "socialist" to some extent. The deeper the hand goes, the more socialist the state.

Privatization of postal service? No problem. The same with all utilities companies like water, power, etc. Monopolies will still have to be regulated in some way though, to attempt to mimic the circumstances of a competitive market environment. No good solutions, though. There are reasons to keep certain services like parks, street lightning etc under state control and financed from tax income, which mainly has to do with the freeloader effect. The private sector will never be able to collect money as efficiently from everyone as the state does. The state has to guarantee everyone basic rights (so no riots, upholding the law in regard to crime, etc) for society to function, and fix certain issues that are inherent with a market environment where prisoner's dilemma and other issues predicted by game theory keep participants from acting in the best way for society. Everything beyond that is control that may be unwarranted. I don't believe in a total lack of oversight, but as little oversight as possible.

There are great jobs for great people, and less great jobs for less great people. If you want a great job, you have to be a great employee. Those with shitty prospects have generally put themselves in such a situation by not putting in as much effort as the other guys with better prospects. There are many exceptions, but this is the trend.

There will never be 100 workers and 70 jobs in the long run. In the long run, everything will balance itself out, the only question is how much those 30 workers will earn.

I believe that decisions are made on theory and facts, not emotion. Emotion just tends to cloud your judgement in terms of making the most rational choice.

As a person, I have very little moral problems with anything, as I almost completely lack any empathy towards fellow human beings. Any empathy on my part is probably due to rational calculation or a well-learned response. Childhood issues, too bad.

[Deji]

And "super-rich" in communist Russia? Lulz.

If you're saying that, under the communist regime, nobody was more materially wealthy than anyone else, you're far more of a socialist than I am

Of course, Russia is now a fully paid up capitalist society and it's a total coincidence that many of the bysnyeismen are related to, or actually are, party officials.

Some people were better off than others, but there was little material wealth to speak of, at least in terms of a contemporary Western society. It's hard to accumulate it when the state owns everything like companies and real estate, and not you.

[Deji]

GFY:

I like the sterility. I don't really care much for emotions or sensations in my crotch.

That "greedy bastards" bit is getting old. Sounds like being bitter at people who make more money. Trust me, if you happened to be among the 3%, you would probably feel differently about these issues. It's really easy to point the finger at someone and say their success is undeserved and that they're lucky, corrupt, or whatever. It doesn't help that the media depicts things like this as well, but in reality, many things are not as they're portrayed.

Yes, the standard of living in Denmark all around is high, as any other Western European country. (Leaving aside all the policy issues for different countries at the moment, argumentation on anecdotal evidence is not very fruitful, I have similar counter-arguments based on a few Danish friends) The strategy for all of these countries has been similar since WW II: pay social benefits, take on debt, and leave the next generation to foot the bill. Now, things are getting a bit restless, as the people who have been paying the bills also want to retire, and it is becoming apparent that the system can't really work on that. Many countries have tried to remedy the problem by bringing in additional workers from less wealthy nations, but that is characteristic of a ponzi-scheme, not a viable long-term solution.

As far as thinking everyone to do with economics is a moron - LOL. I am constantly amazed by how people with no experience in the field like to give their thoughts on the matter and expect to be taken seriously, while an economist giving his thoughts that he reached (while sitting on the can or whatever) would be laughed out if he gave his two cents on topics like art or theoretical physics.

Anyway, I think that the level of social benefits is unsustainable in the future and we will likely see less benefits, not more, in 30 or 50 years. That is, unless, we invent robots with AI to be our slaves, effectively eliminating the need to work ourselves.

[R00k]

Oh boy.

R00k:
No, socialism is just what I said: the opposite of individualism. Any time the state puts their hand in your pocket to redistribute it evenly, it's "socialist" to some extent. The deeper the hand goes, the more socialist the state.

No, socialism is pretty clearly defined: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html ; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism ; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're getting at, but there are material differences in the way you're applying it. Just because a socialist - by definition - would want to see a certain policy implemented does not mean that wanting that policy makes you a socialist.

