D.T.W.A.

[BigBallinStalin]

Agreed.

I was talking to this economist about minimum wage, and he conducted a study on the minimum wage differences within one city that straddled two state borders (I believe it was in Oregon and Washington, or somewhere NW), so the numbers were $10.50 per hour compared to $6.50 per hour.

His conclusion: There was significantly less structural employment in section of the city with a lower minimum wage. I forget the actual numbers, but studies like this have been conducted all across the US, and show the same results.

The real price of minimum wage is already reduced by the employer providing "alternatives," like cutting hours, cutting benefits, hiring on the black market, paying under the table, etc. Minimum wage is a price control, which should be removed or lowered to a price much closer to market equilibrium.

[PLAYER57832]

Private charities, for the most part, suck ass (technical legal term). I try to give as directly as I can.

To the extent that this is true, its because they get to pick where they put their money.

Its rather like comparisons between private schools and public ones. One big reason why private schools always do better is that they get to pick the kids and parents they have. Public schools must take everyone, and a good many of those "everyones" have a lot of problems.

Also, overlap and duplication are not considered because there are always more people out there.

Oh, that's not why I think they suck. I think they suck because only a small percentage of the money I give to them goes to the people who need the money. So if I give $100 to the United Way, $40 goes to the United Way and $60 goes to the person in need. The government is similar. If I give $100 to the government, $85 goes to the administrator and $15 goes to the person in need.

Except, that is not always true... either for many private organizations, or the government.

In truth, the main reason people think the government is "wasteful" is a combination of many more eyes being on the government and a lot of people just plain not liking what the government does.

I used to work sampling fish as part of the data used to set fishing limits.=, to assess the health of the Gulf in general, etc, etc. I can remember more than one conversation where I explained what I did, to be told "how ridiculous [that the government is spending money that way].

[Woodruff]

You watched some different Congressional meetings than I did, then.

You must not have been watching the show trials, I mean Congressional meetings, that occurred this week.

"YOU'RE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY! STOP NOW!"

[begin rant]Gotta love that kind of stuff from the United States Congress. This is what is making me painfully angry. These morons who understand nothing about business, economics, or taxes are making broad based statements that are so unamerican they should be drummed out of Congress summarily. Nancy Pelosi is telling outright lies and passing them off as truth. It's unbelievably disgusting. I wish I could find some sound clips of these things. Fucking Congress. [/end rant]

Yep...you'll get no argument from me there. These politicians, in their unending desire to one-up everyone else, make some statements that are bafflingly stupid.

[Woodruff]

because then we are getting into an area where the issue is no longer about making sure a specific program meant to aid people, actually aids people. This is mainly about drugs and their effects on the poor, combined with the reality of how "easy/public money" gets spent, along with the result of welfare checks actually enabling people to continue their drugs habits and abuse on a large scale. We aren't helping these people. I think testing will help some of these people, not to mention the king of diamonds I have been holding in my sleeve, which is "LESS PEOPLE WILL APPLY FOR WELFARE". It's working already

The best way to quit drugs is to go broke.
Tough Love

Ah, so big daddy like you has to make sure everyone is living the good life by having drug tests.

I see don't see why your logic shouldn't be applied to those who receive government subsidies--especially the CEOs, Board of Directors, and other big shots in companies that received bailouts. Those guys should be examined to see whether or not they're taking drugs, because according to you, if they take drugs, they shouldn't have that money, because drug habits and abuse don't help people.

So, why only target welfare recipients instead of those who recieve even MORE money from government subsidies? Surely, you would want to bring the maximum benefit to everyone, right?

Better add "anyone owning stocks in those companies", because the truth is they are both the new owners and the primary benefactors of the largess. CEOs might be overpaid (many are very much overpaid!), but at least they do work some (theoretically anyway .. note, that last in parenthesis was mostly sarcasm

Here I have to disagree with you. While the stock-holders may not be "doing any of the work", they ARE the ones "taking all the risk". I'd say that's a fair balance.

[Woodruff]

Private charities, for the most part, suck ass (technical legal term). I try to give as directly as I can.

To the extent that this is true, its because they get to pick where they put their money.

