State: redistribution and welfare

[Dr. Ste]

I had a small talk with BigLutz about redistribution of wealth. It went forward to welfare society and economic systems.

I think it (redistribution) is a bad idea, people need to work for their money and work for higher incomes. Having money given to you because you are less rich than another guy is a policy that can only lead to economic ruin.

I see... yes, of course. But possessions (of industries, land) provide extreme amounts of wealth rather than simple work anyway... Let me specify, I am speaking of a more passive form of redistribution.

Say, international calls cost 2$, while international mail (post) costs 0,5$. It costs the state far less than 2$ for your international call, but far more than 0,5$ to send your letter. The wealthy choose the calls, while the poor choose mail. That is a form of redistribution of wealth.

This policy can be applied to a great part of the total goods, should the government have enough power. What do you think of this?

Well with industries and land its usually hard work that can bring about those. Land can change hands, and industries live and die on good ideas and bad ones. Anyway..

(on calls/mail example)
Well I may have a hard time grasping that as the State tends to not be in control over international calls and mail over here, but private companies ( outside of the post office, but there are also private companies that regulate that ).

So please excuse me for not really understanding as I am used to a more market based system with both than a Government based system.

I would think the Government would need to step out of the way. I mentioned a market placed system and typically that is one that works. If a company places a high price on International Calls to the point that only the rich can afford them, then they will have reduced business and have to seek lower prices to keep the plan lucrative. If a company is losing money by sending international mail at a reduced rate, they will have to find a natural balance in which they can still turn a profit but be cheap enough to not lose a bulk of their customers.

As for a Welfare Society, I believe one can be made, but it would be a cancer for a capitalist society. For example New Orleans, a good portion of the city had turned into a Welfare society before Hurricane Katrina hit. Afterward the storm it was revealed as to how bad that the Welfare society had become.

Many of those in that Welfare society refused to work, refused to do anything but sit around and say "Where is the Government, where is my money". That quickly became counter productive when workers were desperately needed for the clean up and rebuilding of the city. It became so desperate that even though there were thousands of healthy men and women that could have helped rebuild the city, that the city had to turn to Illegal Workers coming in from Mexico to rebuild.

Welfare Societies can breed that mentality of "Why should I work when I get a free check from the Government." Which as I mentioned before, can become a cancer in a capitalist society.

Hm, looks like capitalism is more deeply rooted in America than I had expected. Nevermind, I don't blame you.

This seems to work... (market system) in a truly competitive market. I don't think I want to see monopolies or "deals" here, as people will get exploited. Also, goods whose nature is such that they should be totally accessible will now get limited if there is a slightly higher profit to be made. And, some connect this free market to phenomena (stress, over-consumer society, lack of free time, poverty, unemployment). But, to continue:

(on New Orleans)
Looks like a responsible society, apart from a responsible government demands responsible people. Too bad a people votes what they deserve... We need to invest big points in humanitarian education I guess.

So, what's your opinion? Do you agree to the idea of redistribution of wealth in any form? Or the idea of Welfare Society? Can welfare society exist inside capitalism? How big a part should be under the government's control? Suggestions?

 

[Ethan]

Technically every country has socialism and wealth distribution to an extent, otherwise taxes and welfare wouldn't exist at all, what matters is your intention. I believe there should be a welfare system. Everyone hits hard times, just enough to get you back on your feet though. What does "getting back on your feet" entail? It means that the government gives you the capital until you are able to provide for yourself. As soon as you have a source of income and the capability to feed yourself, and give yourself shelter, the government should be out of the picture. I don't think welfare should provide for families that have too many children. I nor anyone else should be responsible for paying for a family that decided to have one too many children. Children are expensive, it's the responsibility of a couple to decide whether or not they can afford a child within their budget. If that means you have no sex, then fine. Sometimes you have to compromise.

As far as taxes go, I think unless it's an absolute necessity, people should always keep what they earn, always. I am absolutley opposed to my tax dollars going to organizations like planned parenthood, or similar organizations. Organizations like that should be privatley funded, via fundraisers or donations. I shouldn't be forced to pay for something that I believe is unethical, and something that is not even paramount or needed. Serious issues where your tax dollars are literally needed, is when they should be taken. For example if you're state has a budget crisis and cannot afford to repair a major highway, then using tax dollars would be okay, because it's a need and there isn't an alternative.