Privatization of postal service? No problem. The same with all utilities companies like water, power, etc. Monopolies will still have to be regulated in some way though, to attempt to mimic the circumstances of a competitive market environment. No good solutions, though. There are reasons to keep certain services like parks, street lightning etc under state control and financed from tax income, which mainly has to do with the freeloader effect. The private sector will never be able to collect money as efficiently from everyone as the state does. The state has to guarantee everyone basic rights (so no riots, upholding the law in regard to crime, etc) for society to function, and fix certain issues that are inherent with a market environment where prisoner's dilemma and other issues predicted by game theory keep participants from acting in the best way for society. Everything beyond that is control that may be unwarranted. I don't believe in a total lack of oversight, but as little oversight as possible.

So where do you draw the line? Can you still be a good capitalist society while having a public fire department, but once you implement publicly-funded healthcare, you've crossed the line into socialism?

This is an honest question.

There are great jobs for great people, and less great jobs for less great people. If you want a great job, you have to be a great employee. Those with shitty prospects have generally put themselves in such a situation by not putting in as much effort as the other guys with better prospects. There are many exceptions, but this is the trend.

There will never be 100 workers and 70 jobs in the long run. In the long run, everything will balance itself out, the only question is how much those 30 workers will earn.

I would be happy to accept any evidence you can provide to support this claim.

I believe that decisions are made on theory and facts, not emotion. Emotion just tends to cloud your judgement in terms of making the most rational choice.

See above.

Also, would you still support the above claim if there were double the population?

As a person, I have very little moral problems with anything, as I almost completely lack any empathy towards fellow human beings. Any empathy on my part is probably due to rational calculation or a well-learned response. Childhood issues, too bad.

Then you shouldn't be responsible for making decisions that have profound effects on other human beings.

[GONNAFISTYA]

As a person, I have very little moral problems with anything, as I almost completely lack any empathy towards fellow human beings. Any empathy on my part is probably due to rational calculation or a well-learned response. Childhood issues, too bad.

Then you shouldn't be responsible for making decisions that have profound effects on other human beings.

A- fuckin - men.

I'm sorry but I'm done being respectful in this circular discussion. Deji, your opinions on lazy people, people who didn't do enough to be the 3% and your predictions of how everyone will act when becoming the 3% or going on welfare says more about you than anyone else. If you truly have no empathy and simply cannot factor people's lives in your equation then you and I would never get along, nor have a beer together. I cannot in good faith pretend what you do and the approach it takes is anything less than heartless and cruel. There I said it.

"A man cannot understand a concept if his livelihood depends on him not understanding it."

And no...if I made it to the 3% it wouldn't stop me from being human with emotions and empathy. I've spent my whole life feeling this way and it isn't going to change because I can afford a yacht. If you think differently then, again, it says more about you than other people. I've never gone through life wondering how to fuck people over....especially fucking hundreds of thousands of people over...so I'm pretty fucking sure that wouldn't change if I made it to the 3%. Some horrible people are indeed wealthy and powerful, but dat aint me babe.

And fucking lol at the "I'm jealous of rich people" argument. I'm doing just fine with my salary and living standard, thank you very much. Jesus christ.

And another fucking lol at the (near-constant) fallback of "you don't understand" whenever people criticize the bullshit of the market. That's just fucking laughable any way you look at it. I don't like Micheal Bay's movies, so I guess I just don't understand movies and how they're made.

Keep your head up your ass and count your money if that's all you really care about, but do the rest of us a favor and stay the hell away from influencing policy decisions.

[GONNAFISTYA]

As far as thinking everyone to do with economics is a moron - LOL. I am constantly amazed by how people with no experience in the field like to give their thoughts on the matter and expect to be taken seriously, while an economist giving his thoughts that he reached (while sitting on the can or whatever) would be laughed out if he gave his two cents on topics like art or theoretical physics.

