UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
Schroeder has to face down more than just the trade unions. The German population in general believes that "job security" is a right and "fairness" means paying out unemployment benefits nearly equal to average income. Schroeder's Hartz IV has caused a lot of public outrage, despite the fact that it's a mild piece of legislation. He has supposedly taken the "middle ground", so any harsher measures proposed by the Christian Democrats would be used against them come election time next year. The conservatives have realized this and are now moderating their position.
I don't know how much Schroeder is to blame. Anti-economics is so strong in Germany, that sometimes I appreciate the fact that us Americans are not don't tout such policies easy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, if you think the US has a bad economy, your living in a pesimistic dream world. It took only 3 years to recover from what might have been a "bad economy" - and now it is most definatly a "good" economy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The germans don't have a bad economy, either. They are in an economic downturn, just like we were a couple years ago. In a few years, their economy will be better again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, even the most perfect government will never be able to out-produce a private industry - there is no incentive. The government always gets it's money from the people it taxes, and it can raise taxes - the income is guarenteed (more or less) and there is no competition for "government". By those pillars, government will always be more wasteful than its private counterpart (even assuming a perfect government with perfect people running it - which will never happen anyway, so the point is moot).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is an incentive. If we don't think they did a good job, then our leaders will get fired after 2/4/6 years. Then, new people will come in and replace most of the upper-level unelected officials and institute new laws and policies to fix things.
There is more incentive to do well in the upper echelon of the public sector than the private sector. If you don't do well as a leader in the public sector, you get fired. If you don't do well as a leader in the private sector, you'll get a huge salary (not as huge if you had done well), a huge severance bonus if you get fired before your contract is up and/or a new job at a different company. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To that, I say "great - let me be duty bound - but let me be bound by my own terms. Let me give where I will give, and direct my own funds where I will, to support whomever I will. It is not the governments responsibilty to force charity out of me."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's good in theory, but it doesn't work so well in practice. Charities can not provide comprehensive and universal care to people who need it. Government can't either, but many more people will fall through the cracks without social welfare programs.
<a href='http://www.epinet.org/books/swa2004/news/swafacts_international.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.epinet.org/books/swa2004/news/s...ternational.pdf</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US had the highest overall poverty rate... The US had the highest child poverty rate and the second highest elderly poverty rate... US poverty was the most persistent... The US had the highest rate of permanent poverty...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> These are key quotes comparing the US poverty rate to 17 other first world countries. Finland, Sweden and Norway (all heavily socialist) had the lowest rates of Total and Child Poverty. It appears that we do a worse job at keeping people from falling through the cracks as opposed to countries with an extensive social welfare program. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anti-economics is so strong in Germany<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, I'm sure that Germans hate the economy and want it to die. The only true economics are right wing free market economics, right? Free market capitalism is the only true economic model.
<!--QuoteBegin-Fat Man Little Coat+Mar 2 2005, 01:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fat Man Little Coat @ Mar 2 2005, 01:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is good for the US though (like it or not).
The Euro was kicking our as (and still kinda does) and this actually has decreased its value a bit against the American dollar. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A weak dollar is good for the US. That's why Bush isn't doing anything to stop it. Our trade deficit will go down. Our manufacturers will get a big break, because they will actually be able to export American goods at relatively low prices. Our tourism industry will get a big break.
A strong dollar is mostly only good for people who buy imported goods. A weak dollar indirectly helps everyone.
This is somewhat analagous to outsourcing, in that it screws the people whose jobs get outsourced, but it indirectly helps everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 2 2005, 02:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 2 2005, 02:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Fat Man Little Coat+Mar 2 2005, 01:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fat Man Little Coat @ Mar 2 2005, 01:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is good for the US though (like it or not).
The Euro was kicking our as (and still kinda does) and this actually has decreased its value a bit against the American dollar. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A weak dollar is good for the US. That's why Bush isn't doing anything to stop it. Our trade deficit will go down. Our manufacturers will get a big break, because they will actually be able to export American goods at relatively low prices. Our tourism industry will get a big break.
A strong dollar is mostly only good for people who buy imported goods. A weak dollar indirectly helps everyone.
This is somewhat analagous to outsourcing, in that it screws the people whose jobs get outsourced, but it indirectly helps everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In theory this is true, but our trade deficit has gone up. Now if you believe in J curve economics, yes, the best is ahead. But if thats not the case, we're in some big trouble.
The weak American dollar does mean more tourism coming to this country and a higher chance people will buy American products, but when you consider countries like China and India which is quickly growing in not just economic power but also using it to better educate its citizens (thus creating a larger white collar, high tech class) while also able to maintain production at high levels with extremely low costs to the consumers the United States ability to compete on a global market becomes...questionable.
Also, a weak dollar means cheaper oil for other countries. Since the price of oil is tied to the dollar (we consume a HUGE percentage of all oil produced) other countries that base a lot of its economics on manufacturing (like China) become better positioned on the global market.
And let me add,its been estimated that buying power alone China is poised to be a HUGE heavyweight in the next ten years.
Again, the worst part is that the deficit has NOT gone down in the past fiscal quaters, but has gone UP. Scary news for Americans.
But has it gone up at an increased rate or has the rate of increase dropped? I don't know, but you say that you have seen the numbers and I'm curious as to what they are.
As China grows richer, their labor costs will go up, meaning their goods will get more expensive. They can't drasitcally raise their standard of living without raising their cost of labor.
I think that it's good for America for oil to become more expensive for us and less expensive for others. We'll develop better alternatives to oil than other countries, so when oil supplies start to dwindle, we'll be in a better position than they will (especially China, unless they start working hard on renewable energy). It does suck for the American economy in the short term, however.