 

[The_Panda]

Fundamentally, what I think underpins and justifies taxes (rather than "necessity", though this can't be ignored) is a moral responsibility that humans hold. As members of society, we reap the benefits of it and even just through being able to be around others and experience their comfort we are taking something of far greater value than any tax, and in a sense we owe our lives back to the community, and thus it is not unreasonable to request taxes for the benefit of the community (within reason of course). But deeper and perhaps far more importantly is that I believe that as human beings we hold a degree of responsibility over our fellow men. Society isn't a free-for-all, every man for himself, no matter how much Communists believe it to be. And most certainly, society should never be a free-for-all. As members of society, and more fundamentally as fellow humans, we are obliged to assist others: this isn't for a charitable reason either, rather something I find absolutely fundamental in humanity. And to this end, the use of taxes to maintain a welfare state and to assist people as well is entirely justified, and general taxation is also justified.

 

[Raine Caulwell]

Fundamentally, what I think underpins and justifies taxes (rather than "necessity", though this can't be ignored) is a moral responsibility that humans hold. As members of society, we reap the benefits of it and even just through being able to be around others and experience their comfort we are taking something of far greater value than any tax, and in a sense we owe our lives back to the community, and thus it is not unreasonable to request taxes for the benefit of the community (within reason of course). But deeper and perhaps far more importantly is that I believe that as human beings we hold a degree of responsibility over our fellow men. Society isn't a free-for-all, every man for himself, no matter how much Communists believe it to be. And most certainly, society should never be a free-for-all. As members of society, and more fundamentally as fellow humans, we are obliged to assist others: this isn't for a charitable reason either, rather something I find absolutely fundamental in humanity. And to this end, the use of taxes to maintain a welfare state and to assist people as well is entirely justified, and general taxation is also justified.

I find your insight into communism quite disturbing. You bash it then say you support it. Weird.

*leaves debate forum*

 

[Poliwag2]

Socialism in any guise ultimately fails because people are willing to cheat the system. It blurs incentives and encourages laziness. Subsequently, the state dependent population grows over time, leaving an ever increasing tax burden supported by an ever decreasing proportion of taxpayers. In a sense, socialism is a giant Ponzi scheme, and it will eventually bankrupt the state. Nevertheless, it is perhaps more acceptable than full blown capitalism; complete with an underclass and a likely poverty cycle.

The ideal economic system lies between capitalism and socialism, with a significant bias towards the former. Government power should largely be restricted to protecting property rights and enforcing the law. Beyond that, it should only provide products that the free market and invisible hand (realistically) cannot; namely infrastructure and emergency services. Wealth distribution should manifest itself as free basic healthcare (i.e. check-ups) and primary education.

 

[Dr. Ste]

Technically every country has socialism and wealth distribution to an extent, otherwise taxes and welfare wouldn't exist at all, what matters is your intention. I believe there should be a welfare system. Everyone hits hard times, just enough to get you back on your feet though. What does "getting back on your feet" entail? It means that the government gives you the capital until you are able to provide for yourself. As soon as you have a source of income and the capability to feed yourself, and give yourself shelter, the government should be out of the picture.

For this to succeed, the government usually has to grasp more economic sectors than the ones it offers.

I don't think welfare should provide for families that have too many children. I nor anyone else should be responsible for paying for a family that decided to have one too many children. Children are expensive, it's the responsibility of a couple to decide whether or not they can afford a child within their budget. If that means you have no sex, then fine. Sometimes you have to compromise.

Yes, it's the parents' mistake, but should the children themselves be left helpless?

As far as taxes go, I think unless it's an absolute necessity, people should always keep what they earn, always.

Panda's right here, we are moral beings. Also, if we expect the government to spend any money for our sake, they need to get it from somewhere.

I am absolutley opposed to my tax dollars going to organizations like planned parenthood, or similar organizations. Organizations like that should be privatley funded, via fundraisers or donations. I shouldn't be forced to pay for something that I believe is unethical, and something that is not even paramount or needed.

Donations are an unreliable source and privates take no responsibility to do so. We cannot expect it.

Serious issues where your tax dollars are literally needed, is when they should be taken. For example if you're state has a budget crisis and cannot afford to repair a major highway, then using tax dollars would be okay, because it's a need and there isn't an alternative.

I think that fighting poverty, homelessness and unemployment, ensuring healthiness and respect for everyone, as well as local advancement and environmental protection, are needed. The alternative is to turn your back.

Socialism in any guise ultimately fails because people are willing to cheat the system. It blurs incentives and encourages laziness.

I don't think it's laziness to expect from the community to ensure satisfaction of biological needs, human respect and rewards analogous to work (rather than inherited possession). What incentives are blurred?

Subsequently, the state dependent population grows over time, leaving an ever increasing tax burden supported by an ever decreasing proportion of taxpayers. In a sense, socialism is a giant Ponzi scheme, and it will eventually bankrupt the state.

As more people take shelter under the state, I don't see how it is burdened, rather than supported. Taxpayers increase.