Do you actually believe that they'd get laughed out if they knew something about the topics and weren't the t-shirt wearing morons at town halls who scream "down with socialism"...not even knowing how to spell it?

Do you think that people shouldn't have opinions on things that affect their daily lives if they aren't an expert with a degree on the subject? What fucking planet are you from?

[Deji]

So where do you draw the line? Can you still be a good capitalist society while having a public fire department, but once you implement publicly-funded healthcare, you've crossed the line into socialism?

This is an honest question.

There is no clear line, people's views on "how much redistribution" is what determines whether they're right or not. (pun intended). I am not against public eduction or healthcare (up to a point), but I strongly detest unemployment benefits and progressive taxation. If you want to have some cash to fall back on (after you left your low-paying small risk job to work at that high-paying job at the company which will go bankrupt any minute), collect it yourself while you actually have a job.

I would be happy to accept any evidence you can provide to support this claim.

Understanding the underlying logic of how the economy works is a lengthy chain of thought and cannot be explained (in a way that you would be content with) in a few paragraphs or articles. Nevertheless, the basic argument is that there will always be something for someone to do somewhere, it's just that the job may pay similar to an Asian kid in a sweatshop.

GFY:

More and more sounds like the rambling of a bitter person. Are you fucking serious? Every time you mention a rich guy, you describe him as a capitalist bloodsucker who rapes his own mother daily and kidnaps and skullfucks infants. Don't you have any friends that are well off?

Do you think that people shouldn't have opinions on things that affect their daily lives if they aren't an expert with a degree on the subject?

It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing to think you're smarter than people who have infinitely more experience in the field and studied it at great length. Would you be as quick to call theoretical physicists retards because you don't believe that string theory could be real?

P.S. You chasticise me for having no empathy. It's pretty ironic, considering you have none for the rich people.

Seeing as this has degenerated into little more than ad hominem attacks, I kindly take my leave. Good day and have fun demonizing anyone who has any money.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Yes...it always come down to saying "you just hate rich people" or "you're jealous of rich people". Neither one is true as it relates to me.

If people want to be rich and can achieve it to spectacular results, then good for them. But that doesn't mean that they have more rights than me or anyone else...just more money. I've said many times (including several times in this thread) that I have no problem whatsoever with people being rich, so where you're coming up with this is anyone's guess.

If you cannot/will not understand that I'm not bashing rich people, but bashing rich people who think they can control the world just because they have more money then that's your problem and you'll never understand it.

The thing that pissed me off the most from your posts was that you were so cavalier in your admissions that you don't really give a fuck about others - especially "lazy" ones - and yet you post in a thread talking about those people...and the fact that "professionals" such as you - with such a cynical outlook - somehow are the ones everyone listens to on matters about social issues, which takes us back to my original point about this whole thing.

[Ryoki]

I enjoy reading this thread.
Carry on.

[Deji]

Yes...it always come down to saying "you just hate rich people" or "you're jealous of rich people". Neither one is true as it relates to me.

If people want to be rich and can achieve it to spectacular results, then good for them. But that doesn't mean that they have more rights than me or anyone else...just more money. I've said many times (including several times in this thread) that I have no problem whatsoever with people being rich, so where you're coming up with this is anyone's guess.

If you cannot/will not understand that I'm not bashing rich people, but bashing rich people who think they can control the world just because they have more money then that's your problem and you'll never understand it.

The thing that pissed me off the most from your posts was that you were so cavalier in your admissions that you don't really give a fuck about others - especially "lazy" ones - and yet you post in a thread talking about those people...and the fact that "professionals" such as you - with such a cynical outlook - somehow are the ones everyone listens to on matters about social issues, which takes us back to my original point about this whole thing.

