Text 13967, 623 rader
Skriven 2007-04-24 22:47:48 av Carl (330.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: Finesse contest finalists - thanks to all!
==========================================================

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dmsq23tca6f4havp3aj8ekqn6motcpoeo1@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:03:48 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>

>***** Note, my newsreader isn't adding '>'s  this time. ******
>
>I tend to think that the percentage of @$$holes in the world is
>probably constant throughout history.   These days countries have
>a stronger legal infrastructure than ever before to restrict the @$$holes.
>
>**************************************
[my text snipped to avoid quoting confusion]

I'm not sure if that's true. Historically, there have been kindly
cultures and warlike, predatory ones. I don't know that the latter
would consider themselves less moral, but I think most of us would
characterize them that way. So I think the statistical baseline can
vary by society. And if that's the case, it can also potentially vary
with time. I believe that Republican government, with all its flaws,
and its cousin, modern welfare-state capitalism, with all /its/ flaws,
lead to a society that becomes increasingly caring, if for no other
reason than that some degree of enfranchisement is granted to those
who would be powerless in an autocratic society.

[Me:]


I'm not sure that's true.   If given the choice to pay taxes for social 
programs or not, how many people would choose not to?  I'm not one of them 
(contrary to what you might think), but I believe more than a few that 
would.  It would be an interesting exercise if there was a national 
questrionaire in which everyone indicated the percentage of taxes that 
should be given for social programs, courts, prisons, the mail, defense, 
foreign aid, etc.

Consider the inner cities... areas with increased difficulties in life also 
have increased violence, murder, theft, etc.  If your theory was corret, 
wouldn't people that can vote, receive public assistance, etc... also feel 
this increased moral awakening?


>But don't those conditions influence our morality? We become what
>circumstance allows, and I believe that the prosperity of the middle
>class has led in the advanced countries to a significant change in
>outlook, one that emphasizes opportunity and reward rather than
>punishment.

Only for the duration of the prosperity, which to me implies it's not a real 
increased morality.  People aren't better, they can just afford not to risk 
being bad.

Of course some people, even when they're wealthy will take the risk anyway.

>
[You:]
>
>That would imply that with diminished conditions, a diminshed morality
>is acceptable.

Not necessarily acceptable, just more likely to be the case. Also,
having a different morality -- less moral from our perspective,
perhaps, but no less moral by the perspectives of at least some of the
people who lived in that society.

^^^^^^^^^^
So we're back to complete subjective morality... which leads to
the position that we are only "better" in our own eyes, and that's
not exactly an unbiased perspective.

Then again, there is a fairly large number of people that think that
peope were better during the 40s and 50s (consider Brokaw's
"The Greatest Generation" ... I think that's the title).
^^^^^^^^^^^

>
><skip>

>
>'But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the
>99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th
>percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint.
>
>****
>One presumes much of that increase in wealth comes from investing
>in new companies and ideas, which creates jobs, provides health care, etc.
>
>Such investment is a good thing.  If it's rewarded, all the better.

That doesn't mean anything if the new wealth doesn't go to most of the
people in our society, but rather to the tiny fraction who don't need
it. And that, in essence, has been what's been happening. Compare the
period of the liberal ascendancy from Roosevelt through Johnson or so,
in which not only did our national income grow much faster than it has
during the conservative years, but the benefits went to everybody,
from the rich to the poor.

^^^^^
I'm sorry... did I miss utopia?  My parents never told me there was heaven 
on Earth!  I never realized that the poor didn't exist and suddenly 
spontaneously generated after LBJ left office.  The poverty rate was zero 
back then (instead of the same rate it is now)?  Wow, who would have thought 
all those statistics were just completely wrong?

[Removing a lot of my own response since I'm not trying to bait you into a 
heated conversation.
We could argue stats all week, but let's not.]

