Posted by Bill Ward on April 17, 2011, 4:50 pm
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:52:00 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:53:07 +0100, Giga2" >>> Is that what you and
>> your neighbors are like? If not, why do you think
>>>> everyone else is? Most people want to help out people in need. Few
>>>> are as nasty as to just let someone die. Do you think the government
>>>> forcing people to be "charitable" has worked?
>>>
>>> I see you haven't answered so can only assume you would say "let them
>>> die".
>>
>> That also assumes you would. Is that true? I don't think so.
>
> Of course not.>>
>>> The recent banking scandals show that, arms dealers, drug dealers
>>> (pharmaceuticals included), poison food, GM food etc etc.
>>
>> How do you figure the free market "rewarded them"? Are they still in
>> business?
>
> Oh yes. Banks are motivated, along with many businesses, of making a
> profit this year, or even this *month*, and the future is ignored to a
> large extent. In a competitive system people will discount the future
> effects against advantages now in relation to their competitors
> sometimes. However if regulation forces all businesses to take account
> of certain long-term factors like the environment, human well being etc
> then those businesses that do take the sensible route will not be
> disadvantaged in relation to less well run and scrupuous
> business-people. This is all pretty obvious isn't it?
Only to those who think forcing businesses to do what they want is
sensible. If left to their own devices, businesses which don't take into
account relevant factors will fail on their own. Instead, the government
forces businesses to take stupid actions (e.g. forcing banks to make
loans to people who can't pay them back) and then forces taxpayers to
bail them out when the bubble collapses. That leaves the banks intact,
but dependent on the government for survival. How do you prevent that?
>>If they broke laws and escaped justice, isn't that a failure
>> of the government to perform its most important function - enforcing
>> the law?
>
>
> Or not having adequate regulation in place at all.
Do you really think you can regulate common sense? Governments seem to
think so.
>>>>>>>> It discourages
>>>>>>>> the makers and leaves the takers dependent on the unearned value
>>>>>>>> they get from bureaucrats, which is taken from those who earned
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonsense, people have an inate need to make something of their
>>>>>>> lives if given half a chance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right. Freedom inspires greatness and abundance. Socialism
>>>>>> reduces them to worrying about how to equally share the misery.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to think socialism is the same as communism. It isn't.
>>>>
>>>> What differences do you see? Was the Union of Soviet Socialist
>>>> Republics communist?
>>>
>>> They tried to be as far as is possible. They were much more extreme
>>> than the UK yeah?!
>>
>> You said you think socialism is not the same as communism. You didn't
>> mention what differences you see.
>
> It's a difference of degree rather than type. Just like facism compared
> to the US, you are on the way but hardly there yet, I hope.
>
>
>> Do you think their (USSR) concept was valid, but they just didn't do it
>> right?
>
>
> No, I beleive in freedom and free markets, as I have said, balanced by
> regulation. For me enterprise is like the driving force (horses) and the
> government is the controller of overall direction (the wagoneer),
> society is the wagon. I feel like I am stating such obvious
> well-understood things here...
The difference may well be cultural. US citizens will not allow
themselves to be treated as draft animals. That's what the Tea Party
movement is all about.
>>>>>>> It is a fantasy that people love living on food stamps in a
>>>>>>> trailer
>>>>>> with 17 kids.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your fantasy, or one you've been told?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The only
>>>>>>>> group it helps is the ruling class, until they run out of other
>>>>>>>> peoples money to be "charitable" with. Mostly it's used to
>>>>>>>> assure their re- election, until elections become irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Go and see how well such a social system works in Philippines.
>>>>>>>>> Many social programmes can be seen not just as chritable
>>>>>>>>> enterprises but also good investments in the society which means
>>>>>>>>> everyone benefits. What you propose would lead to corruption,
>>>>>>>>> crime, desperation, underclass or a police state which is even
>>>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well with a free market.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Homg Kong was a British colony and AFAIK had quite a few sensible
>>>>>>> social programmes like state education and healthcare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They had/have very low taxes and few regulations, AIUI. Combined
>>>>>> with the British sense of fair play, that allowed them to flourish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I don't know, and it doesn't seem you are too sure.
>>>>
>>>> So check it out. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> Here is something, half of HKers live in public housing:
>>>
>>> Hong Kong
>>> Main article: Public housing in Hong Kong In Hong Kong, the government
>>> provides public housing through flats which are rented at a lower
>>> price than the markets, and through the Home Ownership Scheme, which
>>> are sold at a lower price. These are built and administered by the
>>> Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong Housing Society. Nearly
>>> half of Hong Kong population lives in public housing.[1]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#Hong_Kong
>>>
>>> Hong Kong social department:
>>>
>>> http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/
>>
>> Well, they do seem to be pretty efficient at it. Here's the taxrate
>> schedule:
>>
>> <http://www.guidemehongkong.com/taxation/topics/hong-kong-tax-rates>
>>
>> It's 16.5% on corporations, max of 17% on individuals, with no sales or
>> capital gains tax. There is a 15% property tax, which likely explains
>> the low home ownership numbers.
>>
>> If it works for them, more power to them. I hope it lasts. What's
>> your max tax rate?
>
> Income tax, 50% over quite a high ceiling ($0k?pa). For many there is
> almost no income tax.
In Hong Kong, the first dollar is apparently taxed at 2%, and the max is
17%. When everyone pays tax, everyone is more careful about how tax
money is spent. If there is a privileged tax-exempt class, they will
always vote for tax increases. That seems to me a conflict of interest.
Why isn't that subject to regulation?
