Kindness Deficit

[piqaboo]

EJA,
the real estate market in San Diego is shocking.
Thats the difference in our calculations.

Plus, Im cheap. So I didnt increase my cost of living everytime my salary increased. So my % invested was well above 10% of salary for many years.

Thats not to say Im worth much now ... I still have to get thru that second half of anticipated working life - the one where compounding pays off......here's hoping! Because expenses recently went up dramatically: Altoid costs a mint!

[piqaboo]

puerile : boyish as childish : childlike
They could mean the same thing, but they dont.
Naive is indeed a more civil word choice in a discussion of differing ideas and opinions. "Optimistic" might be more appropriate for a thread titled "Kindness Deficit".

www.dictionary.com
puerile:
1 - Belonging to childhood; juvenile.
2 - Immature; childish.

<small>[ 11-11-2004, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: piqaboo ]</small>

[haggis]

RC,
I think we've come to that point were we both agree to disagree.

The word” Polarization," when used in the context of personal wealth, is a social (small “s”) phrase used to popularize the Socialist (big “S”) notion that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer unless we, one, tax the rich, or two, Institute a progressive minimum wage.

The concept is discussed primarily in “Humanities” and other B.A. classes. Scientifically, as well as geographically, polarization can only be achieved if the referents are in a static condition.

Your concept of polarization can only exist if there is absolutely no economic migration from lower economic classes to upper economic classes and I’ve demonstrated statistically that’s not the case.

I spent 30 minutes last night going through 8 Economic textbooks looking for any discussion on the phrase in case I missed it during class, I didn’t (To be fair the text books are at least a decade old, so maybe….)

I also “get” Economics. My BS is in Management, which included lots of Economic theory.

I’ll let you have the last word.

[GreatCarouser]

Originally posted by piqaboo:
...Altoid costs a mint!

A bit redundant even if it's true.....

[GreatCarouser]

Originally posted by barfle:
There are a few issues that have been brought up that are worth discussion. First, you have to understand that Robin Hood was a thief. He may have felt that he was working toward the greater good, but his basic mode of operation was immoral. Simply because the theft would be carried out by appointed officials and called "taxation" wouldn't change its morality.

One might argue using this logic that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al were thieves as well. If not thieves than criminals surely. They were certainly protesting violently against a "legally sanctioned" levy upon their assets. Was the American Revolution also immoral by your lights, barfle? Where do you stand on the US's decision to punish insurgents by taking away their property (Emancipation Proclamation)during the Civil War? How moral/immoral was that decision?

Am I the only one who hears echoes of Malthus in all these cries to elevate property rights over what are commonly referred to as 'human rights' ? When principles (seemingly) conflict don't we need to prioritize?

A free market only works when there exists a buyer who can afford to buy. How is it bad business to attempt to insure the welfare of the consumer? I'd like to quote from an article by Howard Baetjer Jr.:

"Supporters of economic liberty will win to their cause very few people who believe in this notion. As long as they see self-interest to be at odds with cherished values of generosity and fellow-feeling, people will not embrace a political economy based on self-interest. Thus a task for lovers of liberty is to point out that self--interest and interest in others are not at odds, that in fact they go together."

and later:
"Because others are important to us, it is in our own self-interest to give some attention to their well-being and, putting it impersonally, to invest in our relationships with them. These considerations apply beyond family and close acquaintances to the communities of which we are a part. Because we do live in our communities, community morale and standard of living have a bearing on our own quality of life. Hence it is self-interested to pay attention to the community and do what we reasonably can to improve it.

The Ghost of Christmas Present faces Scrooge with this in the persons of two children that cling to his robes:

'They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. . . . "They are man's," said the Spirit, looking down upon them. "And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware of them both, and all of their degree. . . ." "Have they no refuge or resource?" cried Scrooge. "Are there no prisons!" said the Spirit Are there no workhouses?"'

