megapoll The Welfare Megathread

[DrGravitas]

Well, that UBI thread was a hoot! It kind of broke off into the concept of general welfare towards the end, so to keep that thread uncluttered and open to discussing UBI specifically, how about we have a General Welfare discussion thread?

Here, (after hopefully taking my little survey above) we can discuss various welfare programs of our many countries. We can talk about Unemployment Insurance, Pell Grants, or even topics like abuse or its affects on poverty or the economy!

Please keep things civil and keep an open mind.

 

This being one of my threads (and you know how I love to give out likes to anybody who contributes in my threads) I've decided to try and see if I can make things a bit more interesting: I shall provide likes to anyone who provides links to credible sources backing up their statements (regardless of whether I agree with their arguments or not) and encourage others to volunteer to do the same. Obviously, when I run out of likes in a day, I will have to wait until the next to continue doing so. I will try to keep up but reserve the right to be slow. The credibility of the sources is a judgement call on my and any other volunteer's part and while I will try to give the benefit of the doubt, I am under no obligation to justify why or why not I consider a source credible. Refutations are encouraged, but additional original or restated thoughts based on a previously provided source link will not net additional likes. I reserve the right to like posts based on their own merit, and remain under no obligation to explain myself. Sources based on statistically insignificant (as judged by me) information including, but not limited to, personal experience or anecdotal evidence do not qualify as credible sources for supporting evidence. If you've read this far, you're a nerd. Good on you! The contents of this post and all likes do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the author and volunteers of this thread. Accept no substitutes. All rights reserved,

[Summercat]

https://www.economy.com/ma Programrk-zandi/documents/Stimulus-Impact-2008.pdf

This is probably a good read, especially the table on page 3. Extending UI benefits and increasing SNAP spending had a better stimulus impact than of the Supply-Side go-tos for stimulus. Of the Supply-Side options (tax cuts, rebates, credits), the only two that actually similar returns were the tax rebate and the payroll tax holiday, both of which put money into the hands of workers directly. The non-refundable tax rebate and 'across the board tax cut' 1.03 and 1.02 dollars of activity per dollar spent. 

Our economy is a demand-based one, and with the cost of living and inflation rising while wages being stagnant, a good portion of the population is not able to fulfill their own demands. Directing money to these segments of the population helps them fill their demands, which in turn drives the economy.

And by demands, I mean decent clothing, good nutrition, safe housing, reliable transportation, an education, and some form of entertainment. If these needs do not get met, people don't work too well. Studies have shown that just providing a free breakfast and lunch for kids in school, no questions asked, misbehavior dropped and grades rose. 

Same thing for Chronic Homelessness. A Utah program managed to greatly reduce the "Chronic Homeless" problem. Turns out, giving people a safe place to sleep and rest that is theirs, is a fairly important foundation to dealing with other problems. After breathing and water, shelter and heat - comfort - are the most important things to seek when lost in the wilderness. 

The idea of "just give people stuff" seems contrary and unhelpful, but moralist arguments don't hold up when actually tested and you look at the data. Consider when Florida decided to drug test all welfare recipients. The State ended up spending far more money that it saved, and looking at surveys of welfare recipients, and then the no-suspicion testing ended up costing Florida 1.5 million dollars. 

Time and time again we see these insane attacks on welfare in the US based on emotional and moralistic grounds, that are not supported by any sort of data. In the prior thread mentioned, someone claimed that there's a 40% overhead for 'welfare'; the highest I saw data for was HUD in 1998, which was 22.5%; all other data was consistently under 20%.

Fraud rates are oven claimed to be astronomical, but are in line with fraud in private sector (average 5%), and the vast majority of fraudulent charges for 'welfare' programs are either management, contractors, or service providers - not the end people the programs are meant to help. Military Contract fraud runs a higher percentage, and has more than Medicare and Medicaid COMBINED (and those two have higher incidents of fraud than other welfare programs, primarily due to doctors and hospitals overbilling or ordering needless tests).

Statistically, Reagan's "Welfare Queen" is a myth, based off a single person(one Linda Taylor) who was defrauding the system - but was in no way representative of those receiving welfare. People can claim they've seen things and feel otherwise, but the data doesn't back it up. The plural of anecdote is not data (nor will it ever be data), and most anecdotes don't hold up to reality and seem more fitting for Marine Todd stories. Nor do any of these outraged individuals ever report what they see to the relevant authorities, which usually means to me that they've got nothing but their own biases and are filling in the blanks with their assumptions.

You want to start talking reforms, sure, we can talk about that. But you have to have your starting point be grounded in reality. And the reality is? Welfare fraud and inefficiency is nowhere as big or common as it is claimed. 

 

[Vallium]

Im not for or against, It definitely helps out a lot of people to give them the help they need

 

But there definitely needs to be regulation and checks of some sort for obvious reasons, theres a lot of bad that could come of it, disgusting and awful things, lazy and selfish people who only care about themselves

We already had a thread of similar merit once

 

[Summercat]

3 hours ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

But there definitely needs to be regulation and checks of some sort for obvious reasons,

Indeed. Should certainly be on the lookup for fraud. It just turns out there's not very much of it in the US. Frankly, we'd be better off spending the money for fraud discovery/prevention over at the IRS, where IIRC it's $200,000 saved/recovered per fraud investigator, and those aren't $100K/year jobs. 

[Vallium]

6 hours ago, Summercat said:

Indeed. Should certainly be on the lookup for fraud. It just turns out there's not very much of it in the US. Frankly, we'd be better off spending the money for fraud discovery/prevention over at the IRS, where IIRC it's $200,000 saved/recovered per fraud investigator, and those aren't $100K/year jobs. 

I agree but how do you KNOW theres not much of it in the U.S? I mean Im not saying youre wrong but articles like the above show that these things totally go out of the radar for...9 years apparently (as in, a family of 6 living in relative affluence without lifting a finger). I doubt its the only case Ive heard of other cases reported that go left unchecked. You'd think if they had been reported as much as it had been someone in charge should...take charge.

I guess I'm merely using a few anecdotes which may not be the case on a grander scale

[Summercat]

1 hour ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

I agree but how do you KNOW theres not much of it in the U.S? I mean Im not saying youre wrong but articles like the above show that these things totally go out of the radar for...9 years apparently (as in, a family of 6 living in relative affluence without lifting a finger). I doubt its the only case Ive heard of other cases reported that go left unchecked. You'd think if they had been reported as much as it had been someone in charge should...take charge.

I guess I'm merely using a few anecdotes which may not be the case on a grander scale

How do we know?

Studies and investigations. Lots of them. 

This link has a lot of collated data, but it lumps "improper payments" and "insufficient documentation at time of review" in with "fraud", which is wholly incorrect - improper payments can contain fraud (a crime of intent), but are more often mistaken errors. Do note that the same report says that uncollected taxes are more than double the Improper Payments and Fraud Rate of all Federal spending. We'd be better off funding the IRS so they can function properly. Also note that much in the way of Improper Payments (non-Fraud) are because of the overly-complex forms and restrictions on these programs.

The averages from this site look bad - but then look at the breakdowns by program. Most are under 5%, which as this article states (about halfway down), is the average for the private sector. That article is also a good read on where much of the 'fraud' actually occurs. Looking at the explanation for the big ones? 

Earned Income Tax Credit is a complex thing that people keep getting wrong. Fraud - improper intentional claiming of the EITC - is listed last among a bunch of other reasons, primarily mistakes and errors by preparers.

SSI has a high rate due to it fluctuating constantly, and lack of timely reports of the changing conditions.

TANF is administered by the States, not the Feds, and there's no good data for it - but there's also a lifetime cap for it, at 5 years. 

Child Nutrition does have a fraud rate in addition to math and form failures (as well as lack of documentation upon review), but considering that I'm a proponent of *ALL* kids being given a free breakfast and lunch? This doesn't concern me. Oh no! Some hungry kid might be getting FOOD! 

The Lifeline Program has problems, because it's administered through a large number of fronts and has arcane and complex eligibility requirements. I don't know how much of this is intentional by the end-user, versus them being told by an agent (usually a company administering the program in the area) that they're eligible. 

Medicaid?  "Verification errors caused by noncompliant state claims processing systems, provider billing errors, and insufficient documentation." No actual intentional fraud there, but with Medicare and Medicaid it's often the doctors and hospitals that order needless tests or overbill for work performed.

 

All in all, actual fraud - intentionally trying to gain benefits you don't qualify for - is fairly minimal. When you see those rates, those include mistakes. 

As for your link above, that would be an example of the most common type of fraud: Provider. There's no doubt that the young girl in question deserved the assistance, but it was being paid to a provider rather than directly (for obvious reasons), and they were not properly caring for her. I don't know why there was no investigation by the government when it was first reported, but I'm guessing (as DSHS said in the article) that they were starved of funds for this kind of check.  

Starving agencies of funds to properly perform their work is a common thing that Republicans do these days - and then complain when the quality of the agency's work drops. It's akin to throwing a wrench into a steam engine and complaining it doesn't work. Well no shit its not working, you broke it!

[Vallium]

Fair enough

[PastryOfApathy]

18 hours ago, DrGravitas said:

This being one of my threads (and you know how I love to give out likes to anybody who contributes in my threads) I've decided to try and see if I can make things a bit more interesting: I shall provide likes to anyone who provides links to credible sources backing up their statements...

lol

[DrGravitas]

37 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

lol

Do I hear our first source-liker volunteer? :3

[DevilBear]

 

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets.