Government power should largely be restricted to protecting property rights and enforcing the law. Beyond that, it should only provide products that the free market and invisible hand (realistically) cannot; namely infrastructure and emergency services.

How about human and natural respect? Private companies have no interest there.

 

[Ethan]

Yes, it's the parents' mistake, but should the children themselves be left helpless?

If it comes down to it, perhaps they should. I don't like the idea of children suffering for their parents mistake as much as the next person, but that's really a dangerous route. We can't just let the welfare system become crippled by mothers that decide to have too many offspring. There is only two choices you can make. You can either make measures to where the families cannot procreate, which would obviously lead to controversy as people would claim that's violating rights. The other option is simply to cut off the funds, and in that case the children suffer. Suffering while not pleasant, is often times the only outcome to a decision. While the children should not suffer nor do they deserve to have their qaulity of life hindered, nor does the government entitled to be trapped under the weight of everyone trying to climb onto its raft.

Panda's right here, we are moral beings. Also, if we expect the government to spend any money for our sake, they need to get it from somewhere.

That's where I disagree. Humans beings are not within themselves moral beings, however individual human beings may be moral.

Donations are an unreliable source and privates take no responsibility to do so. We cannot expect it.

No more than we can expect government or government officials to allocate funds properly or in the correct places.

I think that fighting poverty, homelessness and unemployment, ensuring healthiness and respect for everyone, as well as local advancement and environmental protection, are needed. The alternative is to turn your back.

What do you define as a need? I think you're confusing should and need. Moral obligations are not the governments concern. When you speak of fighting poverty, you speak of generosity. You say that it is our duty to be generous and that the government should take your money so that you can be generous. Moral obligations are not needs, but rather an individual persons duty or conscience. I agree that the poor should be helped, but I also agree that a three hundred foot statue in my likeness should be erected over Washington monument.

 

[The_Panda]

Raine Caulwell and Dr Ste, I think what is missing here is some concept of "the middle ground". Not in the sense of "moderation is good", but in the sense of assuming that just because someone supports a welfare state means they are socialist/communist, or on the other end saying that either we have "fighting poverty, homelessness and unemployment, ensuring healthiness and respect for everyone, as well as local advancement and environmental protection" or doing absolutely nothing. There is no black and white in this issue, you're not either a communist/socialist or a hardcore capitalist who believes in next to nil government intervention. There are all sorts of shades in between. Most certainly it's not a fair criticism to say "if you don't support this, then you must support that", indeed it's not just that it's not fair, moreover, it's just wrong.

 

[Poliwag2]

What incentives are blurred?

The effect is two fold. Firstly, socialism implies higher taxation, which is a direct disincentive to production, particularly if the tax system is progressive. That is, if one expects to be taxed (for example) 40 cents on the dollar for an extra unit of work, one is less inclined to do that work.

Secondly, in a capitalist environment, it is imperative for the unemployed/inactive to find employment. Maintaining a certain standard of living is therefore their incentive. However, if one introduces state benefits and/or a free lunch under any other guise, this is again counter productive.

Since the incentive to find work is objectively less, it follows that the proportion of unemployed will grow as long as the labour market is even slightly inefficient. If we agree that this demographic is a burden on the state (how can it be anything else if these people remain economically inactive), then over time, the burden grows until it is no longer sustainable.

As more people take shelter under the state, I don't see how it is burdened, rather than supported. Taxpayers increase.

If the state is subsidizing their standard of living, it is a burden on the public purse. Tax revenue can only increase from productive economic activity. By taxing people supported by the state, one is merely taxing transfer earnings; that is, the same income twice.

How about human and natural respect? Private companies have no interest there.

Values differ between individuals and respect is an intangible construct that neither private agents nor government can objectively provide. I would also postulate that if one chooses to disrespect the underclass, then there is no reason to respect the underclass in disguise.

 

[Dr. Ste]

If it comes down to it, perhaps they should. I don't like the idea of children suffering for their parents mistake as much as the next person, but that's really a dangerous route. We can't just let the welfare system become crippled by mothers that decide to have too many offspring. There is only two choices you can make. You can either make measures to where the families cannot procreate, which would obviously lead to controversy as people would claim that's violating rights. The other option is simply to cut off the funds, and in that case the children suffer. Suffering while not pleasant, is often times the only outcome to a decision. While the children should not suffer nor do they deserve to have their qaulity of life hindered, nor does the government entitled to be trapped under the weight of everyone trying to climb onto its raft.

Given that an orphanage gives far less supplies than an organised family, mothers will still see their children lose from their decisions. I think that orphanages should give children the nurture, the supplies they need for social activity. A respectful minimum. We're not getting too extreme, and mothers still will have a good reason not to have too many childre. Also, parents who adopt could be given social advantages, as an incentive.