^^^^^
>>As to living in cars, etc, let's look at the statistics of how those that
>>are defined as poor actually live:
>>
>>a.. Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
>>The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau
>>is
>>a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or
>>patio.
>>a.. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By
>>contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population
>>enjoyed air conditioning.
>>a.. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than 
>>two-thirds
>>have more than two rooms per person.
>>a.. The average poor American has more living space than the average
>>individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities
>>throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in
>>foreign
>>countries, not to those classified as poor.)
>>a.. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two
>>or more cars.
>>a.. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over
>>half own two or more color televisions.
>>a.. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable
>>or satellite TV reception.
>>a.. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a
>>stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
>>
>>The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually 
>>the
>>same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above
>>recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do
>>higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above
>>recommended levels.
>>
>>Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car,
>>air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and
>>a
>>microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, 
>>a
>>VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His
>>home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his 
>>family is
>>not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his
>>family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it 
>>is equally
>>far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal
>>activists, and politicians.
>>
>>In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is
>>supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 
>>hours
>>of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per
>>year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the
>>year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official
>>poverty.
>>Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds
>>of
>>poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3
>>million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the
>>fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be
>>lifted
>>out of poverty.
>>
>>There are very few cases of people living out of cars, and with 81 federal
>>social programs and most states having equivalent programs, the need for
>>one
>>to actually live in a car is suspect.
>>
>>Also, even in terms of health insurance, the figure given out most often 
>>is
>>that there are 45 million uninsured people in the US, however if you break
>>that down, 15 million of those are eligable for some form of health care
>>under a federal program right now but do not take advantage of it, and
>>another 13 million make over 50K a year (MN classifies someone making 67K
>>wealthy and in the top tax bracket) but choose not to buy it.    If one
>>considered the illegal alien/undocumented worker population as being the 
>>12
>>million that are usually reported, that leaves a *much* smaller portion of
>>the population that are actually  about 5 million.
>
>Wow, I have to run off and get poor.
>
>***
>Let's not get silly

Precisely my point. I mean, I don't have half the things those typical
poor Americans are supposed to have.

^^^^
These statistics suggest that the *typical* poor person or family in this 
country are not starving in a car.  You seem to want to paint a picture 
equivalent to the starving third world children on commercials that are 
being helped by organizations like the Christian Chiuldren's Fund and other 
such organizations.
^^^^

>
>Seriously, this Marie Antoinette stuff makes my blood boil.

FYI,  Marie Antoinette apparently never said the "Let them eat cake." line.
^^^^^^^^^

> It's not just that transparent spin like "81 federal social programs" is 
> an
>insult to my intelligence.-- do they really think the American public
>is so dumb that we can't tell the difference between 81 pennies and 81
>dollars? -- but that it's an intentional attack by some unknown
>prosperous people on the weakest and most unfortunate members of our
>society.
>
>***********
>Exactly where is the attack?  There are many federal social programs
>and many state programs.  Between the two, there are a lot of resources out
>there to prevent people from living in cars and starving to death.  There
>are programs that let entire generations of people to live off of them.
>
>Please point out exactly where there was any attack on the poor?

My problem here is that the attack was so multi-faceted that I don't
know where to start. They imply that the poor are living in luxury,
swamped in color TV's and houses and cars.

^^^^^
No one said they lived in luxury (I certainly didn't), just that 
statistically
they aren't as you portrayed them.
^^^^^

Then, they say that the typical poor family is supported by 16 hours
of work a week, and conveniently neglect to mention that in many
poor communities /people are unemployed and can't get jobs/.

^^^^^^^^^
It said that the typical poor family is poor because it only has the
income of a 16 hour work week, and goes on to say that 75%
of the poor children would be raised out of poverty with a
40 hr/week job.

You take issue with this?

Please note that there are jobs to be had.  Education is key and I continue 
to understand why we allow kids to drop out of high school.

There are also those 12 million jobs that Americans "Refuse to do" in order 
to make room for illegal aliens/undocumented workers.  If I was unemployed 
and needed to support my family I would not consider picking oranges or 
shoveling manure beneath me.