Its rather like comparisons between private schools and public ones. One big reason why private schools always do better is that they get to pick the kids and parents they have. Public schools must take everyone, and a good many of those "everyones" have a lot of problems.

Also, overlap and duplication are not considered because there are always more people out there.

Oh, that's not why I think they suck. I think they suck because only a small percentage of the money I give to them goes to the people who need the money. So if I give $100 to the United Way, $40 goes to the United Way and $60 goes to the person in need. The government is similar. If I give $100 to the government, $85 goes to the administrator and $15 goes to the person in need.

Correct. Interesting, and I heard this second-hand so it could be completely false, but I'm going with it anyway, I heard that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's charity is one of those that are extraordinarily efficient in that manner (as in very little overhead costs).

[Phatscotty]

Here is an excerpt from a book I am reading that really reminds me of this conversation. It doesn't have anything to do with drugs, but everything to do with welfare and the difference between earned money and unearned money.

He was back at his desk, speaking to his superintendent on one phone and to his purchasing manager on
another, checking every date and ton of ore on hand—he could not leave to chance or to another person
the possibility of a single hour's delay in the flow of a furnace: it was the last of the rail for the railroad
line that was being poured—when the buzzer rang and Miss Ives' voice announced that his mother was
outside, demanding to see him.
He had asked his family never to come to the mills without appointment. He had been glad that they
hated the place and seldom appeared in his office. What he now felt was a violent impulse to order his
mother off the premises. Instead, with a greater effort than the problem of the train wreck had required of
him, he said quietly, "All right. Ask her to come in."
His mother came in with an air of belligerent defensiveness. She looked at his office as if she knew what
it meant to him and as if she were declaring her resentment against anything being of greater importance
to him than her own person. She took a long time settling down in an armchair, arranging and rearranging
her bag, her gloves, the folds of her dress, while droning, "It's a fine thing when a mother has to wait in an
anteroom and ask permission of a stenographer before she's allowed to see her own son who—"
"Mother, is it anything important? I am very rushed today."
"You're not the only one who's got problems. Of course, it's important. Do you think I'd go to the
trouble of driving way out here, if it wasn't important?"
"What is it?"
"It's about Philip."
"Yes?"
"Philip is unhappy."
"Well?"
"He feels it's not right that he should have to depend on your charity and live on handouts and never be
able to count on a single dollar of his own."
"Well!" he said with a startled smile. "I've been waiting for him to realize that."
"It isn't right for a sensitive man to be in such a position."
"It certainly isn't."
"I'm glad you agree with me. So what you have to do is give him a job."
"A . . . what?"
"You must give him a job, here, at the mills—but a nice, clean job, of course, with a desk and an office
and a decent salary, where he wouldn't have to be among your day laborers and your smelly furnaces."
He knew that he was hearing it; he could not make himself believe it. "Mother, you're not serious."
"I certainly am. I happen to know that that's what he wants, only 's too proud to ask you for it But if you
offer it to him and make it look like it's you who're asking him a favor—why, I know he'd be happy to
take it. That's why I had to come here to talk to you—so he wouldn't guess that I put you up to it."
It was not in the nature of his consciousness to understand the nature of the things he was hearing. A
single thought cut through his mind like a spotlight, making him unable to conceive how any eyes could
miss it. The thought broke out of him as a cry of bewilderment: "But he knows nothing about the steel
business!"
"What has that got to do with it? He needs a job."
"But he couldn't do the work."
"He needs to gain self-confidence and to feel important."
