Quake3World

You seem to think in black and white terms -- either strictly unregulated, free market capitalism, or complete and total socialism.

Do you not believe that any combination of those, or a gray area in between, is a possibility?

Deji wrote:GONNAFISTYA is a massive idiot.

I will take extreme right-wingedness any day over the mindfuck of socialism, like the one the Scandinavian countries run.

Case in point from Sweden: A carpenter lifts something heavy and has a small problem. He's healthy as anyone else, but the doctors say "he may never work again". He gets a free apartment and his previous wage free from the government. He also asks for a new car, and gets it. When my friend met the "disabled" carpenter skiing in the Alps (!), he admitted that a guy in his apartment complex, who works as a mid-level boss, earns about 10% more than his disability income, while pulling 12-hour shifts. He also hoped noone from the Swedish goverment saw him in the Alps.

oh noes, someone is exploiting the system, that sure doesn't happen in extreme conservative nations

Yes, I can see how you would like taking from the people who actually make some money and living off the proceeds like some rich guy's whore of a trophy wife.

You mean like the CEOs of major corporations in America?

lol

Yet another "anything to do with social welfare is bad but corporate welfare is perfectly ok" moron.

You don't actually think that the "disabled carpenter faking it" story is convincing, do you? There are literally thousands of similar stories. And you'll never hear about cases where the system worked and people benefited. But judging from your "lazy people shouldn't be supported by us earning folks" approach - the oldest and most retarded argument ever on the subject...and it keeps coming back - pretty much negates any chance we'll see eye to eye on this issue.

It's funny that the same folks who complain about "bums taking our money without earning it" are the same folks who say publicly that they want to end world hunger...like the two aren't related in any way.

I guess the term "working together for mutual benefit" somehow means socialism now. I always equated that specific term to the free market, but I guess times have changed. I guess it never occurs to some people that getting rid of the garbage in politics that only benefits a small group might actually free up the money to benefit everyone.

And it's funny that Deji links to group who's staff and advisory boards are the same people who are part of the original problem: CEOs, former politicians, etc.

We seek to help business leaders and policy makers understand the evolution of the global economy, improve performance and competitiveness, and provide a fact base that contributes to decision making on critical management and policy issues.

So a business-orientated think tank focusing on a market approach to policies sees a problem with "socialists" countries like Sweden? I never saw that coming at all.

And - again - I'm not complaining about capitalism or socialism.

I'm complaining that "money for policy" has fucked democracy in terms of the social programs that politicians always promise during campaigns but always squander so that a few rich buddies can get richer. They're the 3% I keep referring to.

I really don't mind it when everyone is prosperous and has health care, police and fire departments and - most importantly - a fair say in the policies of an elected government.

R00k wrote:You seem to think in black and white terms -- either strictly unregulated, free market capitalism, or complete and total socialism.

Do you not believe that any combination of those, or a gray area in between, is a possibility?

I'm not sure if you're asking Deji or me.

I agree 100% with you that the best solution is somewhere in the middle. I guess I'm saying that communism failed to live up to it's promise and, now, capitalism has failed to live up to its promise. That's what I was getting at when I said in my first post about humanity getting rid of it...or at the very least seeing it for what it is.

I'll admit that it's hard to turn it around in a large, egalitarian way. Mostly because the top 3% get to have their meetings with policy makers in private jets with hookers and cocaine, while the rest of us plebs get one town hall a year speaking into a failing microphone...only to get shouted down by morons paid to be there and shout by those with the private jets.

Utopia is a long ways off.

U4EA wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:The real problem with right-wingers ..

Wait till you get into Australian politics. The Australian Liberal Party is actually the right winged party with conservative policies whereas the Australian Labor Party is the left leaning one with liberal policies. It's good fun.

Heh. The thing is that when I speak with Australians it's pretty much the same as every other western democracy I've visited: the people aren't as right-wing as their governments.

R00k wrote:You seem to think in black and white terms -- either strictly unregulated, free market capitalism, or complete and total socialism.