No matter what anybody does, China will become an economic superpower. They've got quadruple our population, relatively unexploited natural resources, and a very strong government that is very committed to improving China economically. They've already started adopting capitalism and democracy. If they eventually displace us as the dominant world force, it may be good for the world, as a whole.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 2 2005, 03:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 2 2005, 03:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But has it gone up at an increased rate or has the rate of increase dropped? I don't know, but you say that you have seen the numbers and I'm curious as to what they are.
As China grows richer, their labor costs will go up, meaning their goods will get more expensive. They can't drasitcally raise their standard of living without raising their cost of labor.
I think that it's good for America for oil to become more expensive for us and less expensive for others. We'll develop better alternatives to oil than other countries, so when oil supplies start to dwindle, we'll be in a better position than they will (especially China, unless they start working hard on renewable energy). It does suck for the American economy in the short term, however.
No matter what anybody does, China will become an economic superpower. They've got quadruple our population, relatively unexploited natural resources, and a very strong government that is very committed to improving China economically. They've already started adopting capitalism and democracy. If they eventually displace us as the dominant world force, it may be good for the world, as a whole. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here is a <a href='http://www.axcessnews.com/business_021005b.shtml' target='_blank'>link</a> to an article which contains some nice information for you.
Specifically: <b>The Commerce Department said that in 2004 U.S. exports of goods and services rose 12.3 percent to $1.15 trillion. But imports rose at an even faster clip of 16.3 percent, setting a new record of $1.76 trillion.</b>
This is despite the falling value of the dollar in both 2003 and 2004. Again, while our exports rose, our imports rose at a higher rate.
On top of that, the weak dollar is affecting the confidence of other countries that have basically been keeping the dollar strong by investing in our currency: <a href='http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/050224/15/3qtq5.html' target='_blank'>Link</a>
But your right about China. They're pretty much unstoppable save an act of nature or catastrophe of epic proportions (Avian Flu mutation ?).
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 2 2005, 03:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 2 2005, 03:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think of socialism as a economic model anymore, if you look at most countries, liberalization of their industries is the order of the day.
Socialism was just a end product of bad mathmatics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you have any justification or a cite for this? What exactly do you even mean by liberalization, anyway? That word can mean many different things in almost every context.
<!--QuoteBegin-Fat Man Little Coat+Mar 2 2005, 03:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fat Man Little Coat @ Mar 2 2005, 03:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 2 2005, 03:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 2 2005, 03:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But has it gone up at an increased rate or has the rate of increase dropped? I don't know, but you say that you have seen the numbers and I'm curious as to what they are.
As China grows richer, their labor costs will go up, meaning their goods will get more expensive. They can't drasitcally raise their standard of living without raising their cost of labor.
I think that it's good for America for oil to become more expensive for us and less expensive for others. We'll develop better alternatives to oil than other countries, so when oil supplies start to dwindle, we'll be in a better position than they will (especially China, unless they start working hard on renewable energy). It does suck for the American economy in the short term, however.
No matter what anybody does, China will become an economic superpower. They've got quadruple our population, relatively unexploited natural resources, and a very strong government that is very committed to improving China economically. They've already started adopting capitalism and democracy. If they eventually displace us as the dominant world force, it may be good for the world, as a whole. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here is a <a href='http://www.axcessnews.com/business_021005b.shtml' target='_blank'>link</a> to an article which contains some nice information for you.
Specifically: <b>The Commerce Department said that in 2004 U.S. exports of goods and services rose 12.3 percent to $1.15 trillion. But imports rose at an even faster clip of 16.3 percent, setting a new record of $1.76 trillion.</b>
This is despite the falling value of the dollar in both 2003 and 2004. Again, while our exports rose, our imports rose at a higher rate.
On top of that, the weak dollar is scaring other foreign investors: <a href='http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/050224/15/3qtq5.html' target='_blank'>Link</a>
Now these countries, individually, hold BILLIONS of our dollars our dollars. They do it on purpose to keep the value of the dollar up, so that Americans can afford their products. They've been doing this for quite awhile, and if they choose to stop doing it, and release the dollars back, well, actually recently ,I believe, South Korea was planning to do it, but we stopped them, because we knew it would potentially screw us over to some extent. I'll look for an article on it, but may not be able to find it right away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The article said that the weak dollar is helping our trade deficit tremendously. The only reason why it increased so drastically is because of oil importation (another good reason for alternative energy research).
Which article are you saying? If its the first one, then you never got past the title, which says our deficit is at an all time high.
Quote: U.S. Trade Deficit Soars to New High
In an economy with a weak dollar that is NOT a good sign. That is unless you believe in J-curve economics which I stated in a previous post.
Let me clairfy, not here to argue oil dependecy, or the cause of the deficit as much as I'm saying is our deficit did not go DOWN in 2004 as was expected due to the weak dollar but it went UP.
That is a bad thing for our economy. It means the dollar must get weaker in order for our exports to become more attractive overseas.
Weaker dollar= less buying power for the average American consumer.
Let me go into it a bit more.
If the weaker dollar didn't improve our economy in 2003, or 2004 then under the same policies what are the chances its going to improve in 2005?
Granted, perhaps a weaker dollar is "good" because our exports are more attractive, but its more attractive simply because its cheaper, because of our weaker dollar. But again, this weaker dollar theory hasn't proven true under our current president.
I think the economic policies Bush has pushed is proving to not be working. Perhaps you are correct, if he pushed more "green" policies our economy would use less oil=less importation of oil=better deficit.
You throw the term "trade deficit" as if it was catastrophic.
Let me tell you a little secret: the US has been a net importer for the past decade.
Look, a weak dollar does make for cheaper exports, his argument says that our trade deficit, while still there, is closing the gap.
A weak dollar creates more jobs, as more jobs go into manufacturing. What it doesn't do, however, is guarantee that those jobs will be good ones. Manufacturing is all about keeping prices low, and thus the wages low.
Why do you think China keeps its currency undervalued? They want explosive growth, and they have the most massive labor pool in the world. The result is that every net importer (the US) will become increasingly dependent on trade with China.
