the faux-choice movement

[shanek]

So? Does that mean that you believe people should be allowed to invest in anything they would like for their retirement? You seem to be dancing around that issue.

What, if I don't completely restate a position I've given dozens of times before on this board when I give a simple refutation I'm dancing around the issue?

My position: It's YOUR money. YOU worked for it. YOU earned it. YOU keep it, save it, spend it, give it away as you see fit. Just don't come crying to anyone else if you squander it all away.

Charities are imperfect means of helping people, since people tend to give to the 'cause of the month',

That just isn't true. Check the stats provided by Giving USA.

 

[Tony]

What do you mean substantial now? What percentage of my income does the government have to take in order for me to be a classified as a slave? The implications are sort of interesting: we can only find slaves in the upper-income tax brackets? All the really, really rich people are slaves? Or is the magic number 50%? I've written about this stuff elsewhere on these forums.

This is a gross misunderstanding, Im not interested in "rich" people. Im talking ALL people, but particually myself. ANY percentage taken is unacceptable.

I now vividly remember recounting the position of a Canadian philosopher, a communitarian, who you dismissed, again characteristically without argument or reason.

I dismiss all fascism and tyranny, that's reason enough.

What makes a person a tax slave?

The fact that they are forced to work against their will for someone else's benefit. What's wrong with giving people te choice to pay income taxes? Or is that idea too much in the spirit of freedom?

 

[Cain]

Your empty appeals to undefined notions of freedom are growing tiresome.

This is a gross misunderstanding, Im not interested in "rich" people. Im talking ALL people, but particually myself. ANY percentage taken is unacceptable.

Which is what I thought. Yet, you asked me if a "substanstial" amount of my money was stolen. Of course, "substantial" varies from person to person. To a rich person a sum of X dollars can be peanuts; the same amount to a relatively poor person could mean everything.

I dismiss all fascism and tyranny, that's reason enough.

*golf clap*

The fact that they are forced to work against their will for someone else's benefit.

Oh really? I'm forced to work for the government in this country? Geez, I thought I was nothing but an expense until the age of 18, where the state paid for my police protection and education (I got a relatively sweet deal being white as well). I'm always free to move, leave, zip it on outta here. How is that relevant? Well, because free-market @ssholes say the same exact thing in the private sphere. You don't like making someone else rich in a company? Go find another job. You don't like it there? Start your business and have others make you rich.

Suppose I work for a company, and counting all non-labor expenses, I produce $100 (we'll dismiss those nasty real world complications like the marginal product of labor for a moment). I generated 100 dollars of wealth. The company wants to take 90% of it and give me 10 dollars. This is decided, of course, by market forces; supply and demand of labor. Am I a wage slave? The company is taking 90% of what I created?* Well, no, self-righteous defenders of hierarchy and authoritarian control (e.g. you, Tony) argue that NO wealth would have been created with the entrepenurship of the owners. Unfortunately, the same exact argument can be applied to government, unless you're an anarcho-capitalist. May I suggest you read the first chapter of _Free to Choose_. See specifically the truncated quote from J.S. Mill.

What's wrong with giving people te choice to pay income taxes? Or is that idea too much in the spirit of freedom?

What freedom! What about giving the people themselves the ability to exercise decisions and control over their work environment. You know, fashioning the institutions that affect their lives?

People pay all kinds of taxes beyond income taxes. I'm not sure why that one is always singled out. In fact, most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Why not make it voluntary? Have you heard of the free-rider problem? Even Milton Friedman would argue for a compulsory tax to pay for extremely limited state functions. Ah, but by your inane calculations, all taxes are probably equally unacceptable. Just as how water saving toilet bowls are the _equally as bad_ as government installed cameras in private bathrooms.



*I fully realize some of this money gets reinvested. It's intended only as a simplistic, straightforward comparison.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

That's just bull$#!7. In fact, voluntary retirement savings are on the rise because more and more people are realizing that they can't rely on Social Security.

Incorrect, what people are realizing is Social Security is under-funded.

Human nature has absolutely nothing to do with how much money you have.

The claim that it has "absolutely nothing to do" is so obviously false I don't need to even bother.

On a very specific level, it may have less to do then certain environmental factors of course.

But we aren't talking about how much money a specific person has, but how much people in general will spend.

No, it isn't. That may be YOUR nature, but don't transfer your character flaws to the rest of humanity.

These aren't my words, they are Steven Pinker's in "The Blank Slate". This is also basic evolutionary psychology.

More bull$#!7. Money only came about in the last few thousand years, not anywhere near long enough to have any kind of effect on how we evolved.

Irrelevant, as the claim does not apply to merely money in paticular but rescources in general. Your reply suggests that you do not really understand the claims being presented.

Nobody is saying we as a species developed a "spend money" instinct, but more of a general "use rescurces" and "compete for prestidge" instinct.

Because the resources could not be stored. Now, thanks to money, they can. And people do exactly that. That's the whole reason we came up with the idea of money in the first place!

Yes with money you can save up rescources and store them, but is that what people really do?

Or do many, perhaps even most, spend more then they have via credit?

Between what a person can do shanek, and what a person will do, there is a world of difference. Not being able to recognize this, is what has lead to disasterous utopian systems of the past.

Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing here...Where the *&^% is the accountability in government?

I'm not sure where I have to even answer this.

The government faces voters, checks and balances, courts.

Also officials in the government usually dedicate a good portion of their lives to a rather difficult job (and disbelieve if you want shanek, being a high ranking governor is difficult) in order to serve the public as they see fit.