That's where I disagree. Humans beings are not within themselves moral beings, however individual human beings may be moral.

They should be. Education and parents most of the time are always trying to instill moral responsibility to all individuals.

No more than we can expect government or government officials to allocate funds properly or in the correct places.

The government is responsible and expected to do so by definition. Unlike privates.

What do you define as a need? I think you're confusing should and need. Moral obligations are not the governments concern. When you speak of fighting poverty, you speak of generosity. You say that it is our duty to be generous and that the government should take your money so that you can be generous. Moral obligations are not needs, but rather an individual persons duty or conscience. I agree that the poor should be helped, but I also agree that a three hundred foot statue in my likeness should be erected over Washington monument.

Poverty, unemmployment etc are examples of social pathogenicity. The government does want a nation as prosperous as possible. These are just wrong examples. I haven't seen a politician that openly shows direct indifference to poverty or unemployment. The point is, if private companies have all the power, they are not rightly interested in solving the problems.

The effect is two fold. Firstly, socialism implies higher taxation, which is a direct disincentive to production, particularly if the tax system is progressive. That is, if one expects to be taxed (for example) 40 cents on the dollar for an extra unit of work, one is less inclined to do that work.

Secondly, in a capitalist environment, it is imperative for the unemployed/inactive to find employment. Maintaining a certain standard of living is therefore their incentive. However, if one introduces state benefits and/or a free lunch under any other guise, this is again counter productive.

Since the incentive to find work is objectively less, it follows that the proportion of unemployed will grow as long as the labour market is even slightly inefficient. If we agree that this demographic is a burden on the state (how can it be anything else if these people remain economically inactive), then over time, the burden grows until it is no longer sustainable.

I disagree. Given that work is the main source of wealth in a socialist community, higher taxation does not decrease the interest of working. No one wants the minimum given. What is actually being given is the chances for everyone to be socially active. The government gives supplies for life and productivity, not life and productivity themselves. A predefined lunch keeps everyone alive, but everyone would like to try something different.

If the state is subsidizing their standard of living, it is a burden on the public purse. Tax revenue can only increase from productive economic activity. By taxing people supported by the state, one is merely taxing transfer earnings; that is, the same income twice.

The aim of the government is to brush out class differences. So that the working class is something that one could like to join.

Values differ between individuals and respect is an intangible construct that neither private agents nor government can objectively provide. I would also postulate that if one chooses to disrespect the underclass, then there is no reason to respect the underclass in disguise.

Yes they can. When a respectful minimum of life standard is ensured for everyone, that is respect. As for the last sentence, yes there is a reason. We do not want the underclass to be treated with disrespect.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

Capitalism, or socialism? Given what I've seen of the latter, especially in recent months, I find myself becoming nervous at the thought of having government engage in wealth distribution rather than markets. More often than not, the most prominent advocates for socialism I know of end up favoring equality in outcome through the state, insofar as these individuals consider wealth concentration to be horrible. I've heard Islamic economics proposed as an alternative to both capitalism and socialism, but unfortunately, it, like socialism, relies on collective morality rather to solve social problems. Islamic redistributionism has failed to alleviate genuine poverty, instead going to those who already have proper economic connections, just as socialism has ended up encouraging those already connected to the government to do whatever they can to maintain or even entrench their power. In the end, I would favor a basic framework focused on individual liberty in order to give the poor a reason to ascend the economic ladder of their own free will alongside the rich.

 

[Poliwag2]

I disagree. Given that work is the main source of wealth in a socialist community, higher taxation does not decrease the interest of working. No one wants the minimum given.

The question is not "working against not working", but rather "working x hours against working x+y hours". The decision is at the margin. It is the y that matters, because the worker always works for x, this being the minimum required to maintain his/her desired standard of living. The incentive to work over and above x is absolutely affected by taxation. Therefore y represents the opportunity cost of taxation; that is, y (multiplied by a constant between 0 and 1) is the lost production from state disincentives.

The aim of the government is to brush out class differences.

For what objective reason should the government be obliged to do this?

Yes they can. When a respectful minimum of life standard is ensured for everyone, that is respect. As for the last sentence, yes there is a reason. We do not want the underclass to be treated with disrespect.

No. Respect is not something one can measure. There is nothing that automatically demands respect. Why should one respect somebody who appears wealthier than somebody else? You are advocating a veneer that hides the underclass, but it does not solve the problem. Socialism works against the incentives for improving their long term standard of living. One should not be able to buy respect, and certainly not with other people's money (which is what socialism basically tries to do).

