Reactions to AC

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I favor vouchers - but this is a function of the fact that I want every kid to have a real shot at a decent education, yet another scenario I can't envision AC dealing with. (Presumably there will still be poor families with 8 kids and lower income single moms with 2 or 3 kids in AC. How will their education work?)



[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at the poverty stats and you look at the amount of money the government wastes its not too far fetched to say that there will be no poverty in AC land.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, poverty would increase. The money currently being shifted to poor folks would go back to the taxpayers who paid it - in other words, most of it would go from poor people to middle class and rich folks.

I'm not a cynical politician, so I won't say this would be equivalent to a subsidy for the rich, but it certainly would quite literally make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Hence my remark about a classist society (and the violence that usually follows).

[ QUOTE ]
The arguement that the poor need education is a bit of an exaggeration. If you took all that government money spent on schooling and just put it away in a mutual fund or something while teenagers went to work instead of school and earned a living and put some of that money away, its not too hard to see that they could basically retire by the time they are 40.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is factually wrong, but even if it weren't it would be antithetical to AC.

[ QUOTE ]
The only things you really need to learn to function in society is how to read and basic math skills, both which can easily be taught by family members.

[/ QUOTE ]
As long as you don't mind subsistance farming, yes, I agree that these are the only skills you need.

[ QUOTE ]
All the other extra stuff like history can easily be learnt about on the internet

[/ QUOTE ]
The internet largely doesn't reach poor homes even in our redistributionist state today.

[ QUOTE ]
and all the technical schooling can learnt in universities.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which would be funded how? And the poor would have access to how?

[ QUOTE ]
Its amazing how much propaganda goes into convincing people about the virtues of public education when the stuff that gets taught is superfluous and can be taught at for a fraction of the cost. But this is one lesson you will never learn in your unionized school system.

[/ QUOTE ]
On this point I almost agree. The only thing I'd change is I would add the phrase "modern American" right before "public education" in your first sentence.

Modern American public education is ass, but "affordable" and "mandatory" education of some type, hopefully vastly improved over the current standard, really are important to the functioning of a modern society, IMO.

Incidentally, the teachers' union did recently come out in support of (or at least, reduced opposition to) performance-based based pay. So who knows? Maybe incremental improvement is possible even in as messed-up an arena as American public education.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your want of free education doesn’t legitimize robbing me to provide it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another non-utilitarian claim about "justice". A society that doesn't provide for the education of some of its children will be a classist society (with, of course, all the violence and misery that typically implies). If you see that as desirable in its own right, or perhaps as an acceptable consequence of a "just" AC society, that's on you. Personally I see it as neither desirable nor acceptable. I'd rather live in a "good" society, that is, one in which the maximum amount of good is done for the largest number of people AND the least harm is done to the rest, than in the sort of ACland you describe.

To me, it sounds like the kind of world you long for is one in which there is a vast gulf in the opportunities different people are born into (even greater than exists in the US, which is among the more extreme of the western democracies), largely driven by their luck in the genetic lottery. (Were your parents smart and industrious? Great - easy street for you, son, born to wealth and property. Were they stupid or lazy? Guess you're f*cked then: no money, no health care, no education for you. Hope you like manual labor, kiddo... always assuming you survive childhood.)

Bottom line: I see neither justice nor virtue in the sort of society this describes. If you do, good luck and godspeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you care so much about educating the poor then wouldn't you just cut a check to provide for their schooling? I mean, if it's so important to you wouldn't you do something about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't: my capital would be tied up either buying or manufacturing guns.

[plzleenowhammy]

? You plan on attacking someone?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The AC objection that I've seen before is, "What if someone else comes up with the same idea independantly an hour after you did?" And of course then you have the wrangling over whether someone really did come up with an idea independantly, etc etc. Messy, if nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you have avoided the question every time, i will repeat it here again, in a hypothetical.
You come up with an ides, and patent it, i can prove, to your satisfaction, that i came up with the idea an hour later than you did. What is it about the nature of ideas that makes you think its a good thing that i am prevented from profiting from my idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you think I've tried to avoid this question. I don't actually remember being asked it in this exact form. I don't think there's something inherent in the nature of ideas that makes it good that you don't profit. I think there are several such things inherent in human nature though.

Here they are:

IP protection encourages people to come up with lots and lots of ideas, and quickly, in the hope of obtaining a temporary monopoly with commensurate selling power and the wealth that will follow. That's good. It leads to rapid progress.

