Re: Sayonara

e:

mbedded

l Moore

_SEj1E

e care

n welfare

=A0 =A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

t

is

n to grow up

Really? And your evidence for this implausible statement is?

"Comfortably" is one of those right wing myths.

By which he means "not discouraged as ferociously and unreasonably as right wing nitwits would have liked".

Was there a time when more than half the population did pay income taxes? By the time you have subtracted out the children, the pensioners and the stay at home mothers, it's hard to find enough people left over to form a tax-paying majority.

Presumably because the right-wing nitwit element is sabotaging them. The US spends less on social security than the richer countries of Europe, and the system works fine there.

Nutcases like Charlie E understand a whole lot of things that don't happen to be true. It makes it difficult for them to comprehend the attitudes of those who are in better contact with reality.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman
Loading thread data ...

:

e:

bedded

Moore

SEj1E

e care

n welfare

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0...Jim Thompson

t
t
l

Do you know the equivalent figures for Germany? Do you have enough sense to realise that you need to find out before you present that argument?

"US exceptionalism" is the the idea that what works everywhere else can't work n the US because the US is "different" rather than merely saddled with a crummy constitution and a bunch of politicians who won't look at the way other countries manage their problems.

US health-care - which is over-priced and inadequate by international standards - is the worst example of this endemic short-sightedness, but it's not the only one.

Fine. That's genuinely admirable. Now try and be as honest in constructing your arguments.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

Why not?

Even more strawmen.

Reply to
krw

ment

Michael, I'm proud to work a little longer and pay a little more. You're the kind of guy we want to help.

I'm surrounded by people who compete with you for that same pool of money who are able-bodied, yet who simply don't want to work.

James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Ditto. I'm also sorry if my post upset you, Micheal. That's what that system is *for*.

Some might be Zero Marginal Product workers. Nobody knows what to do about that.

-- Les Cargill

Reply to
Les Cargill

Yep.

a) It's doubled in 3 years. b) That's a lot of money. c) You're not counting all the zillions of other handout programs. Together, that's BIG money.

That exact argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still lots to do.

We've gone from what, 80% of population in agriculture to >> We did the math here - "welfare" welfare is not that significant a

Means-tested welfare is ~20% of federal spending. That's huge. That's ignoring the big transfer programs, too.

Federal+state government consumes / dissipates ~41% of the gross proceeds of all activity. That's huge too. Federal regulations alone imposed $1.75T in compliance costs on small business in 2008.

All that stuff adds up!

That same argument has been made since the Industrial Revolution began--machines put people out of work--yet somehow there's still lots to do. Except, suddenly, now.

(You can say that again!)

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

a.1) It'll probably halve in three more...

Not in Bizarro Government World. No matter how strange you think it is, it's much stranger yet. Especially with food, the net effect *could* be quite small ( was it you pointing me to "King Corn"? Yeah, like that .... ) The marginal cost and materials used to make that stuff is pretty low, because the supply is doubly-regulated - by subsidies and by the futures markets.

All that is true enough.

This seems different. We've had in essence no improvement in employment since about 1980, other than bubbles. This while GDP has been pretty healthy.

The proto-Marxists and Marxists were wrong for technical reasons. People who point to this like me will be wrong for other reasons we don't know about. But that leaves the here and now...

Oh, absolutely. No doubt. But if I consider that a data point that indicates that we may continue to have unemployment problems. As happened with agriculture happened with industry.

At this writing, because of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1979, unemployment is in scope for government. It's probably an ironic coincidence, but just as poverty stopped dropping after the passage of Johnson's Great Society, unemployment has been a fact of life since.

A proper Hayekian would shrug and say "of course." Government creates bubbles... I guess my point is that we appear not to be able to keep our hands off it, so we need to do it better. As it is, we're stuck.

No question about that. The compliance cost alone are horrifying. That some rent-seeking sh*t right there... I guess if I had a point, it would be that the government cheese and welfare seems more acceptable than some of the worst regulatory wankery...

I sincerely hope you are right! I hope this is just a bad patch.

If you are interested, check out Arnold Kling's "Patterns of Sustainable Specialization and Trade" concept. But only if you don't tend towards depression...

-- Les Cargill

Reply to
Les Cargill

Only if we change course. We've not only had more applicants due to poverty, but we've lowered the standards to qualify. And, they've been advertising.

You mean because the recipients pay taxes, and spend the money with people who pay taxes, producing offsetting revenue?

I'd re-think that. And, it still robs taxpayers. $70B is $700 each for 100M taxpayers.

We've had more and more people working (until the past three or four years). People have new ideas, then start small businesses, which drives hiring.

People are not doing that under the current regime's oppression, hence the hiring deficit. That *is* extremely bad, but easily solved.

Of course. There's always turnover, always creative destruction in progress somewhere. That's healthy, how we adapt.

It's a two-fer: paying people not to work encourages many to do that, and the wet blanket that puts on everyone else slows job growth & hiring.

Regulation is choking American growth. I despise legions of turkeys demanding me to fill out this and file that, all for their pleasure. It didn't used to be like this. My grandpa blasted stumps out of his CA yard with dynamite. Today he'd be arrested.

It can never be done better centrally, and not by politicians. They bend it to their purposes, not ours.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Possibly. The rebound from every downturn since the '81 one has been worse ( unless you were in the hot industry for a bubble ).

I *really* think that people have strong preference for jobs, very close to universally. We have TV shows about people working now - Holmes is one. Were there movieds about carpentry in the '30s? I don't think there were...

Partly that, but mostly that the real ( as in nonmonetary ) costs are quite low. I've never actually seen it measured.

