Socialism and the Welfare State - G. Richard Jansen

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: greencmp

Yeah, but for your question to have any relevance you would have to show that unemployment benefits cause a higher unemployment rate, which there is no evidence for, when you consider that most wealthy countries (like the UK and western Europe for example) enacted unemployment benefits around the time that WWII ended.

I realize that you want to ignore the basic facts regarding the economic consequences of government intervention. I don't blame you and you are not alone.

The problem is that the results you seek, if even realized, have far greater negative consequences than most people recognize.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Therein lies the rub, once we begin down the path of smoke and mirrors it is very difficult to find our way again.

The next logical step is to begin nationalizing industry and, ultimately, to abolish private property and the market economy entirely.

We have just finished our first interventionist century and the value of our currency has dropped 95%. Our currency only grew in value for the century preceding.

a reply to: xuenchen

Aren't those Republicans so tricky? It's all in how you ask the question, isn't it?

Just what was included in the "83 welfare programs" Jeff Sessions asked for numbers on?

The con is pretty easy to see when you read the actual CRS report. Senate Republicans are counting 83 separate (and wildly different) programs as "welfare" in order to make the case that the government is spending more on poor people than old people. The majority of this money is Medicaid and CHIP, which are healthcare spending, which is increasing for the same reason that Medicare spending is increasing, which is that healthcare costs are increasing. (And Medicaid is much less generous than Medicare, because it is a program for poor people, not old people.)

But so many other things now also count as welfare, including Pell Grants, public works spending, Head Start, child support enforcement, the Child Tax Credit, Foster Care assistance, housing for old people, and much more. They're also counting the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is, traditionally, the form of "welfare" that conservative Republicans actually support. Basically, all social spending (though specifically not spending on rich old people or on healthcare for veterans with service-related disabilities, which Republicans requested be excluded from the CRS report) now counts as "welfare."

Source - "New Lie: The Government Spends More on Welfare than on Anything Else"

Yes, if you took an Earned Income Tax Credit last year, you are now on Welfare, per the Republicans in Congress.

a reply to: greencmp

Why exactly is "nationalizing industry" the next logical step?

What reference point are you using for "the value of our currency"?

originally posted by: greencmp

First of all, thank you for addressing the topic of the thread, it really does help to make it a discussion.

From the text:

The issue isn’t whether there should be a “safety net” of social services for the less fortunate and an important role for government in a number of areas. Hayek made this very clear in his Road to Serfdom; “To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, or to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition.

The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained than the social costs which they impose. Nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services-as long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields”.

The quintessential classical liberal F. A. Hayek thus is not a libertarian.

Okay, that's what "the text" says, what do YOU think? I'm far more interested in what you have to say than Mr. Hayek, particularly since I can't ask him questions.

Discussion works better that way, no?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa
It's all smoke and mirrors. Yes you have a minimum wage of over $18 per hour but that is reflected in the cost of goods over there.
I've been there twice for a month each time. There's no way I could live there because it's too darn expensive.
When I was there a 6 pack of local beer was $15. You can buy a 30 pack of local beer here for that amount.
Housing is terribly expensive. A basic 2 bedroom apartment in the far west suburbs of Brisbane was a minimum of
$350 per WEEK
Breakfast at the local eatery was almost $10. Eggs, bacon, (a slice of tomato) and coffee.
I just got this from the global real estate report: www.globalpropertyguide.com...

Australian housing is among the most expensive in the world. In the last quarter of 2013, New South Wales, especially Sydney, had the most expensive housing in the country, with the median house price at AU$633,200 (US$574,667), about 17.4% above the national median house price of AU$539,400 (US$489,538), according to ABS.

The highest median weekly asking rents can be found in Darwin, with houses at around AU$ 700 (US$ 639.59) and units at AU$550 (US$ 502.54). It was followed by Sydney with median rents at AU$500 (US$ 456.85) for houses and AU$ 470 (US$ 429.44) for units. Hobart has the lowest median weekly asking rents at AU$ 310 (US$ 283.25) for houses and AU$ 250 (US$ 228.43) for units

Housing remains “severely unaffordable”.Among the seven developed nations covered by the 2013 9th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, Australia ranks third as most unaffordable major market.