 

[Dr. Ste]

The question is not "working against not working", but rather "working x hours against working x+y hours". The decision is at the margin. It is the y that matters, because the worker always works for x, this being the minimum required to maintain his/her desired standard of living. The incentive to work over and above x is absolutely affected by taxation. Therefore y represents the opportunity cost of taxation; that is, y (multiplied by a constant between 0 and 1) is the lost production from state disincentives.

This indicates a rather small loss, not to be compared to the expected rise of income for the working class.

For what objective reason should the government be obliged to do this?

Phenomena of social pathogenicity are directly connected to certain (especially lower) classes. Plus, giving more opportunities to the people would increase the interest for research. If it can provide good motives that is, but capitalism already blocks out people not born in the way of a scientist.

No. Respect is not something one can measure. There is nothing that automatically demands respect.

Human identity demands some minimum of respect. Being socially alienated, unable to satisfy basic biological needs due to events not controlled by the "victim" in any way is disrespect.

Why should one respect somebody who appears wealthier than somebody else? You are advocating a veneer that hides the underclass, but it does not solve the problem.

Only education can solve the problem. While this attempts to control at least external behaviour, capitalism does nothing.

Socialism works against the incentives for improving their long term standard of living. One should not be able to buy respect, and certainly not with other people's money (which is what socialism basically tries to do).

Only the wealthy are inhibited, and only a little. What socialism tries to do is reduce the inheritable aspect of opportunities.

 

[Poliwag2]

This indicates a rather small loss, not to be compared to the expected rise of income for the working class.

Econ 101. Study "dead weight loss". Come back. We'll talk.

Plus, giving more opportunities to the people would increase the interest for research. If it can provide good motives that is, but capitalism already blocks out people not born in the way of a scientist.

No? Good motive = profit? Fame? No other motive objectively works.

Human identity demands some minimum of respect.

Agreed, but why should the state be responsible for this? And not e.g. parents?

Only education can solve the problem. While this attempts to control at least external behaviour, capitalism does nothing.

Nothing except provide a cost/benefit model for people to make rational decisions regarding their education? Socialism breeds mediocrity because the cost is subsidized, therefore why should people work harder than they need to.

Only the wealthy are inhibited, and only a little.

The wealthy are by and large wealthy because they are productive. Socialism takes capital from productive individuals and gives it to less productive people.

Consider a football (soccer) team with 10 average players and 1 world class player. Capitalism would dictate that the best player sees as much of the ball as possible. However, socialism would let everyone have the ball for an equal length of time (or at least distribute possession more evenly). If the best player scores, everyone on the team wins; so why would you give the ball to the other players? This is what is wrong with socialism.

 

[ArmorAndonomon]

In regards to unemployment and government benefits:

My father has been out of work for a good 8 months now, and we've been barely scraping by on Unemployment (I believe its about...$200-$300 USD a week).
If you factor in bills, rent payment, groceries, and basic necessities, that's terrifying to live off.
Obviously, this is a huge insentive to get a job, right?
Well, just getting ANY job doesn't cut it. Not at all. Many people would agree that you are better off attempting to find a job in your field of study.
We have to support four people in our house (dad, mom, younger sister, myself), and just getting any old job out there isn't good enough.

When you're trained in a certain field, you need to try and get a job in that certain field. My dad, for example again, is an AS400 Server Programmer. These servers are a little older in the computer world, but they're extremely reliable. However, there are almost zero jobs on the market for them at the moment. He's been searching for these 8 months, and had few leads. The one lead he had was at a community college, which caught on fire back in the winter. They've suspended their search for a programmer for at least 6 more months. Another was at a company he used to work for a long time ago. Without warning, they told him the position was filled and proceded to post it back on their website as needing the position filled.

Now, some people can go and take up a job just about anywhere, like McDonalds or WalMart or something.
However, these jobs are minute and pay even less than what we're living off currently. Around here, they're also jobs that aren't even hiring. If they ARE hiring, they only want people that are fine with below minimum wage. I personally can't even find a job, and I'm graduating in a month from high school.

People who live off Unemployment are said to be lazy, because they're sitting around collecting the benefits. Of course there's those people. I'm friends with a few. However, there are the few and far between who are struggling to actually find work, and they live off that little money every day. Its an extreme struggle. Barely any food around the house, threats of evictions and having power/water/etc shut off...when there's no work, its almost impossible to get by.

No jobs being produced = less employed. Its that simple.

 

[Hera+]

I'm not even going to dignify this with a vote if there's no middle-ground between capitalism and socialism. We were clearly in need or a bit more regulation, board members getting away with murder etc. And Health Care isn't the worst idea. Plus I don't want my kids eating Chinese lead. But I'm all for Capitalistic business practice. You just can't trust the majority of Americans to pick people over money.