Providing tax incentives for companies to move to some poor communities has 
worked in the past, but such incentives are often called corporate welfare.
^^^^^^^^^

Then they have the unmitigated gall not only to minimize
the plight of homelessness, but to imply that it is somehow a crock,

^^^^^^^^^
No, they take issue with the perception that everyone classified as poor is 
homeless, assetless, and starving.  That's not the case.  They present 
statistics, you provided an anecdote.  That's fine, I don't question your 
sincerity, but your anecdote doesn't mean the statistics are a lie.
^^^^^^^^^

while presenting intentionally misleading and meaningless statistics
about 81 Federal programs

^^^^^^^^^
The statistic is that there are 81 federal social programs.  How is that 
statistic meaningless? If, after 81 federal social programs and countless 
state programs conditions are still so bad that all the poor are starving in 
their cars, then the social programs are meaningless, not the statistics.
^^^^^^^^^

Here in New London, the working poor earn minimum wage, and that isn't
enough to support a family and pay for an apartment.

^^^^
And statistics have shown that every time you raise the minimum wage the 
costs are passed on to the consumer, rendering the raise meaningless and the 
cost of American goods higher compared to those overseas.  In addition, 
statistics have shown that when you raise the minimum wage you also raise 
the high school and college drop out rates.

Trying to compensate... no matter how well intentioned, can make things 
worse.
^^^^

So they work two shifts and can't supervise their children. And something
comes along -- they get laid off or they cath pneumonia and lose a month's
income, say -- and they get evicted, and then if they're lucky and
have local friends they crash in somebody's attic and if not they end
up living out of the family car, and trying to hide it, because
they're ashamed. Very different from the rosy picture above. Very
different.

^^^^^^^^^
The people that work two jobs and bust their rear-ends to provide for their 
families deserve as much help as possible.
The people that commit fraud in the system or don't work because they don't 
want to... or are willing to stop trying... I feel differently about them.

If we go after the cheaters we can give more to those that don't without 
confiscating more from others.

When a father decides he's going to leave his family (and if the majority of 
broken homes were because of drugs and crime we'd have to have 20 times as 
many prisons) it's a failure of his morals to think that it is acceptable to 
do so.  In an age when it's always someone else's fault and there's always 
someone with big pockets to sue, personal responsibility should be rewarded, 
and the lack of it should not be accepted casually.

There IS a failure of personal responsibility with so many broken homes and 
deadbeat dads.  They are not all explained away by crime and drugs.
^^^^^^^^^

<snip>

>On top of that, a *lot* of money is lost to fraud and redundancy with state
>programs.

While they do have a role in some cases, I don't much believe in
social programs and long-term welfare. I do believe in education,
jobs, and help for the disabled and mentally ill. And on the whole I
think our efforts in those directions are shamefully lacking given our
society's wealth.

^^^^^^^^^
But the way we have been going about it for decades have had
marginal results at best.  This doesn't (in my mind) justify treating these
programs as sacrosanct and a good model moving forward.
^^^^^^^^^


************
>
>>>>Wealth is a poor standard for judging good and evil.
>>>
>>> I consider discrepancies in wealth /wrong/ to the extent that I can
>>> find no social purpose or social harm in them. In that, they're no
>>> different than the likes of killing, in that right (a just war) or
>>> wrong (a murder) depends on context.
>>
>>You assume that there has to be a social purpose for such things; there
>>doesn't.  If you're proposing that all aspects of life must be classified
>>in
>>terms of a social purpose and controlled to obtain that outcome (which I
>>would consider a lack of freedom), then we completely disagree on the
>>purpose of government (which is fine).
>
>I don't see it as a matter of something that I want or not. Rather, I
>see it as a matter of what is, because cultures compete, and those
>which are less successful either change with time or are dominated or
>destroyed by others. A social evolutionary process, in other words.
>
>******
>Perhaps.  Sweden is moving away from the nanny state mentality that it had,
>and
>France is in for tough times.
>******

Read an op ed article on France yesterday, which essentially said that
it isn't:

But is the French situation really so dire? From every quarter one
hears calls for "reform" to bring France more in line with
Anglo-American practices and policies. The dysfunctional French social
model, we are frequently assured, has failed.

In that case there is much to be said for failure. French infants have
a better chance of survival than American ones. The French live longer
than Americans and they live healthier (at far lower cost). They are
better educated and have first-rate public transportation. The gap
between rich and poor is narrower than in the United States or
Britain, and there are fewer poor people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/opinion/22judt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


^^^^^^^^^^^
The French don't eat fast food (good for them!).