"But he wouldn't be any good whatever."
"He needs to feel that he's wanted."
"Here? What could I want him for?"
"You hire plenty of strangers.”
"I hire men who produce. What has he got to offer?"
"He's your brother, isn't he?"
"What has that got to do with it?"
She stared incredulously, in turn, silenced by shock. For a moment, they sat looking at each other, as if
across an interplanetary distance.
"He's your brother," she said, her voice like a phonograph record repeating a magic formula she could
not permit herself to doubt. "He needs a position in the world. He needs a salary, so that he'd feel that
he's got money coming to him as his due, not as alms."
"As his due? But he wouldn't be worth a nickel to me."
"Is that what you think of first? Your profit? I'm asking you to help your brother, and you're figuring how
to make a nickel on him, and you won't help him unless there's money in it for you—is that it?"
She saw the expression of his eyes, and she looked away, but spoke hastily, her voice rising. "Yes, sure,
you're helping him—like you'd help any stray beggar. Material help—that's all you know or understand.
Have you thought about his spiritual needs and what his position is doing to his self-respect? He doesn't
want to live like a beggar. He wants to be independent of you."
"By means of getting from me a salary he can't earn for work he can't do?"
"You'd never miss it. You've got enough people here who're making money for you."
"Are you asking me to help him stage a fraud of that kind?"
"You don't have to put it that way."
"Is it a fraud—or isn't it?"
"That's why I can't talk to you—because you're not human. You have no pity, no feeling for your
brother, no compassion for his feelings."
"Is it a fraud or not?"
"You have no mercy for anybody."
"Do you think that a fraud of this kind would be just?"
"You're the most immoral man living—you think of nothing but justice! You don't feel any love at all!"
He got up, his movement abrupt and stressed, the movement of ending an interview and ordering a
visitor out of his office. "Mother, I'm running a steel plant—not a whorehouse."
"Henry!" The gasp of indignation was at his choice of language, nothing more.
"Don't ever speak to me again about a job for Philip. I would not give him the job of a cinder sweeper. I
would not allow him inside my mills. I want you to understand that, once and for all. You may try to help
him in any way you wish, but don't ever let me see you thinking of my mills as a means to that end."
The wrinkles of her soft chin trickled into a shape resembling a sneer. "What are they, your mills—a holy
temple of some kind?"
"Why . . . yes," he said softly, astonished at the thought.
"Don't you ever think of people and of your moral duties?"
"I don't know what it is that you choose to call morality. No, I don't think of people—except that if I
gave a job to Philip, I wouldn't be able to face any competent man who needed work and deserved it."
She got up. Her head was drawn into her shoulders, and the righteous bitterness of her voice seemed to
push the words upward at his tall, straight figure: "That's your cruelty, that's what's mean and selfish about
you. If you loved your brother, you'd give him a job he didn't deserve, precisely because he didn't
deserve it—that would be true love and kindness and brotherhood. Else what's love for? If a man
deserves a job, there's no virtue in giving it to him. Virtue is the giving of the undeserved."
He was looking at her like a child at an unfamiliar nightmare, incredulity preventing it from becoming
horror. "Mother," he said slowly, "you don't know what you're saying. I'm not able ever to despise you
enough to believe that you mean it"
The look on her face astonished him more than all the rest: it was a look of defeat and yet of an odd, sly,
cynical cunning, as if, for a moment, she held some worldly wisdom that mocked his innocence.
The memory of that look remained in his mind, like a warning signal telling him that he had glimpsed an
issue which he had to understand.
But he could not grapple with it, he could not force his mind to accept it as worthy of thought, he could
find no clue except his dim uneasiness and his revulsion—and he had no time to give it, he could not think
of it now, he was facing his next caller seated in front of his desk—he was listening to a man who
pleaded for his life