I have a friend that lives there and her grown children are struggling to come up with the money they need to buy a house.
In addition, my friend needed to have a hip replacement 4 years ago. She was put on a 6 month waiting list for government medicare. Luckily she had private insurance from when she was married and was able to get in for the operation in less than a month.

Australia is the most beautiful and friendly place I've ever visited and if I was rich, I would move there in a second. However, the significant minimum wage and the social safety net programs are starting to create problems for the younger generation.

Just my 2 cents worth mate

Total Federal State Local State and Local

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Why exactly is "nationalizing industry" the next logical step?

What reference point are you using for "the value of our currency"?

OK, while a little alarmist, my statement is far less hyperbolic than it might have been a decade ago.

We are on the road to serfdom, the road to socialism. Interventionism is just one of the steps toward the planned economy without private property in the means of production.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

First of all, thank you for addressing the topic of the thread, it really does help to make it a discussion.

From the text:

The issue isn’t whether there should be a “safety net” of social services for the less fortunate and an important role for government in a number of areas. Hayek made this very clear in his Road to Serfdom; “To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, or to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition.

The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained than the social costs which they impose. Nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services-as long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields”.

The quintessential classical liberal F. A. Hayek thus is not a libertarian.

Okay, that's what "the text" says, what do YOU think? I'm far more interested in what you have to say than Mr. Hayek, particularly since I can't ask him questions.

Discussion works better that way, no?

Just pointing out to Fyrebyrd that advocating for individual freedom of choice is not tantamount to advocating for anarchy. While I believe we could handle it in principal, it isn't necessary and I am not sure that the rest of the world could handle us becoming isolationists.

I am happy to elucidate further but, I believe I have been fairly clear so far.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Total Federal State Local State and Local

So, according to this link with ACTUAL information on it about the budget/deficit/debt, "welfare" is only 8% of the total, much lower than Defense, Social Security, or Healthcare?

I wonder why your previous link so grossly misrepresented the actual facts of the matter???

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Why exactly is "nationalizing industry" the next logical step?

What reference point are you using for "the value of our currency"?

OK, while a little alarmist, my statement is far less hyperbolic than it might have been a decade ago.

We are on the road to serfdom, the road to socialism. Interventionism is just one of the steps toward the planned economy without private property in the means of production.

Wait, are you saying you don't have any facts to support your statements about nationalization and loss of currency value?

You were, quote (being hyperbolic) unquote?

That's disappointing; what else are you exaggerating here???

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

First of all, thank you for addressing the topic of the thread, it really does help to make it a discussion.

From the text:

The issue isn’t whether there should be a “safety net” of social services for the less fortunate and an important role for government in a number of areas. Hayek made this very clear in his Road to Serfdom; “To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, or to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition.

The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained than the social costs which they impose. Nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services-as long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields”.

The quintessential classical liberal F. A. Hayek thus is not a libertarian.

Okay, that's what "the text" says, what do YOU think? I'm far more interested in what you have to say than Mr. Hayek, particularly since I can't ask him questions.

Discussion works better that way, no?

Just pointing out to Fyrebyrd that advocating for individual freedom of choice is not tantamount to advocating for anarchy. While I believe we could handle it in principal, it isn't necessary and I am not sure that the rest of the world could handle us becoming isolationists.

I am happy to elucidate further but, I believe I have been fairly clear so far.

You were addressing me in the post in which you provided the Hayek quote, not Fyrebird.

You have barely stated anything that is your original thought in this discussion, and have just admitted that you were exaggerating your responses and that you have no real factual backup.

