Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What I've seen the SJWs opposed to is the idea of investing, not so much the dollar figures that can result. The getting something for nothing is somehow not fair, or not equitable with not even a nod given to the losses, or potential for loss in investing.

My point is that they're wrong about it not being fair, because anybody who can squirrel away a fiver a week can be investing themselves within 10 weeks. Or a fiver a month for 10 months. That means that there are few who cannot be investors themselves, should they choose to educate themselves about it.

 

[Lorentz]

So which country(ies) are you calling nanny states and how does it matter in this discussion?

All references to nanny states are going to have similar issues, are they not? People claim regulations are excessive or unnecessary, while others see them as keeping people safe and keeping some from exploiting others.

I did assume you were talking about the US since the term, nanny state, has been used repeatedly by the right wing faction headed by Rand and Ron Paul. I didn't assume you were from the US but at least familiar with our current politics since you were using narratives the right wing is currently focused on here.

I'm talking about all Western countries in general. The country I'm specifically calling a "nanny state" is the Netherlands.

You are correct that I have some knowledge of US politics; I can't seem to stop watching it for some reason.

However I don't think that the "nanny state" term is that often linked to regulations. I certainly wouldn't use it that way, though some EU regulations on cheese manufacturing quite annoy me.

My impression in general - and certainly when I use it - is that "nanny state" refers to the social safety net. In the Netherlands there are so many overlapping laws to support the needy, that you need a lawyer to figure out what subsidies you may be entitled to (this problem has been acknowledged and free legal expertise is now being provided). Also in the Netherlands the situations aren't just myths, as they are in the US, where moving from being without a job to getting a full-time job above minimum wage, can reduce people's effective income, as they lose subsidies.

My least favourite nanny law is the so-called AWBZ, which supports people who are sick, with subsidies for part-time nursing, special vehicles, wheelchairs, special elevators and the like. I am not opposed to the law in principle, but I've seen some of the excesses it pays for and I find a total cost of 4% of GDP (sources available) for this particular law, way too high. Some of the waste lies in the way the criteria are defined, a large part of the waste comes from the lack of competition and overall high pricing of equipment, a small part comes from fraudulent applicants. Ehmmm I just realised nobody cares, so I'll save the rest of this rant.

 

[zooterkin]

I'd say that he missed out a crucial reason - the way that some feminists approach the subject is counter-productive.

Tone troll!

 

[Humes fork]

Yea, I heard 95% of investors loose money. I'm a bit on an investment wuss so I put my money in "safe" stuff, mutual funds, for the long term. Lost 30% in 2008 and I've only just recovered now. That's almost five years of making zero on my money. Pre 2008 I figured I could have lived frugally off the interest alone and had I decided to chuck the professional artist gig and join the investor class, I'd have been one sad panda.

What I've seen the SJWs opposed to is the idea of investing, not so much the dollar figures that can result. The getting something for nothing is somehow not fair, or not equitable with not even a nod given to the losses, or potential for loss in investing.

Do you mean that they sometimes lose money or that investment has to be a net loss of money for most investors?

The latter is absolutely not true. The world economy grows, and if you have a well-diversified portfolio it will grow with it, in the long term.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Do you mean that they sometimes lose money or that investment has to be a net loss of money for most investors?

The latter is absolutely not true. The world economy grows, and if you have a well-diversified portfolio it will grow with it, in the long term.

I'd say that the phrase "if you have a well-diversified portfolio" is quite a crucial bit there. Plus, also, there are many incorrect strategies that people are prone to use. For example, when a stock starts falling, you should sell it. When it's rising, you should keep it. However, instinct tells you that you should hold on to falling stock in case it recoups its losses, and that you should sell climbing stock, in case it stops climbing. These are the same erroneous strategies that many gamblers use.

Investing can be a good long-term way of making money, if you do your homework. Many people don't and therefore lose money.

FWIW, I got the statistic that 80% of people lose more money than they gain from an investment company.