In the specific case you named, consider the impact: I come up with an idea at 2pm and patent it. You independantly come up with the same idea at 3pm, but because I've patented it, you can't make a living from your idea. This forces you to come up with another idea if you want to get rich, which sorta sucks, BUT it leaves open the possibility that you WILL get rich if you do come up with another good idea, a possibility that doesn't exist without IP protection (see below), and which decidedly does not suck.
Thus, with IP, 10 good ideas lead to 10 rich guys (or 8 rich guys and one doublerich guy, etc). Without IP, 1 good idea leads to 10 well-to-do guys, each of whom have little incentive to come up with more ideas, since they're unlikely to reap windfall profits even if they succeed (as others will immediately compete with their second idea, just like they did with their first). There is plainly far more incentive to progress with IP than without it.

There are also two other very significant practical advantages that I can see:

1. If I come up with my idea at 2pm, and you "come up with your idea" a year later after my product is already on the market, it's going to be difficult both for me to prove you stole my idea, AND for you to prove you didn't. (Whoever has the burden of proof, probably loses.) Thus with IP protection as is, we gain the practical advantage of avoiding interminable wrangling over who came up with what idea when and the inevitable waste and anger that accompany it.

2. Any idea that is difficult or expensive to create, but cheap to reproduce, has little chance of ever occuring in a society that lacks IP protection, because the financial incentive of creating it is negligible, while the disincentive to doing the work necessary to creating it is very large. In a society without IP protection, there would be no software, pharmaceutical or music industries as we know them. Certainly advances in these fields (and others like them which I'm sure I'm omitting) would grind to an almost immediate halt and likely never recover.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
? You plan on attacking someone?

[/ QUOTE ]
My plans are none of your business. It's my absolute right to produce or buy guns if I want to.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the poverty stats and you look at the amount of money the government wastes its not too far fetched to say that there will be no poverty in AC land.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of myself as one of the more pragmatic people on this board, and I'm willing to compromise on alot of issues, but you totally lost me here.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I am mixing 2005/2006 numbers here because this is just a back of the envelope calculation meant to illustrate a point, and these were the easiest numbers to find.

In 2005 there were approximately 114,385,000 households in the US, making each quintile 22877 households. The fed gov (in 2006) spent 359.6 billion on UE and welfare, 345.7 on medicare, 268.4 billion on medicaid, for a total of 973 billion dollars.
If you redistributed that money it would work out like this.

redistribute to
3/5ths: $14,177 per household
2/5ths: $21,644 per household
1/5th: $42,532 per household

This would be on top of whatever post tax income they already earned, which essentially means that if all the programs which are meant to eliminated poverty were simply redistributed that one year, there would be no poverty (ignoring long term effects). This is without touching the 544.8 billion paid in SS (adding 56% to those totals) 88.7 billion in education (another 9%) 211 billion in interest on the debt.

New numbers
3/5ths: $26,511
2/5ths: $40,474
1/5th: $79,535.

This is without consideration for State and local taxes or money spent on Defense, transportation, the justice system, general subsidies, ect ect.

Basically the point is that there is far more than enough production going around to make everyone's lifestyle what we currently consider middle class and yet these benefits are not hitting the lower classes DESPITE massive redistribution schemes by the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

T-

Your numbers are frighteningly large and your point is interesting, but it's worth noting that that money wouldn't simply be "free cash".

Medicare dollars do (at least in part) get used to pay for medical expenses. SS money gets paid as money, so redistributing it would literally simply change who gets it; it wouldn't put more money into the economy though.

And eliminating expenses like courts and police would definitely change the nature of American living enough that it's unclear whether 40k dollars (say) would mean anything resembling what it means today.

-J

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And don't forget one of the largest taxes: the inflation tax. With fiat money every time the government prints more dollars the ones in your pocket are less valuable. Hence, the inflation tax. But it is not counted because the government doesn't want you to know what it is. The consumer price index conveniently leaves out things like food and fuel so you can't look there.

Nice list by the way.


[/ QUOTE ]

I heard that in terms of just buying everyday goods, the US dollar has lost a third of its value since 2000. Anyone else heard that? I'd really like to find something that corroborates that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
That sounds reasonable. Gas was .90 USD per gallon in 1998. It's 3.09 nationwide today. And that not only hurts people at the pumps, it hurts 'em in the stores: groceries come from someplace, and it costs gas to get them from there to here.

The growth of Chinese imports is wreaking havoc, don't doubt it. (One-way) "free" trade, such as we have with China today, is a f*cking for both the citizens today and especially the citizens of tomorrow who'll get to bear the burden of the debt we run up.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the poverty stats and you look at the amount of money the government wastes its not too far fetched to say that there will be no poverty in AC land.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of myself as one of the more pragmatic people on this board, and I'm willing to compromise on alot of issues, but you totally lost me here.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I am mixing 2005/2006 numbers here because this is just a back of the envelope calculation meant to illustrate a point, and these were the easiest numbers to find.