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couples who are able to maintain their own children, although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom; but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders. I again subtract fifty thousand for those women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remains one hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, how this number shall be reared and provided for, which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing, till they arrive at six years old, except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier, during which time, they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers, as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolific diet, there are more children born in Roman Catholic countries about nine months after Lent than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants is at least three to one in this kingdom: and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of papists among us.

I have already computed the charge of nursing a beggar's child (in which list I reckon all cottagers, laborers, and four-fifths of the farmers) to be about two shillings per annum, rags included; and I believe no gentleman would repine to give ten shillings for the carcass of a good fat child, which, as I have said, will make four dishes of excellent nutritive meat, when he hath only some particular friend or his own family to dine with him. Thus the squire will learn to be a good landlord, and grow popular among his tenants; the mother will have eight shillings net profit, and be fit for work till she produces another child.

Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flay the carcass; the skin of which artificially dressed will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.

As to our city of Dublin, shambles may be appointed for this purpose in the most convenient parts of it, and butchers we may be assured will not be wanting; although I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs.

A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased in discoursing on this matter to offer a refinement upon my scheme. He said that many gentlemen of this kingdom, having of late destroyed their deer, he conceived that the want of venison might be well supplied by the bodies of young lads and maidens, not exceeding fourteen years of age nor under twelve; so great a number of both sexes in every country being now ready to starve for want of work and service; and these to be disposed of by their parents, if alive, or otherwise by their nearest relations. But with due deference to so excellent a friend and so deserving a patriot, I cannot be altogether in his sentiments; for as to the males, my American acquaintance assured me, from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our schoolboys by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable; and to fatten them would not answer the charge. Then as to the females, it would, I think, with humble submission be a loss to the public, because they soon would become breeders themselves; and besides, it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice (although indeed very unjustly), as a little bordering upon cruelty; which, I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any project, however so well intended.

But in order to justify my friend, he confessed that this expedient was put into his head by the famous Psalmanazar, a native of the island Formosa, who came from thence to London above twenty years ago, and in conversation told my friend, that in his country when any young person happened to be put to death, the executioner sold the carcass to persons of quality as a prime dainty; and that in his time the body of a plump girl of fifteen, who was crucified for an attempt to poison the emperor, was sold to his imperial majesty's prime minister of state, and other great mandarins of the court, in joints from the gibbet, at four hundred crowns. Neither indeed can I deny, that if the same use were made of several plump young girls in this town, who without one single groat to their fortunes cannot stir abroad without a chair, and appear at playhouse and assemblies in foreign fineries which they never will pay for, the kingdom would not be the worse.

Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, or maimed, and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course may be taken to ease the nation of so grievous an encumbrance. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known that they are every day dying and rotting by cold and famine, and filth and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the young laborers, they are now in as hopeful a condition; they cannot get work, and consequently pine away for want of nourishment, to a degree that if at any time they are accidentally hired to common labor, they have not strength to perform it; and thus the country and themselves are happily delivered from the evils to come.

I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of papists, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the nation as well as our most dangerous enemies; and who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the kingdom to the Pretender, hoping to take their advantage by the absence of so many good protestants, who have chosen rather to leave their country than stay at home and pay tithes against their conscience to an episcopal curate.

Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord's rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.

Thirdly, Whereas the maintenance of an hundred thousand children, from two years old and upward, cannot be computed at less than ten shillings a-piece per annum, the nation's stock will be thereby increased fifty thousand pounds per annum, beside the profit of a new dish introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom who have any refinement in taste. And the money will circulate among ourselves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture.

Fourthly, The constant breeders, beside the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year.

Fifthly, This food would likewise bring great custom to taverns; where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection, and consequently have their houses frequented by all the fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good eating: and a skilful cook, who understands how to oblige his guests, will contrive to make it as expensive as they please.

Sixthly, This would be a great inducement to marriage, which all wise nations have either encouraged by rewards or enforced by laws and penalties. It would increase the care and tenderness of mothers toward their children, when they were sure of a settlement for life to the poor babes, provided in some sort by the public, to their annual profit instead of expense. We should see an honest emulation among the married women, which of them could bring the fattest child to the market. Men would become as fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, their sows when they are ready to farrow; nor offer to beat or kick them (as is too frequent a practice) for fear of a miscarriage.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. For instance, the addition of some thousand carcasses in our exportation of barreled beef, the propagation of swine's flesh, and improvement in the art of making good bacon, so much wanted among us by the great destruction of pigs, too frequent at our tables; which are no way comparable in taste or magnificence to a well-grown, fat, yearling child, which roasted whole will make a considerable figure at a lord mayor's feast or any other public entertainment. But this and many others I omit, being studious of brevity.

Supposing that one thousand families in this city, would be constant customers for infants flesh, besides others who might have it at merry meetings, particularly at weddings and christenings, I compute that Dublin would take off annually about twenty thousand carcasses; and the rest of the kingdom (where probably they will be sold somewhat cheaper) the remaining eighty thousand.

I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged, that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the kingdom. This I freely own, and 'twas indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. I desire the reader will observe, that I calculate my remedy for this one individual Kingdom of Ireland, and for no other that ever was, is, or, I think, ever can be upon Earth. Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.

Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as to my self, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expence and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging England. For this kind of commodity will not bear exportation, and flesh being of too tender a consistence, to admit a long continuance in salt, although perhaps I could name a country, which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.

After all, I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme, and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, as things now stand, how they will be able to find food and raiment for an hundred thousand useless mouths and backs. And secondly, there being a round million of creatures in human figure throughout this kingdom, whose whole subsistence put into a common stock would leave them in debt two millions of pounds sterling, adding those who are beggars by profession to the bulk of farmers, cottagers, and laborers, with their wives and children who are beggars in effect: I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed for ever.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.

The End.

-A Modest Proposal, by Johnathan Swift

[Summercat]

6 minutes ago, DevilBear said:

 

*snip*

Took me halfway through the first paragraph, but I do so love the ironic discussion of that modest proposal.

8 minutes ago, DevilBear said:

Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: 1. Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: 2. Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture:<snip of Anglican/Protestant Moralism>3. Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: 4. Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. 5. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.

1) Absentee Landlords was a major problem for Ireland during this timeframe, as currency and wealth was constantly flowing off the island, draining the local economy without much in the way of investment back into it. Lack of investment meant lack of work to be done - as well as eventually, the lack of people's ability to fund their demands (such as shelter and food). Modern US analog: Offshore tax shelters, both personal and corporate.

2) A Modest Proposal was published in 1729, just as the English Industrial Revolution was starting to get into full swing, and the growing English manufacturing base had a ready market in Ireland. Even considering the shipping, English industry was able to make goods for cheaper. Because of absentee landlords draining the economy, the poor in Ireland went with the cheaper alternatives - where they weren't forced to. This devastated the cottage industries that had been producing these goods, as those people no longer hand their income. And thus, more money flowed out of Ireland and into England. Modern US analog: Foreign manufacturing combined with economy of quantity, and offshoring of jobs.

3) Somehwat moral admonishing, but the idea here was not to seek a short term gain in exchange for a long term loss. A workman shouldn't sell his tools to eat, for example. I bring it up because I see it all the time with "Privatization" in the US, which to my knowledge has never been anything but a short term gain for a long term loss. One example I recall was a Midwestern state government selling buildings they were using, and then leasing them back from the new owners. Short term cash infusion, but a long term loss. 

4) When nobody is hiring, nobody can work - or work enough. Yet rents continued to rise, and evictions were done on the drop of a hat. Not too much of a US analog these days, aside the weird idea that it's good to keep increasing someone's rent year-after-year (thankfully, my landlord doesn't). But that was after laws and protections were put into place. You want to know why it's so hard to evict someone? Because it was abused when it was easy.

5) Businesses are going to seek profits. This includes collusion and, yes, conspiracy. Most companies are focused on getting profit, but not always in a way that's healthy for everyone. Tragedy of the Commons is the reason why we've got so many business regulations, it was discovered that yes, businesses do need regulation - and it was clear almost three hundred years ago. 

Much of was Swift wrote about in specifics isn't necessarily applicable today - but in terms of concepts, they most certainly are. And still today, people take a terrible approach to these issues based on judgmental moralistic reasoning, as opposed to realizing that by helping your neighbor, you help yourself.

[Lucyfish]

It always seemed to me like, here in the US at least, it's easier for people who don't need welfare to get it than it is for people who do need it. That's just what I've personally seen though, I could just be an uneducated dolt.

[PastryOfApathy]

1 hour ago, Lucyfish said:

It always seemed to me like, here in the US at least, it's easier for people who don't need welfare to get it than it is for people who do need it. That's just what I've personally seen though, I could just be an uneducated dolt.

I always figured it was because many of the people who end up needing welfare are plagued by shitty habits and lifestyle choices that ensure that they'll stay that way.

[Summercat]

3 hours ago, Lucyfish said:

It always seemed to me like, here in the US at least, it's easier for people who don't need welfare to get it than it is for people who do need it. That's just what I've personally seen though, I could just be an uneducated dolt.

You aren't an uneducated dolt, you've just been listening to the same old lies being spun. There's a few reasons why it seems that it's harder for those who need welfare to get it.

First, because of the stigma about accepting help, many people feel a social pressure not to seek it, and get looked down upon for taking it at all. As an example, I was informally told that one business wouldn't consider hiring me because they felt taking UI was a sign of a moral corruption.