The problem with looking at alternatives to oil is that it just isn't economically feasible to do so. There is still plenty of oil to last for at least four more decades (not to mention Alaska) and to research it now would result in catastrophically high energy costs which in turn hurts the average consumer more because jobs are being laid off due to high corporate expenditure. You also have to take in account the conversion cost of going from oil to say....fusion, or at least fission.
It would be political suicide, but ironically, it'd the US' only hope of staying dominant (dominating the tech market).
Here is what I believe to be the <a href='http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4085&search=china' target='_blank'>reason for the poor dollar.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 2 2005, 04:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 2 2005, 04:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]I wager that crime rates have gone up since the inception of public schools - and without evidence to the contrary, that is a perfectly valid statement.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wager that the above statement is completely false and was made up on a whim, without any backing in evidence whatsoever - and without evidence to the contrary, this is a perfectly valid statement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some three quarters of February's 180,000 additions to the jobless total were the result of January's reclassification, it said - although it acknowledged the weak economy and cold weather hitting the construction industry were also to blame.
For one thing, January's reclassification boosted the jobless total by more than 500,000 that month, as many benefit claimants were added to the list for the first time thanks to the new rules.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
of course they obviously have their economy in bad shape at the moment, but those are the reasons why this thing even made it to the news.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Mar 2 2005, 08:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Mar 2 2005, 08:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 2 2005, 04:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 2 2005, 04:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]I wager that crime rates have gone up since the inception of public schools - and without evidence to the contrary, that is a perfectly valid statement.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wager that the above statement is completely false and was made up on a whim, without any backing in evidence whatsoever - and without evidence to the contrary, this is a perfectly valid statement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
i love the discussions forum... but you got it right there lolfghtr
Please people, learn some actual economics. I don't have the time at the moment to refute every specific assertion about the superiority of the free market, but just about every example that has been listed has significant externalities. The debate should be about whether the allocative inefficiencies from the externalities are greater than the internal inefficiencies in the government, with the full knowledge that these situations represent a failure of the free market.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though I think the idea is good, I wager that crime rates have gone up since the inception of public schools - and without evidence to the contrary, that is a perfectly valid statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What kind of an argument is that? I wager Pepe Muffassa ate a baby once while no one was looking, and without evidence to the contrary that is a perfectly valid statement.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 2 2005, 03:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 2 2005, 03:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 2 2005, 03:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 2 2005, 03:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't think of socialism as a economic model anymore, if you look at most countries, liberalization of their industries is the order of the day.
Socialism was just a end product of bad mathmatics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you have any justification or a cite for this? What exactly do you even mean by liberalization, anyway? That word can mean many different things in almost every context. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Liberalization really has only one meaning, making free.
Socialists are not liberals in this spect.
For example, "Liberalization in india has done more for the Indian people then the command economy ever has in 50 years"
socialism can't testify to being liberal in this retrospect since theres only 2 types of Liberalism.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Mar 1 2005, 03:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Mar 1 2005, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Only those who work or have worked should reap the benefits of their labor.
Social welfare is simply state sponsored theft. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you saying that my mom, who had to stop working and go on welfare to take care of me and my brother when my father ran off, doesn't deserve government help? She's working again, now that we're old enough to take care of ourselves while she's gone for the day, but I don't think that you can honestly say that a single parent taking care of two young boys shouldn't be there for her kids.
I'm all for getting people <i>capable</i> of working off of welfare, however.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Just to add a little context: Food is the most addictive substance on earth, second only to water. You are born with the addiction. You can never shake it. The withdrawl symptoms are incredible, and if extended inevitably end in death.
Right now a significant percentage of crime is a direct result of crack and heroin addiction. If we were to abolish welfare, a small percentage of the people subsisting on it might be able to find jobs. Substantially more would either go hungry or start stealing.
So I ask you, how many times per week do you want your car or home broken into? Furthermore, if someone breaks into your car to feed themselves, can you really hold it against them?
Private charity is simply not enough to provide an effective safety net. This is known as the free rider problem. If you are getting mugged less, you've benefited from other people's charity regardless of whether you gave any of it yourself. This disincentivises people to give money for public services.
Consider welfare a national "**** happens" insurance.
On the subject of public education, we elect our leaders by majority vote (approximately.) The better educated the public is, the more likely they are to make good voting decisions. Do you really want the people who can regulate your life at gun point to be chosen mostly by people without access to education or basic literacy?
Last year about this time I lived in an apartment. 1/2 the people in there were on welfare. There was a lady down the hall from me who was struggling a bit financially - I gave her a bit of money to help her through a tough time (knowing I would never see it again). Now, this lady bugged me. It wasn't that she was in need - which she was - it was because she smoked a pack a day, and had the newest, fancies cell phone available.
Therein lies the problem. The welfare state doesn't pay for "necessities" - it pays for the cigaretts, the resulting health care bills, the booze, the anti-depressants, etc. etc. Have you ever added up the cost of cigaretts? - for most people it is around 1.5 grand a year - thats 2 months food and rent - 2 more months you can be off work before you need my assistance.
If your broke and on welfare, you should not be allowed to drink alcohol, or smoke cigaretts - or do any of the other things poor people typically do. That is abuse of the system. That is me paying for your adictions and your pleasures - while you add 0 to society.
So in responce to CForrester - if your mom did any of the above things - she is not deserving of my tax dollars.
Right now it is way to easy to be on welfare. It was said that privatizing it wouldn't support all those on welfare currently. That may be so - but it will force people to be truely needy before they get "help". Asking for that kind of help should involve an element of responsibility and humility - and the government requires neither of those. Private organizations can - and do.