 

[Rensch]

Moderate socialism.

Communism doesn't provide any economic stimulation. Furthermore, if I work hard and my colleague loafs around all day, I don't want to be paid the exact same amount of money as him or everyone else in the entire country for the rest of my whole life.

Neoliberal capitalism doesn't work either. Finanacial crisis, anyone. Deregulation led to the government not caring about extreme speculations and greedy companies. It's the extreme opposite of communism. In a way this system becomes like communism in that there is a small ruling class that decides everything for the vast majority that is right under it, simply because they have all the economic power.

The government is needed to provide basic health care. Besides health care there are other things we make all use of like public transport or libraries, so we pay for them together too. It is just a matter of a little bit of solidarity. If everyone pays the same percentage of his/her income, rich or poor, we can at least provide the basic needs to everyone. If we don't, poor kids may not have the opportunities the need to get a better life.

And to those who say that keeps taxes higher I would like to say that a private company always has the primary goal to make profit so you might as well pay a lot of money for things like health insurance making it just as expensive or even more expensive than socialized health care.

A moderate capitalism/socialism blend is the best IMO. Provide basic needs via the government, perhaps complemented by the free market if absolutely necessary, whilst keeping entrepeneurship and bureaucracy for small businesses at a minmal level.

 

[Dr. Ste]

Econ 101. Study "dead weight loss". Come back. We'll talk.

This is different than the original discussion point, but, anyway, of course state control interferes with the competitive equilibrium, leaving a loss in surplus. It does so in favour of the consumers. Goods like health care, education, and food, should be as accessible as possible, because that's one of the reasons states exist. And because everyone needs them equally, while they don't afford them equally. Or should we have a united, worldwide market? The world is far from the ideal where everyone is paid proportionally to their willingness to be productive.

No? Good motive = profit? Fame? No other motive objectively works.

Ask how many would pursue social respect, quality in their occupation, productivity with rewards, if only they could pay for the costs to get there. They do not choose not to be productive; their parents didn't have enough money to make them.

Agreed, but why should the state be responsible for this? And not e.g. parents?

You can't leave the many bait to the few, and claim to respect the needs of your people.

Nothing except provide a cost/benefit model for people to make rational decisions regarding their education? Socialism breeds mediocrity because the cost is subsidized, therefore why should people work harder than they need to.

What is a rational decision regarding education? Education, opportunities for providing oneself with early qualifications to advance, and to protect themselves from exploitation, and especially mental growth, are not like the other commercial goods. There is only one cost: time to study.

The wealthy are by and large wealthy because they are productive. Socialism takes capital from productive individuals and gives it to less productive people.

And gives them the chance to be productive, instead of letting them chained to their recycling poverty. The wealthy are not wealthy because they are productive, but they are productive because they are wealthy. People have dreams, they do not have the low standards you claim.

Ideally, you would want people to work 24/7, and consume 24/7. But people need to have personal time, families, children to raise, ambitions to fulfil. Your ideology claims that we should tax people for every hour they spend not working, for every year they spend with a mate, for every homework they help their children with, so that the loss in productivity will be compensated. No, money is not the principle of society.

Consider a football (soccer) team with 10 average players and 1 world class player. Capitalism would dictate that the best player sees as much of the ball as possible. However, socialism would let everyone have the ball for an equal length of time (or at least distribute possession more evenly). If the best player scores, everyone on the team wins; so why would you give the ball to the other players? This is what is wrong with socialism.

Obviously. It is wrong to want to build up a better team, to find the hidden talent in alienated players, to give them a chance to shine, to provide a reason for their being in the team. You don't let them score and you don't pay them because they do not score. Societies are not formed to compete with other societies, but to protect their members. Fotball teams are not a successful example of society.

 

[Poliwag2]

... state control interferes ... in favour of the consumers.

This is false on 2 levels. Firstly, the incentive for state intervention for the incumbent is to strictly consolidate its power; not to "favour consumers" nor society. Secondly, state interference can conceivably improve social welfare, but you must realise this is purely on a nominal scale. What you overlook is the opportunity cost of the state's actions. Simply put, the private sector will always allocate resources more efficiently than the public sector. While it may appear on the surface that the state is improving welfare, it is invariably destroying wealth on an aggregate scale.

Let me put it another way. Your argument is the exact parallel of those who suggest warfare is productive because it accelerates technology. This is false (what Austrian Economists call the "broken window fallacy"); because the argument neglects the opportunity cost (and the lost productivity) from all the lives lost. Now apply this to the welfare state. Socialism appears productive on the surface, but it neglects the opportunity cost of what the private sector would have done with taxed moneys.