Second, the government is heavily underfunded as part of the "Starve the Beast" approach to cutting government spending. During a sharp rise in usage of services, those services were having their payrolls slashed. As an example I often use, the IRS is heavily underfunded and undermanned, resulting in unofficial and improper shortcuts to handle the sudden increase. And that's just within a specific area of the IRS. One tactic sometimes done by understaffed agencies is to deny initial claims, hoping to weed out idle applicants but also discouraging those who have actual need from appealing, which is when they'd do the full check. 

Third, many of the people who only talk about the those who don't deserve or abuse welfare redefine both what qualifies and what constitutes a luxury. The Heritage Institute (Right-Wing/Republican think tank) tried to claim the poor weren't really poor because they had refrigerators and microwaves. How often do you hear the cry of "They have a flatscreen TV, they can't be poor!" Have you tried buying anything other than a flatscreen TV these days? Cellphones are often called a luxury item when they are often necessary to finding a job (and a lot of jobs I apply for list it as a requirement). Same thing for computers and internet access - yes, a high-end gaming machine is a luxury, but a mid to low-range computer is needed for so many things these days.

All that boils down to "I don't approve of their purchases, therefore they don't deserve it," with the various reasons for that disapproval varying. A lot. There is a strong streak of disapproval towards the poor, as Pastry very... succinctly sums up, that assumes that the poor are only poor because they made bad choices in life. This is the "Bootstraps" argument, which is rooted in Protestant Moralism and the Prosperity Gospel heresy that has infected much of Christianity in the US (Especially the politically active elements). And certainly there are cases that can be shown "Hey, this person made bad decisions and has bad habits". 

 There's the myth of the social mobility in America, that hard work will get you wealth and if you're poor you're obviously lazy. Except that's not the case at all when looking at data. Certainly those who have climbed out of poverty have been hard workers, but not all hard workers were able to climb out of poverty. Hard work alone does not guarantee success. Here's a comic where you have two people growing up, and we can assume they both work equally hard. Richard didn't have success handed to him, he still had to work for it, but when you compare the opportunities and resources available to him rather than Paula? The contrast of outcomes is rather extreme if you consider them to have put out the same effort. Yet time and again you have the Paulas of the world called lazy or undeserving. Meanwhile, the Paulas have had their income remain steady or drop (adjusting for inflation) for the last 45 years, while the cost of living has gone up, even when adjusting for inflation.

This is a complicated and uncomfortable problem, and doesn't even address things that can't be planned for, like medical emergencies, or car accidents, or jobs ending without warning. But if you happen to have luxuries obtained in the good times, whoo boy, you'll be beaten down for having them at all in the bad times.

And luxuries apparently include refrigerators. 

[Rassah]

I put "The occurance of abuse is not important," because the first issue here is that taxation is theft

[#00Buck]

9 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I put "The occurance of abuse is not important," because the first issue here is that taxation is theft

Wow it's going to be welfare text wall vs. I hate poor people text wall battle. 

All we need to do is put this thread along the mexican border and Trump will mexico sealed off. 

[Gamedog]

I believe that if welfare was given out in the form of coupons for things like diapers, toilet paper, etc and foodstamps, the amount of people "needing" welfare would plummet. (:

If you have money for luxuries after bills from welfare, you do not need to be on welfare. There are no luxuries for people on welfare, that's the way it is.

 

the comment in the last thread about "I should be able to go drink with my friends because for some reason alcohol is a necessary and required thing to enjoy life" made me laugh so hard

[Rassah]

35 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Wow it's going to be welfare text wall vs. I hate poor people text wall battle. 

All we need to do is put this thread along the mexican border and Trump will mexico sealed off. 

I didn't actually do a text wall this time... even though I could tear summercat's post all to shreds. I was hoping someone would be proud.

And holy crap are there so many things wrong in his post... *twitch*

[Gamedog]

Ive seen this comic and every time I see it, it makes me laugh because the author clearly didn't notice the fuckups he wrote in while he was making it: http://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/
 

First one, Richard gets a B+ from his own hard work, and somehow this is implied to be some form of privilege, despite Paula getting a B as well. ???
Hard work in school = good grades, this isn't hard to understand.

Richard is in university and it's said that his parents pay for his schooling because duhhh, every parent who isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel and dirt poor will pay for their kids schooling, don't you know?
Nice pizza boxes and beer, Richard, you lazy fuck.
You get high grades, but you are still lazy somehow with your schooling!

Paula is selfless, looking after her sick dad. Richard is selfish because his dad has a friend who can get him a job -- the way many people nowadays get jobs! Selfish and horrible you are, Richard!!!!

Despite having a job before Richard did, somehow Paula is still behind and the reason for her being in debt is because of some outside force, probably having to do with that dirty rotten Richard and his parents who can afford to pay for his schooling! Fuck Richard, what a dick!

 

Richard got where he is because he did a good job and deserves to be there. Act like a dick and you get fired, get bad grades and you're out of university. Is this unfair?

[#00Buck]

42 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I didn't actually do a text wall this time... even though I could tear summercat's post all to shreds. I was hoping someone would be proud.

And holy crap are there so many things wrong in his post... *twitch*

A mini text wall from Gamedog? 

Mini posts from Rassah?

No mention of bitcoin?

The world had gone mad. 

[Summercat]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

I put "The occurance of abuse is not important," because the first issue here is that taxation is theft

Oh. Oh wow.

57 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I didn't actually do a text wall this time... even though I could tear summercat's post all to shreds. I was hoping someone would be proud.

 

Try me. With cites and data, not Econ 101 theory and mixing Macro and Micro.

29 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

Richard got where he is because he did a good job and deserves to be there. Act like a dick and you get fired, get bad grades and you're out of university. Is this unfair?

And thus why I said that Richard did earn what he got. But started from a different place and went further with the same work.

[#00Buck]

6 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Oh. Oh wow.

Try me. With cites and data, not Econ 101 theory and mixing Macro and Micro.

And thus why I said that Richard did earn what he got. But started from a different place and went further with the same work.

Why don't you just get a job?

Then you wouldn't have to post in these threads and make lame excuses for yourself.

[Lucyfish]

All governments are satan

Anarchy reigns

Give in to the chaos

SERVE THE ANTICHRIST

WILLEM DAFOE

[#00Buck]

4 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

All governments are satan

Anarchy reigns

Give in to the chaos

SERVE THE ANTICHRIST

WILLEM DAFOE

See. This is the kind of philosophy I can get behind.

Especially coming from someone who has accidental gunshots blasting through the walls of their apartment. 

[Rassah]

26 minutes ago, Summercat said:

"Taxation is theft"

Oh. Oh wow.

Sorry, yes, we have to use sources. Hell, I'll even use the legal dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft

"A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent."

All taxation involves property being taken without the other person's consent. It's taken under threat of force, or in case if payroll tax without even giving you an option.

26 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Try me. With cites and data, not Econ 101 theory and mixing Macro and Micro.

Well, for one, macro is bullshit.

But the things that were wrong were:

"Have you tried buying anything other than a flatscreen TV these days?"

I have. For example food, bills, even stocks...

"All that boils down to "I don't approve of their purchases, therefore they don't deserve it," with the various reasons for that disapproval varying."

Actually there's only one reason for the disapproval: they are spending OUR money - not theirs - on things we didn't give them that money for.

"assumes that the poor are only poor because they made bad choices in life."

They certainly aren't poor because someone else made bad, or good, choices in life. They're not poor because someone else is rich. Sure, there can be extraneous circumstances, but most people get those, and yet some figure out how to manage... And if the poor are not to blame for their situation, then who is?

"Hard work alone does not guarantee success."

That's true, but that doesn't automatically mean that the wealthy do not work hard. Success means both working hard AND working smart. The poor just think that to succeed they have to work hard, and that's it. That's even the typical thing we tell kids: Study, work hard, and you'll do well. It sucks that the solution to this problem is "keep working hard, and we'll just give you money from others who also work smart," instead of actually teaching everyone how to work smart too.

"Meanwhile, the Paulas have had their income remain steady or drop (adjusting for inflation) for the last 45 years, "

That graph simply shows how many families were in which wealth bracket as a specific snapshot in time. It completely ignores the fact that families move back and forth between those wealth brackets. For instance, that family that was making less than $50k in 1990 could have been making over $200k in 2010 (and mine actually did!)

"while the cost of living has gone up, even when adjusting for inflation."

Well, there's no one to blame for this bit Keynesians with their inflationary stimulus policies, and lefties with their price control and regulatory policies that severely restricted the amount of available housing, not to mention the Fed with its interest policies that created a housing bubble, driving up housing costs even more. It's certainly not the fault of the market that keeps trying to make things cheaper and cheaper.

"This is a complicated and uncomfortable problem, and doesn't even address things that can't be planned for, like medical emergencies, or car accidents, or jobs ending without warning."

There are things called "friends" and "family," and even "neighbors" sometimes, which seem to have been made obsolete with the idea that if you get in trouble, you can always avoid the embarrassment and ask some indifferent government bureaucrat for help.

26 minutes ago, Summercat said:

And thus why I said that Richard did earn what he got. But started from a different place and went further with the same work.

The irony is that I'm Paula in that story, with really poor parents, no rich parents with connections, no way to pay for university other than working for it myself...

 

P.S. Bitcoin

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Sorry, yes, we have to use sources. Hell, I'll even use the legal dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft

"A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent."

All taxation involves property being taken without the other person's consent. It's taken under threat of force, or in case if payroll tax without even giving you an option.