As for the raising / lowering of crime rates - their isn't enough proof either way. The point is, if people can't get the handout unless they jump through a few hoops, perhaps they will find that finding the next job isn't so hard after all.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited March 2005
Being a common criminal is amazingly easier than holding a steady job. Police don't even investigate car breakins any more, and in some areas not even home break ins. People don't commit crimes because they actively don't want to be criminals, and usually for no other reason. Fear of punishment isn't sufficient for petty crime because most criminals do not get caught. Right now you could argue that being on welfare is easier than holding a job, but its easy enough that it can compete with being a criminal. We count on people's innate sense of dignity and desire for self sufficiency to limit abuse of the system. Making this more difficult just makes crime more attractive.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Therein lies the problem. The welfare state doesn't pay for "necessities" - it pays for the cigaretts, the resulting health care bills, the booze, the anti-depressants, etc. etc. Have you ever added up the cost of cigaretts? - for most people it is around 1.5 grand a year - thats 2 months food and rent - 2 more months you can be off work before you need my assistance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not a problem with the idea of social welfare. That's a problem with a specific way in which we apply it. I think most people who support social welfare would be fine if we just payed for basic rent/food/medical care/clothing, instead of just giving a check, although this would be harder to implement. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the raising / lowering of crime rates - their isn't enough proof either way. The point is, if people can't get the handout unless they jump through a few hoops, perhaps they will find that finding the next job isn't so hard after all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What would those hoops be exactly? Belief in Jesus? Rejection of Homosexuality? You know that private organizations have required these things in the past, before one can get help from them. People who are hungry will do <i>anything</i>(see: violent crime, prostitution, drug dealing) to get food. Private organizations have used the opportunity to push their ideology on the needy.
Even if we were able to ensure that private organizations didn't do these things, needy people who deserved help, won't ask for it. The poor are generally undereducated and less intelligent than average. Bureaucracy (whether public or private) is confusing enough without forcing people to jump through a dozen hoops. If people can't understand this system, then they may not realize that it's possible for them to get any help. That's why welfare should be relatively easy and simple for the needy to obtain.
Pertinent to the discussion. Welfare is mentioned a lot if you can stand to read through all the replies. Keep in mind a page of replies on SA is significantly larger than most forums.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 2 2005, 03:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 2 2005, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the raising / lowering of crime rates - their isn't enough proof either way. The point is, if people can't get the handout unless they jump through a few hoops, perhaps they will find that finding the next job isn't so hard after all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What would those hoops be exactly? Belief in Jesus? Rejection of Homosexuality? You know that private organizations have required these things in the past, before one can get help from them. People who are hungry will do <i>anything</i>(see: violent crime, prostitution, drug dealing) to get food. Private organizations have used the opportunity to push their ideology on the needy.
Even if we were able to ensure that private organizations didn't do these things, needy people who deserved help, won't ask for it. The poor are generally undereducated and less intelligent than average. Bureaucracy (whether public or private) is confusing enough without forcing people to jump through a dozen hoops. If people can't understand this system, then they may not realize that it's possible for them to get any help. That's why welfare should be relatively easy and simple for the needy to obtain. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To be honest, I don't care which organizations would be involved. Sure - some are Christian, but heck - if your getting your bread from the flat earth society - so long as your eating...
By the way, you made my point. Generally they are undereducated. How is giving them a handout making them any better?
Jumping through hoops may be an ideological thing that they have to do. It may be as simple as requiring them to show where they spent their money the next time they show up. That looks a lot like accountability - a good thing.
I got a class mate at the collage I go to. He used to work for a company that helped train underprivilaged in IT fields. Everything was going great - they were strict (dress appropriate, be on time, do your homework) and the people who atteneded learned a lot about how to succeed.
Then the welfare lady came. She sat in the back of his class - and when someone was late, or gave an excuse - she said "that's OK". That's not OK. That is teaching them that they can give up on thier opportunities and that "safety net" will be there. My buddy... he left. Couldn't stand the government getting in and messing up a system that was trying to help people.
Some more about my buddy - he is a black guy (sorry, I'm not very pc.) Anyway, his view has always been that the welfare system opresses those who are in it. It takes away the drive, takes away the reason to try harder. He was one of those guys who had an early baby - ended up marrying his baby-momma (to use the parlance of our times) - and now he makes over 50k a year. Yeah, it was hard, but he worked his rear off. If he had sat back and taken what the government could give him - he wouldn't be where he is today.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ouch, that sucks. At least they've got a healthy social welfare net, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we do. We have one of the highest standard of social security in the world. And that is partly the reason for the high unemployment rate. Many long term unemployed actually don't see the nessesity to find work, when they get more state welfare than they would with low paid jobs. That is no exaggeration!
Additionally, our work is too expensive so the corporations do outsource production in other countries. Currently, fo every Euro an employee earns, the employer has to pay another one to the state for insurances.
No production, no jobs. simple.
In addition to that comes that those corporations had massive losses due to catastrophic management mistakes in the past decades. (like DaimlerBenz fusing with Crytsler) Now the corporates somewhat shrinked to a healthy size again, laying off a couple of hundred thousand of workers in the process.
Next probem is that germans are somewhat inflexible when it comes to relocating for a job.
Taxiation is extremely high, which does not exactly help to ease the situation.
Extreme liberal tendencies from back in the 70s have resulted in estreme lax procedures regarding migration anad asylum, as well as too easy grating of welfare. The result is massive fraud and illegal work. Changing this proved EXTREMELY difficult, as you will be discedited as facist if you do mention it ...
All those are extremely harmfull circumstances in times of global competition, and they will change over time. It just takes a little longer since our structres are somewhat conservative and, well, rigid like concrete ....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of social welfare we as a society need to make education more key.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
education alone does not guarantee a job. We have an exceptional high unemployment rate among academics, too. Many of them simply leave the country because of this which further deteriorates the chances of reviving the economy, because know how is lost.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Mar 3 2005, 05:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Mar 3 2005, 05:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ouch, that sucks. At least they've got a healthy social welfare net, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we do. We have one of the highest standard of social security in the world. And that is partly the reason for the high unemployment rate. Many long term unemployed actually don't see the nessesity to find work, when they get more state welfare than they would with low paid jobs. That is no exaggeration!