Goods like health care, education, and food, should be as accessible as possible, because that's one of the reasons states exist. And because everyone needs them equally...

I agree to an extent with the first sentence, but beg to differ with the second. Education, healthcare and food beyond a basic level (regular check up, primary education and inferior foods) are strictly luxuries. Nobody "needs" them, but they are generally desirable. Luxuries are invariably costly to society, and therefore should be costly to the consumer. End of.

Ask how many would pursue social respect, quality in their occupation, productivity with rewards, if only they could pay for the costs to get there. They do not choose not to be productive; their parents didn't have enough money to make them.

Firstly, this is anecdotal and therefore irrelevant. Secondly, just because people "want" or believe that they would be productive at a certain occupation, does not mean they will be. DUCY why socialist education would be an inefficient allocation of resources in this instance? Capitalism does not bar the able from achieving. Indeed, it reduces the labour pool to only those who are able, helping businesses and employees alike (and by extension, society). The incentives are such, that students must make an informed decision i.e. "will I be able to find suitable employment to pay off the debt my investment in education?".

What is a rational decision regarding education? There is only one cost: time to study.

The benefits of education varies between individuals. For example, university is a waste of time for many people. If higher education is fully privatised then a student must weigh up the likely benefit against the cost of consuming extra education. This cost is not merely time, but the opportunity cost of doing something else instead (e.g. a full time job). With subsidized fees, the cost/benefit analysis is skewed and the expected benefit to justify consumption is reduced. Subsequently, the result is a dilution in the quality of students. Moreover, this also manifests as a dilution in the quality of graduates, making it more difficult for employers to sift for able candidates.

I think you misunderstand education as "something that people do to get a job". It is not. Education is a signal to employers to show what you are capable of. Therefore, there are plenty of people who should not be going to university at all - because it will add no value (but will cost society) - but they see it as a (subsidized) right, instead of a privilege.

The rational bit is: many of these graduates will not be employable anyway, so their degree is worthless. Employers employ people based on ability, not on their educational achievements. The latter is merely an indication of the former.

And gives them the chance to be productive, instead of letting them chained to their recycling poverty.

And they do have a chance. Capitalism does not take away their chance; if they are able. Why should the less able get a leg up to compete with future success stories?

The wealthy are not wealthy because they are productive, but they are productive because they are wealthy.

Chicken and egg - except at some point, the wealthy were not wealthy.

Ideally, you would want people to work 24/7, and consume 24/7. But people need to have personal time, families, children to raise, ambitions to fulfil. Your ideology claims that we should tax people for every hour they spend not working, for every year they spend with a mate, for every homework they help their children with, so that the loss in productivity will be compensated. No, money is not the principle of society.

The first sentence is a strawman... and... What? I am *against* taxation. Do you even understand my argument?...

It is wrong to want to build up a better team, to find the hidden talent in alienated players, to give them a chance to shine, to provide a reason for their being in the team.

This is all well and good, but these things are not free. Talent will always show itself regardless of anything else. Therefore, "giving others a chance to shine" is actually subsidizing mediocrity.

Ugh, I've been reduced to multiquoting. I am disgusted.

 

[Dr. Ste]

This is false on 2 levels. Firstly, the incentive for state intervention for the incumbent is to strictly consolidate its power; not to "favour consumers" nor society.

Reading Macciavelli? I disagree, the source of the state's power is the people.

Secondly, state interference can conceivably improve social welfare, but you must realise this is purely on a nominal scale. What you overlook is the opportunity cost of the state's actions. Simply put, the private sector will always allocate resources more efficiently than the public sector. While it may appear on the surface that the state is improving welfare, it is invariably destroying wealth on an aggregate scale.

Let me put it another way. Your argument is the exact parallel of those who suggest warfare is productive because it accelerates technology. This is false (what Austrian Economists call the "broken window fallacy"); because the argument neglects the opportunity cost (and the lost productivity) from all the lives lost. Now apply this to the welfare state. Socialism appears productive on the surface, but it neglects the opportunity cost of what the private sector would have done with taxed moneys.

Nobody denied that the opportunity cost won't be great. It will be thousands... from the millions of wealth of the industries, the banks, the rich.

Regarding the "what the private sector would have done", it is a misconception to think that it is independent of the public sector. It's quality is dependent. Well, that may not be true to that extent in a worldwide basis, but in a local area, for example, what a private school offers is dependent on what the state schools of the area offer. When the quality of those schools degrades, the quality of the private schools will also fall, with the same tuition fees.

I agree to an extent with the first sentence, but beg to differ with the second. Education, healthcare and food beyond a basic level (regular check up, primary education and inferior foods) are strictly luxuries. Nobody "needs" them, but they are generally desirable. Luxuries are invariably costly to society, and therefore should be costly to the consumer. End of.

