patrick.net

FAIR would mean for example we all live under the same rules.

However whether you talk about Soviet-communism or Libertopia the effect is still unfairness. No rich man seems to live under the same rules we do. Steal an apple and go to jail. Swindle millions, and maybe like Angelo Mozilo you'll just have to pay a token fine.

That's one of the undercurrents IMO of current disquiet, the blatant & brazen bad examples set about Richie Rich always skating free. Scapegoating is not neccessarily bad from a societal standpoint. We took the top 2 Enron execs and focus on jailing them, sorta let some littler fish slip by because you need public examples. Oh the difference a decade makes.

It's a fair point.

I would argue that if the leaders have high morals and values, then fair laws and policies can guide us all.

A good start would be making elections publicly funded and having real debates about the most important issues. As it is now, the big money required to even be a politician is going to be a turn off for anyone with the highest kind of motivation for being in public office.

austrian_man says

So why all this bickering between left and right, when in reality - the most important need of present time is to recognize that the moral character of the society (honesty, fairness and justice) is what's most deficient in America

you are 100% on the mark. Guess which side does not want to hear about "morals" and the individual accountability and responsibilty of each citizen being the most important part of a free society.... just guess. Their next attack will be "who's morals, and why there's" or some other such nonsense.

Some in America only see fair as taking from some, to give to whomever those in charge feel are worthy. A most horrible plan thus far.

marcus says

A good start would be making elections publicly funded and having real debates about the most important issues. As it is now, the big money required to even be a politician is going to be a turn off for anyone with the highest kind of motivation for being in public office.

I agree. When Hillary started running for office, just because her oldman was the prez, really opened my eyes to the political game. We need to access the true heart of America for our politicians. I humbly suggest we make military service a minimum qualifiaction for any office higher than mayor.

Bap33 says

Some in America only see fair as taking from some, to give to whomever those in charge feel are worthy. A most horrible plan thus far.

Actually we've been going in the opposite direction for over 30 years now. At the same time your overlords tell you that they are the Godly ones, and the liberals are immoral degenerates. If they could they would blame the liberals for their own wanton destruction of most of what is good about this country, and you would buy it hook line and sinker.

How is it that when taxes are as low as they've ever been in the last 50 years, you're willing to do your masters bidding with that line "taking from some, to give to whomever ?" After all these years of countless discussions of what our government actually spends money on.

Vicente says

FAIR would mean for example we all live under the same rules.

Exactly.

Vicente says

the blatant & brazen bad examples set about Richie Rich always skating free. Scapegoating is not neccessarily bad from a societal standpoint.

But you see, not all the rich are bad. It's the rich who stole from the public through privatization of profits and socializing the losses, that are bad. To classify everyone as bad is a generalization that's wrong.

What's wrong with any productive entrepreneur becoming rich? They become rich because of what they contribute to the society.

This is one of America's strong points - over the last century, the land mark inventions and technological innovations happened here for a reason.

marcus says

good start would be making elections publicly funded and having real debates about the most important issues

This is absolutely critical, but I don't know how we can expect to pass anti-corruption laws through a process that is corrupt at its core?

austrian_man says

I see fair points on both left and right. But I think both are fighting over the same problem, trying to solve it in different ways. So why all this bickering between left and right, when in reality - the most important need of present time is to recognize that the moral character of the society (honesty, fairness and justice) is what's most deficient in America.

Bap33 says

you are 100% on the mark. Guess which side does not want to hear about "morals" and the individual accountability and responsibilty of each citizen being the most important part of a free society.... just guess. Their next attack will be "who's morals, and why there's" or some other such nonsense.

Cool how you immediately blame those with whom you disagree. You helped him make his point.

Sweden kinda lied to its people when it said it was neutral and to the world for that matter.
http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/Page____4065.aspx
I wouldn't exactly say this was corruption but they were outright lying when they claimed they were neutral.

Europe created socialism because it was a cheap bribe to prevent outright communism and social upheaval. Bismark started most of these systems that were copied by other European countries and eventually the USA. The social pension system (old age insurance) was given the age of 65..when life expectancy was 45. No one really thought that tens of millions of people would be on the system at the same time.

Much of Europe was subsidized for their defense by the USA. Oil is also priced in dollars so by proxy if a country has a currency that declines against the dollar it means higher oil prices..and the same with many other commodities.

New Zealand was the first country to use new public management which differs from traditional management. It focuses more on results than efficiency. Clinton started the process of this in the USA in the early 1990s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_public_management
NZ is also a unitary state which means that there is no state or local control in government which certainly can make things easier.

Regulations can provide a false sense of security. The FDA existed for over 40 years and yet the Tylenol scare happened in the 80's..heck Vioxx contributed towards tens of thousands of deaths.