Do you not believe that any combination of those, or a gray area in between, is a possibility?

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.

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.

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.

I think it's fairly straightforward in that the rules (and pay grades) are set up for those who want a better life will get off welfare and make something of themselves. Considering "getting by" with the pittance the welfare systems dole out - and I hear it's getting smaller and harder to get - it seems the system pretty much forces people to get jobs and get an education to get better jobs. I've never met anyone who - by choice - wanted to make less money just so they can stop working, become a completely uneducated and uninformed troglodyte who scratches their balls all day after waking up at 1 pm. Those people exist but there aren't alot of them. Well...maybe in Texas. scared?

Sure there are those who milk the system, but the ones at the bottom aren't the ones we're talking about, are we? It sounds to me that you believe that money is the only reason people are motivated to do anything and will wither and die if nobody tells them to get out of bed. What a pile of bullshit.

Money is the only reason people take risks, i.e. invest, work 16-hour days, etc. What, you think some people actually enjoy that kind of shit?

Another case in point from Sweden:
Sweden has an impressive shortage of doctors. I have a friend who works as a doctor, he works 4 days a week and that's a common thing. He says that working a fifth day would only minimally increase his wage, literally paying 50% of his income to the government for that 5th day, so he would rather fuck about.

Most of the value created comes from the top 3% of earners you despise so much, that's why they are the 3%. If you take away the motivation to reach there, the overall level of income will fall and there will be less money to redistribute, not more.

Also, you're confusing working with intelligent activities, I did not infer there was some sort of connection. Living off welfare does not automatically mean your IQ drops 30 points and you stop reading/sports/etc.

In America, almost all renal dialysis is done on a private basis. Are you about to suggest that, per an economic argument, those - often highly intelligent and productive - people should be left to die because there is simply no way that anyone but the super-rich can afford the costs on the basis of their own economic output? That's ethical.

You know perfectly well that in America, politicians are actively involved in protectionism in the "free market" and that, for example, ip rights, patent policy and copyright are all skewed so that big rightsholders recieve disproportionate protections, actively discouraging competition? Seems like capitalism is failing by its own standards.

Frankly, you can predicit all of these patterns of Market and social behaviour by reading up on some Jane Goodall. It's rather depressing.

1. There is always an economic argument, since money is not infinite. Fact of the matter is, you can always improve someone's health by throwing money at it, but the question soon becomes "How much is too much?".

2. Protectionism, corruption and copyright issues have nothing to do with a free market and individualism. The first two are the antithesis of a free market and the third one has to do with business standards, not political ideology. You can believe in a free market and say that current intellectual property rights are not suited for today's economy.

Deji wrote:1. There is always an economic argument, since money is not infinite. Fact of the matter is, you can always improve someone's health by throwing money at it, but the question soon becomes "How much is too much?".

that's easy to say if you don't have any health problems. So, what do you reckon is the economic value of your life? Let's assume I'm about to withdraw the (expensive) drugs you need to stop your transplanted kidney from rejecting because the money's dried up. Would you just say "ok, well the total value of all of my future economic activity would be less than the cost of my future treatment, go ahead"?

On another note, in the UK, anyone on hormonal replacement which will be lifelong gets free prescriptions. That's what's known as "ethical"

Deji wrote:Money is the only reason people take risks, i.e. invest, work 16-hour days, etc. What, you think some people actually enjoy that kind of shit?

So you're saying particle physicists became particle physicists because it pays better than working at McDonalds? You're saying cops become cops because of the retirement fund and free funeral? You're saying that the 5 year-old playing hockey on a frozen pond is thinking about the millions he'll make in likeness rights in EA's NHL 2023? And...as tnf would attest...teachers become teachers because of the millions of dollars teachers get paid each month.

And do you think I make video games because I think it'll put me in the top 3%? Please. And yes...I settled for a senior design role because the CEO position was taken.

You're an economist, who's sole existence is the pursuit of profit and finding new ways of generating it. So it's no surprise you're taking the stance you are.

