On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:14:04PM -0500, Dylan Hardison wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:42:02 -0500, Paul M Foster
<snip>
> > Some of your commenters made the point that their system is better
> > because they don't have to work as hard and the government takes care of
> > them (presumably better than here in their opinions). You can put
> > anti-socialism (capitalism?) on one end of a line, and socialism on the
> > other end.
>
> You could, but you would probably be making a false dichotomy.
>
> > These guys, from what they are saying, are trending in the
> > direction of socialism; one even admits it.
> The one that admits they're a socialist is also the one that says
> it will never be completely socialist. It is a grave mistake to
> classify opinions
> on a line, or even a 2D plane.
Agreed, but for the purposes of argument, you have to start somewhere.
If you don't dichotomize it (or something of the sort), it becomes
impossible to resolve a lot of questions. Classification depends on
dichotomies and the like. Ask any botanist.
<snip>
> >Their comments are interesting, but nothing more.
> Then your comments are also nothing more than interesting.
> Actually they're not very interesting, and the sarcasm was quite weak.
>
They weren't meant to be exhaustive or the last word on anything. Just
my opinion.
> > Is there full-on socialism in Europe? No. That would describe the Soviet
> > Union. However, if you look at the laws which have been enacted and are
> > being enacted there, it's clear they are trending toward socialism. Just
> > because they may have a popularly elected parliament in a country
> > doesn't mean they can't have socialism.
> No, but it (in theory, not in practice) means the whim of the people is law.
>
I'm not sure I follow you here. Full democracy would be "the whim of the
people is law". As soon as you introduce representatives and put major
decisions in their hands, you introduce an entirely different dynamic.
As noted before, these people eventually become _politicians_ and start
pandering. And all of a sudden, you have laws and regulations you
_don't_ want. I can't carry a lighter or nail clippers on an airplane
because some unelected idiot (ultimately selected by someone I elected)
decided such things were bad. No one asked me about this, and
personally, I'd fire the bastard who even came up with the idea.
There's another point here. People elect representatives because they
don't want to screw with governing. They want someone else to do it.
They just want to get on with their lives. (This group is a good example
of this.) Unfortunately, their representatives usually have entirely
different motives for what they do than we would wish. And they are in a
continual process of selling themselves and their ideas to their
constituents. So ultimately what happens is that their constituents end
up accepting a great many onerous regulations, because 1) they believe
they can tolerate them, 2) they've been sold on a false idea about them,
3) they don't believe they can individually effect any change, and 4)
it's just easier to go along.
Welfare is a good example of this. People are convinced by politicians
that we should care for the indigent or unfortunate. Politicians enact
rules that transfer income to the unfortunate classes and tax the
producers more heavily. The producers go along out of compassion. But
because we're talking about free benefits for the "underprivileged",
more and more people sign on for this system, or its eligibility
requirements get reduced. This is great for politicians, who can buy
votes by saying they voted for this or supported it. The rolls of
underprivileged swell, and more tax monies are funnelled into the
system. Producers are taxed more heavily. Eventually, they become
disgruntled by the situation, particularly when they see supposedly poor
women in line at the grocery store, dripping with gold jewelry and
paying for their purchases with food stamps. They try to find ways
around contributing to the welfare system, and come to believe the
government is broken. And the truth is that many of the people who take
advantage of the system are simply criminals, defined as people who
continually take without contributing anything in return.
The original (European) settlers on this continent started out with a
socialist system. Everyone works for the common good, and everyone
shares equally in the benefits. That's fine until someone figures out
that they don't have to work as hard as the next guy to reap the same
rewards. Pretty soon, you get one of two things happening. Either you
get some disgruntled producers who are tired of supporting the slothful,
and they scrap the system (which is what happened here). Or you get a
general reduction overall in productivity (everyone reduces their
productivity to the level of the least productive). This is what happens
in unions now.
<snip>
> He's very aware of the taxes. but he's not concerned, he does not
> begrude paying his fair share to what has been a very successful
> society.
>
Relatively speaking, I'd agree we have a successful system. That's
compared to Europe or Mexico. Compared to what it should be or could be,
I'd disagree. Unlike your dad, I do begrudge paying my "fair" share into
this system. No one asked me what's fair, and I can't think of a more
wasteful banker to give my money to than the federal government.
Particularly one which has been run for decades by a bunch of yahoos who
think the most important thing in life is how many congressional terms
they can suck off the public teat.
>
>
> > My point here is that taxes are a burden levied on productive people,
> > usually in such a way as to discourage their productivity (income
> > taxes), which burden is excessive. I can't prove it, but I'm inclined to
> > believe the withering of the one-bread-winner family so pronounced in
> > the 1950s was due in large part to the extreme rise in all kinds of
> > taxes.
>
> I will not argue a point of a land I've never walked, and I will not
> argue one
> from a time I've never lived through. However my father belives that
> the loss of the single income family is a shift of manufacturing
> overseas, with several other factors.