[PLAYER57832]

[
"You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture."

What's the whole picture of the Scandinavian countries and how might the US being able to implement similar policies to get to their results?

I have actually answered this on many occasions, had you really put it all together.

The basic difference is that we started out with a much wider diversion in culture and economics. Folks in New York, don't feel they are "the same" as people in Mississippi (not really) and don't think that people in Oklahoma or Mississippi or New York all deserve the same, or perhaps anything at all (some people don't, anyway).

Things are not always equal in Scandinavia. They do have monarchies, but there is much more a sense that some people might be better off, because they were born "noble" .. and that's OK, but they don't really 'deserve' it per se". Here, there is much more the sense that anyone with money just plain "deserves it", even "earns" it, never mind that a kid from the streets of Harlem or LA skid row could do just as well if they were given the upper crust education, diet, training, etc. The few who manage despite the odds are, instead seen as "proof" that "anyone can make it".. never mind that while there might be a few scholarships for disadvantaged kids to, say, Harvard, there are no where near enough for all the kids who academically and otherwise might be said to "earn it" (measures independent of status and money, that is). Fact is, even gong to college at all is nothing but a remote dream for many, beginning because they just don't attend schools that give them the training that allows them to succeed.

[BigBallinStalin]

[
"You cannot simply look at wages in isolation, you have to look at the whole picture."

What's the whole picture of the Scandinavian countries and how might the US being able to implement similar policies to get to their results?

I have actually answered this on many occasions, had you really put it all together.

The basic difference is that we started out with a much wider diversion in culture and economics. Folks in New York, don't feel they are "the same" as people in Mississippi (not really) and don't think that people in Oklahoma or Mississippi or New York all deserve the same, or perhaps anything at all (some people don't, anyway).

Things are not always equal in Scandinavia. They do have monarchies, but there is much more a sense that some people might be better off, because they were born "noble" .. and that's OK, but they don't really 'deserve' it per se". Here, there is much more the sense that anyone with money just plain "deserves it", even "earns" it, never mind that a kid from the streets of Harlem or LA skid row could do just as well if they were given the upper crust education, diet, training, etc. The few who manage despite the odds are, instead seen as "proof" that "anyone can make it".. never mind that while there might be a few scholarships for disadvantaged kids to, say, Harvard, there are no where near enough for all the kids who academically and otherwise might be said to "earn it" (measures independent of status and money, that is). Fact is, even gong to college at all is nothing but a remote dream for many, beginning because they just don't attend schools that give them the training that allows them to succeed.

Do you really expect for me to look through the entire fora and read your lengthy diatribes, describing Scandinavian economics? No thanks.


Let's look at your last paragraph for coherence by comparing the first sentence with the last one:

"Things are not always equal in Scandinavia."

"Fact is, even gong to college at all is nothing but a remote dream for many, beginning because they just don't attend schools that give them the training that allows them to succeed." (regarding Harvard and LA)

(what a headache)

Recall access to education within the US over the past 100 years, and then get back to me after learning about historic trends.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, player, why don't you describe your ideal economy? Something that would somehow eliminate profit-loss incentives while maximing the social good, right?


And, what's your stance on private property rights?

[Phatscotty]

So, player, why don't you describe your ideal economy? Something that would somehow eliminate profit-loss incentives while maximing the social good, right?


And, what's your stance on private property rights?

The ideal economy is a prison. Everything is provided for everyone equally. Sure you have to sacrifice some freedom, so a lot of freedom is sacrificed when they take care of everything. There is no need to be free.

[Iliad]

Scotty can quote all the ayn rand he likes, but the truth is that he proposed and supported a measure that would increase government spending, while promising that it would decrease overall costs for society, and would increase government control of our life and open up grounds for government to abuse its power. One might wonder how he, the one who gobbles up ayn rand and her philosophy, would do that.

The answer is pretty simple, because it's aimed at the lower class only and thus fits into the Objectivist point of view, as he will obviously not be harmed by this proposal and the ones that do obviously deserve it.

Interesting how conservatives argue for small government and less regulation for those above, and bigger government and more regulation for those below.

Also, question: would this imply that government deserves to set up guidelines for everyone who is aided by it. Should government control corporations, in the industries that it subsudises?

[BigBallinStalin]

Scotty can quote all the ayn rand he likes, but the truth is that he proposed and supported a measure that would increase government spending, while promising that it would decrease overall costs for society, and would increase government control of our life and open up grounds for government to abuse its power. One might wonder how he, the one who gobbles up ayn rand and her philosophy, would do that.

The answer is pretty simple, because it's aimed at the lower class only and thus fits into the Objectivist point of view, as he will obviously not be harmed by this proposal and the ones that do obviously deserve it.

Interesting how conservatives argue for small government and less regulation for those above, and bigger government and more regulation for those below.

Also, question: would this imply that government deserves to set up guidelines for everyone who is aided by it. Should government control corporations, in the industries that it subsudises?

It already does to a certain degree--depending on the law/regulation/government agency's enforcement.

Broad question is broad.

[Iliad]

Scotty can quote all the ayn rand he likes, but the truth is that he proposed and supported a measure that would increase government spending, while promising that it would decrease overall costs for society, and would increase government control of our life and open up grounds for government to abuse its power. One might wonder how he, the one who gobbles up ayn rand and her philosophy, would do that.