Deji wrote:Another case in point from Sweden:
Sweden has an impressive shortage of doctors. I have a friend who works as a doctor, he works 4 days a week and that's a common thing. He says that working a fifth day would only minimally increase his wage, literally paying 50% of his income to the government for that 5th day, so he would rather fuck about.

If your doctor friend ignores emergencies on Friday/Monday then something's wrong. There's nothing wrong with a 4 day work week if the case load allows it. And since Sweden has healthier people maybe he really isn't busy. There's that damned socialism doing its thing again.

Deji wrote:Most of the value created comes from the top 3% of earners you despise so much, that's why they are the 3%. If you take away the motivation to reach there, the overall level of income will fall and there will be less money to redistribute, not more.

There's nothing wrong with the 3% having their cake and eating it, too. There is something wrong when policies that deal with millions of people are tailored to only that 3%. I don't understand why you aren't getting this.

Deji wrote:Also, you're confusing working with intelligent activities, I did not infer there was some sort of connection. Living off welfare does not automatically mean your IQ drops 30 points and you stop reading/sports/etc.

Yeah but to hear people talk about it they claim that those "freeloaders" are not only lazy, but dumb.

Geebs wrote:On another note, in the UK, anyone on hormonal replacement which will be lifelong gets free prescriptions. That's what's known as "ethical"

Fuckin socialist bastards.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/200 ... signs.html

Fucking crybabies...

Geebs wrote: Let's assume I'm about to withdraw the (expensive) drugs you need to stop your transplanted kidney from rejecting because the money's dried up. Would you just say "ok, well the total value of all of my future economic activity would be less than the cost of my future treatment, go ahead"?

If I had shot my kidneys on drugs or alcohol, I would have to kick myself in the head and deserve to die on principle. Medicine will always be about future expected value, as you cannot spend more than you make, this cannot be stressed enough. If the state budget can provide that sort of welfare, great, but the odds are it can't as the population gets older on average.

GONNAFISTYA wrote: So you're saying particle physicists became particle physicists because it pays better than working at McDonalds? You're saying cops become cops because of the retirement fund and free funeral? You're saying that the 5 year-old playing hockey on a frozen pond is thinking about the millions he'll make in likeness rights in EA's NHL 2023? And...as tnf would attest...teachers become teachers because of the millions of dollars teachers get paid each month.

Please. Do you actually think that everyone would still go to work if they could keep up their current living standards without it? Or even more to the point, work as much? You may find the answer by looking at any of the past few thousand years, how many aristocrats/ruling class actually worked when they didn't have to? It was more lucrative to fuck another man in the ass than work some 2500 years ago, IIRC.

GONNAFISTYA wrote: If your doctor friend ignores emergencies on Friday/Monday then something's wrong. There's nothing wrong with a 4 day work week if the case load allows it. And since Sweden has healthier people maybe he really isn't busy. There's that damned socialism doing its thing again.

Nothing wrong with a 4-day work week when, as I mentioned, there is a shortage of doctors? If everyone works four days a week instead of 5, you need 25% more people to do the same amount of work. That is the core problem within welfare, the more people on it, the less people work, which will be a huge problem once the level of national income starts to fall. The only way to remedy that is by raising taxes, or, reducing welfare. The problem with raising taxes is that more and more people will get on welfare, again dropping the national income, then you have to raise even more taxes, until all the people who can be arsed to work have fleed your country in horror.

P.S. There are reasons to support big companies (the 3%), who by economic theory will often have economies of scale and be more effective. This does not mean protectionism, like saving those carmakers who haven't made a viable business plan since Jesus died for our sins. Political lobbyism of a few major companies' interests is a sad trait of politics, one I would like to be without.

Deji wrote:

Geebs wrote: Let's assume I'm about to withdraw the (expensive) drugs you need to stop your transplanted kidney from rejecting because the money's dried up. Would you just say "ok, well the total value of all of my future economic activity would be less than the cost of my future treatment, go ahead"?