In 2005 there were approximately 114,385,000 households in the US, making each quintile 22877 households. The fed gov (in 2006) spent 359.6 billion on UE and welfare, 345.7 on medicare, 268.4 billion on medicaid, for a total of 973 billion dollars.
If you redistributed that money it would work out like this.

redistribute to
3/5ths: $14,177 per household
2/5ths: $21,644 per household
1/5th: $42,532 per household

This would be on top of whatever post tax income they already earned, which essentially means that if all the programs which are meant to eliminated poverty were simply redistributed that one year, there would be no poverty (ignoring long term effects). This is without touching the 544.8 billion paid in SS (adding 56% to those totals) 88.7 billion in education (another 9%) 211 billion in interest on the debt.

New numbers
3/5ths: $26,511
2/5ths: $40,474
1/5th: $79,535.

This is without consideration for State and local taxes or money spent on Defense, transportation, the justice system, general subsidies, ect ect.

Basically the point is that there is far more than enough production going around to make everyone's lifestyle what we currently consider middle class and yet these benefits are not hitting the lower classes DESPITE massive redistribution schemes by the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's look a little closer at how the government hurts the poor and keeps them poor and dependent on the government. I have a lot of clients who collect either SSI or Social Security as their main source of income. They all have housing subsidies as well.

SSI ~ $740.00/month or ~ 9,000/yr
Housing subsidy ~ 800/mo or ~ 10,00/yr

(they contribute ~ 30% of their income towards their housing so I'm not going to double count that)

Annual Income: 10,000 + 5,500 = 15,500

They also get other benefits such as free medical care, discount transportation, food stamps, etc. A fair estimate is 20,000K when you add these things in (actually it is more when you include the other misc services they get but lets go with the 20K/yr)

This 20K/yr is 100% tax free and they get this income while on a permanent vacation, 52 weeks/yr paid vacation! It's not a lot of money, but there are plenty of people who are working 40hr weeks 52weeks/yr to earn that income!

This is where it gets really fun [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Many, in fact almost all, can easily assimilate to part time jobs, and many could assimilate to full time jobs over time BUT here's the kicker [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

The housing subsidy guidelines stipulate that they all contribute 30% of their income towards their housing. It's really a sweet deal overall, most are paing around $200 for a $1,000 per month one bedroom apartment.

However, if they go out and get a 'starter job' where they earn say $8/hr the housing subsidy deal is gonna take ~ 2.50/hr right off the top turning that $8/hr job into a $5.50/hr job.

Also, they will have the railroad tax and social security tax and whatever that comes off the check so lets take $1/hr off for that leaving them with a $4.50/hr job.

And for those on SSI those guidelines stipulate that the first $80/month is theirs to keep without impacting their SSI check, but after that SSI deducts $1.00 for every $2.00 they earn. So figuring a 20hr work week, say 80hrs a month at $8/hr they gross $640/month. They loose $ $280/month from their SSI check. That's like what, 40%? 40% of $8/hr is like $3.30/hr or so [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

So... we subtract $3.30/hr from $4.50/hr and their $8/hr job just turned into a $1.20/hr job [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Now, they are collecting ~ $10/hr in goods and services tax free for doing what they please with their time while on their permanent 52week/yr vacation and they are faced with the prospect of getting a job where they have to sweat and cope with a boss and structure, and take orders, etc for almost 90% less than they get for doing NOTHING!

I don't know about you, but I am pretty reluctant to take a job that pays me 10% of what I earn now, especially when that job is SIGNIFICANTLY HARDER than what I currently do for my money!

Thanks uncle sam, nice way to incentivise employment and self reliance, your a sweetheart [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[plzleenowhammy]

Absolutely. Go for it. But if you find such virtue in providing free education for the poor then wouldn't you buy less berrettas and more schoolbooks? If you would not volunteer to fund an education system for the poor than it could be said that you only support free education because you are forced into doing so. If you wouldn't pay for it voluntarily then you do not value it. If that is the case then why are you defending the institution that forces you to pay for things that you do not value?

Did that make sense? If not, just let me know and I'll try to explain it better or just point out the relevant links at the web site I posted earlier.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Go for it. But if you find such virtue in providing free education for the poor then wouldn't you buy less berrettas and more schoolbooks? If you would not volunteer to fund an education system for the poor than it could be said that you only support free education because you are forced into doing so. If you wouldn't pay for it voluntarily then you do not value it. If that is the case then why are you defending the institution that forces you to pay for things that you do not value?

Did that make sense? If not, just let me know and I'll try to explain it better or just point out the relevant links at the web site I posted earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't do it alone. Thus, classism. Thus, guns.