The answer is pretty simple, because it's aimed at the lower class only and thus fits into the Objectivist point of view, as he will obviously not be harmed by this proposal and the ones that do obviously deserve it.

Interesting how conservatives argue for small government and less regulation for those above, and bigger government and more regulation for those below.

Also, question: would this imply that government deserves to set up guidelines for everyone who is aided by it. Should government control corporations, in the industries that it subsudises?

It already does to a certain degree--depending on the law/regulation/government agency's enforcement.

Broad question is broad.

Let me narrow it.

Should government dictate exactly how corporations spend their money, because they subsidise the industry? If govt can and should do it for normal welfare, it should be no different for corporate welfare.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is an excerpt from a book I am reading that really reminds me of this conversation. It doesn't have anything to do with drugs, but everything to do with welfare and the difference between earned money and unearned money.

It actually has much more to do with drugs than welfare. There is a link between kids who are raised to have no responsibility an drug use. (NOTE-- I understand you are going to picture some "hippie" "freestyle thinkers" here, but in fact, many of them although they have fewer rules in the traditional sense are actually raised with far more personnal responsibility than kids in more highly structured homes. That is a complex subject, not going to cover it all.. suffice it to say that there are good parents and not good parents who use many different styles of parenting). The classic example is the child star, though, of course, more than a few child stars wind up not on drugs or endulging in stupid behaviors (well.. more than any other kids does ). The other classic example is the "silver spoon" or young adult who inherits a lot of wealth "too early" (again, many very wealthy families do a goood job of raising their kids, setting limits, but at 18, few are mature enough to truly hanlde the power that comes with extreme wealth).

the TRUTH that you want to utterly sidestep is that a very large percentage of drug users have gone through things that would be difficult for ANYONE to deal with. Things like being abused as a child, being raped, dealing with the horrors of war either as a soldier (a high percentage of homeless were Vietnahm vets and now we see more and more veterans of the Gulf War and Afghanistan -- try asking BK or Woodruff and actually LISTENING, though they may not want to even get into that with you), or a civilian woman/child. Do you know what it is like to lose a child? To lose more than one child? I do. There is a time when I likely was depressed, though thanks to my faith and some friends, I did come out of it without serious harm. I also had a good foundation from my family. Not everyone is so lucky. Even if they are, not everyone has that "something" that allows them to pick themselves up. I don't say that with judgement because I probably escaped the worst, I say that with understanding that I was fortunate. I did nothing particularly better. I am no more deserving of having inherited the skills I have and to have been born into the family I was than anyone else.

And, the BIG point I have mentioned that you seem to want to gloss over is that our current welfare system does not just encourage staying on welfare, it often gets very much in the way of someone going off. Again, I am an example. If I get a low paying job, one of my sons will not have medical coverage. That means if he gets sick, has to have an operation, I lose my house and everything we have. What, exactly do you REALLY think you would do in my situation? Also, If I work outside the home, I have to pay for childcare for 2 children. In this area, that amounts to almost $250 a week. Add in the gas to get to my work, to pick up my kids from childcare and there just is not much profit in taking just any old job. But, taking a better job means moving. That is something my husband does not want to do.

but NOTE.. I am not on welfare.

And that is the other issue. See, the truth is not that many people get "welfare" (renamed Aid for Families with dependent Children) any longer. Only those at the very, very bottom get cash assistance. Most get food stamps, housing vouchers, help from private organizations for clothing and food, kid's sports fees (little league, for example waives fees for some kids ... we could probably qualify, but my husband refuses to even try to apply and I frankly don't blame him. We can pay). MOST people getting assistance do WORK (including myself... I just work here at home watching other people's children and my own).

So, that gets back to the REAL irony here. Most people getting subsidized are working at jobs that pay too little. They are paid such low wages because companies "cannot afford' to pay more. So, instead of the stockholders or owner taking a $5000 cut, we taxpayers have to support these people on the companie' behalf, so the company owner/stockholders, execs can keep their hefty checks. AND those same people want to turn around and cut funding for the poor.. so people will be so desperate they can pay them even less. NOTE, less than what it takes to get a house, to buy food, clothes, etc.