Well, for one, macro is bullshit.

But the things that were wrong were:

"Have you tried buying anything other than a flatscreen TV these days?"

I have. For example food, bills, even stocks...

"All that boils down to "I don't approve of their purchases, therefore they don't deserve it," with the various reasons for that disapproval varying."

Actually there's only one reason for the disapproval: they are spending OUR money - not theirs - on things we didn't give them that money for.

"assumes that the poor are only poor because they made bad choices in life."

They certainly aren't poor because someone else made bad, or good, choices in life. They're not poor because someone else is rich. Sure, there can be extraneous circumstances, but most people get those, and yet some figure out how to manage... And if the poor are not to blame for their situation, then who is?

"Hard work alone does not guarantee success."

That's true, but that doesn't automatically mean that the wealthy do not work hard. Success means both working hard AND working smart. The poor just think that to succeed they have to work hard, and that's it. That's even the typical thing we tell kids: Study, work hard, and you'll do well. It sucks that the solution to this problem is "keep working hard, and we'll just give you money from others who also work smart," instead of actually teaching everyone how to work smart too.

"Meanwhile, the Paulas have had their income remain steady or drop (adjusting for inflation) for the last 45 years, "

That graph simply shows how many families were in which wealth bracket as a specific snapshot in time. It completely ignores the fact that families move back and forth between those wealth brackets. For instance, that family that was making less than $50k in 1990 could have been making over $200k in 2010 (and mine actually did!)

"while the cost of living has gone up, even when adjusting for inflation."

Well, there's no one to blame for this bit Keynesians with their inflationary stimulus policies, and lefties with their price control and regulatory policies that severely restricted the amount of available housing, not to mention the Fed with its interest policies that created a housing bubble, driving up housing costs even more. It's certainly not the fault of the market that keeps trying to make things cheaper and cheaper.

"This is a complicated and uncomfortable problem, and doesn't even address things that can't be planned for, like medical emergencies, or car accidents, or jobs ending without warning."

There are things called "friends" and "family," and even "neighbors" sometimes, which seem to have been made obsolete with the idea that if you get in trouble, you can always avoid the embarrassment and ask some indifferent government bureaucrat for help.

The irony is that I'm Paula in that story, with really poor parents, no rich parents with connections, no way to pay for university other than working for it myself...

 

P.S. Bitcoin

Good post. Very well said. Also I caught the bitcoin reference. Cheers! 

[WileyWarWeasel]

A welfare state is better than having too many people with no jobs, no food and nothing to lose.

 

Also, @Summercat for macro-economist 2016.

[Summercat]

42 minutes ago, Rassah said:

All taxation involves property being taken without the other person's consent.

Let's see. Social Contract, Cost of Civilization/Society, Freedom of Movement to another location, and of course we are a Democratic government. Taxation is Theft arguments are fundamentally wrong.

43 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Well, for one, macro is bullshit.

 

It's obvious you think that. It's wrong, but it's obvious you think that. Explains why you keep trying to mix things up. I bet you even try to explain the Federal Budget like it's a household one.

44 minutes ago, Rassah said:

"Have you tried buying anything other than a flatscreen TV these days?"

I have. For example food, bills, even stocks...

Reading comprehension is important. Try going into a store and buying a new and cheap TV that isn't a flatscreen. Hell, I was amazed when I saw CRT monitors at the local thrift store. 

46 minutes ago, Rassah said:

There are things called "friends" and "family," and even "neighbors" sometimes, which seem to have been made obsolete with the idea that if you get in trouble, you can always avoid the embarrassment and ask some indifferent government bureaucrat for help.

Quote

What happens when your "friends", "family" and "neighbors" don't have the resources to assist you? Because gonna let you know, despite not being in official poverty, my network is fully tapped out. Maybe if, I dunno, we collected money from everyone and pooled it together somehow. And maybe elect someone to manage it and how it gets spent. 

 

As for the rest of your post? I have no clue how to respond to. It's not even rebuttals, but repeating the very thing I'm responding to. So I'll save us all the time and not even bother responding, because it'd be just a repeat of you blaming poor people for being poor and assuming that means I'm blaming rich people for them being poor (Which I am not.)

[Rassah]

29 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

A welfare state is better than having too many people with no jobs, no food and nothing to lose.

A welfare state causes too many people with no jobs, no food, and nothing to lose. Ever notice how everything the government wages a war on - drugs, terror - ends up in even more of that thing? Why should the war on poverty be any different? Or, ever notice how when the government subsidizes something - corn, oil - we have more of it and when it taxes if to disincentivise - cigarettes, carbon pollution - we have less of it? Why should that be different with government subsidizing poverty and disincentivising employment?

 

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Let's see. Social Contract

The hell is that? Some made up concept? I never signed, or agreed to it, and all contracts require consent of both parties.

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Cost of Civilization/Society

Robbing people and threatening them with cages or murder is civilization? I guess sacrificing humans to the sun god was a cost of civilization too at one point?

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Freedom of Movement to another location

Yeah, I wish that existed. But nowadays we have things like borders and expensive expatriation taxes, that's even assuming you're allowed to leave and drop your citizenship.

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

and of course we are a Democratic government. 

No we're not. We're a democratic republic, meaning all decisions and rulings are done by a small exclusive group of elites who aren't actually accountable to the voting public, except for the brief periods of time when the public is allowed to pick between two pre-chosen elites to give it the illusion that it's actually in control.

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Taxation is Theft arguments are fundamentally wrong.

Other than it firing the definition thereof... Although, I have heard some argue that it's actually robbery, not theft.

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

It's obvious you think that. It's wrong, but it's obvious you think that. Explains why you keep trying to mix things up. 

I used to think it wasn't wrong. In fact, my education taught me all about it and about how right it is. And, to a point, it is right, admittedly (like with effects of tariffs on trade and such), but its adherents just keep using it in such wrong ways! As I said, they keep ignoring other variables, or simply believing that the ends justify the means with regards to certain things. So I, having learned much more than the basics taught, just deride it to be wrong because those who depend on it often are.

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

I bet you even try to explain the Federal Budget like it's a household one.

 

Not really. The government can print unlimited money and set interest rates on its own debt, which households cannot to. Well, theoretically unlimited. In practice, not so much.

 

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Reading comprehension is important. Try going into a store and buying a new and cheap TV that isn't a flatscreen. 

Oh, I know what you meant. My point is don't buy a fucking flatscreen when you have other priorities, like an emergency savings account, or a training course that may help you get a job.

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

What happens when your "friends", "family" and "neighbors" don't have the resources to assist you? 

That never happens if you are a good person, and actually work to show it, help others, and try to improve your abs other's situation. Hell, if people in poorest parts of Asia and Africa can do it, there's no reason the world's 5% of the wealthy, which is practically all of US, can't manage. Hell, just earning $32,400 a year puts you in the global 1%.

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Because gonna let you know, despite not being in official poverty, my network is fully tapped out. 

Well, maybe that's because you tapped it out and didn't have anything to show for it? People don't like it when you waste their money and good will. 

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Maybe if, I dunno, we collected money from everyone and pooled it together somehow. And maybe elect someone to manage it and how it gets spent. 

Yeah, let me know when you get such a system working. Unfortunately charities have been all but destroyed by us forcefully robbing everyone and having that money be used by unellected bureaucrats mostly on military, corporate welfare, and pork projects.

 

27 minutes ago, Summercat said:

So I'll save us all the time and not even bother responding, because it'd be just a repeat of you blaming poor people for being poor and assuming that means I'm blaming rich people for them being poor

Whom or what do you blame poor people for being poor?

[Summercat]

2 minutes ago, Rassah said:

A welfare state causes too many people with no jobs

Assertation without evidence. Citation needed.

3 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Some made up concept?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract You agree to it by living in society. 

4 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Robbing people and threatening them with cages or murder is civilization?

Paying taxes - in some form in another - has been how civilization has worked since we started it.

5 minutes ago, Rassah said:

But nowadays we have things like borders

Odd, I thought you would reject the legitimacy of borders for the same reason you think taxes are theft.

5 minutes ago, Rassah said:

We're a democratic republic

Ah, this old canard. See, "Democracy" refers to the origin of authority and power, in which case, the general population with their vote. You can have most forms of government that are democracies. Republic refers to the method of organization and governance. There's no gotchya here like you think.

7 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Other than it firing the definition thereof

Odd, I thought it was "a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.". Now you can get all up in arms about "compulsory", but you can always leave if you don't like paying for government institutions. Like roads and courts.

9 minutes ago, Rassah said:

So I, having learned much more than the basics taught

Didn't you say you never took an econ class? It shows. Macroeconomics is a real thing, the fact you reject it doesn't make it bunk.

10 minutes ago, Rassah said:

My point is don't buy a fucking flatscreen

Yeah, how dare people not spend an extra 99 bucks to get a TV! SHAME THE POOR! SHAME THE POOR!

11 minutes ago, Rassah said:

if you are a good person

Moralistic nonsense. Bad stuff happens to good people all the time, for events out of their control. 

11 minutes ago, Rassah said:

you tapped it out

Or, maybe just maybe, they're in the same boat I am on my good days, or have tapped out their own resources for their own problems?

12 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Yeah, let me know when you get such a system working.

It's called a democratic government and in the modern form has worked quite well for the last 400 years or so. If we take out elections and voting, it just becomes government, which we've had for the last 5000 years in various forms and degrees of success.

16 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Whom or what do you blame poor people for being poor?