Why would we wish to continue our "discussion" if those are going to be your tactics?

a reply to: fltcui

Yeah, housing is very expensive in the major cities, but then it’s not hard for a lot of people to score themselves decent paying jobs without any higher education. My brother for example never even finished high school, yet is now kicking back in a 70k a year job just working at a factory. Not saying everyone gets that but it’s certainly not uncommon.

With the Medicare thing, I guess you can look at it like public and private schools. But at least everyone has the opportunity to have free quality healthcare if they don’t want to dish out for private. Luxury items are also probably over priced, but I think you’ll find basic food items are reasonably priced usually.

Really though, my point was that most Australians feel very safe and feel they can live comfortably, which is why we always score very high on quality of life lists. Personally I think our high quality welfare system is the main factor of why it’s such a safe and laid back country.

On another note, yeah Australia is a beautiful country (as in the land and notorious good weather), but it lacks culture and is kind of bland in my opinion. Personally, if money wasn't an issue anymore and I could live in any country I wanted, it would most definitely be the US. The culture over there is just so diverse and unique, I’m just fascinated by how different it seems to be, depending on what state your in. Not that I've ever been there, I was just raised on American tv, movies, music and food. lol, we are basically an unofficial US puppet state, lol.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right you are, I was addressing your comment that advocating for individual freedom is not the same as promoting anarchy.

I should point out that anarchy is not chaos, btw. Anarchy is how you live in your own home, for now.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Why exactly is "nationalizing industry" the next logical step?

What reference point are you using for "the value of our currency"?

OK, while a little alarmist, my statement is far less hyperbolic than it might have been a decade ago.

We are on the road to serfdom, the road to socialism. Interventionism is just one of the steps toward the planned economy without private property in the means of production.

Wait, are you saying you don't have any facts to support your statements about nationalization and loss of currency value?

You were, quote (being hyperbolic) unquote?

That's disappointing; what else are you exaggerating here???

Please don't hyperventilate, I thought I was being reasonable and forthright in my measured responses to your outbursts. I am trying to help.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Why exactly is "nationalizing industry" the next logical step?

What reference point are you using for "the value of our currency"?

OK, while a little alarmist, my statement is far less hyperbolic than it might have been a decade ago.

We are on the road to serfdom, the road to socialism. Interventionism is just one of the steps toward the planned economy without private property in the means of production.

Wait, are you saying you don't have any facts to support your statements about nationalization and loss of currency value?

You were, quote (being hyperbolic) unquote?

That's disappointing; what else are you exaggerating here???

Please don't hyperventilate, I thought I was being reasonable and forthright in my measured responses to your outbursts. I am trying to help.

Ah. Outbursts? Until you get called out on trying to insert embellishments and misrepresentation, it's discussion?

So, it's to be nothing more than further prevarication then?

Thanks.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right you are, I was addressing your comment that advocating for individual freedom is not the same as promoting anarchy.

I should point out that anarchy is not chaos, btw. Anarchy is how you live in your own home, for now.

I notice you carefully avoid quoting another's comment when it suits your ... agenda.

Enjoy your word-games; I had hoped you were actually serious about a factual discussion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, you don't seem to have noticed anything I have said that relates to the thread or to the threat to your freedom that I am trying to help you understand.

I am disappointed.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: fltcui

Yeah, housing is very expensive in the major cities, but then it’s not hard for a lot of people to score themselves decent paying jobs without any higher education. My brother for example never even finished high school, yet is now kicking back in a 70k a year job just working at a factory. Not saying everyone gets that but it’s certainly not uncommon.

Well, these revelations would seem to reinforce my economic postulate.

a reply to: greencmp

what revelation would that be mate?

The fact that it is very easy to get a high paying job with no real education in a country with free healthcare and high quality welfare? Or maybe it's the fact that there is no such thing as working class poverty down under?

All it really proves is that a country with a good welfare system causes a higher quality of life. So what if housing and luxury items are slightly more expensive if the people feel safer and happier and can afford it?

Seems like a small price to pay to me. I mean, can you even put a price on the happiness and security of an individual?