4 ms·

> Why the hell should somebody else's effort be spent sustaining you when they could be following their own aspirations. A modern economy in a democratic state

by asark 8y ago

> Why the hell should somebody else's effort be spent sustaining you when they could be following their own aspirations. A modern economy in a democratic state is built by the collective will of the people. No entity at the top setting rules, no modern economy. So: why the hell should everyone else agree to create and maintain a system that doesn't serve their needs to a degree that, taking into account the constraints of reality and not killing the golden goose et c. et c., satisfies them, regardless how nice a place you've found for yourself in same system?

sparkie 8y ago
This is covered in the book I linked. The "contingency fund" for the most needy. When properly managed, has a net benefit to society because it helps people get back to work and become productive capital accumulators, which benefits both themselves and society. However, when welfare is badly managed and is essentially given out to anybody, is overpaid because "muh rights to basic standard of living," and without adequate consideration of where the capital comes from to provide the welfare service, then there cannot be a sustainable welfare. The government does nothing but drain capital away. Poor voters will always vote for the politicians who promise them freebies (out of other people's capital savings!) It is only savers who have skin in the game and who ultimately have the moral right to decide how their hard earned capital should be spent. Youth for the past few decades have been fed a heavily distorted image of reality where they are expected to believe that capitalists are evil and that government is protecting them from those evil capitalists. It's no surprise they have no idea that capitalists are providing 100% of the funding of their welfare systems, and that their government only consumes the capital - it creates nothing, and cannot survive without the capitalists which fund it. Capitalists are of course not these evil monsters who only care about getting rich at the detriment of everybody else. They're just regular people who try to improve their own lives, and accidentally improve other people's lives in the process if they succeed. You really love capitalism: https://www.prageru.com/video/why-you-love-capitalism/ https://www.prageru.com/video/why-you-love-capitalism/
- rosser 8y ago
  "iPhones and wage stagnation" versus "Communism and handouts" is a false dilemma. EDIT: I'm also quite entertained (though not in a good way) that we're having this conversation on the internet, in which it's being claimed that the government "creates nothing".
- asark 8y ago
  > However, when welfare is badly managed and is essentially given out to anybody, is overpaid because "muh rights to basic standard of living," and without adequate consideration of where the capital comes from to provide the welfare service, then there cannot be a sustainable welfare. The government does nothing but drain capital away. You cannot separate income and especially capital from the system we all collectively buy into (well enough not to rage-vote it out of existence, anyway). It's not magic'd into existence out of nowhere. It is nothing without laws, a military, treaties, some basic market-creating norms, the joint stock corporation, opportunities churned about by trust-busting (when we bother), and so on. And no, that doesn't mean all your stuff belongs to everyone. It does mean that drawing an absolute and immutable line between what's yours and what's societies is more complicated than "it's mine, so there". There's no context to give capital meaning in anything like the sense anyone today expects, without society, without the state. The whole thing's "unnatural" and just because the system tilts one way or the other when regulation is adjusted doesn't mean any particular direction is absolutely correct or the natural state of things.
gus_massa 8y ago
Because it's too difficult to not kill the golden goose. Everyone wants to get a bit more, with a bit less of effort. You can call it the tragedy of the commons.
- asark 8y ago
  If we had pure one-person-one-vote democracy—no representation, no parties, no interest groups, everyone basically living a solipsistic political bubble—and some way of preventing the rich from gaining outsize control over the media in that system, then yeah, that might be a real concern. As it is I don't think their interests are at legitimate risk of being wholly—or even substantially—overlooked, unless things get really unbalanced in their favor. Assuming the golden goose is the rich, which I suppose it is or else I'm not sure what we're worried about. [EDIT] and more to the point, the various OECD states seem to have a decent track record of not killing the golden goose, while also protecting basic human dignity and providing more benefits to their population than the economy might give them "naturally" (Ha!) Bad, yes, but then look at what there is to compare them to, historically or now.

by asark 8y ago

sparkie 8y ago

This is covered in the book I linked. The "contingency fund" for the most needy. When properly managed, has a net benefit to society because it helps people get back to work and become productive capital accumulators, which benefits both themselves and society. However, when welfare is badly managed and is essentially given out to anybody, is overpaid because "muh rights to basic standard of living," and without adequate consideration of where the capital comes from to provide the welfare service, then there cannot be a sustainable welfare. The government does nothing but drain capital away. Poor voters will always vote for the politicians who promise them freebies (out of other people's capital savings!) It is only savers who have skin in the game and who ultimately have the moral right to decide how their hard earned capital should be spent. Youth for the past few decades have been fed a heavily distorted image of reality where they are expected to believe that capitalists are evil and that government is protecting them from those evil capitalists. It's no surprise they have no idea that capitalists are providing 100% of the funding of their welfare systems, and that their government only consumes the capital - it creates nothing, and cannot survive without the capitalists which fund it. Capitalists are of course not these evil monsters who only care about getting rich at the detriment of everybody else. They're just regular people who try to improve their own lives, and accidentally improve other people's lives in the process if they succeed. You really love capitalism: https://www.prageru.com/video/why-you-love-capitalism/ https://www.prageru.com/video/why-you-love-capitalism/

rosser 8y ago
"iPhones and wage stagnation" versus "Communism and handouts" is a false dilemma. EDIT: I'm also quite entertained (though not in a good way) that we're having this conversation on the internet, in which it's being claimed that the government "creates nothing".
asark 8y ago
> However, when welfare is badly managed and is essentially given out to anybody, is overpaid because "muh rights to basic standard of living," and without adequate consideration of where the capital comes from to provide the welfare service, then there cannot be a sustainable welfare. The government does nothing but drain capital away. You cannot separate income and especially capital from the system we all collectively buy into (well enough not to rage-vote it out of existence, anyway). It's not magic'd into existence out of nowhere. It is nothing without laws, a military, treaties, some basic market-creating norms, the joint stock corporation, opportunities churned about by trust-busting (when we bother), and so on. And no, that doesn't mean all your stuff belongs to everyone. It does mean that drawing an absolute and immutable line between what's yours and what's societies is more complicated than "it's mine, so there". There's no context to give capital meaning in anything like the sense anyone today expects, without society, without the state. The whole thing's "unnatural" and just because the system tilts one way or the other when regulation is adjusted doesn't mean any particular direction is absolutely correct or the natural state of things.

gus_massa 8y ago

Because it's too difficult to not kill the golden goose. Everyone wants to get a bit more, with a bit less of effort. You can call it the tragedy of the commons.

asark 8y ago
If we had pure one-person-one-vote democracy—no representation, no parties, no interest groups, everyone basically living a solipsistic political bubble—and some way of preventing the rich from gaining outsize control over the media in that system, then yeah, that might be a real concern. As it is I don't think their interests are at legitimate risk of being wholly—or even substantially—overlooked, unless things get really unbalanced in their favor. Assuming the golden goose is the rich, which I suppose it is or else I'm not sure what we're worried about. [EDIT] and more to the point, the various OECD states seem to have a decent track record of not killing the golden goose, while also protecting basic human dignity and providing more benefits to their population than the economy might give them "naturally" (Ha!) Bad, yes, but then look at what there is to compare them to, historically or now.