On the same level not everyone reads well. In the early 80's Texas Instruments had a computer called the 99/4a. They forgot to send it to underwriters labs (UL). It turns out the AC adapter was not properly shielded and thus could produce lethal electrical shocks!

Not everything can be a moral choice just like science cannot answer everything. Should abortion be legal? Science does not answer that. Should someone wear a jacket made of oil based products or leather? Morality doesn't answer that or could be conflicted between supporting the middle east or animal death.

mdovell says

The social pension system (old age insurance) was given the age of 65..when life expectancy was 45.

the lie that never dies.

Much of Europe was subsidized for their defense by the US

likewise. Very little of what the US spent 1950-1990 was on "defense".

the FDA existed for over 40 years and yet the Tylenol scare happened in the 80's.

Tylenol was product tampering outside the factory. Not an FDA issue, not then at least.

nb FDA was created under Roosevelt, the first one.

low taxes, no regulation, sound monetary system etc. (all that Ron Paul wants) is a system that can work.

No it can't, laissez faire's systemic imbalances are what's creating our problems today.

Free trade is exporting our way of life to China, Mexico, and India. Good for them, bad for us.

Health care rent-seeking is pulling $4000 PER CAPITA in economic rents right now.

Land, oil, spectrum are examples of limited natural resources that yield real rents to those fortunate or scheming enough to acquire them.

Minarchism without fixing these fundamental issues is always doomed to failure, which is why no minarchist states exist today.

Henry George got the rent-seeker's number 130+ years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

So why all this bickering between left and right, when in reality - the most important need of present time is to recognize that the moral character of the society (honesty, fairness and justice) is what's most deficient in America.

All these "job-killing" regulations and stuff came about due to basic human nature of not following the global Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated.

Socialism recognizes the flaw already is not in our stars, but ourselves.

That some people, left to their own devices, tend to really only give a shit about themselves. Socialism exists to pound these people down, while the libertopian paradise lets them run free until they get their fill of taking from others and destroying any threats to their wealth position.

IMO the successful eurosocialist states use too broad a hammer for this. I think if they targetted just rent-seeking directly they'd have more balanced economies.

Bellingham Bill says

laissez faire's systemic imbalances are what's creating our problems today.

Free trade is exporting our way of life to China, Mexico, and India. Good for them, bad for us.

Troy - we have been through this before. Let's go through it again. Free trade as it exists today requires US running current account deficits with all nations (downside of the world reserve currency), but US can print the world reserve currency (upside). Triffin's dilemma.

Capitalism has got a lot of false rap because of free trade. Under real capitalism (not crony capitalism as it exists today), there will be fair trade using a world reserve currency that's neutral (such as gold). It doesn't have to be gold, but gold works very well since everyone accepts gold as payment.

Bellingham Bill says

Health care rent-seeking is pulling $4000 PER CAPITA in economic rents right now

That's because of poor policy making and corporate subsidies. Under real capitalism, there are no subsidies, no favors. Fair competition is the best way to ensure top quality for the consumer.

Bellingham Bill says

Land, oil, spectrum are examples of limited natural resources that yield real rents to those fortunate or scheming enough to acquire them.

All this rent-seeking happens because of a dishonest monetary system, bank favoring monetary policies and corporate favors.

You can't blame capitalism, you have to blame the people in power who have taken advantage of it and abused it.

Bellingham Bill says

global Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated.

hehe, that's the problem. High moral character, honesty, fairness all these qualities are vital for a thriving society (be it capitalism or socialism). At least the majority of population should be that way.

mdovell,

I don't understand the relevancy of your post.

I'm not saying what is moral or immoral.

I am asking for honesty, fairness and justice. Whatever your personal views may be - these qualities are required for a republic to be successful.

When a fortunate few take advantage of the system and hijack it for their own personal benefits, we have major problems.

austrian_man says

Let's go through it again

The flows are what they are and they are well beyond Triffin Dilemma.

This is obvious taking one look at this:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

But yeah, being the global reserve currency does suck for the working class here.

Fair competition is the best way to ensure top quality for the consumer.

Pure ideology-driven dogma that is demonstrably false in the real world of asymmetrical information, monopoly market power, and cartelization and guildmaking.

All this rent-seeking happens because of a dishonest monetary system, bank favoring monetary policies and corporate favors.

Bullshit. Rent-seeking went on when the Sumerians were trading clay pots among each other.

You can't blame capitalism, you have to blame the people in power who have taken advantage of it and abused it.

that's the core problem with the Austrian worldview. You guys are fundamentally indisposed to admit that PRIVATE enterprise can be just as fucked as public interference in same.

Bellingham Bill says

Pure ideology-driven dogma that is demonstrably false in the real world of asymmetrical information, monopoly market power, and cartelization and guildmaking.

Look, am I saying the world is perfect? All I am saying is fair competition always ensures consumer wins. There's no dogma here, whether it will be let to work actually in the real world is up to the people participating in it. Special interests hijack and rig to their benefits, if .gov is corrupt.