Here we must be careful to grant the validity of Dickens' point without guessing at his policy prescriptions. Experience with the Poor Law in his time, as well as many years of experience with the modern welfare state, show how very difficult it is to help poor people. Often the effort to do so, especially in a bureaucratic structure that operates by rule rather than by judgment about individual needs, creates disincentives to self-help, and thereby perpetuates poverty. The workhouses which Dickens hates were a government effort to care for the poor. The best we can do for such unhappy souls may well be not to give them much, but rather to work for the repeal of bad laws which obstruct their advancement. In any case, the point remains that since our lives and fortunes are tied up with theirs, it is in our self-interest to do what we may to improve their quality of life.(Emphasis added, GC) Charity can be at once generous and self-interested."

and finally:"Good for generous Scrooge! His attention now encompasses the "higher matter" of his clerk's well-being. (By the way, observes the economist, Cratchit's productivity will probably increase substantially.) But how could Scrooge be generous without his cash? What would pay the higher salary, go to assist the family, buy the Christmas bowl and extra coal? Praise the Lord for Scrooge's money and his ability to earn it! May he continue to do so! It's cash that lets a generous impulse become a generous deed."


The rest of the article may be found here .

<small>[ 11-11-2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: The Great Carouser ]</small>

[Marye]

EJA,

I have walked into an Emergency Department with chest pains and was seen right away. I was thrown from my bike and broke my elbow and wrist... I was taken right away. I went to the office of a doctor, the day I called! complaining of numbness in my right hand. I was sent IMMMEDIATELY to a hospital for CT scans and MRI's and echo cardiograms because they thought I had had a stroke. There was no hanging about, no waiting, no invoice. OH, I live in Toronto. Busy place where there is surely a plethora of deficiency and underqualified people in the system ... is that how you labelled it?

Yes, there are waiting lists but that is because someone is sicker than I am. (If your Canadian friends say that they would rather NOT live under a universal health care system, they are not being truthful)

So I guess the question is what is a life worth?

To me life means a great deal. So I don't mind that my tax dollars go to making someone I don't know live a better life. Or that my tax dollars fund day care centres or that they fund events that are not so meaningful to me but are meaningful to other Canadians. I think it makes a community with citizens who are tolerant and respectful. Many of you will see this as just stupid or as an infringement on your rights to do something.... I see it as healthy.

Yes I pay more in taxes. But I live comfortably, and well. What more is it that I need?

You will no doubt, EJA, scoff at this or tell me what the hell do I know. Well, I do know.

[EJA]

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
Am I the only one who hears echoes of Malthus in all these cries to elevate property rights over what are commonly referred to as 'human rights' ? When principles (seemingly) conflict don't we need to prioritize?

The right to own property is a basic human right. Health care is not. Refrigeration is not.

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
A free market only works when there exists a buyer who can afford to buy. How is it bad business to attempt to insure the welfare of the consumer? I'd like to quote from an article by Howard Baetjer Jr.:

As to the first sentence, it bespeaks a fundamental mis-understanding of the free market. The price of any item is controlled by the costs of making the item and the demand for the item i.e., what people are willing to pay for the item. If the price people are willing to pay for the item is less than, or approaches the cost of making the item, the item won't be made. In a truly free market, there is nothing that at least somebody in the market can afford. The free market is wonderfully self-regulating. It incessantly drives entrepeneurs to find cheaper and better ways to produce / provide goods / services.

As to the second sentence, it is indeed good business to be charitable. That's what charity is all about. Charity is most prominent in societies where the market is freest. Charity is considerably discouraged when the government forces it through tax and spend entitlement programs, such as socialized healthcare.

[analog]

Economics is simple - you can consume as much as you produce. As somebody pointed out the US's main export now is debt instruments.

Fifty years ago in these small Ozark towns the nicest building was likely the post office and the biggest employer a shoe factory. Today both are the local medical complex.

I'd suggest that healthcare is a sacred cow that got overfed and that's why the system is broke. Malpractice lawyers are simply scavengers chasing offal, try a google on "medical expert witness" for a glimpse into that hyena pen.

As Parkinson points out, bureaucracy expands to occupy the available money. Bean counters continually expand their ranks and acquire more powerful bean microscopes which they employ with ever increasing efficacy and vigor.
Opening the US treasury to the medical/insurance/tort-lawyer complex would be just more of what broke the system - demand for money rising to meet unlimited supply.

Healthcare needs to be recognized as a necessity not a product, run as a humble low profit not a glamor enterprise, and afforded protection from our all consuming tort industry. It's a social problem not an economic one.

We cannot base an economy on treating one another's headaches.

[GreatCarouser]

Originally posted by EJA:
The right to own property is a basic human right. Health care is not. Refrigeration is not.