Such people are thus more reliable and more accountable then corporations or private enetrprises, who are not legally permitted in many cases to do anything besides the action which gets them more profit. (I have heard that corporations being bound to stock holders cannot legally do what is intentionally unprofitable).


They are accountable to nobody but themselves, their profits, and unpredictable market forces.


This system, even if people were responsible, and the companies well intentioned is relatively unstable.

It could lead to the sick and elderly without care, and kids without a school. People in other words, who will simply need the government to take care of them anyways.

And how are charities solely focused on profit?

Total red herring. This also masks the fact that there are charities which turn out to be little more then scams. Peter Popoff for example gave a mere 1% of donated charities to poor children.


In any event , Medical Companies, Social Securities and Private Schools are hardly charities.

Fattening foods do not kill us.

700,000 people die of heart disease in the US each year.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

No, there are definite reasons why people self-medicate, none of which are reasons you have given.

Smoking cigarettes, shooting heroin, abusing prescription, and abusing alchohol is hardly self-medicating.

And people do the above, first due to cursiousity, social pressure, and because it "feels good". Second because they are addicted.

Affairs are symptoms of other problems, again none of which are mentioned in your post.

Yeah, the problem is lust i.e. human nature. What else?

This is just an ad hominem attack, plain and simple. Charities do a wonderful amount of work getting money and resources to the people who need them, and people gladly and cheeringly support them.

You do NOT know what you are talking about. [/B]

Incorrect. The problem with your reply is three-fold.

First off, it's not all private charities that do an excellent job. It is some private charities that do an excellent job.


One study suggests in fact that in california, only 37 cents a dollar paid out to charity actually went out to charity.

http://www.fraud.org/news/old/122397.htm

Another charity group falsely posed as police officers:

http://www.fraud.org/news/1998/mar98/032698.htm

According to the Better Business Bereau, things are even more grim, to quote:

In most instances the amount going to charity is usually less than 10% of the purchase price, according to the Alliance.

http://www.give.org/news/cause.asp


Thus private charities are hardly the bastions of innocence and efficiency Shanek would wish.

And even if they were they would still be relatively unstable via market forces. The current recession should be a shinning example of what can go wrong.


Secondly, the very mention on charities is also irrelevant. As we are not talking about charities but consumers spending their money wisely, as well as private social security, schooling and medical companies (which are usually not charity organizations.)

Even if charities were all honest and efficient, it wouldn't matter. Because we are not talking merely about charities.

Lastly, I fail to see how any of this proves I made an ad hominem. "Charities are nice, so you made an ad hominem". That doesn't even follow Shenek.

My argument had nothing to do with charities. It was that the idea of giving people their own social security, medical and education money to invest themselves presumes that people are rational enough to consider the long-term.

People are not. So it will fail.




I think its time for you to face facts.

The fact is according to you (and your libertarianism Shanek) having more privatized medicare and welfare should lead to more availability. The Pew Research Center however reports that countries with more government programs in these areas actually have more availability:


http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=75

For example, in the 15% report inability to attain sufficient food. Whereas the numbers are only 11% in Britain and 8% in France.

In terms of healthcare, 26% of US citizens report that they get inadequate healthcare. Compare this with the 13% in Canada, 11% in Britain and 5% in France.

Clearly then there is no link between increased privatization and availability. Quite the opposite seems to be the case.


In terms of happiness, according to Shanek more capitalist nations like the US should be the happiest. But scientific america actually shows that the happiest nations are actually the social democracies of northern europe and Sweden.

http://rationallyspeaking.org/


This is rather amazing, seeing as the people in such areas make a mere 25k GDP per capita, compared the the US's massive 36k.


Hence it seems living in a more capitalistic country helps less then living in a more mixed economy.

 

[shanek]

Incorrect, what people are realizing is Social Security is under-funded.

Underfunded??? Are you high??? 15% of your income is underfunded??? HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS is underfunded??? Just how much does Social Security need???

The claim that it has "absolutely nothing to do" is so obviously false I don't need to even bother.

Translation: I have no rebuttal for this so I'll just pretend my position is obviously true.

[more evasiveness and argument from authority deleted]

Irrelevant, as the claim does not apply to merely money in paticular but rescources in general.

Money is the store of resources, something we weren't able to do before. The WHOLE ENTIRE REASON we have money is to have this store!

Your reply suggests that you do not really understand the claims being presented.

Translation: I have no refutation, so I'll just insult my opponent and hope no one notices.

Yes with money you can save up rescources and store them, but is that what people really do?

Yes. Fully 25% of GDP is savings.

Or do many, perhaps even most, spend more then they have via credit?

It is absolutely impossible for you to get a certain amount of credit without someone else first having put that amount in savings. That's how it works.

Between what a person can do shanek, and what a person will do, there is a world of difference. Not being able to recognize this, is what has lead to disasterous utopian systems of the past.

Blah blah blah. Nice weasel words with no support whatsoever.

I'm not sure where I have to even answer this.

The government faces voters, checks and balances, courts.

None of which apply to the departments. They only apply to Congress, and even then, they are very limited in what Congress is actually held accountable for. Voting basically just gives us a "choice" between one dishonest villain and another equally dishonest villain.

Such people are thus more reliable and more accountable then corporations or private enetrprises,

You're just living in a dream world. Compare the corruption of government officials to private sector corruption and you'll find that the government corruption wins out every time, by a dramatic amount.

They are accountable to nobody but themselves, their profits, and unpredictable market forces.

Those "unpredictable market forces" can be very effective for this, which you would know if you understood basic macroeconomics (there's a whole thread on this; go read it). These forces aren't as unpredictable as you make them out to be.

It could lead to the sick and elderly without care, and kids without a school. People in other words, who will simply need the government to take care of them anyways.