I thought we were past the issue on political lobbyism and influence over policy issues in general, with both of us agreeing on the same point, which is why I assumed you must have a problem with rich people in general, as you still keep on ranting about them after admitting you feel the same way I do. I have not once said anything about rich people deserving more rights than anyone else, apart from the one acknowledgement (that might be mistaken as such) that economies of scale may make supporting bigger companies more effective in certain cases.

As for economists commenting on social issues - there are very few instances were social issues are not economic issues at the same time. Yes, I would like an utopian world with peace, love and happiness where everyone lives in a bundle of joy, but apparently we live in a world with constrictions, where increasing someone's wellbeing generally means lessening someone else's. Mostly people want to lessen the wellbeing of rich people for the poor people, which is something I do not care much for.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Do you think that people shouldn't have opinions on things that affect their daily lives if they aren't an expert with a degree on the subject?

It's one thing to have an opinion. It's another thing to think you're smarter than people who have infinitely more experience in the field and studied it at great length. Would you be as quick to call theoretical physicists retards because you don't believe that string theory could be real?

In fact I have actually called out theoretical physicists with their ideas on the multiverse...it's a copout with no practical evidence (while there is a boatload of mathematical evidence) to support it and turns a very promising science into a theology. I happen to think string theory is correct but I'm not going to bet my life on it.

With medical science..there's ample evidence that they're on the right track and correct, so I trust doctor's more than I trust people trying to predict the future.

Conversely, there is ample evidence that free market theorists are full of shit and incorrect as often as they are correct. Like the market they covet, it's a craps game and you'll lose as often as you gain. It all depends on who you listen to and some educated guesses, but guesses all the same. And it gets worse when you betting with other people's money...like people's pensions. So - in short - like string theory I wouldn't bet my life on the free market.

I - and several others - have called "bullshit" on you, sir and all you can retort with is "it's complex". It's time you learned to deal with it without talking to people like they're 4 years old.

[Deji]

In fact I have actually called out theoretical physicists with their ideas on the multiverse...it's a copout with no practical evidence (while there is a boatload of mathematical evidence) to support it and turns a very promising science into a theology. I happen to think string theory is correct but I'm not going to bet my life on it.

With medical science..there's ample evidence that they're on the right track and correct, so I trust doctor's more than I trust people trying to predict the future.

Conversely, there is ample evidence that free market theorists are full of shit and incorrect as often as they are correct. Like the market they covet, it's a craps game and you'll lose as often as you gain. So - in short - like string theory I wouldn't bet my life on the free market.

I - and several others - have called "bullshit" on you, sir and all you can retort with is "it's complex". It's time you learned to deal with it without talking to people like they're 4 years old.

So what's your solution, make policy decision without even trying to forecast anything? Economics is too complex of an area to model the reactions to every decision with 99% accuracy, unlike medicine. All anyone has is best guess, but being right 80 or 70 or 60% of the time is better than winging it and being right 50% of the time.

As a side note, medicine is wrong or doesn't know the answer quite often. I have idiopathic rheumatoid arthritis, which is a fancy name for "you have inherent joint inflammation and we don't know why, so we just suppress the symptoms without curing the cause".

Also, as there is ample evidence that economists are right just as often as they are wrong, you surely wouldn't mind producing some of this evidence that is more than anecdotal evidence in your head, correct?

[GONNAFISTYA]

I thought we were past the issue on political lobbyism and influence over policy issues in general, with both of us agreeing on the same point, which is why I assumed you must have a problem with rich people in general, as you still keep on ranting about them after admitting you feel the same way I do.

I have a problem with people manipulating the market/government/people's rights for the benefit of the few. Those people happen to be rich (no matter which country they're in) and are selfish cunts...so there's the connection.

I have not once said anything about rich people deserving more rights than anyone else, apart from the one acknowledgement (that might be mistaken as such) that economies of scale may make supporting bigger companies more effective in certain cases.

You did say that you thought people who didn't reach an expected "quota" of production within the community could fuck off and die. One could make the assumption that you think lazy people are worth less than productive workers. From that one could conclude that you're saying rich people should have more rights.