The 'right to own property' is a privilege. You may only own property if the government or society you live in allows you to do so. Without that consent your 'right' to own property is only as strong as your ability to defend said property from whoever tries to wrest it from you. That's hardly a 'basic human right'. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who lived under a totalitarian regime. Or better yet; go invest in property in Sudan in an area contested by the rival factions. Be sure to tell them you have 'a basic human right' to own the property when one of those factions comes to 'wrest it from you'. Be sure to let us know how that works out for you. You might also ask them to provide refrigeration while you're at it. Your 'right to own property' is nothing more than one of those 'socialized entitlements' you rail against.

It strikes me that if the 'privilege' of property ownership may be conferred upon citizens by their government then so may the 'privilege' of health care.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (I, of course, added the emphasis.GC)

wel-fare n. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.

A free market without consumers is exactly that--free-- since there is no one there to buy.

[EJA]

You could say the same of any human right. Take life for instance.

There is no market with out consumers.

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by EJA:
You could say the same of any human right. Take life for instance.

There is no market with out consumers.

Ya lost me here, EJA. Huh????? :confused:

[EJA]

Well, you're so lost that I can't find you. What don't you understand?

[piqaboo]

EJA, glad to see you are feeling verbose.
Where were you looking?


How does your post tie into the conversation?
"you could say the same for any human right. take life for example. There is no market without consumers."

Are you saying that humans have no right to life unless there is someone willing to purchase that life? Are you responding to GC, and if so, could you tie in a few of the connections so I can understand?

[EJA]

Piq—you need to use the -v switch to put me in verbose mode. (Benito and Tim will probably get this, if no one else. )

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
The 'right to own property' is a privilege. You may only own property if the government or society you live in allows you to do so. Without that consent your 'right' to own property is only as strong as your ability to defend said property from whoever tries to wrest it from you.

This same thing could be said of anything considered to be a human right. For example, life—The right to your own life is a privilege. You may only retain your life if the government or society in which you live allows you to do so. Without that consent, your "right" to retain your own life is only as strong as your ability to defend said life from whomever tries to take it from you.

For example, speech—The right to free speech is a privilege. You may only exercise free speech if the government or society in which you live allows you to do so. Without that consent, your "right" to speak is only as strong as your ability to defend yourself against whomever wishes to cram a zuchini down your craw to shut you up.

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
Or better yet; go invest in property in Sudan in an area contested by the rival factions. Be sure to tell them you have 'a basic human right' to own the property when one of those factions comes to 'wrest it from you'. Be sure to let us know how that works out for you.

That is what the second ammendment is all about: providing recourse when the government fails to protect, or worse yet turns against, the citizens.

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
You might also ask them to provide refrigeration while you're at it. Your 'right to own property' is nothing more than one of those 'socialized entitlements' you rail against.

I do believe that you are confusing "title" with "entitlement." The difference between the two is the difference between protecting and providing. Refrigeration is a tangible that the government would provide. The right to own property is an intangible which the government is supposed to protect.

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
It strikes me that if the 'privilege' of property ownership may be conferred upon citizens by their government then so may the 'privilege' of health care.

It is a mistake to allow government to overrun it's rightful domain of protecting and move into the domain of providing. Three reasons stand out it in my mind: 1) Government can't provide what it does not first take, and in doing so, creates waste. 2) Government, having the enforcement powers necessary for protecting, finds itself in a conflict of interests when it takes up the business of taking in order to provide. Corruption could only be avoided if government were conducted by absolutely perfect human beings. Such human beings do not exist. 3) In a democracy, which seems to be the most desirable form of government yet devised, having government provide is a particularly dangerous situation because citizens soon learn that they can rob their fellow citizens using the voting booth.

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[b] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (I, of course, added the emphasis.GC)

wel-fare n. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
[/b]

Note that it says "promote the general Wellfare", not "provide for the general Wellfare. Promoting the general Wellfare means defending the country from its enemies so that the citizens have a peaceful environment in which to carry on free enterprise. It also means protecting the citizens from those who would exploit that peaceful environment for dishohnest gain, i.e., law enforcement. Promoting the general Wellfare does not mean redistributing the wealth.

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
A free market without consumers is exactly that--free-- since there is no one there to buy.

Without consumers, there is no market. A market has two components: buyer and seller. (Some will argue three: buyer, seller, and commodity.)