 

[Humes fork]

I'd say that the phrase "if you have a well-diversified portfolio" is quite a crucial bit there. Plus, also, there are many incorrect strategies that people are prone to use. For example, when a stock starts falling, you should sell it. When it's rising, you should keep it. However, instinct tells you that you should hold on to falling stock in case it recoups its losses, and that you should sell climbing stock, in case it stops climbing. These are the same erroneous strategies that many gamblers use.

Investing can be a good long-term way of making money, if you do your homework. Many people don't and therefore lose money.

FWIW, I got the statistic that 80% of people lose more money than they gain from an investment company.

Well, I'm sure people who invest in tech firms hoping to stumble upon the next Google or Apple lose out.

As for when it's good to sell, I'd say it depends on your strategy. Someone pursuing a dividend strategy should probably sell very rarely. For someone who doesn't, sometimes it's a good idea to cash home.

 

[RandFan]

Pick an outcome measure and look at the actual data. Don't assume the narrative is true just because you've always believed it.

You are imagining that people without health care coverage die peacefully at home. No, the show up for the most expensive care in the ED, don't pay the bill they can't afford and the hospital adds the cost of it's bad (aka uncollected) debt to the bills of the paying customers. It's been discussed with supporting citations ad nauseum in this forum.

It's a knee jerk tactic around here when facts are inconvenient to say, "you didn't spoon feed me enough therefore I can dismiss your argument."

Dismiss away. I don't care.

Very good post. It was looking at the facts that led me away from a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism to one a more Keynesian, more monetarist, more willing to accept that we need a level of both govt control, social spending balanced with a need to keep businesses free of harmful regulations.

It's not always an easy task to find a good balance but if you look at the top nations in any index (GDP, HDI, economic freedom) you will find a mix of govt intervention, social spending balanced with freedom to invest, take risks, to promote business and entrepreneurship.

I will never simply be in favor of one narrow socio-economic system.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And it's a matter of opinion as to whether people should be allowed to die on the steps or not. Unless you have some objective criteria by which you're determining your answer?

The objective criteria is, it's against the law to turn people away from any ED, in the US anyway. And objectively it's cheaper to give people basic health care than to deny it and cover the costs via hospital bad debt passed on to paying clients.

If you value more expensive, less efficient health care for all, then maybe your argument on value preferences can be made.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

I will never simply be in favor of one narrow socio-economic system.

When you gonna change your name?


Thanks for the compliment, BTW.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm talking about all Western countries in general. The country I'm specifically calling a "nanny state" is the Netherlands.

You are correct that I have some knowledge of US politics; I can't seem to stop watching it for some reason.

However I don't think that the "nanny state" term is that often linked to regulations. I certainly wouldn't use it that way, though some EU regulations on cheese manufacturing quite annoy me.

My impression in general - and certainly when I use it - is that "nanny state" refers to the social safety net. In the Netherlands there are so many overlapping laws to support the needy, that you need a lawyer to figure out what subsidies you may be entitled to (this problem has been acknowledged and free legal expertise is now being provided). Also in the Netherlands the situations aren't just myths, as they are in the US, where moving from being without a job to getting a full-time job above minimum wage, can reduce people's effective income, as they lose subsidies.

My least favourite nanny law is the so-called AWBZ, which supports people who are sick, with subsidies for part-time nursing, special vehicles, wheelchairs, special elevators and the like. I am not opposed to the law in principle, but I've seen some of the excesses it pays for and I find a total cost of 4% of GDP (sources available) for this particular law, way too high. Some of the waste lies in the way the criteria are defined, a large part of the waste comes from the lack of competition and overall high pricing of equipment, a small part comes from fraudulent applicants. Ehmmm I just realised nobody cares, so I'll save the rest of this rant.

It's interesting anyway.

I'm pretty sure here, (and people can correct me if I'm wrong), nanny state refers to regulations that fix things the complainers believe the free market would fix on its own. That includes the belief that people on welfare don't want to work and taking care of them fosters dependence rather than independence, but it's a bit of a lot of misconceptions about those on welfare.