Additionally, our work is too expensive so the corporations do outsource production in other countries. Currently, fo every Euro an employee earns, the employer has to pay another one to the state for insurances.
No production, no jobs. simple.
In addition to that comes that those corporations had massive losses due to catastrophic management mistakes in the past decades. (like DaimlerBenz fusing with Crytsler) Now the corporates somewhat shrinked to a healthy size again, laying off a couple of hundred thousand of workers in the process.
Next probem is that germans are somewhat inflexible when it comes to relocating for a job.
Taxiation is extremely high, which does not exactly help to ease the situation.
Extreme liberal tendencies from back in the 70s have resulted in estreme lax procedures regarding migration anad asylum, as well as too easy grating of welfare. The result is massive fraud and illegal work. Changing this proved EXTREMELY difficult, as you will be discedited as facist if you do mention it ...
All those are extremely harmfull circumstances in times of global competition, and they will change over time. It just takes a little longer since our structres are somewhat conservative and, well, rigid like concrete ....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of social welfare we as a society need to make education more key.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
education alone does not guarantee a job. We have an exceptional high unemployment rate among academics, too. Many of them simply leave the country because of this which further deteriorates the chances of reviving the economy, because know how is lost. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Part of this is the fact your government with it's policies makes it hostile to businesses who are willing to hire. Tons of businesses would love to take in a influx of educated people. But are shot down due to social welfare.
People who claim that the deficit and the weak dollar is a good thing make no sense.
ESPECIALLY considering that the theory that governs the idea of the weak dollar have proven untrue in 2003 and 2004.
Despite a weak dollar the exportation of our products has not gone up when compared to the importation of procducts. While the percentage seems to have slown down, the actual gap as far as dollar amounts has increased.
If Korea, China or Japan even decided to release any of the billions of dollars of our currency they have we'd be screwed.
Comments
I don't know how much Schroeder is to blame. Anti-economics is so strong in Germany, that sometimes I appreciate the fact that us Americans are not don't tout such policies easy.
The germans don't have a bad economy, either. They are in an economic downturn, just like we were a couple years ago. In a few years, their economy will be better again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, even the most perfect government will never be able to out-produce a private industry - there is no incentive. The government always gets it's money from the people it taxes, and it can raise taxes - the income is guarenteed (more or less) and there is no competition for "government". By those pillars, government will always be more wasteful than its private counterpart (even assuming a perfect government with perfect people running it - which will never happen anyway, so the point is moot).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is an incentive. If we don't think they did a good job, then our leaders will get fired after 2/4/6 years. Then, new people will come in and replace most of the upper-level unelected officials and institute new laws and policies to fix things.
There is more incentive to do well in the upper echelon of the public sector than the private sector. If you don't do well as a leader in the public sector, you get fired. If you don't do well as a leader in the private sector, you'll get a huge salary (not as huge if you had done well), a huge severance bonus if you get fired before your contract is up and/or a new job at a different company.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To that, I say "great - let me be duty bound - but let me be bound by my own terms. Let me give where I will give, and direct my own funds where I will, to support whomever I will. It is not the governments responsibilty to force charity out of me."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's good in theory, but it doesn't work so well in practice. Charities can not provide comprehensive and universal care to people who need it. Government can't either, but many more people will fall through the cracks without social welfare programs.
<a href='http://www.epinet.org/books/swa2004/news/swafacts_international.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.epinet.org/books/swa2004/news/s...ternational.pdf</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US had the highest overall poverty rate...
The US had the highest child poverty rate and the second highest elderly poverty rate...
US poverty was the most persistent...
The US had the highest rate of permanent poverty...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are key quotes comparing the US poverty rate to 17 other first world countries.
Finland, Sweden and Norway (all heavily socialist) had the lowest rates of Total and Child Poverty. It appears that we do a worse job at keeping people from falling through the cracks as opposed to countries with an extensive social welfare program.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anti-economics is so strong in Germany<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I'm sure that Germans hate the economy and want it to die. The only true economics are right wing free market economics, right? Free market capitalism is the only true economic model.
The Euro was kicking our as (and still kinda does) and this actually has decreased its value a bit against the American dollar.
The Euro was kicking our as (and still kinda does) and this actually has decreased its value a bit against the American dollar. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A weak dollar is good for the US. That's why Bush isn't doing anything to stop it. Our trade deficit will go down. Our manufacturers will get a big break, because they will actually be able to export American goods at relatively low prices. Our tourism industry will get a big break.
A strong dollar is mostly only good for people who buy imported goods. A weak dollar indirectly helps everyone.
This is somewhat analagous to outsourcing, in that it screws the people whose jobs get outsourced, but it indirectly helps everyone.
The Euro was kicking our as (and still kinda does) and this actually has decreased its value a bit against the American dollar. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A weak dollar is good for the US. That's why Bush isn't doing anything to stop it. Our trade deficit will go down. Our manufacturers will get a big break, because they will actually be able to export American goods at relatively low prices. Our tourism industry will get a big break.
A strong dollar is mostly only good for people who buy imported goods. A weak dollar indirectly helps everyone.
This is somewhat analagous to outsourcing, in that it screws the people whose jobs get outsourced, but it indirectly helps everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In theory this is true, but our trade deficit has gone up. Now if you believe in J curve economics, yes, the best is ahead. But if thats not the case, we're in some big trouble.
The weak American dollar does mean more tourism coming to this country and a higher chance people will buy American products, but when you consider countries like China and India which is quickly growing in not just economic power but also using it to better educate its citizens (thus creating a larger white collar, high tech class) while also able to maintain production at high levels with extremely low costs to the consumers the United States ability to compete on a global market becomes...questionable.
