3 ms·

(preface: I'm an American speaking from an American POV, not sure where you're located so this may not be 100% relevant if you're aussie or swedish or canadian

by geogra4 15y ago

(preface: I'm an American speaking from an American POV, not sure where you're located so this may not be 100% relevant if you're aussie or swedish or canadian or something) I think that everyone in a society as wealthy as our own deserves the chance at a life free from fear. Freedom from the fear of hunger, from the fear of a parent losing their job and being plunged into destitution. Freedom from the fear of medical bankruptcy and dying of curable disease or injury. Freedom from the fear of walking down your own street or going to your public school. I don't think anyone is brazen enough to believe that these are not real problems in America. The solutions from the right are not solutions at all, they're just the status quo. More tax cuts, more deregulation, more gutting of municipal funding for libraries, police, public transit, and schools. I am of the belief that wealth is not created by individuals in a vacuum. Every entrepreneur and employee stands on the shoulders of giants. They had a business environment and consumer base already here, ready made. Additionally, would Gates have dropped out of Harvard if his father wasn't a partner at a major law firm(Preston Gates)? Would Romney have formed his own company if his father wasn't the CEO of American Motors? If you come from wealth you can afford to take more risks, as you always have an out if things go poorly. 99% of america doesn't have that out. This is why I am of the belief that assets accrued by the wealthy are not just theirs alone to hoard. Not only is it better for the economy if more people have a fall-back and can take risks without the fear of financial ruin, it is better for society. I guess the bottom line is that I would prefer that a majority of Americans agree with me in the sense that we can do better for those that haven't really benefited from the vast improvements in technology we've seen in the past few decades. I want to move beyond the 'culture war' rhetoric of the previous generations and I believe we can find practical solutions to these real problems that can benefit the vast majority of Americans. I don't really know what to say to someone who doesn't think we have problems, I guess we have to agree to disagree.

gyardley 15y ago
Thanks. I'm in America too, although I'm not American. We agree completely on the need for some sort of minimal welfare state. No one wants to let others die on the street. I've said as much elsewhere in this thread. We don't agree if you, like Friedman, think we need "a G.I. Bill for the 21st century that ensures that every American has access to post-high school education." I don't believe our current levels of spending are sustainable. I suspect that the burden of making our current benefits sustainable, and adding new benefits to the list, will fall predominantly on me - I'm not rich by any means, but my household falls comfortably into the group that regularly gets singled out for tax increases. And I have plans for that money that involve my own family, my own business, and own community. Like you, I would prefer a majority of Americans agree with me. But as it is, about 40% of Americans agree with each of us and the rest bounce back and forth. I think it'd be relatively easy to negotiate an acceptable, sustainable amount of social spending if people of my ilk thought that'd be the end of it - if it were clear that this was a compromise between different worldviews, and that the concessions made wouldn't just get reopened in the next election. But I rarely hear an advocate for additional social spending say 'no, a tax rate of over X% would be definitely unfair, whatever you make - we won't require you to pay that.' I've also rarely heard advocates for additional social spending say 'a welfare state above X would be excessive.' If I'm willing to concede a minimum level of welfare state spending - most conservatives are - surely the other half of America should be willing to set a maximum level. How much compulsion (since it is compulsion, I'd much rather spend my money on my family) do you think is too much?
- geogra4 15y ago
  Why don't you believe our spending is sustainable? The USA is nowhere near default. Rates on US Treasury bills are extremely low, as they're actually seen as an incredibly safe investment compared to both other countries and stocks in general. I sort of disagree with Friedman. I think we need to reform high school educations to make them useful. Career and Technical education needs to be seen as a viable track for students who don't go to college. High schools should let people take 2 years of programming, welding, metalwork, plumbing, carpentry, CNC machining, HVAC or other useful skills if the student doesn't plan on college. There is no reason why a HS grad should be flipping burgers. Quite frankly I think even people on the college track should learn a bit of trade work. I am an advocate for increased social spending, but I do think it should be sustainable. I don't think we need to worry about that just yet, and I think the consequences of NOT spending on society now in the midst of a great recession are pretty dire.
  - gyardley 15y ago
    Historical patterns in financial crises, mostly. Over the past couple centuries, once sovereign debt rises over a certain percentage of GDP, countries have invariably defaulted, with the shock coming very suddenly and with a lot of pain and austerity for all involved. The book is extremely boring, but 'This Time Is Different' has a lot of data on past financial crises, which as far as I can tell is legit and untampered with. Yes, this time could be different, but I don't see any compelling reason why we'll be an exception to the pattern. I'd argue that US sovereign debt is perceived as safe right now only because other countries are further down the same path and because the market's collectively whistling past the graveyard. Projected spending on Social Security and Medicare is the other reason - these aren't 'unfunded liabilities', as they're frequently described by conservatives, because Congress is under no obligation to maintain Social Security and Medicare at current benefit levels. But if we were to maintain current benefit levels, it's quite a bit of money we've got no solid plans for generating. I could be wrong, but I suspect something has to give. Complete agreement on the need for more vocational training.