If I had shot my kidneys on drugs or alcohol, I would have to kick myself in the head and deserve to die on principle. Medicine will always be about future expected value, as you cannot spend more than you make, this cannot be stressed enough. If the state budget can provide that sort of welfare, great, but the odds are it can't as the population gets older on average.

There's the original sin argument of American healthcare raising its ugly head again. Most people in that hypothetical position have medical problems through no fault of their own. What do you say then?

You can measure a society by how it treats the unfortunate.

In terms of healthcare for the elderly, the problem needs to be sorted through education and realistic assessments of the potential for quality of life, not individual future financial output.

Deji wrote: If I had shot my kidneys on drugs or alcohol, I would have to kick myself in the head and deserve to die on principle. Medicine will always be about future expected value, as you cannot spend more than you make, this cannot be stressed enough. If the state budget can provide that sort of welfare, great, but the odds are it can't as the population gets older on average.

I already mentioned several ways it could be paid for. All it takes is a willingness to stop giving billionaires billions more.

"We can't afford universal healthcare!"
"Why not stop throwing money at wars?"
"What? And let teh terrorists kill us? The government needs to protect us and provide for our well being!"
"Since the terrorist threat is nowhere near as serious as they claim it to be and you are quite safe, why not ignore the fearmongers and put that money into healthcare...as it's part of providing for your well being?"
"We can't afford universal healthcare!"

And on it goes....

And if you have such a black and white view about teh stupid getting healthcare then I feel sorry for you. And...I might as well point it out, now you're calling freeloaders dumb, instead of just lazy.

Deji wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote: So you're saying particle physicists became particle physicists because it pays better than working at McDonalds? You're saying cops become cops because of the retirement fund and free funeral? You're saying that the 5 year-old playing hockey on a frozen pond is thinking about the millions he'll make in likeness rights in EA's NHL 2023? And...as tnf would attest...teachers become teachers because of the millions of dollars teachers get paid each month.

Please. Do you actually think that everyone would still go to work if they could keep up their current living standards without it? Or even more to the point, work as much?

Of course they wouldn't. Lots of people wish they could have more free time. Work-related stress is a real issue and affects people's health. It's the reason why a 37 hour work week was introduced, overtime pay or days off in lieu is required and why so many studies show that overworking doesn't increase production....which I'm assuming really bothers you as far as "future expected value" goes.

The reason people go to work (and work so much) is because we're all playing catch up to the 3%...the ones who set the standard that we must follow. So yeah...people work long hours because they have to...inflation and all that. You're correct in saying it, but it doesn't prove your point.

Deji wrote:Nothing wrong with a 4-day work week when, as I mentioned, there is a shortage of doctors? If everyone works four days a week instead of 5, you need 25% more people to do the same amount of work. That is the core problem within welfare, the more people on it, the less people work, which will be a huge problem once the level of national income starts to fall. The only way to remedy that is by raising taxes, or, reducing welfare. The problem with raising taxes is that more and more people will get on welfare, again dropping the national income, then you have to raise even more taxes, until all the people who can be arsed to work have fleed your country in horror.

Sorry...I missed the "serious shortage of doctors" part.

It sounds to me like your doctor friend is in it for the wrong reasons and would rather monitor his tax rate and how many pennies he earns a day. Let's just say I'd never choose him as my family doctor.

Deji wrote:That is the core problem within welfare, the more people on it, the less people work, which will be a huge problem once the level of national income starts to fall. The only way to remedy that is by raising taxes, or, reducing welfare. The problem with raising taxes is that more and more people will get on welfare, again dropping the national income, then you have to raise even more taxes, until all the people who can be arsed to work have fleed your country in horror.

You are completely ignoring what I said about welfare being an intentionally low-paying stopgap that literally forces people to get jobs and are making insane assumptions about people's work ethic and reason for being. I can't make a counter-argument to this because it's as ridiculous as Glenn Beck denying he raped and killed in 1990...it's an argument that shouldn't take place. Seriously...you seem to have issues when it comes to your views of fellow human beings...you think we'd all be lazy slobs if we could.