Then why wasn't it that way before government intervention? Why has the free market improved their lot while government has only held them back? That's what history has shown, clearly and distinctly.

Total red herring.

No, it's not. You set up a false dichotomy. I shot it down. Stop whining.

This also masks the fact that there are charities which turn out to be little more then scams.

No, it doesn't; the vast amount of charities are 100% on the level. Whereas pretty much everything the government does is a scam.

In any event , Medical Companies, Social Securities and Private Schools are hardly charities.

When did I say they were? This is a strawman.

700,000 people die of heart disease in the US each year.

Yes, TOO MUCH fattening foods will kill you. And TOO MUCH salt will kill you. You know what? Too much WATER will kill you. Saying "fattening foods kill people" is just plain dishonest.

Smoking cigarettes, shooting heroin, abusing prescription, and abusing alchohol is hardly self-medicating.

No, that is precisely what it is, and if you'd read the psychological data behind drug use and abuse you would see that.

Yeah, the problem is lust i.e. human nature. What else?

Lust can be satisfied in a relationship. It's always other factors that lead to infidelity. Once again, you show you have no clue what you're talking about, and your viewpoint is so far removed from reality as to be laughable.

First off, it's not all private charities that do an excellent job. It is some private charities that do an excellent job.

The vast, overwhelming majority of them do an excellent job.

[irrelevant anecdotes deleted]

And even if they were they would still be relatively unstable via market forces. The current recession should be a shinning example of what can go wrong.

Except that, again referencing Giving USA, charitable donations as a percentage of income go up during recessions. Also, charities save up donations during high periods to get them through economic downturns.

Secondly, the very mention on charities is also irrelevant.

A very good method of taking care of the people you claim would be callously left to die is NOT irrelevant, although it's obvious you wish it to be so.

Lastly, I fail to see how any of this proves I made an ad hominem.

You accused people who want to get rid of security as being callous and wanting seniors to die of starvation in the streets. That is an ad hominem. It's also an argument from adverse consequences.

My argument had nothing to do with charities.

Your argument IGNORED charities and how effective they can be, and how they are a more than reasonable solution for the problem you mentioned.

[irrelevant potshots, and irrelevant sources that do nothing to further the argument deleted]

This is rather amazing, seeing as the people in such areas make a mere 25k GDP per capita, compared the the US's massive 36k.

The idea of people "making" a "GDP per capita" is a meaningless figure. It's pseudiscience, made to sound like something economical, but from an economic standpoint, it's just gibberish.

Here's a thread from awhile back that is just chock full of data as to why you are wrong, wrong, WRONG:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27305

 

[jj]

Incorrect, what people are realizing is Social Security is under-funded.

Pyramid schemes are, by definintion, "underfunded". What people are learning is that Social Serickety IS a pyramid scheme, and it ought to be aborted as soon as possible, and the confiscated monies returned. Probably as annuities, that will cost less.

But we aren't talking about how much money a specific person has, but how much people in general will spend.

I'll agree everyone ought to eat. One of the biggest failings of many great ideas it that it fails to feed the unwise, incapable, and accidentally injured. (I don't necessarily mean physical injury there, I mean anything that affects having a livelihood.)

Between what a person can do shanek, and what a person will do, there is a world of difference. Not being able to recognize this, is what has lead to disasterous utopian systems of the past.

Quite so. A failure to be able to clearly understand how to fund programs has also led to many a disasterous failure of utopian systems of the past. There are more than enough failures to go around, I think.

Such people are thus more reliable and more accountable then corporations or private enetrprises, who are not legally permitted in many cases to do anything besides the action which gets them more profit. (I have heard that corporations being bound to stock holders cannot legally do what is intentionally unprofitable).

If stockholders can be convinced, it is possible to take a strategic move that may affect short-term outcomes. On the other hand, the present authorities (that would be, to a considerable extent, those you place trust in) are opposed to anything but short-term thinking.

They are accountable to nobody but themselves, their profits, and unpredictable market forces.

That's just about like a president with a big army, eh? Except that the government doesn't even need to "make profits".

This system, even if people were responsible, and the companies well intentioned is relatively unstable.

Just like governments and governmental programs like Social Sericety and such pyramid schemes. You're not suggesting that something like a pyramid scheme is "stable", are you?

It's not so much that I doubt your estimation of corporate behavior IN GENERAL as I doubt your seeming faith in governments.

It could lead to the sick and elderly without care, and kids without a school. People in other words, who will simply need the government to take care of them anyways.

"could lead"? Yes, so could the government passing a prescription program for the eldery that forbids additional "medigap" insurance on the prescription benefits. That could easily lead to people dying because they can't afford their medicine when they run out of government benefits. Oh, wait, we just PASSED THAT LAW!

Methinks that you'er half right. That could happen with corporations in control. It DOES happen with the present government in control.

This doesn't endear your faith in governments to me very well.
First off, it's not all private charities that do an excellent job. It is some private charities that do an excellent job.

Agreed, would that they were all like the Shriner's medical centers.

There are fraudulent charities. There are fraudulent companies. There are also fraudulent government programs, you know, those pyramid schemes?

Your point? When people are involved, there will (sadly) be fraudulent anythings. Governments are hardly excluded. They are no better or worse than corporations or charities.

Why not let the government do what it normally does do best, that is to ride herd on the frauds, not run them. Then, we don't have the fox watching the henhouse any more.

My argument had nothing to do with charities. It was that the idea of giving people their own social security, medical and education money to invest themselves presumes that people are rational enough to consider the long-term.

People are not. So it will fail.

And, you say, government can prevent this? How? The money in government hands isn't even invested!

...