Why do you focus so much on blame? Perhaps... there's nobody in specific to blame? That there's no one single factor that would be at fault?

[Lucyfish]

Sometimes you're born and life already sucks :3c

[Summercat]

3 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

Sometimes you're born and life already sucks :3c

Indeed. Sometimes you're born to a single parent who has to take care of both you and your ill grandmother for the rest of your grandmother's life. 

Apparently that was my first bad decision :v

[WileyWarWeasel]

21 minutes ago, Rassah said:

A welfare state causes too many people with no jobs, no food, and nothing to lose. Ever notice how everything the government wages a war on - drugs, terror - ends up in even more of that thing? Why should the war on poverty be any different? Or, ever notice how when the government subsidizes something - corn, oil - we have more of it and when it taxes if to disincentivise - cigarettes, carbon pollution - we have less of it? Why should that be different with government subsidizing poverty and disincentivising employment?

Hahaha, subsidizing poverty.

Poverty is the lack of resources. Pumping additional resources to the corn industry results in more corn because you're funneling resources to it.

Funneling resources directly to those in poverty helps reduce poverty because poverty is not a tangible "product" like corn, it is the lack of resources.

 

Silliness aside, I do have a serious recommendation for you. Take a look at Industrial Society and Its Future by Ted Kaczynski (with a grain of salt).

I may be wrong, but to me it seems that you want the impossible: a complex technological-based society which requires certain regulations and rules to ensure that all the moving parts are operating smoothly with each other (a social contract if you will) but without the rules and regulations.

 

I'm afraid that anarcho-primitivism (basically loose hunter-gatherer societies) is the only form of pseudo-anarchy (there is still some organization on a tribal level) that can actually work for the long-term. Only a tiny percentage of people on Earth still live as hunter-gatherers, the rest are connected to modern civilization in one way or another.

Unfortunately the Earth can't handle 7.5 billion people living as hunter-gatherers and we've almost certainly ruined our planet for future generations, but those are the breaks.

 

39 minutes ago, Summercat said:

 

56 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Whom or what do you blame poor people for being poor?

Why do you focus so much on blame? Perhaps... there's nobody in specific to blame? That there's no one single factor that would be at fault?

Precisely, what is dragging our system down is quite a handful of factors (eg pollution, debt, increasing overhead costs from complexity, rising resource extraction costs). To point the finger at just rich people/poor people/terrorists/Asians/etc is quite a narrow view of the many issues we actually face.

[Lucyfish]

Without taxes you can have no government, and as fun as anarchy sounds to me, it really doesn't work on a large scale. :u

I like the technology, and thrusting society back into the dark ages seems like a good way to make things like the improving technology impossible. :B

[WileyWarWeasel]

8 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

Without taxes you can have no government, and as fun as anarchy sounds to me, it really doesn't work on a large scale. :u

I like the technology, and thrusting society back into the dark ages seems like a good way to make things like the improving technology impossible. :B

Well hunter-gatherer societies can work on a planetary scale, it just means you'll have a planet of many primitive societies living independently from each other.

 

Besides, you can't have civilization without this:

 

[Summercat]

49 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

To point the finger at just rich people/poor people/terrorists/Asians/etc is quite a narrow view of the many issues we actually face.

And quite frankly, not helpful to getting a solution.

I get upset with people who decide to make moral judgments on someone based upon incomplete information, or refuse to look at actual effective programs because it's contrary to how they feel the world ought to be. I also get angry at people who hold up as typical the worst welfare fraud offenders. I also get angry at people who would rather nine people starve than a tenth get something he might not have deserved. 

But blaming individuals or single groups for the current status quo? No. It's a combination of everything that's going on and has been going on in the past. But some would deny it because they refuse to consider that a rising tide lifts all boats.

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, Summercat said:

Assertation without evidence. Citation needed.

I really even doubt you'll care about citations. I'll post some things, like 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Confronting-the-Unsustainable-Growth-of-Welfare-Entitlements-Principles-of-Reform-and-the-Next-Steps

http://www.cato.org/cato-journal/springsummer-1996/welfare-culture-poverty

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/more-welfare-more-poverty

https://fee.org/articles/does-welfare-diminish-poverty/

https://mises.org/library/state-causes-poverty-it-later-claims-solve

And even point to some contemporary examples from news articles that show how welfare expenditures been increasing over the years, yet so has poverty, or how some countries that had heavy welfare expenditures are collapsing and resulting in their citizens becoming poorer than ever...

Bit you'll likely just claim biased sources or whatever. That's why I like to argue based on sound logical arguments and thoughts from your own head. Otherwise we'll just keep throwing links back and forth and having other people argue for us.

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract You agree to it by living in society.

Yeah, no. "You can agree to this, or you can die" is not really a choice. Nor is it a contract, still.

Quote

Paying taxes - in some form in another - has been how civilization has worked since we started it.

Actually no, not at all. Plenty of civilizations existed without taxes. And plenty of civilizations fell entirely because of taxes (Rome for instance, which promised payments to its troops, became a huge welfare state, ended up in skirmishes with border areas because of its high taxation, resorted to debasing/I flaring the hell out of its currency, and when it failed to keep its obligation to its troops because of it, they came back and sacked their own city.

Quote

Odd, I thought you would reject the legitimacy of borders for the same reason you think taxes are theft.

I do! They're another thing being forcefully imposed on us without our consent!

Quote

Ah, this old canard. See, "Democracy" refers to the origin of authority and power, in which case, the general population with their vote. You can have most forms of government that are democracies. Republic refers to the method of organization and governance. There's no gotchya here like you think.

There is in that you falsely believe that democracy actually determines who holds that authority and power. It doesn't. Hell, most of our laws are written by unellected appointed bureaucrats in various regulatory agencies and departments, usually "captured" by the industries they're supposed to regulate.

But, in general, democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Quote

Odd, I thought it was "a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.". Now you can get all up in arms about "compulsory", but you can always leave if you don't like paying for government institutions. Like roads and courts.

That's an appropriate definition of the word "theft" you got there. It's weird that you don't think I can pay for roads myself though. I mean, they're not even built by government, but by private contractors. And as I said, we had roads, and courts, before taxes. Hell, we even have private roads and courts now. Why do you think we need government for them?

 

Quote

Didn't you say you never took an econ class? It shows.

No, I did not say that. Quite the contrary actually (but I don't like to brag). Maybe the reason it shows is because the level I'm describing it at is so high it seems preposterous? As you no doubt know, economics is often very counterintuitive (and if you don't, you'll learn that as you continue to study economics)

 

Quote

Yeah, how dare people not spend an extra 99 bucks to get a TV! SHAME THE POOR! SHAME THE POOR!

I have no problem with the poor spending their money as they see fit. I have a problem with the poor spending OTHER people's money on non-essentials, and then complaining that they don't have enough. If you're bitching about being hungry and not being able to pay rent, I give you money for those things, and you go blow it on cigarettes and videogames, then come back to me complaining about being hungry and not having money for rent, yeah I'll have a problem with it. I'll have an even bigger problem if you accuse me of being greedy afterwards.

Quote

Moralistic nonsense. Bad stuff happens to good people all the time, for events out of their control.

Good people usually don't have a problem of other people - like friends and family - not wanting anything to do with them. Just sayin'...

Quote

Or, maybe just maybe, they're in the same boat I am on my good days, or have tapped out their own resources for their own problems?

I come from a country where it's normal for three generations of families to live in the same two bedroom apartments, and dinners to be made from empty refrigerators, including from stuff found outside. Sorry if I have no empathy for your 1st world problems.

Quote

It's called a democratic government and in the modern form has worked quite well for the last 400 years or so.

I know what it's called. And we don't have it. It's also been a series of repeated failires for thousands of years, always having the same incentives that lead to the same issues that result in the same outcomes. We're just watching yet another same outcome now.

Quote

Why do you focus so much on blame? 

Because without identifying the source of the problem, and subsequently exploring solutions, all you'd be doing is whining?

 

 

38 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Hahaha, subsidizing poverty.

Poverty is the lack of resources.

Actually, lack of resources and poverty is the natural condition. Nothing "causes" poverty, that's just how things are, and have been for millions of years until just a few hundred years ago. We should be asking what causes wealth and prosperity.

 

38 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Pumping additional resources to the corn industry results in more corn because you're funneling resources to it.

Don't forget the other side of the equation. Government can't create wealth, so here you're also sucking resources from something else. Likely something people have more demand and interest in.

38 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Funneling resources directly to those in poverty helps reduce poverty because poverty is not a tangible "product" like corn, it is the lack of resources.

And, again, doing that while sucking resources from someplace else. You could be sucking resources from businesses, which end up paying lower wages and having fewer jobs, which results in more poverty, which forces you to suck more resources from businesses, etc.etc.etc. until in the end you end up with the whole population depending on the government, and no business income to sustain them. Like Venezuela, or Greece.

38 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

I may be wrong, but to me it seems that you want the impossible: a complex technological-based society which requires certain regulations and rules to ensure that all the moving parts are operating smoothly with each other (a social contract if you will) but without the rules and regulations.

I want rules and regulations, but I want them done by private entities, like CE and UL certification for good electronics, or all the web standards we have. Basically done by competent people, and not compelled by force, so if someone wants to make something better (or worse), they're free to, and then free to experience the consequences on the market (either new standard, or going out of business). If it works for something as complex as the whole internet, or global trade which has its own extragovernmental set of rules and laws, surely it can work on a smaller scale.