<small>[ 11-18-2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: EJA ]</small>

[RC]

A free market only works when there exists a buyer who can afford to buy. How is it bad business to attempt to insure the welfare of the consumer? I'd like to quote from an article by Howard Baetjer Jr.:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the first sentence, it bespeaks a fundamental mis-understanding of the free market. The price of any item is controlled by the costs of making the item and the demand for the item i.e., what people are willing to pay for the item.

EJA,

Not always.
Henry Ford makes a prime example of why that extremely basic, and usually true, economic philosophy is not always correct.

The price of the cars and the wages paid to those making them, coincided ever so perfectly. Henry Ford created demand, indeed, created his entire market from scratch. AND, he did it quite intentionally.

Point: that particular market existed because Ford made "...a buyer who could afford to buy...", (quoting from above).

Not to say he had any altruistic motives, he was really mean, vengeful, and heavy handed with labor. BUT, he saw the need to sustain a market and did so.

Some products simply do not work in a "free market" as if everything were for sale. Your life, your freedom to participate socially or not, freedom to think, and yes, your general physical health, are imperative building blocks to creating a decent citizen, productive worker, and reliable consumer.

IMO

I also wanted to say that land ownership is very much not a basic right. Native Americans never bothered with "ownership" and did just fine 'til europeans came along with their progressive ideas.

A few years ago, my city evicted several residents from their "owned" property to accomodate a parking lot for the new sports stadium.
This year, they are evicting a man from his owned property to return the land to it's natural environment...

It's that easy.

Try not paying your property taxes and be sure to tell me when you try this experiment because I will be there to pay them for you.

[RC]

EJA, we posted simultaneously and I wish I'd waited.
That was BEAUTIFULLY stated!
Kudos.

[barfle]

Originally posted by RC:
Some products simply do not work in a "free market" as if everything were for sale.

Ain't that the truth! I lost my (|), hat, and spurs building video juke boxes. They did everything they were supposed to do except sell at a profit.

[OperaTenor]

Hi RC, I'm glad you didn't wait. To me, you and Ethan said two different things.

" 'promote the general Wellfare', not 'provide for the general Wellfare'. Promoting the general Wellfare means defending the country from its enemies so that the citizens have a peaceful environment in which to carry on free enterprise. It also means protecting the citizens from those who would exploit that peaceful environment for dishohnest gain, i.e., law enforcement. Promoting the general Wellfare does not mean redistributing the wealth. "

Hi Ethan, is this your interpretation, or did you glean this from a source? Is it possible that promotion of the general welfare can be acheived by providing it? And why would that be so bad?

What is it we want our country to do?

Why is redistribution of wealth via government for the common good a bad thing? Isn't it charitable and Christ-like to try to make our society benefit all?

Are we so consumed by greed that we have no thought or care for our fellows?

Jim "puerile idealogue" B.

PS. There seems to me to be a basic disconnect. How can you be "pro-life" and feel that life is not a right?

PPS. I think eminent domain is a classic example of property ownership being a priveledge and not a right.

[piqaboo]

Not that I agree completely with either you or GC, but I do appreciate the expansion, EJA.

[haggis]

"Why is redistribution of wealth via government for the common good a bad thing?"

Two problems,

1. who defines what "redistribution" is and the more important question,

2. Who gets to define the "common good"?

"Isn't it charitable and Christ-like to try to make our society benefit all?"

I can't believe you can type that with a straight face

(Ed. "'type' with a straight face?"

Yeah, I know it loses something in the translation)

When the government legislates charity it’s called welfare and finally in the 90’s the more centrist Democrats (think Clinton) had to admit it didn’t work even though the more left leaning Dems (Shos?) still think beating the dead horse will work if we change the formula of beatings.

EJA stated it succinctly when he said “ 1) Government can't provide what it does not first take, and in doing so, creates waste”

Keep it up, EJA, you’re starting to sound, on some levels, like Adam Smith.

RE: Henry Ford comments. Lets not forget that Ford, Rockefeller, Morgan and most of the other industrial robber barons were Democrats.

Christ-like to try to make our society benefit all?

Christ like? Your advocating the government encourages people to be more Christ-like?

Word of warning here, the ACLU will defend Nazis’ and KKKlanners’ right to free speech but, as they recently demonstrated, Boy Scouts and religious views are beyond the pale, so I wouldn’t look to them for any help when the PC police show up with a warrant.