For the record I'd still make games if I didn't have to.

lol...welfare makes people lazy, therefore lazy people collect welfare.

And...again...for like the billionth time...it's not about raising taxes and reducing welfare (which as I pointed out gets reduced constantly because it's one of those liberal, tree-huggin social programs). It's about rethinking where we spend and how we make those decisions. Instead of throwing billions at the now-defunct F22 program - which would only benefit a few people - some people in the US government actually thought the money could be better spent elsewhere and said "no". And this is just one example. Some countries are trying - and failing - to have a space program while ignoring basic social programs, but that doesn' stop them from wasting millions on developing a space program. Sure..it might be successful and it might be lucrative if it can become profitable and it might generate jobs.

But what about the social programs being neglected right now and people needing those social programs? That's alot of money being risked on a "not entirely safe" bet when that money could actually go to improving overall conditions, which helps the precious precious market grow. So - in the short term and long term lookouts - social programs are more than profitable.

And before you bitch about welfare, teh street-level morons who will try to jack it are getting peanuts compared to corporate welfare....while the rest of the people who use the system do it because they have to, only to have them curtailed to bail out some selfish billionaire.

Deji wrote:P.S. There are reasons to support big companies (the 3%), who by economic theory will often have economies of scale and be more effective.

lol. More of that "economic theory" that free market believers like to spew ad-nauseum. Too bad your theory has gone bust, in case you didn't notice. It goes bust every few years if it's not regulated by big, bad government and has been shown to be the shell game that it is. It's a fucked system that doesn't come anywhere near the description of stable and self-sustaining....let alone effective. It's effective when it's regulated to be effective, otherwise - like all conglomerates, it becomes wasteful...spending millions upon millions on bullshit. Even Alan Greenspan said he underestimated the market's ability to protect the equity of the shareholders.

But...that's a whole other discussion. This isn't about the market, this is about governments becoming slaves to market forces.

Deji wrote:You may find the answer by looking at any of the past few thousand years, how many aristocrats/ruling class actually worked when they didn't have to?

Uh...because they had slaves? And if the slaves didn't do what they were told they'd be killed and replaced with another slave? What's your point with this mess?

Deji wrote:It was more lucrative to fuck another man in the ass than work some 2500 years ago, IIRC.

lol...I have no idea how old you are but I'll just have to take your word for it.

Deji wrote:Political lobbyism of a few major companies' interests is a sad trait of politics, one I would like to be without.

That is where we completely agree and why I made this thread. I thought it'd be interesting to mention it considering the opportunity - and social statements - of the "we're comfortable now, how about doing something for my sick grandma that doesn't make her go broke?" tone I hear increasingly in western politics from the people.

[edit]Jesus fuck I shouldn't attempt so many paragraphs while stoned.

Geebs wrote:There's the original sin argument of American healthcare raising it's ugly head again. Most people in that hypothetical position have medical problems through no fault of their own. What do you say then?

You can measure a society by how it treats the unfortunate.

In terms of healthcare for the elderly, the problem needs to be sorted through education and realistic assessments of the potential for quality of life, not individual future financial output.

He's an economist, not a philosopher. People have no place in his calculations, only "production units". So you might be barking up the wrong tree.

The economics of the ageing population worry me, both as a doctor and as someone destined to be part of that population of geezers, so I was hoping that an economist might have some useful views

wow gfy knows sooooo much ey

ey u should run for prez or whatever!

luluz!

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.

GONNAFISTYA: It is starting to become clear that our arguments differ due to different backgrounds. 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. In my country, approximately 25% of this year's the budget consists of state pensions, as over here, there are no company sponsored pensions. The budget will need cuts both this year and the next, the pensions rose 5% this year (while almost everyone else's income dropped this year) and there has been talk of negating the rise in pensions, which has brought about a similar public discussion of reducing the absolute amount of welfare given out.

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.

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.

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.

where are you from?

Estonia. I've lived in a communist state, so I have a pretty good imagination of what socialism is like.

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