Now, I'm not a libertarian, and you know that by now, I'd hope, but Shanek has a point regarding coercion, and we have a "case in point" with the pyramid scheme called "social security", as well. It's not that we can implicitly trust corporations (we can't) or charities (we can't), or governments (we can't), it's that we can't implicitly trust anyone.

And it's a lot harder to withdraw my money from social security than it is from a particular fund, now, isn't it?

 

[jj]

Underfunded??? Are you high??? 15% of your income is underfunded??? HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS is underfunded??? Just how much does Social Security need???


Aww, come one, Shanek, all pyramid schemes are "underfunded". You know that!

None of which apply to the departments. They only apply to Congress, and even then, they are very limited in what Congress is actually held accountable for. Voting basically just gives us a "choice" between one dishonest villain and another equally dishonest villain.

Oh, the truth of that!

Why has the free market improved their lot while government has only held them back?

You said something about villains?

That's what history has shown, clearly and distinctly.

And then, we have the old-timey Rockefellers, Butterworths, Vails, and so on, who used the free market to stand on everyone's back. The free market is no better than the unbridled government. The only thing that might be worse is the government by unbridled free marketeers, oh, like we sorta have now, eh? (but only sorta, yes, I know that)

No, it doesn't; the vast amount of charities are 100% on the level. Whereas pretty much everything the government does is a scam.

I dare say I hear from more scam charities than I hear from real ones. That is, of course, because the scams are (and have to be)more vocal, and also easier to shoot down.

But I don't think 'vast amount' is a fair statement. Still, I approve highly of honest, effective private charities. I support them, too. [/B]

Hey, guys, I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'll bet you're both surprised.

JJ

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Underfunded??? Are you high??? 15% of your income is underfunded??? HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS is underfunded??? Just how much does Social Security need???

Shanek that is completely false, federal income for example amounts to a mere 9.7 of the nation's overall GDP, so how could 15% of the economy be devoted to social security?

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html

Individual income taxes will raise an estimated $972 billion in 2001, equal to about 9.7 percent of GDP.

Of this social programs make up a mere 7%. Of which social security is only a part of.

Social insurance payroll taxes include Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and Federal employee retirement payments. This category has grown from two percent of GDP in 1955 to an estimated 6.8 percent in 2001.

Do you have any evidence that having it privatized would make it cheaper?


http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html

Yes. Fully 25% of GDP is savings.

Prove it.

It is absolutely impossible for you to get a certain amount of credit without someone else first having put that amount in savings. That's how it works.

Oh yes, that's why so few american's have debt problems.......

None of which apply to the departments. They only apply to Congress, and even then, they are very limited in what Congress is actually held accountable for. Voting basically just gives us a "choice" between one dishonest villain and another equally dishonest villain.

Mayors are voted in, and governors can get in trouble with the courts at any time for abusing public funds.

You're just living in a dream world. Compare the corruption of government officials to private sector corruption and you'll find that the government corruption wins out every time, by a dramatic amount.

I'd like you to find an established, generally recognized source that proves that. So far Shanek all you do is make a lot of grand claims, but provide very little evidence. Do you perhaps expect me to take your word for the above?

Those "unpredictable market forces" can be very effective for this, which you would know if you understood basic macroeconomics (there's a whole thread on this; go read it). These forces aren't as unpredictable as you make them out to be.

Now that is pseudoscience my friend. In any event what about the current recession, which would have greatly cut down on "private social security" funds?

Then why wasn't it that way before government intervention? Why has the free market improved their lot while government has only held them back? That's what history has shown, clearly and distinctly.

Has it? Comparative studies of the US to Japan, Northern Europe and the UK seem to say different.....

No, it doesn't; the vast amount of charities are 100% on the level. Whereas pretty much everything the government does is a scam.

Shanek I brought in research from established sources like the Better Business Buereau saying otherwise.

If you disagree that's fine, but if I'm supposed to take your point as anything besides an argument from incredulity you need some sort of refutation. Since after I present my proof, the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, TOO MUCH fattening foods will kill you. And TOO MUCH salt will kill you. You know what? Too much WATER will kill you. Saying "fattening foods kill people" is just plain dishonest.

Shanek your take on my words is dishonest. Of course I didn't mean by that eating 1 cheeseburger will kill you, I meant american's consume an unhealthy amount of fattening foods. Any intellectually honest person would recognize this via the principle of charity. It's about contex Shanek-context.


But needless to say, how many americans do you hear dying from consuming too much water, or of salt poisoning? Is it 700k a year? Is it even close?


I'm not arguing that american's can do it, but american's do. And if you knew a thing about evolutionary psychology, you would know why.

Lust can be satisfied in a relationship. It's always other factors that lead to infidelity. Once again, you show you have no clue what you're talking about, and your viewpoint is so far removed from reality as to be laughable.

No, actually if you had read up on game theory, and evolutionary psychology, you'd see that cheating is a cultural universal, common to not only humans but birds as well.

And at a proximate level the guiding factor is lust. Monogamous relationships cannot always satisfy this for a number of reasons. One being the spouse isn't always around. Another being people like variety for its own sake.

This is because in the past there were many advantages that came from cheating. For men, having more kids raised by another man. For women, it involved getting more rescources.

Except that, again referencing Giving USA, charitable donations as a percentage of income go up during recessions. Also, charities save up donations during high periods to get them through economic downturns.

Again I'd like for you to actually prove your claim, not just state it and expect us to take it on faith.

You accused people who want to get rid of security as being callous and wanting seniors to die of starvation in the streets. That is an ad hominem. It's also an argument from adverse consequences.

Did I say they want this, or that this will be a result? Stop trying to twist my words Shanek.

