From the Economist: Sighing for paradise to come

joG said:

Don't believe the myth. US spending on social programs of one type or another is extremely high.

Click to expand...

Brilliant exposition of your point-of-view!

Bravo ... ! :roll:
___________

jonny5 said:

Again, who is this we you speak of? Are you a citizen or resident of the US? Your location says France.

Click to expand...

I am more Yank than you, and that's all that matters.

If I live in France that should mean I've seen broader horizons. Much broader ...
________________

Lafayette said:

Brilliant exposition of your point-of-view!

Bravo ... ! :roll:
___________

Click to expand...

So is the myth. When you look at the actual numbers and their definitions, you will see that, what I said is quite correct and the myth wrong.

PS: Nope. I am not going to crunch the numbers for you

The only thing that irks me about basic income proposals (besides crazy high benefits under some proposals such as per the Swiss variant) is that everyone typically gets it to the last, even those who are living more than comfortably at six figures plus; I have always been of the opinion that there should be a basic means testing component to it, such that more money is saved by denying benefits to those for whom the economic benefits (both for themselves and society in terms of the demand and economic activity increase) and need are minimal than lost paying for the bureaucracy to feature it.

As to criticisms that it would disincentivize work, such disincentives have largely proven minimal: Guaranteed Annual Income

In some cases where basic income was attempted, economic activity actually increased due to a consequent expanded demand base from people having money to spend and utilize to productive ends, and the resulting formation of small businesses: Basic Income Grant Coalition - Namibia

Meanwhile work disincentives per existing welfare schemes may be even stronger given that welfare benefits are lost in direct proportion to income earned, creating a poverty trap.

Lafayette said:

I am more Yank than you, and that's all that matters.

If I live in France that should mean I've seen broader horizons. Much broader ...
________________

Click to expand...

How are you more Yank than me if you live in France?

jonny5 said:

How are you more Yank than me if you live in France?

Click to expand...

My passport is identical to yours. The only difference is that I have a larger experience of the world. (I've lived throughout Europe.)

Whilst you think that the US is the best of the best - and, quite likely, there is no better.

Differences of opinion merit debate. That's what we're doing here ...
______________

joG said:

So is the myth. When you look at the actual numbers and their definitions, you will see that, what I said is quite correct and the myth wrong.

PS: Nope. I am not going to crunch the numbers for you

Click to expand...

Oh, damn!

I was hoping to prove you wrong about the numbers as well.

Anyone who denies that a Trade Deficit of barely 2.2% of GDP is insignificant is obstinately myopic.

Just lose your job did you, and trying to blame the world for its loss ... ?
__________________________

eohrnberger said:

If people want to have a substantially better quality of life they are free to go out and earn that for themselves.
These people should not be pushing socialist ideas which all end up depending on mandated government confiscation of wealth from the successful so they can get it for free.

If they want stuff, earn it.

Click to expand...

People shouldn't have to "earn" their basic survival needs. And people who work 40 hours a week at any job goddamned well deserve better than the bare minimum.

Until we get to the point where EVERYONE has sufficient...this will be a third world world.

And "sufficient" in a country as wealthy as ours should mean no worry about food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation, communication, health care, and a reasonable amount of the lesser amenities of the "good life."

We can do it.

Some of the suggestions mentioned in the OP are a start...but just a start.

I won't see it...I'm an old fart and will be dead before it happens. But I would not be surprised to see it happen in large fashion during the life times of people now alive.

Korimyr the Rat said:

People shouldn't have to "earn" their basic survival needs. And people who work 40 hours a week at any job goddamned well deserve better than the bare minimum.

Click to expand...

Humans "earning" basic survival needs has been part of the human condition since the evolution of the species and even well, ingrained in the very DNA might very well be the most accurate description of it. You now come along and demand that it be given away for free. OK. I sure hope you have very deep pockets for that. TANSTAAFL, I'd respond, which seems to be born out by reality.

People are compensated for the work that they deliver to whom is willing to pay for it. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's not for what someone sells their work for, it's what someone's willing to pay for it that counts. You hike the price of the work beyond what the market will bare, other solutions start making economical sense, as we've seen in the no skill jobs tending the cash register at fast food joints.

If a worker is dissatisfied with their compensation, they need to figure out a way to render greater value to earn greater compensation.

Lafayette said:

Oh, damn!

I was hoping to prove you wrong about the numbers as well.

Anyone who denies that a Trade Deficit of barely 2.2% of GDP is insignificant is obstinately myopic.

Just lose your job did you, and trying to blame the world for its loss ... ?
__________________________

Click to expand...