Just what do you think is going to happen without those supports.... supports for people who are already working?

[PLAYER57832]

Scotty can quote all the ayn rand he likes, but the truth is that he proposed and supported a measure that would increase government spending, while promising that it would decrease overall costs for society, and would increase government control of our life and open up grounds for government to abuse its power. One might wonder how he, the one who gobbles up ayn rand and her philosophy, would do that.

The answer is pretty simple, because it's aimed at the lower class only and thus fits into the Objectivist point of view, as he will obviously not be harmed by this proposal and the ones that do obviously deserve it.

Interesting how conservatives argue for small government and less regulation for those above, and bigger government and more regulation for those below.

Also, question: would this imply that government deserves to set up guidelines for everyone who is aided by it. Should government control corporations, in the industries that it subsudises?

It already does to a certain degree--depending on the law/regulation/government agency's enforcement.

Broad question is broad.

Let me narrow it.

Should government dictate exactly how corporations spend their money, because they subsidise the industry? If govt can and should do it for normal welfare, it should be no different for corporate welfare.

More to the point, it is all the government subsidies that allow companies to get away with paying people very low wages. When someone working for $7.35 an hour can get food stamps, section * housing, etc, etc, etc, then they don't "seem poor" in the sense people in the 1900's did. BUT, it is not do to working, it is not due to employment, that lack of being poor is due purely to subsidies.

Erase those subsidies and companies will certainly find people desperate enough to work for even lower wages... and just what kind of lives will they or their kids have?

At a time when the wealthiest are getting wealthier and wealthier, when even folks who are moderately "successful" in a financial sense are being pushed down, this is utterly disgusting.

[PLAYER57832]

So, player, why don't you describe your ideal economy? Something that would somehow eliminate profit-loss incentives while maximing the social good, right?


And, what's your stance on private property rights?

You look at it backwards. The economy reflects the society. If you have a healthy society, the economy works, regardless of the system. Monarches actually worked for a time, in many places.. then they got out of hand. Communes can work on a small scale. Cuba, for all it is railed against by the US actually did some things right, but then, again, Castro twisted things out of hand. The problem today is not capitalism, per se. The problem is that, just like throughout history, those at the top are excessively greedy. That greed, that drive is what gets them to the top. To a point, that is OK. However, when the, as has happened to the powerful throughout history, let that power "go to their heads", begin to think that the power itself is a reason to justify anything they want to do, is proof enough that they "know better" and "deserve more", then we see what we have today.. a high concentration of wealth, neglect of infrastructure and a continual claim that all problems are "due the poor" .. or in this case, the middle class and poor.

[BigBallinStalin]

It already does to a certain degree--depending on the law/regulation/government agency's enforcement.

Broad question is broad.

Let me narrow it.

Should government dictate exactly how corporations spend their money, because they subsidise the industry? If govt can and should do it for normal welfare, it should be no different for corporate welfare.

National Socialism was all about that. The government subsidized costs of certain industries and told them how to spend their money. This is one small step below the economic policies of the Soviet Union.

I wouldn't recommend it because it leads to inefficient industries (like building tanks that are strong as hell but take forever to build, thus diminishing their usefulness), significant price controls, less liberty, and hardly any market influence. Also, the stronger the control of the government, the stronger political incentives can play within the private sector (i.e. nepotism, corruption, etc.).

Normal welfare and corporate "welfare" are very different. Corporations are taxed significantly (and their shareholders are taxed again on taxed money). Normal welfare recipients hardly pay any taxes. Although corporations get to spend their money elsewhere, the government still plays games with taxes and tax credits so that the government can indirectly control the incentives of corporations in order to make corporations do what the government wants. In that sense, the government to a minimal degree controls the private sector--but it's comparatively minimal control.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, player, why don't you describe your ideal economy? Something that would somehow eliminate profit-loss incentives while maximing the social good, right?


And, what's your stance on private property rights?