Also, a weak dollar means cheaper oil for other countries. Since the price of oil is tied to the dollar (we consume a HUGE percentage of all oil produced) other countries that base a lot of its economics on manufacturing (like China) become better positioned on the global market.
And let me add,its been estimated that buying power alone China is poised to be a HUGE heavyweight in the next ten years.
Again, the worst part is that the deficit has NOT gone down in the past fiscal quaters, but has gone UP. Scary news for Americans.
As China grows richer, their labor costs will go up, meaning their goods will get more expensive. They can't drasitcally raise their standard of living without raising their cost of labor.
I think that it's good for America for oil to become more expensive for us and less expensive for others. We'll develop better alternatives to oil than other countries, so when oil supplies start to dwindle, we'll be in a better position than they will (especially China, unless they start working hard on renewable energy). It does suck for the American economy in the short term, however.
No matter what anybody does, China will become an economic superpower. They've got quadruple our population, relatively unexploited natural resources, and a very strong government that is very committed to improving China economically. They've already started adopting capitalism and democracy. If they eventually displace us as the dominant world force, it may be good for the world, as a whole.
Socialism was just a end product of bad mathmatics.
As China grows richer, their labor costs will go up, meaning their goods will get more expensive. They can't drasitcally raise their standard of living without raising their cost of labor.
I think that it's good for America for oil to become more expensive for us and less expensive for others. We'll develop better alternatives to oil than other countries, so when oil supplies start to dwindle, we'll be in a better position than they will (especially China, unless they start working hard on renewable energy). It does suck for the American economy in the short term, however.
No matter what anybody does, China will become an economic superpower. They've got quadruple our population, relatively unexploited natural resources, and a very strong government that is very committed to improving China economically. They've already started adopting capitalism and democracy. If they eventually displace us as the dominant world force, it may be good for the world, as a whole. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a <a href='http://www.axcessnews.com/business_021005b.shtml' target='_blank'>link</a> to an article which contains some nice information for you.
Specifically: <b>The Commerce Department said that in 2004 U.S. exports of goods and services rose 12.3 percent to $1.15 trillion. But imports rose at an even faster clip of 16.3 percent, setting a new record of $1.76 trillion.</b>
This is despite the falling value of the dollar in both 2003 and 2004. Again, while our exports rose, our imports rose at a higher rate.
On top of that, the weak dollar is affecting the confidence of other countries that have basically been keeping the dollar strong by investing in our currency:
<a href='http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/050224/15/3qtq5.html' target='_blank'>Link</a>
But your right about China. They're pretty much unstoppable save an act of nature or catastrophe of epic proportions (Avian Flu mutation ?).
Socialism was just a end product of bad mathmatics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have any justification or a cite for this? What exactly do you even mean by liberalization, anyway? That word can mean many different things in almost every context.
As China grows richer, their labor costs will go up, meaning their goods will get more expensive. They can't drasitcally raise their standard of living without raising their cost of labor.
I think that it's good for America for oil to become more expensive for us and less expensive for others. We'll develop better alternatives to oil than other countries, so when oil supplies start to dwindle, we'll be in a better position than they will (especially China, unless they start working hard on renewable energy). It does suck for the American economy in the short term, however.
No matter what anybody does, China will become an economic superpower. They've got quadruple our population, relatively unexploited natural resources, and a very strong government that is very committed to improving China economically. They've already started adopting capitalism and democracy. If they eventually displace us as the dominant world force, it may be good for the world, as a whole. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a <a href='http://www.axcessnews.com/business_021005b.shtml' target='_blank'>link</a> to an article which contains some nice information for you.
Specifically: <b>The Commerce Department said that in 2004 U.S. exports of goods and services rose 12.3 percent to $1.15 trillion. But imports rose at an even faster clip of 16.3 percent, setting a new record of $1.76 trillion.</b>
This is despite the falling value of the dollar in both 2003 and 2004. Again, while our exports rose, our imports rose at a higher rate.
On top of that, the weak dollar is scaring other foreign investors:
<a href='http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/050224/15/3qtq5.html' target='_blank'>Link</a>
Now these countries, individually, hold BILLIONS of our dollars our dollars. They do it on purpose to keep the value of the dollar up, so that Americans can afford their products. They've been doing this for quite awhile, and if they choose to stop doing it, and release the dollars back, well, actually recently ,I believe, South Korea was planning to do it, but we stopped them, because we knew it would potentially screw us over to some extent. I'll look for an article on it, but may not be able to find it right away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article said that the weak dollar is helping our trade deficit tremendously. The only reason why it increased so drastically is because of oil importation (another good reason for alternative energy research).
Quote: U.S. Trade Deficit Soars to New High
In an economy with a weak dollar that is NOT a good sign. That is unless you believe in J-curve economics which I stated in a previous post.
Let me clairfy, not here to argue oil dependecy, or the cause of the deficit as much as I'm saying is our deficit did not go DOWN in 2004 as was expected due to the weak dollar but it went UP.
That is a bad thing for our economy. It means the dollar must get weaker in order for our exports to become more attractive overseas.
Weaker dollar= less buying power for the average American consumer.
Let me go into it a bit more.
If the weaker dollar didn't improve our economy in 2003, or 2004 then under the same policies what are the chances its going to improve in 2005?
Granted, perhaps a weaker dollar is "good" because our exports are more attractive, but its more attractive simply because its cheaper, because of our weaker dollar.
But again, this weaker dollar theory hasn't proven true under our current president.
I think the economic policies Bush has pushed is proving to not be working. Perhaps you are correct, if he pushed more "green" policies our economy would use less oil=less importation of oil=better deficit.
Let me tell you a little secret: the US has been a net importer for the past decade.
Look, a weak dollar does make for cheaper exports, his argument says that our trade deficit, while still there, is closing the gap.
A weak dollar creates more jobs, as more jobs go into manufacturing. What it doesn't do, however, is guarantee that those jobs will be good ones. Manufacturing is all about keeping prices low, and thus the wages low.