I also said just letting people die would be callous, not that those who advocate privatization are callous.

Your argument IGNORED charities and how effective they can be, and how they are a more than reasonable solution for the problem you mentioned.

Because they are irrelevant, unless that is you can prove that private education, social security, and healthcare would be all charities....

The idea of people "making" a "GDP per capita" is a meaningless figure. It's pseudiscience, made to sound like something economical, but from an economic standpoint, it's just gibberish.

Yes, that's why the CIA uses it to measure wealth, as do economists: because its gibberish.


Whatever Shanek, I never even said it was a "science" so your accusation of pseudoscience is totally meaningless.

Also, you have not proven that GDP is irrelevant, again you have merely said it expecting me to take your words on faith. I don't.



Here's a thread from awhile back that is just chock full of data as to why you are wrong, wrong, WRONG:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27305 [/B][/QUOTE]


*chuckles*


Ok shanek, you reject my sources which are scientists, government instutions and mainstream companies, but then expect me to believe the heritage foundation?

A right-wing think tank?

To quote their site:

Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

http://www.heritage.org/about/

Let me ask you, would you believe a left-wing think tank who's mission since 1973 was to promote socialism and marxist values?


Do I even need to go into how the heritage foundation denies global warming:


http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm


Denies separation of church and state:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed122701c.cfm


Shanek, I would like some source that is at least not committed to some sort of far right or left ideological agenda. This by its very nature excludes both left and right wing think tanks. Thank you.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Incorrect, what people are realizing is Social Security is under-funded.

Pyramid schemes are, by definintion, "underfunded". What people are learning is that Social Serickety IS a pyramid scheme, and it ought to be aborted as soon as possible, and the confiscated monies returned. Probably as annuities, that will cost less.

Do you have any evidence that social security is a pyramid scheme? And if it is, why isn't it falling apart in other, more socialistic nations?

That's just about like a president with a big army, eh? Except that the government doesn't even need to "make profits".

Yes, but he is not legally bound to think short-term either. And he can also be arrested for using too much funds for personal gain. Also there is a great deal of stability that comes from socialization.

It's not so much that I doubt your estimation of corporate behavior IN GENERAL as I doubt your seeming faith in governments.

I do not have any faith in government. I for example am very much against socialism and too much taxation, as private enterprise has shown itself superior in many ways.


I am however aknowledging that some things are better left to government. Things like social security, and health care. And this is not a matter of faith, but a position stemming from what I know of human nature, market mechanisms and comparative studies between nations.

"could lead"? Yes, so could the government passing a prescription program for the eldery that forbids additional "medigap" insurance on the prescription benefits. That could easily lead to people dying because they can't afford their medicine when they run out of government benefits. Oh, wait, we just PASSED THAT LAW!

Yes government programs can and do lead lead to such things, but not merely as servely.

This is because people don't have a choice but to save money for insurance and retirement when it comes to government. And this is because benefits become more equal.

You can't spend what you don't have, which insures it is safely put away. And the rich never have to worry about retirment, which is why a pot including the rich is so nice.

Methinks that you'er half right. That could happen with corporations in control. It DOES happen with the present government in control.

Methinks you lack the evidence for your convictions. Prove to me that countries with less government have better social security and I might be inclined to agree.

There are fraudulent charities. There are fraudulent companies. There are also fraudulent government programs, you know, those pyramid schemes?

Again, can you prove that government programs like social security are full of fraudulent spending?

Governments are hardly excluded. They are no better or worse than corporations or charities.

Yes but with government programs you have centralization (i.e. organization) and checks, like re-elections and court investigations.

Government, unlikes companies, does not go out of business during a recession.

Why not let the government do what it normally does do best, that is to ride herd on the frauds, not run them. Then, we don't have the fox watching the henhouse any more.

Because the cost of suffering frauds is not worth the benefits of privatizing the industry.

And, you say, government can prevent this? How? The money in government hands isn't even invested!

The same way government prevents a lot of nasty consequences which would otherwise arise from human nature let lose, things like pollution, ignorance, fraud, murder, rape and extreme drug abuse: by use of organized power, which bring lots of stability and democratic checks along with it.

Like I said corporations can go out of business while the government does not.

And corporations as well as companies are meant to do one thing above all others: seek profit. Government is set up to serve the public.

These legal differences make for very different consequences. This is why they function very differently in different areas.

This is why for example I want the government running the military, police, national parks and fire departments; not companies. And this is why I want the government regulating and providing other essentials like social security, education and welfare.

This is because while fragmentation and competition is good for productivity, it is inherently unstable and bad for availability. Companies also think more short-term then government, since that is also a consequence of competition.

Now, I'm not a libertarian, and you know that by now, I'd hope, but Shanek has a point regarding coercion, and we have a "case in point" with the pyramid scheme called "social security", as well. It's not that we can implicitly trust corporations (we can't) or charities (we can't), or governments (we can't), it's that we can't implicitly trust anyone.

Well I strangely enough do trust my government, and for the most part I even trust major corporations. That is because there are checks on them.


But I also see that certain institutions function in different ways, depending on how they are set up.

Big centralized government predictably are less efficient, flexible, and productive, but more stable, accountable and available. With private companies things tend to be reversed.


Trying to reverse their roles then is a recipe for disaster, with things like social darwinian ghettos and socialist stagnation being the result.

I'm not saying Bush's programs will actually lead to a 19th century disaster, but I do think his policy to not "leave well enough alone" will do more harm then good.

And it's a lot harder to withdraw my money from social security than it is from a particular fund, now, isn't it?

Yes you can withdraw money from a private company, and that's precisely the problem.