As for economists commenting on social issues - there are very few instances were social issues are not economic issues at the same time.

The bad part when the economic issues take precedent and continue to take precedent over social issues for generations. That's what I was getting at with my "We're ok now, let's do something for others" remark earlier. Things do improve when business grows and everyone's standard of living gets better, but fixing roads and creating more of those "crappy, low-paid" jobs that poor people need to get off the dole also helps. Jobs are jobs and people need them to survive and succeed whether they want to or not. It doesn't just have to be producing a new unmanned bomber. And because of the huge profits in things such as weapons programs, those programs tend to be green-lit sooner than basic, general services...because someone told them it'd make tons of cash...all while taking money away from the social programs. In that (usually destructive) influence, is where the market really should just shut the fuck up for a while and stop trying to turn the entire planet and every square metre of atmosphere into one big shopping mall.

Yes, I would like an utopian world with peace, love and happiness where everyone lives in a bundle of joy, but apparently we live in a world with constrictions, where increasing someone's wellbeing generally means lessening someone else's. Mostly people want to lessen the wellbeing of rich people for the poor people, which is something I do not care much for.

How much money is enough? How can you sit on a 300 metre yacht, anchored a km off the coast with your huge fucking mansion up on a cliff, fleet of sports cars and harem of hot bitches and say,"I want more money!" Like you said...there's only a finite amount of money to float around, so having the rich hoard it all and grab even more of it makes them a fair target as far as progressive tax rates and demanding of them to contribute more to the overall well-being of others. So your idea of utopia is possible but the money has to come from somewhere...so get it from the rich. And since corporations are rich "people", then we should grab it from them, too.

If big business likes to blow millions on toys, then they have some to spare.

"Why do I rob banks? Because that's where the money is."

[GONNAFISTYA]

Privatization of postal service? No problem. The same with all utilities companies like water, power, etc. Monopolies will still have to be regulated in some way though, to attempt to mimic the circumstances of a competitive market environment. No good solutions, though.

If there are no good solutions, do you mean no good non-socialist solutions?

Would anyone here like to have their Courts system privatized?

There are reasons to keep certain services like parks, street lightning etc under state control and financed from tax income, which mainly has to do with the freeloader effect. The private sector will never be able to collect money as efficiently from everyone as the state does. The state has to guarantee everyone basic rights (so no riots, upholding the law in regard to crime, etc) for society to function, and fix certain issues that are inherent with a market environment where prisoner's dilemma and other issues predicted by game theory keep participants from acting in the best way for society. Everything beyond that is control that may be unwarranted. I don't believe in a total lack of oversight, but as little oversight as possible.

Then who is responsible when it can/does go tits up? Can we vote the stupid bastards out?

[Deji]

I have a problem with people manipulating the market/government/people's rights for the benefit of the few. Those people happen to be rich (no matter which country they're in) and are selfish cunts...so there's the connection.

If group A has quality B, it does not necessarily infer that everyone with quality B belongs to group A.

You did say that you thought people who didn't reach an expected "quota" of production within the community could fuck off and die. One could make the assumption that you think lazy people are worth less than productive workers. From that one could conclude that you're saying rich people should have more rights.

No. What I meant was that people who didn't put in effort (i.e. work) to feed themselves, but think they deserve to be spoon-fed while leaving someone else to foot the bill, can fuck off and die.

The bad part when the economic issues take precedent and continue to take precedent over social issues for generations. That's what I was getting at with my "We're ok now, let's do something for others" remark earlier. Things do improve when business grows and everyone's standard of living gets better, but fixing roads and creating more of those "crappy, low-paid" jobs that poor people need to get off the dole also helps. Jobs are jobs and people need them to survive and succeed whether they want to or not. It doesn't just have to be producing a new unmanned bomber. And because of the huge profits in things such as weapons programs, those programs tend to be green-lit sooner than basic, general services...because someone told them it'd make tons of cash...all while taking money away from the social programs. In that (usually destructive) influence, is where the market really should just shut the fuck up for a while and stop trying to turn the entire planet and every square metre of atmosphere into one big shopping mall.