Why do you think China keeps its currency undervalued? They want explosive growth, and they have the most massive labor pool in the world. The result is that every net importer (the US) will become increasingly dependent on trade with China.
The problem with looking at alternatives to oil is that it just isn't economically feasible to do so. There is still plenty of oil to last for at least four more decades (not to mention Alaska) and to research it now would result in catastrophically high energy costs which in turn hurts the average consumer more because jobs are being laid off due to high corporate expenditure. You also have to take in account the conversion cost of going from oil to say....fusion, or at least fission.
It would be political suicide, but ironically, it'd the US' only hope of staying dominant (dominating the tech market).
I wager that the above statement is completely false and was made up on a whim, without any backing in evidence whatsoever - and without evidence to the contrary, this is a perfectly valid statement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some three quarters of February's 180,000 additions to the jobless total were the result of January's reclassification, it said - although it acknowledged the weak economy and cold weather hitting the construction industry were also to blame.
For one thing, January's reclassification boosted the jobless total by more than 500,000 that month, as many benefit claimants were added to the list for the first time thanks to the new rules.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
of course they obviously have their economy in bad shape at the moment, but those are the reasons why this thing even made it to the news.
but please carry on ;C
I wager that the above statement is completely false and was made up on a whim, without any backing in evidence whatsoever - and without evidence to the contrary, this is a perfectly valid statement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
i love the discussions forum... but you got it right there lolfghtr
Please people, learn some actual economics. I don't have the time at the moment to refute every specific assertion about the superiority of the free market, but just about every example that has been listed has significant externalities. The debate should be about whether the allocative inefficiencies from the externalities are greater than the internal inefficiencies in the government, with the full knowledge that these situations represent a failure of the free market.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though I think the idea is good, I wager that crime rates have gone up since the inception of public schools - and without evidence to the contrary, that is a perfectly valid statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of an argument is that? I wager Pepe Muffassa ate a baby once while no one was looking, and without evidence to the contrary that is a perfectly valid statement.
Socialism was just a end product of bad mathmatics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have any justification or a cite for this? What exactly do you even mean by liberalization, anyway? That word can mean many different things in almost every context. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Liberalization really has only one meaning, making free.
Socialists are not liberals in this spect.
For example, "Liberalization in india has done more for the Indian people then the command economy ever has in 50 years"
socialism can't testify to being liberal in this retrospect since theres only 2 types of Liberalism.
Social welfare is simply state sponsored theft. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you saying that my mom, who had to stop working and go on welfare to take care of me and my brother when my father ran off, doesn't deserve government help? She's working again, now that we're old enough to take care of ourselves while she's gone for the day, but I don't think that you can honestly say that a single parent taking care of two young boys shouldn't be there for her kids.
I'm all for getting people <i>capable</i> of working off of welfare, however.
Food is the most addictive substance on earth, second only to water. You are born with the addiction. You can never shake it. The withdrawl symptoms are incredible, and if extended inevitably end in death.
Right now a significant percentage of crime is a direct result of crack and heroin addiction. If we were to abolish welfare, a small percentage of the people subsisting on it might be able to find jobs. Substantially more would either go hungry or start stealing.
So I ask you, how many times per week do you want your car or home broken into? Furthermore, if someone breaks into your car to feed themselves, can you really hold it against them?
Private charity is simply not enough to provide an effective safety net. This is known as the free rider problem. If you are getting mugged less, you've benefited from other people's charity regardless of whether you gave any of it yourself. This disincentivises people to give money for public services.
Consider welfare a national "**** happens" insurance.
On the subject of public education, we elect our leaders by majority vote (approximately.) The better educated the public is, the more likely they are to make good voting decisions. Do you really want the people who can regulate your life at gun point to be chosen mostly by people without access to education or basic literacy?
Now, this lady bugged me. It wasn't that she was in need - which she was - it was because she smoked a pack a day, and had the newest, fancies cell phone available.
Therein lies the problem. The welfare state doesn't pay for "necessities" - it pays for the cigaretts, the resulting health care bills, the booze, the anti-depressants, etc. etc. Have you ever added up the cost of cigaretts? - for most people it is around 1.5 grand a year - thats 2 months food and rent - 2 more months you can be off work before you need my assistance.
If your broke and on welfare, you should not be allowed to drink alcohol, or smoke cigaretts - or do any of the other things poor people typically do. That is abuse of the system. That is me paying for your adictions and your pleasures - while you add 0 to society.
So in responce to CForrester - if your mom did any of the above things - she is not deserving of my tax dollars.
Right now it is way to easy to be on welfare. It was said that privatizing it wouldn't support all those on welfare currently. That may be so - but it will force people to be truely needy before they get "help". Asking for that kind of help should involve an element of responsibility and humility - and the government requires neither of those. Private organizations can - and do.
As for the raising / lowering of crime rates - their isn't enough proof either way. The point is, if people can't get the handout unless they jump through a few hoops, perhaps they will find that finding the next job isn't so hard after all.
That's not a problem with the idea of social welfare. That's a problem with a specific way in which we apply it. I think most people who support social welfare would be fine if we just payed for basic rent/food/medical care/clothing, instead of just giving a check, although this would be harder to implement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the raising / lowering of crime rates - their isn't enough proof either way. The point is, if people can't get the handout unless they jump through a few hoops, perhaps they will find that finding the next job isn't so hard after all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What would those hoops be exactly? Belief in Jesus? Rejection of Homosexuality? You know that private organizations have required these things in the past, before one can get help from them. People who are hungry will do <i>anything</i>(see: violent crime, prostitution, drug dealing) to get food. Private organizations have used the opportunity to push their ideology on the needy.