I don't know, what you mean.

1) You could show the statistics, if you wanted.
2) I doubt I wrote anything that could be confused to have meant that a continuous trade deficit of 2 or more percent was trivial.
3) I am not sure, what you mean.

A SEA OF HUMANITY

eohrnberger said:

Humans "earning" basic survival needs has been part of the human condition since the evolution of the species and even well, ingrained in the very DNA might very well be the most accurate description of it. You now come along and demand that it be given away for free..

Click to expand...

Why should it not be for "free", if what we are talking about is "basic survival needs".

It is evident that you have a greatly restricted notion of human aspiration. Which was explained aptly enough by a psychologist called Maslow's Hierachy of Needs in the early 1940s. It depicts well how we are motivated to move from top-to-bottom, regardless of birthplace:


Those below the Poverty Threshold, and they are close to 50 million in the US, are concerned primarily with the first two rungs on the triangle. They have very little desire for "self-actualization" beyond nourishment and a roof over their heads.

This is the bit "programmed genetically" along with procreation. It is instinctual in our species.

And in your tidy, well-organized but Tiny World, all that matters is what you have been able to "earn" - and therefore "what is yours". And, in perfect simplicity, "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours. Don't bother me with the sharing claptrap."

You live on a tiny island, all alone - but in a sea of humanity.

The problem is that you cannot survive all alone. You were not bred to do so. You need a culture, a language, community, order, things and family/friends/associates. Most of all, moreover, you need a Market-economy. Because you are sharing an Ordered Society that was built long before you arrived that consists of people working to provide the goods/services that they need for a living.

Selfish people refuse to accept the principle that they are just one clog in a huge system of wheels that turn, and turn, and turn. But that system (aka a "market-economy") is what provides you the Accouterments of a Life-style: A home, a car, a job, goods, services, objects, things, etc., etc.

Whether you like it or not, you are "sharing" a market-economy along with a great, great many other people. Get used to it. Learn to be less selfish. When done right, there's more than enough to go around. When not, there is societal conflict.

You are NOT God's unique gift to humanity ...
____________________

joG said:

I don't know, what you mean.

1) You could show the statistics, if you wanted.
2) I doubt I wrote anything that could be confused to have meant that a continuous trade deficit of 2 or more percent was trivial.
3) I am not sure, what you mean.

Click to expand...

I originally posted to you in this thread the fact that the the US's External balance on goods and services (% of GDP) amounted to -3% (not -2.2%, my mistake) of GDP - that figure (for the period 2011 to 2015) coming from a comparative assessment made by the World Bank.

External balance defined: "External balance on goods and services (formerly resource balance) equals Exports of goods and services minus Imports of goods and services (previously non-factor services)".

At 3% of GDP, I don't find the sum terribly important for as long as the US can assume the cost. At present, it can.

Lafayette said:

I originally posted to you in this thread the fact that the the US's External balance on goods and services (% of GDP) amounted to -3% (not -2.2%, my mistake) of GDP - that figure (for the period 2011 to 2015) coming from a comparative assessment made by the World Bank.

External balance defined: "External balance on goods and services (formerly resource balance) equals Exports of goods and services minus Imports of goods and services (previously non-factor services)".

At 3% of GDP, I don't find the sum terribly important for as long as the US can assume the cost. At present, it can.

Click to expand...

Now I understand. My post referred to an answer you had given to a post that told you that the US was more interested in freedom than in social programs, a content with which you seemed displeased. All I did was to point out that the social programs are rather too large in the US.
I had said and did not say anything about trade.

joG said:

All I did was to point out that the social programs are rather too large in the US.

Click to expand...

Regardless of how it happened, your above conclusion is way-off-base.

In a thousand different ways, starting with National Health Care and ending with Free Tertiary Education, I can show how "social-programs" in the US are neither as large nor as encompassing as in European Social Democracies.

And, that starts with a ridiculous Minimum Wage (of $7.25 an hour) and goes all-the-way up to hallucinatory Tertiary-Education fees that leave students (upon graduation) with an average debt of $35K.

That student debt has been constantly increasing for the past 22 years at a compound rate of 6.4% per year. (Great growth for Lending Institutions! Not so great for the poor sucker paying the cost of a tertiary-education.)



Let's not kid ourselves. America is where the rich-get-richer and the poor can go-to-hell ...
_______________________________

Lafayette said:

My passport is identical to yours. The only difference is that I have a larger experience of the world. (I've lived throughout Europe.)

Whilst you think that the US is the best of the best - and, quite likely, there is no better.