In this country, it's the corporations that suck up the most welfare. Take Walmart, for example, they pay low wages and avoid providing health care. So the state subsidizes the employer by giving workers food stamps and state medical aid. This inconvenient fact is invisible to the right wingers who believe people on welfare don't work.

That's just one example of many.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The objective criteria is, it's against the law to turn people away from any ED, in the US anyway.

That's not an objective criterion. It's a statement of what one law is in the US. It's entirely possible to debate whether that law should, in fact, be law. There's nothing objective about that law being in place.

 

[Lorentz]

It's not always an easy task to find a good balance but if you look at the top nations in any index (GDP, HDI, economic freedom) you will find a mix of govt intervention, social spending balanced with freedom to invest, take risks, to promote business and entrepreneurship.

I will never simply be in favor of one narrow socio-economic system.

I agree, but there's still a lot of room for disagreement which criterium counts more. Is it GDP (US tops that), HDI (Norway wins hands down), or yet other measurements that we should weigh most heavily?

I have two uncles who emigrated to the US around three to four decades ago. They're both wealthy. My father and aunt who stayed here had comparable success in their careers, but were never anywhere close to wealthy. Is that a valid perspective? I say it depends who you ask.

I know people who are unable to work for various reasons. They live pretty good lives here and, of course, have adequate health insurance. Is that more important?

When it comes to technological innovation, the Netherlands aren't doing badly, but the US does better. Is the incentive differential what drives that? The huge integrated monolingual market? I don't know. I know that Americans in general work more hours and are on average more driven to be successful (and justifiably more scared to fail). On the other hand, Dutch people probably have a healthier balance between career and family lives. Which do you value more?

In my native language there's an expression, to "live like God in France". I concur with the sentiment, but I don't necessarily want the world to have to suffer the French equivalent of the first iPad.

Me, I just want the food, the wine and the weather, while surfing on my iPad.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not an objective criterion. It's a statement of what one law is in the US. It's entirely possible to debate whether that law should, in fact, be law. There's nothing objective about that law being in place.

A discussion about the semantics of "objective criteria" is a total waste of time. I know what it means, you know what it means.

If you'd like to talk about the statement you made, I'll remind you what it was before you dodged in a sidetrack:

I think the point here is that whether, for example, there should be nationalised healthcare or not is a matter of opinion. I'm sure there's plenty of data which could say, for example, that national healthcare is the best way to ensure the largest percent of the population remains healthy, but whether that's more important than individuals being in charge of their own healthcare, including how much is spent on it or not is a matter of opinion.

It's not about whether individuals are in charge of their own health care unless you want to change the laws and let people die on the ED steps. Since that is not going to happen, in the real world, you have presented a false narrative that this is about individual responsibility.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A discussion about the semantics of "objective criteria" is a total waste of time. I know what it means, you know what it means.

I do indeed. That's why I'm using it correctly.

If you'd like to talk about the statement you made, I'll remind you what it was before you dodged in a sidetrack:

No sidetrack. I'm still discussing the same thing that I was.

It's not about whether individuals are in charge of their own health care unless you want to change the laws and let people die on the ED steps.

This is the second time within a few posts that you've made the mistake of assuming that someone you're talking to is limiting their conversation to modern day America. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that everybody is as parochial as you appear to be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do indeed. That's why I'm using it correctly.



No sidetrack. I'm still discussing the same thing that I was.



This is the second time within a few posts that you've made the mistake of assuming that someone you're talking to is limiting their conversation to modern day America. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that everybody is as parochial as you appear to be.

More dodging. The discussion I'm having applies to more countries than the US so the false assumption is yours.

I know it's hard to address a false narrative you believe. You continue to avoid discussing the issue,

I think the point here is that whether, for example, there should be nationalised healthcare or not is a matter of opinion. I'm sure there's plenty of data which could say, for example, that national healthcare is the best way to ensure the largest percent of the population remains healthy, but whether that's more important than individuals being in charge of their own healthcare, including how much is spent on it or not is a matter of opinion.

so have a nice day.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The discussion I'm having applies to more countries than the US so the false assumption is yours.