by geogra4 15y ago

gyardley 15y ago

Thanks. I'm in America too, although I'm not American. We agree completely on the need for some sort of minimal welfare state. No one wants to let others die on the street. I've said as much elsewhere in this thread. We don't agree if you, like Friedman, think we need "a G.I. Bill for the 21st century that ensures that every American has access to post-high school education." I don't believe our current levels of spending are sustainable. I suspect that the burden of making our current benefits sustainable, and adding new benefits to the list, will fall predominantly on me - I'm not rich by any means, but my household falls comfortably into the group that regularly gets singled out for tax increases. And I have plans for that money that involve my own family, my own business, and own community. Like you, I would prefer a majority of Americans agree with me. But as it is, about 40% of Americans agree with each of us and the rest bounce back and forth. I think it'd be relatively easy to negotiate an acceptable, sustainable amount of social spending if people of my ilk thought that'd be the end of it - if it were clear that this was a compromise between different worldviews, and that the concessions made wouldn't just get reopened in the next election. But I rarely hear an advocate for additional social spending say 'no, a tax rate of over X% would be definitely unfair, whatever you make - we won't require you to pay that.' I've also rarely heard advocates for additional social spending say 'a welfare state above X would be excessive.' If I'm willing to concede a minimum level of welfare state spending - most conservatives are - surely the other half of America should be willing to set a maximum level. How much compulsion (since it is compulsion, I'd much rather spend my money on my family) do you think is too much?

geogra4 15y ago
Why don't you believe our spending is sustainable? The USA is nowhere near default. Rates on US Treasury bills are extremely low, as they're actually seen as an incredibly safe investment compared to both other countries and stocks in general. I sort of disagree with Friedman. I think we need to reform high school educations to make them useful. Career and Technical education needs to be seen as a viable track for students who don't go to college. High schools should let people take 2 years of programming, welding, metalwork, plumbing, carpentry, CNC machining, HVAC or other useful skills if the student doesn't plan on college. There is no reason why a HS grad should be flipping burgers. Quite frankly I think even people on the college track should learn a bit of trade work. I am an advocate for increased social spending, but I do think it should be sustainable. I don't think we need to worry about that just yet, and I think the consequences of NOT spending on society now in the midst of a great recession are pretty dire.
- gyardley 15y ago
  Historical patterns in financial crises, mostly. Over the past couple centuries, once sovereign debt rises over a certain percentage of GDP, countries have invariably defaulted, with the shock coming very suddenly and with a lot of pain and austerity for all involved. The book is extremely boring, but 'This Time Is Different' has a lot of data on past financial crises, which as far as I can tell is legit and untampered with. Yes, this time could be different, but I don't see any compelling reason why we'll be an exception to the pattern. I'd argue that US sovereign debt is perceived as safe right now only because other countries are further down the same path and because the market's collectively whistling past the graveyard. Projected spending on Social Security and Medicare is the other reason - these aren't 'unfunded liabilities', as they're frequently described by conservatives, because Congress is under no obligation to maintain Social Security and Medicare at current benefit levels. But if we were to maintain current benefit levels, it's quite a bit of money we've got no solid plans for generating. I could be wrong, but I suspect something has to give. Complete agreement on the need for more vocational training.