Again my main argument is that if you give people the money to save, a lot of them will instead just spend it. That is where the strength of government comes in. Government puts it in a place you can't touch it for your own good.



I mean how long will it be there before your inner demons shout down your better angels and a you withdraw some money for:

-Alchohol and other drugs

-A nicer house

-A ceremony/special event like a wedding or TAM.

-Perhaps a new car

-Some nice TV

-Because you ran up your credit card a bit too much that month.

-To buy the latest fashion.



Or waste it because you are too lazy (or ignorant or busy) to research?


How many people will waste it on drugs? How many schmucks to stay in fashion? How many will put it in the stock market on risky deals then lose it?

And how many will come back crying to the government anyways?



I may not completely trust the government, but I trust human nature a lot less.

 

[jj]

Do you have any evidence that social security is a pyramid scheme? And if it is, why isn't it falling apart in other, more socialistic nations?


Ok, now I know you're just trolling. What the USA has done with its social security funds is well known, and it's a classic Ponzi scheme. If you really AREN'T aware of that, you REALLY need to learn something about your subject before you go on about it.


I do not have any faith in government. I for example am very much against socialism and too much taxation, as private enterprise has shown itself superior in many ways.


Except in dealing with greed, the downfall of both.
Well, greed and the desire for power.
Well, no, wait! Greed, the desire for power, and the need to speed...

No, Well, Wait! No....
Methinks you lack the evidence for your convictions. Prove to me that countries with less government have better social security and I might be inclined to agree.

Why don't you address something I claimed, instead of making up some kind of straw man for me to caw at?


Again, can you prove that government programs like social security are full of fraudulent spending?


Don't have to. I didn't say they were. You're trying to change horses in mid-torrent. Amusingly enough, it has been proven, just read the statistics. Even your straw man fails here.

Government, unlikes companies, does not go out of business during a recession.

I wonder what some of our South American friends have to say about that. Is the State of Amazonias paying its bills yet?

for example I want the government running the military, police, national parks and fire departments; not companies.

Ok, now you've addressed the tragedy of the commons. I'll go that far, but no farther.
Big centralized government predictably are less efficient, flexible, and productive, but more stable, accountable and available. With private companies things tend to be reversed.

Government is accountable? Puhleeze.

I'm not saying Bush's programs will actually lead to a 19th century disaster, but I do think his policy to not "leave well enough alone" will do more harm then good.


Yes, I agree, but that's neither here no there.

I mean how long will it be there before your inner demons shout down your better angels and a you withdraw some money for:

-Alchohol and other drugs

-A nicer house

-A ceremony/special event like a wedding or TAM.

-Perhaps a new car

-Some nice TV

-Because you ran up your credit card a bit too much that month.

-To buy the latest fashion.


Are you for real? I can't speak for others, but my record is clear. Perhaps it's just my Scottish blood, I dunno.

And how many will come back crying to the government anyways?

I may not completely trust the government, but I trust human nature a lot less.

Since the government is made up of humans who can't be held accountable ...

 

[shanek]

Shanek that is completely false,

No, it isn't.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin...DE9NyZwX2NhdF9sdmwyPX5hbnl_JnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=

Like everything else you've said, you are WRONG.

so how could 15% of the economy be devoted to social security?

I said 15% of income. And you know it, too. This is just evasion because you don't want to answer my question.

Of this social programs make up a mere 7%. Of which social security is only a part of.

No, Social Security is a completely separate budget item. You don't even know the basic information behind how Social Security works!

Do you have any evidence that having it privatized would make it cheaper?

Already presented, with the Galveston County data.

Prove it.

Oh, for crying out loud, check ANY source reporting economic statistics!!! You'll see that savings is fully 25% of GDP, whereas government purchases are only 20% (most of which crowds out savings anyway).

Oh yes, that's why so few american's have debt problems.......

You have completely and deliberately ignored the point, which DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your claims...as is no surprise. You know NOTHING about this stuff and all of your claims are WRONG.

I'd like you to find an established, generally recognized source that proves that.

More argument from authority. No matter what I come up with (including several that I've referred to in the threads I referenced) you'll just belittle the source.

So far Shanek all you do is make a lot of grand claims, but provide very little evidence.

I have provided LOTS of evidence! You simply want to ignore it.

Now that is pseudoscience my friend. In any event what about the current recession, which would have greatly cut down on "private social security" funds?

Except that it hasn't. Here's an example of how a diversified portfolio has fared throughout the last 30 years. Note the rise at the very end, which is at December 2003, despite years of recession:

In fact, the only year that it lost since 1995 was in 2001, where it lost 1%. In every other year, it gained at minimum 2.7%, and gained over 11% in 2003. Social Security only gives you about 2%.

Again, you are just plain WRONG.

Has it? Comparative studies of the US to Japan, Northern Europe and the UK seem to say different.....

There are such comparisons in the thread I referenced. But you, apparently, don't want to see it.

Shanek I brought in research from established sources

Argument from authority again.

Shanek your take on my words is dishonest. Of course I didn't mean by that eating 1 cheeseburger will kill you, I meant american's consume an unhealthy amount of fattening foods.

That wasn't what you SAID. And this revision nixes your original point and renders it invalid.

[more ad hominems deleted]

Again I'd like for you to actually prove your claim, not just state it and expect us to take it on faith.

I have submitted evidence. You have just closed your mind to it. Check out Giving USA and you will clearly see that what I have told you is true.

Did I say they want this, or that this will be a result? Stop trying to twist my words Shanek.

I'm not. You said it. Stop weaseling.

I also said just letting people die would be callous, not that those who advocate privatization are callous.