Differences of opinion merit debate. That's what we're doing here ...
______________

Click to expand...

Well there you go. US is the best. We didnt get that way through handouts. We got that way through work.

Korimyr the Rat said:

We're brainwashed into thinking that our tax rates are outrageous now, but during the most prosperous years of economic growth and a thriving middle class, they were much, much higher.

Click to expand...

How many times does this nonsense have to be debunked before leftists quit trying to pull the wool over people's eyes? :roll:

jonny5 said:

Well there you go. US is the best. We didnt get that way through handouts. We got that way through work.

Click to expand...

The US is the best? Who told you that?

By what measure? What criteria? Who's judgement?

You HOPE it's the best. Good for you.

To each fool their own delusions ...
______________

Lafayette said:

Regardless of how it happened, your above conclusion is way-off-base.

In a thousand different ways, starting with National Health Care and ending with Free Tertiary Education, I can show how "social-programs" in the US are neither as large nor as encompassing as in European Social Democracies.

And, that starts with a ridiculous Minimum Wage (of $7.25 an hour) and goes all-the-way up to hallucinatory Tertiary-Education fees that leave students (upon graduation) with an average debt of $35K.

That student debt has been constantly increasing for the past 22 years at a compound rate of 6.4% per year. (Great growth for Lending Institutions! Not so great for the poor sucker paying the cost of a tertiary-education.)

Let's not kid ourselves. America is where the rich-get-richer and the poor can go-to-hell ...
_______________________________

Click to expand...

Let's focus one one thing at a time and take "In a thousand different ways, starting with National Health Care...." to begin with.
How much do you think did the US government spend per capita of the beneficiaries for health care? When you have compared that with the amount spent on say German publicly insured, come back and tell us, what you have found. You may want to take the French numbers, which I do not know in detail, so that I learn something new. But I assume they will not be very different to the German ones.

joG said:

How much do you think did the US government spend per capita of the beneficiaries for health care? When you have compared that with the amount spent on say German publicly insured, come back and tell us, what you have found. You may want to take the French numbers, which I do not know in detail, so that I learn something new. But I assume they will not be very different to the German ones.

Click to expand...

And why should I do that?

Why don't you look at the per capita cost of total healthcare in the US, of private health-insurance (factored into the cost of goods/services) that the American consumer must pay for. Or, even ObamaCare, paid for by taxpayers' dollars.

The costs are hallucinatory compared to other countries. Private Insurance is ripping off the American public for Essential Health Care Services. It's as if the DoD were run by General Electric!

Comparative HC Costs, OECD:

You (plural) in the US are paying twice as much per capita than EU countries, for a life-span that is 3 years less in total.

That's what I call a Royal Rip-off ...
__________________________________________

Lafayette said:

And why should I do that?

Why don't you look at the per capita cost of total healthcare in the US, of private health-insurance (factored into the cost of goods/services) that the American consumer must pay for. Or, even ObamaCare, paid for by taxpayers' dollars.

The costs are hallucinatory compared to other countries. Private Insurance is ripping off the American public for Essential Health Care Services. It's as if the DoD were run by General Electric!

Comparative HC Costs, OECD: View attachment 67202900

You (plural) in the US are paying twice as much per capita than EU countries, for a life-span that is 3 years less in total.

That's what I call a Royal Rip-off ...
__________________________________________

Click to expand...

That graph is often used and as I thought that was probably the level from which you were holding forth. You see, those numbers do not answer the questions. You cannot see the public spending nor can you see how many beneficiaries are in the program. In other words, that graph looks cool but is essentially irrelevant to our discussion.

Lafayette said:

The US is the best? Who told you that?

By what measure? What criteria? Who's judgement?

You HOPE it's the best. Good for you.

To each fool their own delusions ...
______________

Click to expand...

You just said it was quite likely. If youre going to call people names though, Ill just ignore you.

eohrnberger said:

If a worker is dissatisfied with their compensation, they need to figure out a way to render greater value to earn greater compensation.

Click to expand...

And if they can't do that, because they don't have the resources to improve their marketable skills, apparently they should just ****ing starve to death.

Your compassion is noted.

countryboy said:

How many times does this nonsense have to be debunked before leftists quit trying to pull the wool over people's eyes? :roll:

Click to expand...

When has it been debunked? What was the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s? What was the corporate tax rate? You are full of ****. Do not accuse me of lying when you're ignoring the facts.

eohrnberger said:

If a worker is dissatisfied with their compensation, they need to figure out a way to render greater value to earn greater compensation.

Click to expand...

Yes, if workers were represented on the BoD, that's an excellent idea!