I *really* don't want to start a discussion on educational systems.  That 
would be opening another can of ... opinions.

Even many French understand their problem.  They have high unemplyment (I 
think it's still over 10%), an aging populace, benefits that can't be 
supported by their taxes that are already too high and stifling their 
economy (which has an anemic growth rate), but they've become so dependent 
and accustomed to social benefits they're unwilling to give them up.  Their 
unemployment rate among the young (<24) is about 25% if the news reports 
that covered the riots are correct.

Their first inclination was to try a quick fix by reducing the work week 
(and therefor productivity) to 35 hours.  That hurt their economy noticably.

Somewhere along the line, all of the promises and benefits have to be paid 
for.  I read not long ago that there was a substantial amount of wealth 
leaving France.  That drain is going to make it worse.
^^^^^^^^^^^

In any case, I'm not a socialist any more than I'm a capitalist. The
most successful economies, including ours, are mixed, and our
challenge is to fine tune the mix.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Sometimes significant change is a good thing.
If that weren't the case we'd be living in amonarchy.
^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Some people inherit money...that's called luck.  Some people make more
>>money
>>than others through hard work, investing in themselves (an education), and
>>taking risks (starting a business).  That's called earning their money.
>>Some people aren't willing to work that hard because they have other
>>priorities in their lives, don't have the talent, aren't willing to go to
>>college, risk their savings, etc.  That's fine and *no* judgment should be
>>made in either case.
>
>I see them as radically different. Setting aside for the moment my
>bourgeois values, I believe that the societies in which merit and
>initiative predominate over hereditary privilege are the most
>prosperous, the most powerful, the happiest. Which is why capitalism
>has proven so much more successful than the old aristocratic system.
>
>******
>I'd much rather see the government focus on providing incentives to
>the wealthy to invest in new businesses and technologies rather than
>a feel-good attempt to drag the wealthy down as much as possible.
>
>Incentives for the wealthy to spend  work much better than something
>like the absurd luxury tax on yachts that almost destroyed the iundustry
>and didn't gnerate any money.
>
>Also, money spent by the government tends to be spent on a much
>narrower portion of the economy.

You appear to have contradicted yourself, calling first for
encouraging the wealthy to invest and then to encouraging the wealthy
spend.

^^^^^^
The wealthy invest in companies, technologies, etc.  that provide some 
benefit or return, and that investment IS spending.  It's putting their 
money into the economy that gets spent by the various businesses that they 
invest in.

Granted, sometimes it gets spent on some stupid things too, like the two 
owners of Google that were looking to buy a private Airbus 380 and spend 77 
million more to turn it into a kind of private condo... but even that would 
employ a number of people both directly and indirectly.

Even conspicuous consumerism is good for the economy.

^^^^^^

In fact, the wealthy /have/ to do one or the other, unless they
keep their fortunes under their beds. The yacht tax was stupid because
it singled out a specific industry, not because it taxed the wealthy.

^^^^^^
It was stupid because it almost killed an industry in this country.  Tax 
more things rather than just one and you risk other markets too. People have 
called for higher gas taxes to discourage gas consumption.  The same works 
for any other good or service...particularly if it's not a necessary 
expense.
^^^^^^

And government spending is better for the economy than leaving the
money to the wealthy, precisely because the wealthy are less likely to
spend and more likely to invest, and the economy is generally demand
limited. That being said, from a macroeconomic perspective, a dollar
spent is a dollar spent. From a social perspective, it is better to
spend it on those who need it rather than on those who don't, as long
as doing so doesn't decrease incentive.

^^^^^^^^^^
Investment is spending.
It's better to spend on something that will create jobs rather than spending 
to compensate for not having them.

Private spending is better because it spreads out across the whole economy 
more. Government spending for the needy, for instance, is most likely to go 
for more immediate necessities.  That's an initial focus that requires 
subsequent cycles to spread through the economy.