But that privatization would mean, according to you, just letting people die. Stop weaseling and take responsibility for what you wrote.

Because they are irrelevant,

No, they aren't. You just want them to be.

unless that is you can prove that private education, social security, and healthcare would be all charities....

I need not do that because I do not claim that they are. There are, however, educational and health care institutions that are charities who provide these services to the needy. You're arguing for an unreasonable strawman because you can't accept reality.

Yes, that's why the CIA uses it to measure wealth, as do economists: because its gibberish.

Here's a hint: The "per capita GDP" is ONE FIGURE. It's not one figure for one person and a different figure for a different person. It's ONE FIGURE. Take the total GDP, divide it by the number of people, and you get per capita GDP. YOU ARE MISUSING THE DATA.

Also, you have not proven that GDP is irrelevant,

I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said that you were misusing it. And you are.

*chuckles*

Ok shanek, you reject my sources which are scientists, government instutions and mainstream companies, but then expect me to believe the heritage foundation?

A right-wing think tank? [/b]

Argument from authority AND ad hominem. And BTW, the Cato Institute isn't right-wing. Not even close.

Argue the DATA.

 

[Tony]

Which is what I thought. Yet, you asked me if a "substanstial" amount of my money was stolen. Of course, "substantial" varies from person to person. To a rich person a sum of X dollars can be peanuts; the same amount to a relatively poor person could mean everything.

Blah, blah, blah. Typical, instead of answering the question, you cloud the issue with bullsh!t.

Oh really? I'm forced to work for the government in this country? Geez, I thought I was nothing but an expense until the age of 18, where the state paid for my police protection and education. quote]

Do you not have parents? My parents "paid" for my education and police "protection" via taxes. The only thing the sate did was waste some of their money in the process.

I'm always free to move, leave, zip it on outta here. How is that relevant? Well, because free-market @ssholes say the same exact thing in the private sphere. You don't like making someone else rich in a company? Go find another job. You don't like it there? Start your business and have others make you rich.

Apples and oranges.

Am I a wage slave? The company is taking 90% of what I created?*

Are you? You tell me.

Well, no, self-righteous defenders of hierarchy and authoritarian control (e.g. you, Tony).

You really don’t know my positions do you? When have I defended this hierarchy and authoritarian control? And who are you, the advocator of a petty toilet law, one to talk about authoritarian control? Gimme a break.

What freedom! What about giving the people themselves the ability to exercise decisions and control over their work environment. You know, fashioning the institutions that affect their lives?

What about it? Can you offer an example?

People pay all kinds of taxes beyond income taxes. I'm not sure why that one is always singled out.

Because income taxes are the most intrusive and tyrannical form of taxes.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

No, it isn't.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin...DE9NyZwX2NhdF9sdmwyPX5hbnl_JnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=

Like everything else you've said, you are WRONG.

Shanek, that's Social Security and Medicare, and it is only 15% for the self-employed. It's 7% for employees.


And in any event, all this shows me is that 90% of the country faces an unfair tax burden. Which doesn't surprise me, as 10% own 70% of the wealth.

Oh, for crying out loud, check ANY source reporting economic statistics!!! You'll see that savings is fully 25% of GDP, whereas government purchases are only 20% (most of which crowds out savings anyway).

Government I believe has about 10% of the economy. In any event, if its everywhere, you should be able to find it. Until then: proof surrogate.

More argument from authority. No matter what I come up with (including several that I've referred to in the threads I referenced) you'll just belittle the source.

Not if it's a reliable source.

I have provided LOTS of evidence! You simply want to ignore it.

I'm looking for quality here Shanek, not quantity.

Except that it hasn't. Here's an example of how a diversified portfolio has fared throughout the last 30 years. Note the rise at the very end, which is at December 2003, despite years of recession:

[im]http://www.harrybrowne.org/Perman6.gif[/im]

In fact, the only year that it lost since 1995 was in 2001, where it lost 1%. In every other year, it gained at minimum 2.7%, and gained over 11% in 2003. Social Security only gives you about 2%.

Again, you are just plain WRONG.

(Image tags altered)


And what's the image location? Oh yeah "HarryBrown.org".

Real reliable source.......

Here's an example of where you again put quantity of evidence over quality.

But that privatization would mean, according to you, just letting people die. Stop weaseling and take responsibility for what you wrote.

Actually its a bit more complicated then that Shanek:

IF they spent their money unwisely and IF we didn't start a government charity for them, THEN that would be the case.

I need not do that because I do not claim that they are. There are, however, educational and health care institutions that are charities who provide these services to the needy. You're arguing for an unreasonable strawman because you can't accept reality.

And what percentage of americans are atcually served by these groups Shanek?

And BTW, the Cato Institute isn't right-wing. Not even close.

Shanek please, we're three posts in and your credibilty's already shot

 

[shanek]

Shanek, that's Social Security and Medicare

Medicare is less than 1% of it.

and it is only 15% for the self-employed. It's 7% for employees.

Bull$#!7. The employee pays the full amount. It only shows up as 7.65% because the employer pays the other 7.65%.

And in any event, all this shows me is that 90% of the country faces an unfair tax burden. Which doesn't surprise me, as 10% own 70% of the wealth.

Blah blah blah meaningless pseudoeconomic babble.

Government I believe has about 10% of the economy.

Government is spending about $2.5 trillion a year. GDP is $11 million a year. That's more than 10%.

Not if it's a reliable source.

It's only a reliable source if the DATA is reliable.

I'm looking for quality here Shanek, not quantity.

No, you're looking for things that fall into your narrow little view and ignoring everything else.

And what's the image location? Oh yeah "HarryBrown.org".