You look at it backwards. The economy reflects the society. If you have a healthy society, the economy works, regardless of the system. Monarches actually worked for a time, in many places.. then they got out of hand. Communes can work on a small scale. Cuba, for all it is railed against by the US actually did some things right, but then, again, Castro twisted things out of hand. The problem today is not capitalism, per se. The problem is that, just like throughout history, those at the top are excessively greedy. That greed, that drive is what gets them to the top. To a point, that is OK. However, when the, as has happened to the powerful throughout history, let that power "go to their heads", begin to think that the power itself is a reason to justify anything they want to do, is proof enough that they "know better" and "deserve more", then we see what we have today.. a high concentration of wealth, neglect of infrastructure and a continual claim that all problems are "due the poor" .. or in this case, the middle class and poor.

If "having a healthy society so that the economy works--regardless of the system" is true, then why aren't the healthiest countries in the world also the best economies too?

(hint: because your statement doesn't make sense).

Cuba dedicates plenty of state resources towards its health sector. This enables it to have a great healthy country, but that wealth has been transferred from other parts of its economy, which partly explains why its people are so poor. (inb4 embargo) because had Cuba adopted a more market-orientated approach, its economy would thrive, and the by-product of a more liberalized economy are better institutions (health, education, etc). Otherwise, if what I stated is not true, the socialist countries would be the healthiest and economically "best" countries (i.e. most efficient and productive).

[BigBallinStalin]

Since you don't want to answer that question regarding private property rights, I'm going to assume that you don't really respect them--especially since you absolutely adore the state and that you have a history of poo-pooing on private property rights. Given that, I'm considering labeling you as either a socialist, communist, or national socialist.

[PLAYER57832]

So, player, why don't you describe your ideal economy? Something that would somehow eliminate profit-loss incentives while maximing the social good, right?


And, what's your stance on private property rights?

Clarify. That can encompass a lot of things.

I mean, to the southerner of the early 1800's, slaves were about "private property rights". I am sure you don't hold to that kind of definition, but what do you mean?

[PLAYER57832]

Since you don't want to answer that question regarding private property rights, I'm going to assume that you don't really respect them--especially since you absolutely adore the state and that you have a history of poo-pooing on private property rights. Given that, I'm considering labeling you as either a socialist, communist, or national socialist.

I did partially answer it above. and I just answered it more succinctly above.

Given that, I'm considering labeling you as either a socialist, communist, or national socialist.

So? given the way those terms are slung around, particularly here, they have no meaning, except that you seem to thinkt hey are insults. So, explain..

And, also explain how I have "poo-pooed" private property rights? I said above that I did not believe you considered slaves to be just "private property", but am I wrong?

[BigBallinStalin]

So, player, why don't you describe your ideal economy? Something that would somehow eliminate profit-loss incentives while maximing the social good, right?


And, what's your stance on private property rights?

Clarify. That can encompass a lot of things.

I mean, to the southerner of the early 1800's, slaves were about "private property rights". I am sure you don't hold to that kind of definition, but what do you mean?

Do we live in the early 1800s?

I hope your answer to that question clarifies the context in which we currently live.

[PLAYER57832]

So, player, why don't you describe your ideal economy? Something that would somehow eliminate profit-loss incentives while maximing the social good, right?


And, what's your stance on private property rights?

Clarify. That can encompass a lot of things.

I mean, to the southerner of the early 1800's, slaves were about "private property rights". I am sure you don't hold to that kind of definition, but what do you mean?

Do we live in the early 1800s?

I hope your answer to that question clarifies the context in which we currently live.

No.. but go on pretending you are acting in an intelligent manner. Rather funny, actually.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, player, why don't you describe your ideal economy? Something that would somehow eliminate profit-loss incentives while maximing the social good, right?


And, what's your stance on private property rights?

Clarify. That can encompass a lot of things.

I mean, to the southerner of the early 1800's, slaves were about "private property rights". I am sure you don't hold to that kind of definition, but what do you mean?

Do we live in the early 1800s?

I hope your answer to that question clarifies the context in which we currently live.

No.. but go on pretending you are acting in an intelligent manner. Rather funny, actually.

I'm enjoying it.

So what's your stance on private property rights?

[Woodruff]

Quote shamelessly stolen from another website regarding the difference between the current incarnations of the left and the right, which seems highly appropriate to this thread:

The Right wants to punish bad people, even if it means hurting good people in the process. The Left wants to help good people, even if it means helping bad people in the process.