Bellingham Bill says

Bullshit. Rent-seeking went on when the Sumerians were trading clay pots among each other.

Aren't we more civilized now? Is it too much to expect honesty among majority of participants?

Bellingham Bill says

that's the core problem with the Austrian worldview. You guys are fundamentally indisposed to admit that PRIVATE enterprise can be just as fucked as public interference in same.

I am not dogmatic. I am not saying, Austrian way is the only way. In fact, the whole point of my post is to portray this very fact. Doesn't matter what the "ism" is actually in practice, people's honesty and fairness is important to ensure its success. That is pretty much my point.

austrian_man says

But you see, not all the rich are bad. It's the rich who stole from the public through privatization of profits and socializing the losses, that are bad. To classify everyone as bad is a generalization that's wrong.

Yes but society NEEDS it's examples set, from the highest levels.

Frankly neither I nor anyone else cares about the ones who were good. We DO care about the ones who were very very BAD. And who everyone is telling us we should let skate free to avoid creating a "confidence problem". Well this very demonstration of NOBODY getting criminal charges, creates a confidence problem. We pride ourselves on being egalitarian, and here we are tossing it aside because we are scared. Scared that our system is so VERY fragile, that if Dick Fuld or Lloyd Blankfein went to jail, it would all crumble. That is a pretty pointed emonstration to me we don't really believe in our principles any more we just want a quick fix.

This is all very nice to say "we should be more moral!" but it does not mean a thing. At it's base how can anyone disagree with that statement, but it's completely meaningless in practical terms because where do you go from there?

Then the suggestions I'm reading on this thread so far are pretty off kilter and pretty much completey lacking in historical or logical support... 'Only those who've been members of the military can hold public office' - Because nothing teaches morals like a system that teaches one how to kill and unthinkingly obey orders...' That we should have LESS regulation of industry' - because I guess that's worked out so well for us up to now, and dammit Austrian, even the ex-chairman of the fed, the guy who led us into the state we're now, admitted 'there may have been flaws in my world view' and has recanted his 'freemarket thinking'...

It amazes me, for one, that in all that's happened lately that you could be so naive as to still say that the way to go forward and fix all of this is to hope for niceness and then strip away the remaining meager regulations that are in place to assure adherence to laws designed to protect society when it's been clearly demonstrated over the past decade that this direction has been a complete failure.

It's like you're saying "everyone in the world SHOULD be nice"! And then advocating to dismantle the military and police because, well, they SHOULD...

I'm sorry but you need to deeply re-evaluate your ideas with an eye toward what actually IS instead of what you WANT it to be. There's enough examples in recent history, start with the arc of the previous fed chair and then read a bit about Glass-Stengal.

Ah, I found an example of the 'moral degradation' and callousness thats afflicting our society you must be referring to:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/dark-side.html

Bellingham Bill says

the lie that never dies.

Well those were the dates.
http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2010/05/why-we-must-not-link-state-pension-age-to-life-expectancy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck
"Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889
The Old Age Pension program, an insurance equally financed by employers and workers,[63] was designed to provide a pension annuity for workers who reached the age of 70 years. "

The only issue with that is the life expectancy reached that....in 1960..71 years after passing
http://tinyurl.com/6ecsudo

No country in Europe or not even the world for that matter had a life expectancy of 70 years or even 65 back in the 1880s.
----------------
Getting back to topic of course the argument would be what is moral.

Here's a question. Given the high unemployment rate is it moral for states to raise the working age to 18?

Many youths don't even earn enough to pay income taxes so technically states might increase tax revenue. But this comes with a cost in that it would take away jobs from the demographic that has some of the highest unemployment rates.

Fairness is a subjective term. Everyone on this board for example can read and use the internet. Yet there are millions of people around the world that cannot. McDonalds still has picture menus available upon request..who doesn't know what a hamburger is ?

Honesty would be hard to accomplish since we know most advertising is bunk. I've only seen one honest commercial in the past 15 or so years. Some native american reservation that gives payroll loans..he even said the money is expensive..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9mhlRp8DzI

kentm says

It amazes me, for one, that in all that's happened lately that you could be so naive as to still say that the way to go forward and fix all of this is to hope for niceness and then strip away the remaining meager regulations that are in place to assure adherence to laws designed to protect society

should we close the southern boarder and remove all invaders and their spawn? or, are anti-invasion laws not included when talking about protecting society? (Arizona anyone?)
I happen to think anti-public acceptance of deviant coupling laws help keep society protected, but that view is scorned by many. As well as anti-drug user laws.

mdovell says

No country in Europe or not even the world for that matter had a life expectancy of 70 years or even 65 back in the 1880s.

this is life expectancy at birth, so using it to talk about pension plans is deceptive.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Shows that life expectancy at birth was 42.50 in 1890, but 75 at age 60.