 

28 minutes ago, Summercat said:

I get upset with people who decide to make moral judgments on someone based upon incomplete information, or refuse to look at actual effective programs because it's contrary to how they feel the world ought to be. I also get angry at people who hold up as typical the worst welfare fraud offenders. 

I get perplexed at people who defend welfare abusers - who drain the resources they depends on and ruin the reputation of the whole program - just because they're afraid they'll loose their handout. I would expect them to be the first to point those people out and get them kicked off welfare, to show the rest of society that they're responsible with the system they're using.

28 minutes ago, Summercat said:

But blaming individuals or single groups for the current status quo? No. It's a combination of everything that's going on and has been going on in the past.

Except it's not at all the fault of the poor people themselves, right?

 

Also, do you know what does the fox say?

[WileyWarWeasel]

5 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Actually, lack of resources and poverty is the natural condition. Nothing "causes" poverty, that's just how things are, and have been for millions of years until just a few hundred years ago. We should be asking what causes wealth and prosperity.

Actually, the natural condition is living within the means provided by nature. There's nothing natural about our global playground that we've made for ourselves.

What causes wealth and prosperity within our system? Surplus resources, in particular energy.

 

10 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Don't forget the other side of the equation. Government can't create wealth, so here you're also sucking resources from something else. Likely something people have more demand and interest in.

Quote

Funneling resources directly to those in poverty helps reduce poverty because poverty is not a tangible "product" like corn, it is the lack of resources.

And, again, doing that while sucking resources from someplace else. You could be sucking resources from businesses, which end up paying lower wages and having fewer jobs, which results in more poverty, which forces you to suck more resources from businesses, etc.etc.etc. until in the end you end up with the whole population depending on the government, and no business income to sustain them. Like Venezuela, or Greece.

On the flip side if people have little or no money coming in they can't pay for products and services from businesses, which means businesses cut capital expenditure and wages, which then means people have even less to spend on businesses which then prompts more cuts.

Remember that businesses don't "create wealth" either, all of our wealth is extracted from the surrounding environment.

 

I'll admit you come very close to identifying core issues with our system, however you are just off the mark. Our system is going down because it is becoming too costly as a whole to operate and there are not enough surplus resources to satisfy all (in a global context). Whether resources are shifted due to government, central bank or business becomes somewhat immaterial when there just aren't enough surplus resources to satisfy the overall systemic requirements.

 

17 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I want rules and regulations, but I want them done by private entities, like CE and UL certification for good electronics, or all the web standards we have. Basically done by competent people, and not compelled by force, so if someone wants to make something better (or worse), they're free to, and then free to experience the consequences on the market (either new standard, or going out of business). If it works for something as complex as the whole internet, or global trade which has its own extragovernmental set of rules and laws, surely it can work on a smaller scale.

 

Again you point to private entities providing rules and regulations but you refuse to call them a form of governance. Also people are free to make something better or worse within the context of our modern system, even in a totalitarian regime like the USA.

The market that you so cherish exists as a part of a larger interdependent system with national and international forms of governance. These various governing entities whether they are private or public help ensure that our complex system is maintained by sets of rules and regulations. These regulations require some sort of enforcement, non-violent or otherwise. It would be insane to leave matters such as theft and murder to "the market" to be resolved for example.

You like to complain incessantly about "the government" and yet it is governments that to a degree provide part of the framework to operate within and also provide certain services such as defense, roads and health care. If you transfer the responsibilities of governance from one group to another then eventually the other group would become the entrenched "government" that you so despise.

 

42 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Yeah, no. "You can agree to this, or you can die" is not really a choice. Nor is it a contract, still.

If you want to participate in our global socioeconomic system you will inevitably encounter rules and regulations that you'll need to abide by or attempt to bypass.

The alternative is to operate outside the system in a hunter-gatherer or perhaps subsistence farming context.

 

I understand if you want to have your cake and eat it too, but don't pretend that you're on a high horse by doing so.

[Endless/Nameless]

STOP IT

 

[Summercat]

Just now, Rassah said:

Yeah, no. "You can agree to this, or you can die" is not really a choice. Nor is it a contract, still.

Quote

You can agree or you can leave. "Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.

That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?"

 

1 minute ago, Rassah said:

I really even doubt you'll care about citations.

That's been you. 

 

3 minutes ago, Rassah said:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Confronting-the-Unsustainable-Growth-of-Welfare-Entitlements-Principles-of-Reform-and-the-Next-Steps

Perhaps the most important thing here about why this is bullshit is this line "To bring welfare spending under control, Congress should reduce welfare spending to pre-recession levels after the recession ends " The recession was the reason for the growth of welfare spending, as more people had to depend on the social safety net. The entire report is riddled with colorful language. Much of the data on spending seems to be correct, but then it has incorrect statement to support a negative conclusion, such as the impact on welfare on out of wedlock childbirth.. It's certainly conventional wisdom that welfare increases single motherhood, but that actually doesn't seem to be what looking at the full picture tells us. The report has multiple issues with that, then also again, rejects the economic stimulus impact of this sort of spending. 

Most of the report are "Numbers are going up and that's bad!". Its focus is on reducing spending, the few attempts to fix WHY the spending is going up can be summed up as three items, "Shame the poor into a better work ethic!" "Shame unwed mothers to get married!" and "Those low skill foreigners are taking your jobs!".

For the first one, well, here you go. One nice data-packed rebuttal to the idea that whose on welfare need a work ethic. The third one is classic xenophobic racism, and the bigger problem would be importing SKILLED labor who A) work for way less than what Americans would, B) Send good portion of there income away, and C) Are stuck with their employer due to how the visa program works. The second ignores a whole host of issues involving inequality in law and rights mixed with economic inequality mixed with how we treat these populations. But that's a nice tangle of mess. 

Going to be honest there's a lot of coded language and dog whistles in that. My ears almost started to hurt.

23 minutes ago, Rassah said:

http://www.cato.org/cato-journal/springsummer-1996/welfare-culture-poverty

The journal PDF linked here cites... itself to start. That's not good. Let's see. The thesis is that welfare is "a cause ofseveral conditions best described as social pathologies. These conditions include dependency, poverty, out-of-wedlock births, nonemployment, abortion, and violent crime."

For Poverty, it bases its claim that poverty rates did not decrease in 30 years, but that may be an issue with the official method of calculating, rather than an actual failure of policies. Dependency gets defined as people who... use the program. Out of wedlock births, as I linked above, have nothing to do with welfare. Nonemployment, again linked above. Abortion is... er. Irrelevant. And its link to violent crime is I'm certain hilarious, I've got to read this... ...it's a correlation argument. The ENTIRE thing is a correlation argument. And irrelevant, as violent crimes peaked three years before this was printed and have continued to fall.

A lot of wishful thinking, starting with a conclusion, and correlation is causation arguments.

43 minutes ago, Rassah said:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/more-welfare-more-poverty

Nothing to really rebut here. It's an opinion piece that talks about static welfare rates (already addressed) and insists that removing regulations is the way to go - it isn't, unless you think that supply creates demand (as opposed to creating a new product or filling an unrealized demand, which is not the same thing). Reducing the cost of business does not increase employment - something that Kansas has been trying out and failing miserably at. The argument of Supply Side is that if you reduce taxes on business, economy will grow. It's based on the assumption that tax rates are too high and are depressing businesses, but the problem with that is twofold; first, if my taxes are so high that its impacting my ability to product a product, my profit margins are so razor-thin that a hiccup somewhere will wipe me out. Second, it does not consider that taxes might already be below that point (which I suspect we are.)

48 minutes ago, Rassah said:

https://fee.org/articles/does-welfare-diminish-poverty/

Let's see... Already one error in, "The second basic truth becomes clear only after some thought, that is: prosperity depends on production. Unless physical goods are produced in the first place and then replaced as necessary, there can be no prosperity for anyone. " Depends on what you mean by physical goods, but I do love the denigration of service economy types. 

"welfare programs affect employment, wage rates, productivity and prices (all of which are important to the poor)." Considering that 72% of people on welfare are working or part of a working household, and that's including children and elderly? Um. "The benefits go to people who, for a host of reasons, are relatively unproductive, while the funds to pay for them come, through taxation, from people who are relatively productive." 

Yeah, this has flawed assumptions. Deeply flawed assumptions. And then goes into the usual gospel of supply-side stimulus, which, as the Moody's report shows, doesn't work nearly as well as bottom-level spending such as SNAP. "This is a phenomenon we might call “government failure”: the inherent inability of government to do much of anything well." Oh dear gods above, that's.... that's precious, considering that most Welfare programs have an improper payment rate under the private industry average, and the vast majority of that isn't even actual fraud, but honest mistakes or administrative errors. That's a bald assertion that's proclaiming their bias.

This is a puff piece, with bad figures that have no breakdowns. I'm willing to bet Medicare, Medicaid, or SSI - or all three - are lumped into their figures.

59 minutes ago, Rassah said:

https://mises.org/library/state-causes-poverty-it-later-claims-solve

Has.... nothing to do with what is being discussed. This is a complaint about fractional reserve banking and the current money system. It also decides inflation is bad, when... it's an important aspect of our economy, which requires wealth to keep moving; Velocity of Money, but considering this is an Austrian Economics website, that would make sense they reject the concept. 

Sorry, your links are bad, and don't actually contradict my citations or sources. In many cases they are factually wrong (such as Welfare causing a rise in out of wedlock births, or trying to link it to an increase in crime that had already peaked), and start off with some interesting assumptions that don't actually bear in reality. 