I understand. Thing is, if it's really for people who are just completely boned otherwise, I don't mind paying that at all.

I have to wonder if there's not room in the world for a not-for-profit that tries to eliminate dependence on government. As much bluster as there is on the subject, you'd think there would be.

But I suspect that this is like people who also don't send money to "help" with the deficit. there's something creepy about doing that, maybe.

it's a lot easier to talk about it than do something < looks guiltfully at mirror >.

yeah, I'd seen it. :) great little film. In a way, I sort of admire the ingenuity of the system, but I never looked at farms the same way again.

I'd love for somebody to do followup films like King Corn on the wholesale and retail ends of food. it's a huge process.

Problem is - the trend predates the present administration. And the current regime has evolved from Clinton to Bush and now to Obama in a very straight line manner. There's a mass of common principles between the three. it's even true in Britain for the same time frames.

In a way, this was true of Reagan, but not nearly as much. I don't mean them except as era markers.

I don't think who's POTUS matters for this. It's bigger than they are.

Right. We get a massive benefit from it. We'd still like to have our cake and eat it too..

By '65, people had been leaving rural areas for Detroit and other places for quite a while. The problem with *that* is that the large firm began to die around then*...

*and nobody is explaining this well other than Schumpeter.

I'm not sure that the people who draw on public assistance are forsaking very good jobs - if there's any job at all for them. Dunno about you, but I've had jobs where the company crippled itself to where I wasn't getting much done... it was a relief to get out and find another job, even if that meant a layoff.

I am not so sure it's choking growth per se. It's doubtless expensive, but the figures say that there's simply not enough money in the right places.

Dunno - then I think of RoHS and...

A central authority simply doesn't have the *bandwidth*.

Yep. They almost *have* to. Politics is quite competitive. It's like the worst of both worlds.

-- Les Cargill

Reply to
Les Cargill

Reagan rebounded from Carter's policies, an easy comparison.

Since then, we've damped everything with regulation and requirements. It's simply physically harder, riskier--and more and more expensive-- to start anything as a result.

Fewer and fewer people seem interested in working. Target was offering a good wage--couldn't get any takers (pun intended). They made nearly as much not working, and that was a lot easier.

h

People don't send in money against the deficit because they know it'll just get spent.

formatting link
ity/76033/ "The United States has fewer entrepreneurs starting businesses and more closing their doors, [...]

However, in 2010, the number of U.S. entrepreneurs closing down their businesses was second highest [...]"

POTUS is running around attacking various companies, industries, and employers. That works. He's killed small airplane sales with just one of his many blunders, for example.

[...]

Try just reading the unAffordable Care Act. Then Dodd-Frank.

Yes. Neither the information, propagation speed, or compute power, and they never can. There's too much, too widespread, and too fuzzy.

That's why Barack's "investments" for all of us in things he doesn't understand will never match experts (or even lay people) investing their own money.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Ah. I am very sorry to hear that. No, I would not say that I have followed it well.

-- Les Cargill

Reply to
Les Cargill

I rest my case.

-- Les Cargill

Reply to
Les Cargill

I find that pointless. My eyes are full of soap ;-)

-- "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." (Richard Feynman)

Reply to
Fred Abse

I have had a LOT of crap from people lately, about my health & being on disability. :(

10 years of crap from people who don't know what's going on, and doctors making things worse isn't working for me. The constant lack of sleep makes me irritable, and easy to tick off.

I apologize for my reply, but you have no idea what it's like, if you haven't lived through it.

I know a lot of people on disability and every one of them would love to be able to go back to work. I know there are deadbeats & losers, but not among the people I know. Add to that, idiots who slam a door in you face, even though they see you walking with a cane or walker. People who jump in line in front of you, or blow their horn then scream and curse at you to "Get the hell out of my way' because 'You're walking to damn slow!!!' To have idiots fly through a stop sign in a parking lot and miss you by inches, or steer towards you, so you have to have to dive between parked cars to keep from being hit. It gets old, really fast.

How would you like some teenage punk assault you, just because you need a cane to walk? It happened to me a few years ago.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Thank you. I was always willing to help people in need, whenever I could. I still do what I can, but it's not much compared to what I used to be able to do.

They need to bring back the CCC, the WPA and Workfare. If they are able to work, they have to or forfeit any help. Ohio tried to institute WOrkfare at one time, and was forced to stop. There is always something that needs done, and they can do something, even if it's pushing a big broom to clean the streets.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

yeah, I don't understand that. I see it too.

Clearly! :)

No, I haven't. No apology necessary.

Exactly.

People pretty much seem to drift through public spaces in a fog.

Grrr! Makes me thing a long, duster-style coat and a 12 gauge is in order, but that's probably illegal in places.

-- Les Cargill

Reply to
Les Cargill

=20

going=20

=20

=20

If you want to receive welfare fine, sterilization is a prerequisite. Want your fertility back, you have to pay for it 100%.

This may reduce the problem somewhat.

?-)

Reply to
josephkk

=20

You should, especially when it becomes the majority of people. Who them vote themselves largesse out of your and every other productive person's pocket.

I am willing to help them to this extent, cheap job training for an available job / upgrading their employability. Then we have more = employed and productive people and things get better. Capiche?

=20

Reply to
josephkk

market,

retirement

and

that

it

able

Spending

and

with

Obama

Only Sloman and miso spew more economic nonsense than you.

?-/

Reply to
josephkk

retirement

Spending

and

with

You have not been following Michael's situation very well, it is an ongoing horror story about how poorly it is working.

p.s. Michael PM me.

?-)

Reply to
josephkk

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.