Your original: "No one really thought that tens of millions of people would be on the system at the same time."

is immaterial because social pensions were not funded as they are now. Back then they were established to keep the surviving old people -- too old to work -- out of poverty and were funded adequately.

As life expectancy at age 60 has risen, and more people enrolled, and more people surviving to age 60 in the first place, taxes have risen to pay for it - the current contribution rate in Germany is 20% of income.

Socialism wasn't created to cheat the masses, it was established in Europe and elsewhere because it works better than any other system on the planet we've tried.

Bap33 says

should we close the southern boarder and remove all invaders and their spawn? or, are anti-invasion laws not included when talking about protecting society? (Arizona anyone?)

I happen to think anti-public acceptance of deviant coupling laws help keep society protected, but that view is scorned by many. As well as anti-drug user laws.

I'm actually not certain how to even respond to this in this context, except to say that by "deviant coupling" you obviously meant to say 'faggot sex' and by "invaders and their spawn" you seem to actually mean "spics and gooks and wetbacks" so why not just say what you mean?...

I do want to ask why you want less regulation of industry but apparently more regulation of private individuals? And why you seem to think business and industry is capable of regulating itself but private individuals (at least those who live differently from you, I assume) need to be clamped down. Or have I misread you?

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

Here's the route back to sanity:

CASH or FUCK YOU, America!

Any middle-man, financier or rent-seeking fucker gets between you and ownership of anything you want, you grab his ears, shout 'It's CASH or FUCK YOU!', stuff his face up your ass and shit down his throat.

Refuse to even talk to a used home seller represented by an agent of any kind and refuse to consider any property you can't pay cash for.

Bankers? They die, slowly, in the dark, begging for a quick death

THIS!

It's the overly coddled "me" generation. They don't want to enlist as citizens, they just want it all for themselves. Corrupt bureauctrats and k street sell out Washington isn't representative of that culture, they are exactly that culture.

Bellingham Bill says

Your original: "No one really thought that tens of millions of people would be on the system at the same time."

is immaterial because social pensions were not funded as they are now. Back then they were established to keep the surviving old people -- too old to work -- out of poverty and were funded adequately.

As life expectancy at age 60 has risen, and more people enrolled, and more people surviving to age 60 in the first place, taxes have risen to pay for it - the current contribution rate in Germany is 20% of income.

Socialism wasn't created to cheat the masses, it was established in Europe and elsewhere because it works better than any other system on the planet we've tried.

Socialism was created as a way to pacify people and prevent outright communism from occurring. One could argue that Russia was dealing with it in the revolution of 1905 (changing an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one). It is hard to argue that it "works better" when we have the debt crisis there. I debated for years with a strong Irish Republican (irish not us concept) that was a socialist. We disagreed on everything but ultimately agreed that the european union would fail.

Europeans already pay pretty high taxes. Do you believe that they can actually pay more? I just don't see where they would get it from. High fuel taxes (yes I know they have more public transport), high sales taxes (VAT), high income taxes. If socialism works how does that explain France in '68? How does that explain the civil strife? Why does ETA exist and the IRA ?

Socialism can be argued is largely dependent on a growing population (regardless of source). Can Europe really be propped up by France and Germany alone? Should they lower their immigration standards?

The real problem is the lack of moral discipline. Discipline was removed from our monetary system by removing America from the gold standard. This created global imbalances, malinvestment, rampant inflation, the expansion of war on many fronts, a massive welfare state, excessive debt loads, insolvent banks, risky derivatives, etc, etc, etc.

This reminds me of Newtons third law.

Today's book: The Collapse of the Dollar, and how to profit from it. James Turk

mdovell says

It is hard to argue that it "works better" when we have the debt crisis there.

Scandinavian / Germanic socialism is still working great. Mediterranean socialism, not so great. France and Belgium are somewhere in the midddle.

Europeans already pay pretty high taxes. Do you believe that they can actually pay more?

Sweden's budget is in balance:

http://www.riksbank.com/swedishstat/link8_en.html

Though their national debt is very high to GDP, 1.1X.

If socialism works how does that explain France in '68? How does that explain the civil strife? Why does ETA exist and the IRA ?

How can YOU explain Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany?

Countries with good per-capita GDP, sky-high taxes, well-funded pensions, and budgets now in balance (albeit with generally very high debt loads).

And very happy populaces. Nobody in their right mind would trade their societal positions with the US's. We're two steps away from the precipice.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=37q

skip to the part about White Water or Vince Foster, that's really interesting.

Bap33 says

skip to the part about White Water or Vince Foster, that's really interesting.

Yeah, real interesting:

The 2000 final Independent Counsel report found no substantial or credible evidence that Hillary Clinton had any role or showed any misconduct in the matter.

Thanks for the laugh, talking point man.