And I mean, Cato? Really? 

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Because without identifying the source of the problem, and subsequently exploring solutions, all you'd be doing is whining?

 

No, we don't have to lay blame on anyone. Nor do we have to figure out how exactly we got into this knot. The source of the problem is complex and multi-faceted, with roots in a hundred different threads stretching back to, quite frankly, the Norman conquest of Saxon England, with a detour to when Spain flooded Europe with New World Gold and Silver, leading to a collapse of the West African gold economy. Then they got all woven and tangled together, new threads added in and some taken out. 

Trying to lay the 'blame' or responsibility for all this on a single thing or group of people isn't going to happen. Nor do we need to figure out guilt. Besides, we know what the best way to get people out of poverty is; spend money. Usually by directly handing cash, but also on education and training - but most importantly, without scorn or making them feel shame. Oddly enough, that tends to work. 

[WileyWarWeasel]

22 minutes ago, Summercat said:

No, we don't have to lay blame on anyone. Nor do we have to figure out how exactly we got into this knot. The source of the problem is complex and multi-faceted, with roots in a hundred different threads stretching back to, quite frankly, the Norman conquest of Saxon England, with a detour to when Spain flooded Europe with New World Gold and Silver, leading to a collapse of the West African gold economy. Then they got all woven and tangled together, new threads added in and some taken out. 

Trying to lay the 'blame' or responsibility for all this on a single thing or group of people isn't going to happen. Nor do we need to figure out guilt. Besides, we know what the best way to get people out of poverty is; spend money. Usually by directly handing cash, but also on education and training - but most importantly, without scorn or making them feel shame. Oddly enough, that tends to work. 

Actually, I would say we began our unsustainable march towards progress when we started to extensively utilize fire then agriculture.

[Summercat]

Just now, WileyWarWeasel said:

Actually, I would say we began our unsustainable march towards progress when we started to extensively utilize fire then agriculture.

Oh, I was being more specific towards the current issue of "poverty" in the US, and pointing out it's not a new thing or that the source is anywhere recent. 

I brought up the Norman Conquest because that was part of the tensions during the English Civil War, the Normen of the nobility (and the gentry of Virginia and Maryland) vs the peasent Saxons of Parliament (and New England). The English Civil War did have battles and fights here in the current US, and much of the following years had the roots there. 

The collapse of the Gold Coast is when the kingdoms there started selling slaves to European traders, because their prior exports had no value. That's right goldbugs, gold is a commodity like all the others.

[kazooie]

20 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

STOP IT

some people really hate poor people

 

4 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Actually, I would say we began our unsustainable march towards progress when we started to extensively utilize fire then agriculture.

im looking forward to california turning to desert and florida flooding

 

a whole lotta people are gonna be on welfare

[WileyWarWeasel]

16 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Oh, I was being more specific towards the current issue of "poverty" in the US, and pointing out it's not a new thing or that the source is anywhere recent. 

I brought up the Norman Conquest because that was part of the tensions during the English Civil War, the Normen of the nobility (and the gentry of Virginia and Maryland) vs the peasent Saxons of Parliament (and New England). The English Civil War did have battles and fights here in the current US, and much of the following years had the roots there.

That makes a bit more sense. Earlier conflicts and power shifts would indeed have an effect on what happens later.

 

18 minutes ago, kazooie said:

some people really hate poor people

 

im looking forward to california turning to desert and florida flooding

 

a whole lotta people are gonna be on welfare

 

Better hope you can eke out more resources from elsewhere.

[Rassah]

Ugh! These giant text walls are exactly why I didn't want to bother getting involved! I don't know you @Summercat, I don't know your level of education on this, I don't expect you to trust me or listen to anything I say or cite, and I don't care enough to try to convince you. Basically, when I was saying "I don't care to cite stuff," I really meant "you're not worth my time. I hate the text walls, and I hate that you ended up making me waste so much time on this. Ugh...

5 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Actually, the natural condition is living within the means provided by nature. 

Living within the means is basically hunter/gatherer, or subsistence farming, which is how we survived for thousands of years. The division of labor, specialization, and trade are the new things.

Quote

What causes wealth and prosperity within our system? Surplus resources, in particular energy.

Nah, we've always had the energy we are using. It's new innovation and increased efficiency in using that energy. Mostly through specialization and division of labor.

Quote

On the flip side if people have little or no money coming in they can't pay for products and services from businesses, which means businesses cut capital expenditure and wages, which then means people have even less to spend on businesses which then prompts more cuts.

You're basically describing a deflationary spiral. It's a myth, because businesses target the market that actually exists, not a hypothetical what-if market. There's a good description of all concerns here https://mises.org/library/deflationary-spiral-bogey

Quote

Remember that businesses don't "create wealth" either, all of our wealth is extracted from the surrounding environment.

That's not true. Oil is a worthless toxic sludge that doesn't do anything. As that oil is extracted, transported, refined, and converted into usable materials like gasoline and plastic, with every employee adding a bit of their own contribution to the process, it converts from a worthless sludge to something useful, thus the businesses create actual wealth from the oil. 

Quote

I'll admit you come very close to identifying core issues with our system, however you are just off the mark. Our system is going down because it is becoming too costly as a whole to operate and there are not enough surplus resources to satisfy all (in a global context). 

If that were true, the entire world would be seeing an economic decline. But instead only some countries are experiencing a decline - mostly the heavily socialist ones - while some countries are either unaffected or are showing economic growth. Check out this list. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate Most of the countries growing are Asian and Middle Eastern countries, where incidentally a lot of the wealth is escaping to from the declining Western countries, in the form of outsourcing, direct investment, etc.

Quote

Again you point to private entities providing rules and regulations but you refuse to call them a form of governance. Also people are free to make something better or worse within the context of our modern system, even in a totalitarian regime like the USA.

Government, governance, I'm not sure what you mean by these terms. Generally government is a monopoly on force, which declares rules and then forces you to follow them using guns if necessary. Nobody forces you to follow private rules, whatever that's called. You are free to do things yourself how you want, and instead of someone coming to your house and dragging you off to a cave, at most others just won't want to deal with you.

For example, you would be free to start a bank, collecting and safely storing your local community's money, and reinvesting it as loans in property or business within your local community. The worst that would happen to you is people in the community won't trust you with their money, and you won't be able to stay in business. What we have now is absolutely not being "free to make something better or worse within the context of our modern system," since regardless of whether your local community trusts you and thinks it's a good idea, the government demands that you spend anywhere from $5mil to $10mil to obtain all the licenses and pit up all the very nds before you even consider taking other people's money. And if you don't do it, someone will show up with guns and drag you to a cage. The small group of elites makes the decision on what you are and aren't allowed to do, and they are the only ones allowed to use guns to enforce their decision, as opposed to that decision being left to consumers and community.

Quote

These regulations require some sort of enforcement, non-violent or otherwise. It would be insane to leave matters such as theft and murder to "the market" to be resolved for example.

The market has been able to handle the various business regulations just fine. Government is unable to keep up with all the changes involved, and it's impossible for it to (as USSR's centrally planned economy demonstrated), so the market just regulates itself, from people simply wanting to fulfill their own self interests, buying products that are of good quality and price, and avoiding products that fail standards they themselves set. As for things like theft and murder, why would it be insane to leave that to the market such as private courts? I think it's insane that we leave them to an indifferent public entity that has no consequences regardless of how the trial works, and only punishes the criminal using its own proscribed set of rules, instead of being answerable to the community which it serves, and punishing by demanding restitution. If my car is stolen and trashed, I am not better off if the thief sits behind bars for a few years.

Quote

You like to complain incessantly about "the government" and yet it is governments that to a degree provide part of the framework to operate within and also provide certain services such as defense, roads and health care.

I'm saying it's unnecessary for it to. People want to trade things for the purpose of making their lives more convenient. They will want things that do that, and avoid things that don't. They already regulate that without the government's framework. Likewise they will want things such as defense, roads, and healthcare, and will pay for them if they want to use them. We don't need a government just being a middleman between us and the private businesses that actually provide those things.

Quote

If you want to participate in our global socioeconomic system you will inevitably encounter rules and regulations that you'll need to abide by or attempt to bypass.

The alternative is to operate outside the system in a hunter-gatherer or perhaps subsistence farming context.

And that still doesn't make it a choice. You are coersed into participating, or else. But the options aren't just limited to subsistence farming. You can also take a risk and participate in the grey market, which is the world's biggest economy, existing outside of government regulations.

Btw, it's ironic that you're painting a picture of anarchy as something primitivist, when we currently have two free market capitalist libertarians -Blue Origins and SpaceX - having an actual space race, using private funding to build rockets vastly more advanced than anything NASA ever built, and not even threatening to use that technology to nuke each other. 

[Rassah]

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

You can agree or you can leave.

Did you know that it costs thousands of dollars to leave, and the government keeps drastically increasing that cost, due to more people trying to leave every month? "You can just leave" isn't much of an option, not should it even have to be.

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

Same thing. Is your name on the Constitution? Did you agree to it after you were born? Can I write "I own your property" on a piece of paper, mow your lawn, take your car, and claim you agreed to this "contract" because you didn't leave? It's absurd! You compared this to other contracts, but other contracts require *your* specific consent, not your parents, require "consideration" where both parties give something up, instead of just you giving something up, require prior established claim on property. I don't think coming to an area, planting a flag, and claiming this area belongs to your King is a legit way of establishing property...

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything.