The only assumption is that when you said that something was impossible due to it being illegal in the US, that you were talking about the US. Either you were talking about the US, or you're claiming that US law applies outside of the US.

I know it's hard to address a false narrative you believe. You continue to avoid discussing the issue, so have a nice day.

I've been discussing what I said in that post you keep quoting. I have no idea what you think you're discussing, as it seems to change with every post.

 

[RandFan]

I agree, but there's still a lot of room for disagreement which criterium counts more. Is it GDP (US tops that), HDI (Norway wins hands down), or yet other measurements that we should weigh most heavily?

If we advance socially the way I think we do then at best we can discuss and debate and hopefully will find the best system for us and always work to improve it.

IMO: GDP is a very shallow index. It's important but doesn't really tell us much beyond a nations wealth. I would suggest considering all 3. I would take with a grain of salt the specific rankings. Remember that societies are subject to chaos and the dynamics of culture. If you, like most of us who belong to a social species care about the greatest good for the greatest amount of people then perhaps you will consider that by any index those in the top have social safety nets.

Some people think that's because they can afford it. Wrong. They can afford it because of the synergistic effect of given up some degree of personal fitness for the overall fitness of the group. By having social safety nets you improve the lives of most everyone to some degree.

What we need is a socioeconomic system that balances the needs of the individual with the needs of society.

 

[Lorentz]

If we advance socially

I think that's the key question.

 

[RandFan]

I think that's the key question.

Agreed. Would you consider substantive and long term increase in mortality rate evidence of social progress? How about the virtual eradication of many diseases? How about technology to aid the disabled? How about the reduction of violence?

I think one can argue either side but I think most of us given a choice to live in any century or any nation would prefer a post enlightenment modern liberal democracy. I don't know of many who would choose Somalia or 14th century Europe during the Black Plague.

That seems to me to be a good measurement. You could argue a sinking boat isn't a bad thing. But how many people to you think your argument would compel them to stay on one? That I think is the key answer to the key question. If you prefer a time or place where there is no free speech, no freedom of the press, no due process and where slavery, oppression of women, tyranny and child labor are common then you have every right to question weather or not we have advanced socially.

 

[Lorentz]

Agreed. Would you consider substantive and long term increase in mortality rate evidence of social progress? How about the virtual eradication of many diseases? How about technology to aid the disabled? How about the reduction of violence?

I'd call those evidence of technological progress.

I think one can argue either side but I think most of us given a choice to live in any century or any nation would prefer a post enlightenment modern liberal democracy. I don't know of many who would choose Somalia or 14th century Europe during the Black Plague.

Agreed, but in my opinion you're still talking technological progress there.

If you prefer a time or place where there is no free speech, no freedom of the press, no due process and where slavery, oppression of women, tyranny and child labor are common then you have every right to question weather or not we have advanced socially.

Here you are indeed addressing social progress. And if I compare the 21st century Western mores to those in the third world, or those of a few centuries past, I agree completely.

However this doesn't convince me that the progress is structural, as the technology is. I have little confidence that populations couldn't be easily whipped up into frenzies that allowed a third world war to happen. I don't see politicians using evidence over gut-feelings, polls and focus groups. Science and technology rest on solid knowledge that can be reproduced independently. Social mores and politics rely on diffuse hard to define cultural mechanisms and a good dose of demagogy.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not actually pessimistic about the possibility of keeping, or improving our social mores. I'm just not confident that societies won't backslide into outlooks that engender the equivalent of witch burnings, once again. The Dark Ages did follow the relatively enlightened Roman Empire.

I do not know what culture will be like a few dozen years in the future. I have no idea if it will be more enlightened or not. That is of course by my definition of "enlightenment". I don't count the A+ philosophies as "enlightened", but maybe some future generation would.