Private investment is spent along a much wider base.  Employees spend on a 
wider variety of goods and allow for the creation of jobs (even yacht 
makers).

^^^^^^^^^^


>******
>
>>At some point, if the wealthy are paying their taxes, giving to charity,
>>living their lives without trying to harm others... what they make is none
>>of our business.  If  it's more than I make, good for them...I don't hold
>>it
>>against them for a second.  I don't envy them, resent them, want to take
>>anything away from them in the slightest.  It's simply none of my 
>>business.
>
>I grew up in fairly privileged circumstances, so I've seldom if ever
>had cause to envy or hate the wealthy.
>
>******
>You seem to express a healthy resentment

Because, I think, you're reading your own assumption into it: my
concern is for the poor and working people who are struggling to make
ends meet, as well as for the well being of the country as a whole. In
fact, I would likely lose out personally if inherited wealth were
taxed.

^^^^^^^^^^
The difference isn't intent, it's methodology.
Some think the government should be the first place to look to fix things. 
Others think it should be the last.
Old debate.

The point of social programs should be to help people get off of them, use 
them as an excuse for income redistribution.

^^^^^^^^^^

>*******
>
>But, as I said, I don't much believe in hereditary wealth (I've no time
>to go into some minor exceptions to that statement).
>
>It is not as you seem to be implying innocent: hereditary wealth is
>in some measure a tax on the productive members of society,
>a tax that is not repaid by the small percentage of income that
>goes to the government or charitable causes.
>
>**********
>The initial creation of the wealth was taxed.  Once the wealth was aquired
>and taxed, whatever is left should be considered the property of the person
>that made it.  He or she should be free to give it to a son or daughter, 
>the
>next door neighbor, the local charity, or bury it in the back yard. You or 
>I
>don't have an inherent claim to it simply because it would otherwise go to
>someone as a happy accident of birth.  So what?  I don't care if someone
>else is wealthy.  That doesn't change how hard I work, or what I expect as 
>a
>reward for my efforts.   I have a job.  I do my best at it and I make a
>reasonable living.  The quality of my life is not diminished if someone 
>else
>is wealthy. Someone else's luck is none of my business.
>
>You seem to see wealth as something that should be lent by the government 
>to
>people as an incentive, but only short term and only for as short a period
>as possible (taking it back as much as possible in any tax possible).

If wealth were something you kept under your pillow, that would make
sense. But it isn't. It's the right to some of your land and mine, to
some of your work and mine. And I'm all in favor of that if that right
proceeds from obligation and necessary incentive -- if it goes to
someone because they work hard or take risks or invent things. But a
hereditary aristocracy that has no real obligations? No thanks. I
believe in markets and competition and incentive. I believe in reward
for hard work.

^^^^^
I believe in hard work too, but my work ethic applies to me (and hopefully 
to my children...so far so good).  I don't presume to inflict my work ethic 
as an excuse to take something from someone else.
^^^^^

But inherited wealth is just welfare on a grand scale.

^^^^^
No, it's money that was earned once and has probably grown through 
additional investments.

Democrats tend to believe in collecting the wealth at the federal level 
because it can do more at a larger scale.  The same is true at a private 
scale.
^^^^^

It destroys incentive just as welfare does, and it taxes us just as
welfare does, because those who inherit wealth inherit the right to
some of our labor and some of our land and some of our raw materials
and infrastructure.

^^^^^
As you said before, the wealthy don't hide their wealth under their pillows.
Also, they don't inherit our labor, they pay wages for it. Usually I let 
some of your symantic choices go, but not that one.  Considering workers as 
serfs is more than a little hyperbole.
^^^^^

As to the gummint, it's just a stand-in for the group. And there are
times when resources have to go to the group, because we have to work
together. We expect that the members of our society -- not
infrequently the poorest members of our society -- will give their
lives to Uncle Sam if the need arises. Compared to that, what's the
harm in a bit of cash?

We don't expect the poor to give their lives, we expect and honor (or 
should) those that volunteer to join the military and live up to the 
commitment despite the personal risk.

That's very different from one group of people deciding to seize however 
much of someone else's wealth they choose to.

Carl
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)