A restaurant doesn't force you to buy anything you don't want. You go into it fully aware of what you will deal with, and choosing things you will agree to trade. Not even close to the same thing.

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

Perhaps the most important thing here about why this is bullshit is this line "To bring welfare spending under control, Congress should reduce welfare spending to pre-recession levels after the recession ends " The recession was the reason for the growth of welfare spending, as more people had to depend on the social safety net. 

Yes, and the article suggests that once that recession that grew the safety net ends, the safety net should be reduced, due to fewer people actually needing it, since the recession is over. Why is that bullshit?

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

Most of the report are "Numbers are going up and that's bad!". Its focus is on reducing spending, the few attempts to fix WHY the spending is going up can be summed up as three items, "Shame the poor into a better work ethic!" "Shame unwed mothers to get married!" and "Those low skill foreigners are taking your jobs!".

For the first one, well, here you go. One nice data-packed rebuttal to the idea that whose on welfare need a work ethic. The third one is classic xenophobic racism.

I thought you wanted numbers and " data?" Do all welfare recipients work? Do many of those who do work simply settle for their low skill job, since welfare offsets their lack of income from lack of skills, instead of actually working to improve their skills so they can actually earn more?

I don't know where you got the "foreigners are taking your jobs!" since the claim is they're taking your welfare, not jobs, and I don't know how facts about how many *legal* immigrants have what kind of education, what kind of job, and which depend on welfare, is racist...

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

unless you think that supply creates demand (as opposed to creating a new product or filling an unrealized demand, which is not the same thing). 

What the hell does that mean? Is unrealized demand even a thing? I mean, everything in the wprld that we can and even can't imagine would be unrealized demand until supply makes it a realized demand. Isn't converting unrealized to realized the same thing as creating demand?

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

Reducing the cost of business does not increase employment - something that Kansas has been trying out and failing miserably at. 

It doesn't? Your article only stated that reducing taxes leafs to having fewer taxes. There was nothing in it about Kansas having more or less business or employment.

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

The argument of Supply Side is that if you reduce taxes on business, economy will grow. It's based on the assumption that tax rates are too high and are depressing businesses...

Actually, no, it's based on the assumption that if two parties trade voluntarily, they will come to the most efficient means of trading and creating their products, and if you add an inefficient third party into the mix, it can only add inefficiencies and distort prices by distorting costs.

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

but the problem with that is twofold; first, if my taxes are so high that its impacting my ability to product a product, my profit margins are so razor-thin that a hiccup somewhere will wipe me out.

 

Correct, and conversely, of my taxes are reduced I will have more cash flow to avoid such issues (you're just assuming taxes on profits, and ignoring taxes on payroll, inventory, and even sales which increases price and decrease demand, aren't you?) Taxes in general make business more risky, from smaller businesses having less cash flow, to larger corporations having to rely on more bonds for profit distribution. Did you cover that in class yet?

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

Second, it does not consider that taxes might already be below that point (which I suspect we are.)

There's no "below" point. A certain level puts a floor on which businesses can exist. Lower tax and regulations doesn't mean same businesses just making more money, it means more businesses making those same razor thin profits. You remember that, long term, competition makes profit trend to zero?

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

Let's see... Already one error in, "The second basic truth becomes clear only after some thought, that is: prosperity depends on production. Unless physical goods are produced in the first place and then replaced as necessary, there can be no prosperity for anyone. " Depends on what you mean by physical goods, but I do love the denigration of service economy types. 

Services are produced too, and skilled labor is a physical good, sold as any other (you "buy" a barber for a limited time to perform services for you).

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

"welfare programs affect employment, wage rates, productivity and prices (all of which are important to the poor)." Considering that 72% of people on welfare are working or part of a working household, and that's including children and elderly? Um. 

Yes. Can you explain how receiving a subsidy check on top of your employment check has no effect on what jobs you would be willing to take and for what price? Do you believe that Walmart employees would continue working for Walmart if they didn't get subsidies, and their wages didn't even cover food and shelter?

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

"The benefits go to people who, for a host of reasons, are relatively unproductive, while the funds to pay for them come, through taxation, from people who are relatively productive." 

Yeah, this has flawed assumptions. Deeply flawed assumptions. And ..

And you forgot to explain what those assumptions are. Productive people do things that is in high demand and low supply. Thus they get the big bucks. Unproductive people do things that are in low demand and high supply (everyone can do their low skill job). This they get low pay. And the people with more valuable contributions to society pay to prove with least valuable contributions. So what's the assumption exactly?

 

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

then goes into the usual gospel of supply-side stimulus, which, as the Moody's report shows, doesn't work nearly as well as bottom-level spending such as SNAP.

The Moody's report that ignores debt, waste, and foreign investment? Can you please explain what was wrong with my math?

 

But anyway, all of this is taking too long.

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

And I mean, Cato? Really? 

As I said, posting links is a waste of time, when you can easily attack the source, or even me directly, when failing to attack points I make (something about me not having an economic education?)

3 hours ago, Summercat said:

No, we don't have to lay blame on anyone. Nor do we have to figure out how exactly we got into this knot. 

But if you don't know what things are causing the problem, your only methods of solving that problem is the typical liberal or communist methods employed by those who don't understand economics: throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. I contend that such a plan of action is WAY more harmful than actually trying to understand the problem, sinse you can easily end up with policies that case way more harm than good (which we have been).

But you're right in one thing, poverty is nothing new. We've had it since the beginning. Most, rather nearly all, people lived in poverty until very recently. It's the wealth and prosperity that are really new.

Oh, and you never answered my question: what does the fox say?

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

Anyone that thinks they can predict/force an economy is sorely ignorant of the chaotic nature of humanity and nature itself.

E.G. any economist, financial expert, etc.

But that is EXACTLY what government attempts to do, by restricting certain businesses, subsidizing others, centrally planning money supply and cost of risk by manipulating interest rates, etc. So why is the government exempt from that view?

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

Economics as a whole is a soft science like psychology, and has zero true merit.

Is there no absolute true merit behind the claim that people try do do things that improve their comfort level? That for them to choose something they necessarily have to give something else up? That they would choose the choice that gives them the biggest return in exchange for what they have to give up?

 

[Summercat]

1 hour ago, 6tails said:

Anyone that thinks they can predict/force an economy is sorely ignorant of the chaotic nature of humanity and nature itself.

Er. Humans aren't entirely chaotic creatures. As groups we tend to get predictable. Economics, much like any 'soft' sciences, has chaos issues, yes, and you can't predict too far into the future. You can forcast and get a good idea at where things are head, and then you absolutely can look at prior data to figure out the impacts of things. 

[Rassah]

4 minutes ago, 6tails said:

It isn't in my eyes. But you WANT it to be,

I DON'T! That's my whole point! Economy does it's own thing, chaotically self-organizing based on certain praxis such as those I listed above, and are entirely too difficult to predict, so when government tries to predict it and centrally plan based on those predictions, it inevitably always makes things worse! I just want it to work the way it's supposed to.

 

4 minutes ago, 6tails said:

which is why I mention it so I can show you that your supposed economical theories are pure bullshit, like every other one that fails to base itself upon the natural fact of human greed (which you actually EXEMPLIFY.)

What are you talking about? Economics, especially Austrian, is *specifically* based on the natural fact of human greed. It assumes all human action is based on individuals making choices to increase their own comfort level. Even when someone gives to charity, it is only because they feel better for doing it and are comfortable with making that choice. And a way to check whether a theory is bullshit or not is to see how its predictions compare to actual results. Economics is typically spot on, aside from some missed variables once in a while. For example, a price floor always causes shortages. So when people proposed a price floor on labor, others warned of shortages of labor positions. And then, years down the road, huge sectors of the economy were devastated when they were moved out to places without that labor price floor. Conversely, when price ceilings on earnings were forced on renters, they couldn't make renting apartments profitable any more, causing a collapse of housing in Detroit, which looks like some post apocalyptic dystopia now, just as economists predicted and warned about. At the very least, economics is as good a science as meteorology, with very concrete understanding of cause and effect (cold front moving into hot air pushes it up, where temperatures cause it to condense, creating rain, and increase in price of something makes fewer people willing to buy it, decreasing demand).

[Rassah]

... Buffy government trying to regulate the economy, through taxation, regulation, and monetary policy, is no better than government trying to regularisky. ather by pumping tons of humid air into the atmosphere. Maybe it'll work and cause rain, maybe the wind will change and carry it away, or maybe we all just end up damp and soggy.

16 minutes ago, 6tails said:

Until you insert your bitcoin into it and say "It will force everyone to behave!"

No I don't/it won't. It will simply make behaving well cheaper or less risky. People can still take the risk or extra cost and misbehave, but the incentives will be to behave well. Under the current system the incentives are to become corrupt, which is why we have so many regulations on government itself.

Quote

It's in full ignorance of human greed. Until it can beat that, it will never be an feasible economic alternative.

I don't want to beat greed. It's impossible. I just want to redirect it for greatest mutual benefit. Currently you satisfy your greed best by getting as close as possible to politicians, who will give you subsidies, unending contracts, and regulations that give you advantage over everyone else. And thus we have all our problems with corporations, cronyism, corruption... Take that away, and the only way to satisfy those people's greed is same way Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and others have: sell as many of the best products as possible. Satisfies your greed for the next products at the cheapest price too.

Ours honestly the ONLY possible alternative to the cycle of revolution, freedom, corruption, dictatorship, revolution again that we have now. At least I think so. If you have a better solution, I'm all ears.