I have nothing against this in general. If social programs (i.e. the creation of jobs) can turn a profit and be effective, there is no reason in my mind not to do it. But the output has to actually compete with the private sector, else it's just a waste of money and resources. Developing ever deadlier weapons in the past 20 years has never quite made sense to me, either.

How much money is enough? How can you sit on a 300 metre yacht, anchored a km off the coast with your huge fucking mansion up on a cliff, fleet of sports cars and harem of hot bitches and say,"I want more money!" Like you said...there's only a finite amount of money to float around, so having the rich hoard it all and grab even more of it makes them a fair target as far as progressive tax rates and demanding of them to contribute more to the overall well-being of others. So your idea of utopia is possible but the money has to come from somewhere...so get it from the rich.

Conspicuous consumption is only one side of the coin, and is a flawed argument for redistribution. People like Warren Buffet and Ingvar Kamprad are notorious for consuming very little despite having billions. (Yeah, okay, Buffett has one quirk, he likes his private jet). Also, wealth doesn't mean the money is under a mattress or in sportscars and mansions, it is loaned out, given in change for equity, etc. Money is more effective when it's pooled, to transfer money from people who have too much right now, to people who need it right now. Additionally, one could make the logical assumption that people who have a shitload of money are also better versed to invest it than the average person. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have much money.

[Deji]

If there are no good solutions, do you mean no good non-socialist solutions?

Would anyone here like to have their Courts system privatized?

Then who is responsible when it can/does go tits up? Can we vote the stupid bastards out?

By no good solutions I mean there are no good solutions to mimic a competitive market environment when there is none. The problem is even greater with natural monopolies (like water utilities, etc.), where the most effective result is to have just one provider per customer.

There are things that can be privatized, and things that cant. Things that are businesses by nature, can, and in most cases should be.

As for who is responsible - the shareholders. I'm sure they wont be too happy about their investment being wiped out.

[Geebs]

Deji, I wonder if you could answer my earlier question about balancing the economics with healthcare in the absence of any personal blame, and including the value of a human life, in the context that your arthritis (which is obviously not your fault) or antirheumatic drugs used to treat it, could theoretically end up with you being unemployable and with a pair of knackered kidneys? You see my point that universal healthcare would pay for treatments in that situation which would greatly help the quality of life of an individual, but with no economic justification?

BTW all of that stuff about ensuring that there's a monopoly for vital services (e.g. fuel, water, healthcare) sounds a bit.....statist

[Deji]

Deji, I wonder if you could answer my earlier question about balancing the economics with healthcare in the absence of any personal blame, and including the value of a human life, in the context that your arthritis (which is obviously not your fault) or antirheumatic drugs used to treat it, could theoretically end up with you being unemployable and with a pair of knackered kidneys? You see my point that universal healthcare would pay for treatments in that situation which would greatly help the quality of life of an individual, but with no economic justification?

BTW all of that stuff about ensuring that there's a monopoly for vital services (e.g. fuel, water, healthcare) sounds a bit.....statist

Ensuring monopolies? What? I said that some companies are natural monopolies, in that the most effective way is to have one service provider. Take water utilities. How many companies should build a sewage system to your house? Not hard to imagine what number of companies is the most effective solution, I guess?

Bad example, it could leave me on the street with shot kidneys, and it could also give me more useful years to pay taxes. As I said to GFY earlier, I'm not against universal healthcare, we have one in Estonia and I prefer it over private insurance. But the question is how much, should the country pony up for the most expensive drugs (as alternatives to similar, possibly slightly less efficient, but noticeably cheaper ones) or dubious services should be covered by the state. Plastic surgery? Boob jobs? Indefinite life support for coma patients?