>
There may be other factors, but offshoring isn't one of them. If
it were the problem, then you'd expect massive unemployment. But
unemployment is low (5+%), and has been relatively constant through the
decades since the '50s. Those manufacturing jobs morphed into service
jobs. The economy changed. You also might expect to see a drift down of
individual wages. I don't believe that's happened either. You might try
to make the case that the offshoring of manufacturing caused prices to
rise, and that's what killed the single-breadwinner family. But
manufacturing jobs were moved overseas because it was _cheaper_ to do it
overseas. If prices rose, it wasn't because offshore manufacturing was
more expensive. I contend that prices rose because of the increased tax
burden (among other things).
>
> > > Note that the above people I quoted on average pay much, much, much
> > > higher taxes than we in this country do, with a higher standard
> of living.
> > >
> >
> > Higher standard of living? I doubt that. I'd bet that the average
> > European:
> >
> > 1) has less individual living space than the average American,
> Unaware of this. I'll ask sometime.
> > 2) has fewer TVs per capita than the average American,
> Yes, because more is better!!!
Heh, yes I know what you mean. Still, it is a measure by which Americans
judge their standard of living.
> > 3) has fewer cars per capita than the average American,
> Public transit is less painful, and in fact it's often easier to walk
> to the store.
> Good exercise, that.
> Though I only know one person overseas that doesn't have a car, and
> that's because he's never bothered getting a license. (Like myself.
> :))
> (ancedotal)
Public transit is less painful? How?
European cities tend to be more densely populated (less space, more
people), and so it's more difficult to deal with cars, and more likely
you'll have a job (and grocery store) within walking distance.
Otherwise, I can't imagine how European mass transit would be better.
Buses and subways suck, no matter where you are. (Of course, I grew up
in Texas, where land is plentiful, and lived in L.A., where everyone has
a car.)
> > 4) has fewer or less of most things that Americans would consider vital
> > or important to a high standard of living.
> I don't think I know anyone that doesn't have several computers, and
> proper cookware (microwave, etc).
> (ancedotal)
>
> > 5) has more free time than the average American.
> Given the choice of a very nice car and a very nice house, and very
> little free time,
> and a acceptable apartment and a bicycle, and lots of free time, I'd
> choose the later any day.
>
There you go. I'd pick the former.
Free time? I work on my house. I code. Most people would consider what I
do with my free time _work_. It all sort of blurs to me.
> > Does the average European consider that he's better off than the average
> > American? Perhaps. He's welcome to his opinion. But I doubt I'd agree
> > with him on what constitutes "better off".
> Ding-ding! That's the point!
> I would have this same type of discussion, say, if a Norwegian named
> Pål, started saying things like "The capitalist paradise the American
> leaders keep telling them about isn't working".
>
> You're better off for you, most Europeans are better off for them. If
> they're not, they'll have another bloody war or something.
>
> I'm by no means a relativist, but what's good for me doesn't have to
> what's good for you. And the way Pål wants to live his life might be
> very different from the way you want to live yours.
>
Yes, but he's wrong and I'm right. Muahahahahaha! ;-}
<snip>
> > But back to the original point. Hard work is not the issue. People often
> > die shortly after they retire if they have nothing else significant to
> > do. Conversely, people who stay productive live longer. I own my own
> > business and work a lot of hours. I don't mind it. I've worked for other
> > people, and I'd rather work for myself, even if I do work more hours.
> > It's not the work, it's the stress that kills you. If you're working 60
> > hours a week at a job you hate, you wife's having an affair and your
> > kids are strung out on drugs, you have the kind of stress that will kill
> > you, even if you're working a 20 hour week. And if you're working in a
> > job where you're afraid any careless action or remark will get you
> > fired, it doesn't matter whether you're working 20 hours or 80 hours.
> > The stress of that job will get to you regardless.
>
> I have no problem with this. I just had issues with you invoking the
> mythical european socialists. I dislike overly general statements, and
> the sarcasm was lost on me.
>
Those socialists aren't mythical, my friend. How many socialists get
elected to anything in this country? We fought the socialists for
decades. The Europeans never did, and there are large, active socialist
parties (whose representatives get elected) all over Europe. The
Europeans aren't conditioned to reject the idea of socialism out of
hand. We are.
Actually, the reason for my original sarcastic comment about the
European "socialist paradise" is that there are a lot of Americans who
hold the Europeans up as the most enlightened people on the planet. Our
own Supreme Court justices are now looking to European custom to make
decisions in this country. I think holding up Europeans up as paragons
is contemptible. No, of course, the individual European is just a
person, like everyone else. But I consider their governments and social
institutions far inferior to ours. But then again, Europeans think we're
boorish.
> If you're spending 80 hours a week
> working on something you love, you're not going to die of a heart
> attack, I think.
Well maybe, but not from the stress of working too hard. ;-}
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:01:36 EDT