Refute the DATA. Stop appealing to authority.

Real reliable source.......

Here's an example of where you again put quantity of evidence over quality.

IF they spent their money unwisely and IF we didn't start a government charity for them, THEN that would be the case.

Again, you're deliberately ignoring the private charities, which you continue to claim are irrelevant.

Shanek please, we're three posts in and your credibilty's already shot

Anyone who claims that the Cato Institute is "right-wing" doesn't have any cause to cast aspersions on the credibility of others.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Medicare is less than 1% of it.



Bull$#!7. The employee pays the full amount. It only shows up as 7.65% because the employer pays the other 7.65%.

Actually Shanek medicare is over 1% (its 1.5% roughly).
And tax rates for employers are double that of employees for social security, this however is I believe a very relevant point as most people are not self-employed.

The 7.65% tax rate is the combined rate for Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security portion (OASDI) is 6.20% on earnings up to the applicable taxable maximum amount (see below). The Medicare portion (HI) is 1.45% on all earnings.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin...wX2NhdF9sdmwyPX5hbnl_JnBfcGFnZT0<br />x&p_li=


In any event I agree this is excessive, but I don't think the answer lies in an inherently risky and unproven method of privatization, rife for exploitation, as much as a progressive taxation. I believe an extra 10-20 percent tax on the super rich for example would more then double the federal budget.

Government is spending about $2.5 trillion a year. GDP is $11 million a year. That's more than 10%.

Actually its more like 1.8 trillion:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html

From the CIA world factbook:

Budget:

revenues: $1.946 trillion
expenditures: $2.052 trillion, including capital expenditures of NA

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

That's about 1.5%. Real big difference.....

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

To quote cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, in his book The Blank Slate (Chapter 16 pages 302-303):

For example, rational agents informed by interest rates and their life expectancies should save the optimal proportion of their wages for comfort in their old age. Social security and mandatory savings plans should be unnecessary-indeed harmful-because they take away choice and hence opportunity to find the best choice between consuming now and saving for the future. But economists repeatedly find that people spend their money like drunken sailors. They act as if they think they will die in a few years, or as if the future were completely unpredictable, which may be closer to the reality of our evolutionary ancestors then it is today. (55) If so, then allowing people to manage their own savings (for example, letting them keep their entire pay check and investing it as they please) may work against their interests. Like Odysseus approaching the island of the Sirens, people might rationally agree to let their employer or the government tie them to the mast of forced savings.


The economist Robert Frank has appealed to evolutionary psychology of status to point out other shortcomings of the rational-actor theory and, by extension, laissez-faire economics. (56) Rational actors should eschew not only forced retirement savings but other policies that ostensibly protect them, such as mandatory health care benefits, workplace safety regulations, unemployment insurance, and union dues. All of these cost money that would otherwise go into their paychecks, and workers could decide for themselves whether to take a pay cut to work for a company with more paternalistic policies or go for the biggest salary and take higher risks on the job. Companies in their competition for the best employees, should find the balance demanded by the employees they want.

The rub, Frank points out, is that people are endowed with a craving for status. Their first impulse is to spend their money in ways that would put them ahead of the Joneses (houses, cars, clothing, prestidgious educations), rather then in ways they only know about (health care, job safety, retirement savings). Unfortunately, status is a zero-sum game, so when everyone has more money to spend on cars and houses, the houses and cars get bigger but people are no happier then they were before. Like hockey players who agree to wear helmets only if a rule forces their opponents to wear them too, people might agree to regulations that force everyone to pay for hidden benefits like health care that make them happier in the long run, even if regulations come to the expense of disposable income.


55: Akerlof, 1984; Daly & Wilson, 1994; Jones, 2001; Rogers, 1994

56: Frank, 1999; Frank 1985.

(Bold added)

So again I say the choice policies will likely fail. This is because it is not human nature to save, it is human nature to spend. That's because there was no retirement plan on the African plains.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

My previous post should have said 15% of the nation's GDP went to the government, not 1.5%. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, that is a big difference (though I would like to see it bigger).

 

[Cain]

Robert Frank is a cool economist, and I remember reading that passage in Pinker.

The point not explicitly stated goes to financial externalities. Libertarians and others will argue that if people do not save their money, then boohoo; too damn bad; you're outta lucky, buddy. Why should I be punished (taxed) for your mismanagement of funds and inability to plan for the future?*

The problem is that if a number of people do not plan properly then there will be financial and social dislocation that could effect everyone in society.

The new research coming from economists and psychologists seems to show that purchasing that BMW will not really make you happy. People miscalculate their expectations constantly. I'm not sure that's a good argument for paternalism though. The problem is with the unintended aggregate consequences of self-interested, individual choices (composition fallacy).




*Notice this is not an argument from economic efficency, but (in my opinion, misguided) individual liberty.

 

[Ed]

I feel that giving The People control over their Social Security money is a bad idea. When this idea first became popular a few years ago, the stock market was sky high. Alot of people ended up losing money, and they would have lost their Social Security money as well if given the chance.
If I know Americans (and I am one) everyone would still expect to receive a full retirement from the U.S. Government regardless of how their personal investments did. And some of the people who decide to opt out of the system entirely may end up burdening society in their old age, if they failed to save enough themselves.

Full retirement? What do you think SS payments are?

 

[shanek]

But economists repeatedly find that people spend their money like drunken sailors.

Economists have found no such thing. Read the Macroeconomics thread and you will see the economic factors that cause the amount of savings in the economy to rise and fall. Or for that matter, just look at all the investing (or "buying on credit," if you prefer to characterize it that way) going on—that wouldn't be possible unless people were saving that amount. Where do you think money to invest comes from?