I thought this was obvious enough, but let's clear out now that we're not talking about caviar, expensive post-graduate research equipment, costly drugs for rare diseases. Though I think their costs (the latter two) should be lessened still (funds, insurance, scholarship etc).

Firstly, this is anecdotal and therefore irrelevant. Secondly, just because people "want" or believe that they would be productive at a certain occupation, does not mean they will be. DUCY why socialist education would be an inefficient allocation of resources in this instance? Capitalism does not bar the able from achieving. Indeed, it reduces the labour pool to only those who are able, helping businesses and employees alike (and by extension, society). The incentives are such, that students must make an informed decision i.e. "will I be able to find suitable employment to pay off the debt my investment in education?".

No socioeconomic system can tell in advance who of the willing will be productive. It's certainly not the one whose parents can pay the most. Capitalism does bar the able, because intelligent people, willing to spend a great part to the perfection of their dreams, are lost because they can't pay the costs.

"Scholarships" you may say. Well, how many students that fit the above description will find help here? Will the scholarships be high enough? How bound will the students be for the future? Most importantly, is a student with high grades a better investment than someone with marginally lower?

Here in Greece, private universities are banned by law. Each year, at the end of school, national examinations take place for the interested to enter third-grade education, on relative lessons. The best students who expressed interest for a particular univerity school pass. In other words, if you want the highest education the country can give you in a specific sector, you have to be of the best the country can give to that sector. Not some irrelevant factor like "how much parents are willing to pay".

The benefits of education varies between individuals. For example, university is a waste of time for many people. If higher education is fully privatised then a student must weigh up the likely benefit against the cost of consuming extra education. This cost is not merely time, but the opportunity cost of doing something else instead (e.g. a full time job). With subsidized fees, the cost/benefit analysis is skewed and the expected benefit to justify consumption is reduced. Subsequently, the result is a dilution in the quality of students. Moreover, this also manifests as a dilution in the quality of graduates, making it more difficult for employers to sift for able candidates.

The decision that results from that comparison is independent. No matter how much the benefits outweigh the costs, nothing is won if you can't pay the costs.

Also, I don't understand the cost of opportunity you are mentioning. It is the money a student could have won if they chose to work rather than educate. Not the tuition fees. Or are the universities feeing you because you are not working?

"Dilution on the quality of the students"? When you have to study hard to pass, rather than pay hard? You tell me, when students who didn't make it to med school go abroad, pay to study at a foreign university, take their degrees, come here and fail at examinations of recognition of their degrees.

I think you misunderstand education as "something that people do to get a job". It is not. Education is a signal to employers to show what you are capable of. Therefore, there are plenty of people who should not be going to university at all - because it will add no value (but will cost society) - but they see it as a (subsidized) right, instead of a privilege.

The rational bit is: many of these graduates will not be employable anyway, so their degree is worthless. Employers employ people based on ability, not on their educational achievements. The latter is merely an indication of the former.

You're forgetting that the state is a large employer (in case of socialism, a major one). When the state employs, true ability is evaluated. For example, over here, if you want to be a teacher, you take examinations on all the classes you will be allowed to teach, heavily pedagogics, as well as a great deal of the classes you took at university-again. Other indicators are also counted. Once again, the best pass. The better, the higher the position.

The university in which one graduated is a determinant factor for the private employers. That's also directly relevant to what the student could pay.

Without a degree, you're not going anywhere (concerning the "merely an indicator").

And they do have a chance. Capitalism does not take away their chance; if they are able. Why should the less able get a leg up to compete with future success stories?

No, they don't. Education is expensive.

Chicken and egg - except at some point, the wealthy were not wealthy.

At some point, effective wealth resources were unevelny distributed. From there, they got inherited.

The first sentence is a strawman... and... What? I am *against* taxation. Do you even understand my argument?...

Is it? Well, for one moment I admit I forgot that you do not support total capitalism. Anyway, change "tax" to "fine" or "fee" or something like that. Is that not the core of the theory you brought up? Financial merit and financial punishment? Indicator for a nations economy is how much is produced, how much is consumed, how much labour takes place. For it to maximise, these get maximised. The things I mentioned before work against that tendency. So the loss must be compensated,right?

This is all well and good, but these things are not free. Talent will always show itself regardless of anything else. Therefore, "giving others a chance to shine" is actually subsidizing mediocrity.

Socialism does not mean we give away the money to anyone who wants it.

Ugh, I've been reduced to multiquoting. I am disgusted.

I never understood how it works... I copy/paste the part I want to comment, put [*QUOTE] tags and add "=Poliwag2". Is it faster? These posts take me too much time...