Even if we were able to ensure that private organizations didn't do these things, needy people who deserved help, won't ask for it. The poor are generally undereducated and less intelligent than average. Bureaucracy (whether public or private) is confusing enough without forcing people to jump through a dozen hoops. If people can't understand this system, then they may not realize that it's possible for them to get any help. That's why welfare should be relatively easy and simple for the needy to obtain.
Pertinent to the discussion. Welfare is mentioned a lot if you can stand to read through all the replies. Keep in mind a page of replies on SA is significantly larger than most forums.
What would those hoops be exactly? Belief in Jesus? Rejection of Homosexuality? You know that private organizations have required these things in the past, before one can get help from them. People who are hungry will do <i>anything</i>(see: violent crime, prostitution, drug dealing) to get food. Private organizations have used the opportunity to push their ideology on the needy.
Even if we were able to ensure that private organizations didn't do these things, needy people who deserved help, won't ask for it. The poor are generally undereducated and less intelligent than average. Bureaucracy (whether public or private) is confusing enough without forcing people to jump through a dozen hoops. If people can't understand this system, then they may not realize that it's possible for them to get any help. That's why welfare should be relatively easy and simple for the needy to obtain. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be honest, I don't care which organizations would be involved. Sure - some are Christian, but heck - if your getting your bread from the flat earth society - so long as your eating...
By the way, you made my point. Generally they are undereducated. How is giving them a handout making them any better?
Jumping through hoops may be an ideological thing that they have to do. It may be as simple as requiring them to show where they spent their money the next time they show up. That looks a lot like accountability - a good thing.
I got a class mate at the collage I go to. He used to work for a company that helped train underprivilaged in IT fields. Everything was going great - they were strict (dress appropriate, be on time, do your homework) and the people who atteneded learned a lot about how to succeed.
Then the welfare lady came. She sat in the back of his class - and when someone was late, or gave an excuse - she said "that's OK". That's not OK. That is teaching them that they can give up on thier opportunities and that "safety net" will be there. My buddy... he left. Couldn't stand the government getting in and messing up a system that was trying to help people.
Some more about my buddy - he is a black guy (sorry, I'm not very pc.) Anyway, his view has always been that the welfare system opresses those who are in it. It takes away the drive, takes away the reason to try harder. He was one of those guys who had an early baby - ended up marrying his baby-momma (to use the parlance of our times) - and now he makes over 50k a year. Yeah, it was hard, but he worked his rear off. If he had sat back and taken what the government could give him - he wouldn't be where he is today.
Yes, we do. We have one of the highest standard of social security in the world.
And that is partly the reason for the high unemployment rate.
Many long term unemployed actually don't see the nessesity to find work, when they get more state welfare than they would with low paid jobs.
That is no exaggeration!
Additionally, our work is too expensive so the corporations do outsource production in other countries. Currently, fo every Euro an employee earns, the employer has to pay another one to the state for insurances.
No production, no jobs. simple.
In addition to that comes that those corporations had massive losses due to catastrophic management mistakes in the past decades. (like DaimlerBenz fusing with Crytsler)
Now the corporates somewhat shrinked to a healthy size again, laying off a couple of hundred thousand of workers in the process.
Next probem is that germans are somewhat inflexible when it comes to relocating for a job.
Taxiation is extremely high, which does not exactly help to ease the situation.
Extreme liberal tendencies from back in the 70s have resulted in estreme lax procedures regarding migration anad asylum, as well as too easy grating of welfare.
The result is massive fraud and illegal work.
Changing this proved EXTREMELY difficult, as you will be discedited as facist if you do mention it ...
All those are extremely harmfull circumstances in times of global competition, and they will change over time. It just takes a little longer since our structres are somewhat conservative and, well, rigid like concrete ....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of social welfare we as a society need to make education more key.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
education alone does not guarantee a job. We have an exceptional high unemployment rate among academics, too. Many of them simply leave the country because of this which further deteriorates the chances of reviving the economy, because know how is lost.
Yes, we do. We have one of the highest standard of social security in the world.
And that is partly the reason for the high unemployment rate.
Many long term unemployed actually don't see the nessesity to find work, when they get more state welfare than they would with low paid jobs.
That is no exaggeration!
Additionally, our work is too expensive so the corporations do outsource production in other countries. Currently, fo every Euro an employee earns, the employer has to pay another one to the state for insurances.
No production, no jobs. simple.
In addition to that comes that those corporations had massive losses due to catastrophic management mistakes in the past decades. (like DaimlerBenz fusing with Crytsler)
Now the corporates somewhat shrinked to a healthy size again, laying off a couple of hundred thousand of workers in the process.
Next probem is that germans are somewhat inflexible when it comes to relocating for a job.
Taxiation is extremely high, which does not exactly help to ease the situation.
Extreme liberal tendencies from back in the 70s have resulted in estreme lax procedures regarding migration anad asylum, as well as too easy grating of welfare.
The result is massive fraud and illegal work.
Changing this proved EXTREMELY difficult, as you will be discedited as facist if you do mention it ...
All those are extremely harmfull circumstances in times of global competition, and they will change over time. It just takes a little longer since our structres are somewhat conservative and, well, rigid like concrete ....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of social welfare we as a society need to make education more key.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
education alone does not guarantee a job. We have an exceptional high unemployment rate among academics, too. Many of them simply leave the country because of this which further deteriorates the chances of reviving the economy, because know how is lost. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Part of this is the fact your government with it's policies makes it hostile to businesses who are willing to hire. Tons of businesses would love to take in a influx of educated people. But are shot down due to social welfare.
People who claim that the deficit and the weak dollar is a good thing make no sense.
ESPECIALLY considering that the theory that governs the idea of the weak dollar have proven untrue in 2003 and 2004.
Despite a weak dollar the exportation of our products has not gone up when compared to the importation of procducts. While the percentage seems to have slown down, the actual gap as far as dollar amounts has increased.
If Korea, China or Japan even decided to release any of the billions of dollars of our currency they have we'd be screwed.