>
>>>>>>>>I'm not sure what
>>>>>>>> the Chinese will do with it, but it had a long, successful run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you think of an example of a centrally planned (euphemism for
>>>>>>>> socialist) government that has been successful for more than a
>>>>>>>> few decades?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The UK and Germany and France are all fairly socialist countries
>>>>>>> compared to the extreme ideas you seem to have swallowed and are
>>>>>>> *very* successful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How long do you think that will last?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well Europe was leading the world in terms of wealth hundreds of
>>>>> years before the USA was colonised, and it still is in some ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Those dependent on government
>>>>>> handouts are already rioting in the streets. In the US, freedom
>>>>>> hasn't been an "extreme" idea until very recently. I can remember
>>>>>> being told many times as a boy, "The world doesn't owe you a
>>>>>> living".
>>>>>> Socialism turns that on its head.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is certainly very difficult to get the right balance between
>>>>> helping people to get back onto their feet and making them
>>>>> dependent.
>>>>
>>>> When has a government ever been successful at that? Churches and
>>>> private charities are much more effective.
>>>
>>> They acheive a lot but I think social programmes have acheived a *lot*
>>> more.
>>
>> Why do you think that? Is there any hard evidence, or just propaganda?
>
> The NHS is one of the largest employers in Europe, it is a gigantic
> enterprise which dwarfs any charitable health care instituion AFAIK.
Surely you're not claiming size alone is an achievement, especially for a
government program. I'm surprised it's efficient in the absence of
competition. Usually government programs result in spiraling costs,
decreasing quality, and lengthy waits. I've heard rumors...
>> In the US, the social programs have been gigantic, costly flops. The
>> numbers show the poor are worse off than before, and far more dependent
>> on government handouts. Of course, that's not a bad thing if you're
>> trying to get their vote.
>
> Not sure about the US, but here I would say we have seen an ongoing and
> steady improvement in the standard of living of the majority of the
> population since the end of WW2. There are ups and downs, now is a bit
> flat IMO, but the trend is pretty clear to me. I do not need statistics
> as I see it every day.>>
>>> IMO that is exactly what the vast majority of people *do* even here in
>>> the USSK : )
>>
>> I hope it continues to work for you, but I wouldn't bet on it.
>>
> I hope and I'm sure the US will move further in the direction of greater
> social inclusion.
We'll see what happens, but increasing "entitlements" while decreasing
"social inclusion" in the tax base seems to be a path to destruction of
both. People will always vote for benefits they think other people will
pay for. If anyone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.
Posted by Giga2 on April 17, 2011, 8:39 pm
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:52:00 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:53:07 +0100, Giga2" >>> Is that what you and
>>> your neighbors are like? If not, why do you think
>>>>> everyone else is? Most people want to help out people in need. Few
>>>>> are as nasty as to just let someone die. Do you think the government
>>>>> forcing people to be "charitable" has worked?
>>>>
>>>> I see you haven't answered so can only assume you would say "let them
>>>> die".
>>>
>>> That also assumes you would. Is that true? I don't think so.
>>
>> Of course not.>>
>>>> The recent banking scandals show that, arms dealers, drug dealers
>>>> (pharmaceuticals included), poison food, GM food etc etc.
>>>
>>> How do you figure the free market "rewarded them"? Are they still in
>>> business?
>>
>> Oh yes. Banks are motivated, along with many businesses, of making a
>> profit this year, or even this *month*, and the future is ignored to a
>> large extent. In a competitive system people will discount the future
>> effects against advantages now in relation to their competitors
>> sometimes. However if regulation forces all businesses to take account
>> of certain long-term factors like the environment, human well being etc
>> then those businesses that do take the sensible route will not be
>> disadvantaged in relation to less well run and scrupuous
>> business-people. This is all pretty obvious isn't it?
> Only to those who think forcing businesses to do what they want is
> sensible. If left to their own devices, businesses which don't take into
> account relevant factors will fail on their own.
Unfortunately they can drag the rest of us down with them, i.e. banks in
this case.
>Instead, the government
> forces businesses to take stupid actions (e.g. forcing banks to make
> loans to people who can't pay them back) and then forces taxpayers to
> bail them out when the bubble collapses. That leaves the banks intact,
> but dependent on the government for survival. How do you prevent that?
I'm sure there are problems with some of the regulation but other parts are
not strong enough.
>>>If they broke laws and escaped justice, isn't that a failure
>>> of the government to perform its most important function - enforcing
>>> the law?
>>
>>
>> Or not having adequate regulation in place at all.
> Do you really think you can regulate common sense? Governments seem to
> think so.
No but you can have common-sense regulation.
>>>>>>>>> It discourages
>>>>>>>>> the makers and leaves the takers dependent on the unearned value
>>>>>>>>> they get from bureaucrats, which is taken from those who earned
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nonsense, people have an inate need to make something of their
>>>>>>>> lives if given half a chance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. Freedom inspires greatness and abundance. Socialism
>>>>>>> reduces them to worrying about how to equally share the misery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to think socialism is the same as communism. It isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> What differences do you see? Was the Union of Soviet Socialist
>>>>> Republics communist?
>>>>
>>>> They tried to be as far as is possible. They were much more extreme
>>>> than the UK yeah?!
>>>
>>> You said you think socialism is not the same as communism. You didn't
>>> mention what differences you see.
>>
>> It's a difference of degree rather than type. Just like facism compared
>> to the US, you are on the way but hardly there yet, I hope.
>>
>>
>>> Do you think their (USSR) concept was valid, but they just didn't do it
>>> right?
>>
>>
>> No, I beleive in freedom and free markets, as I have said, balanced by
>> regulation. For me enterprise is like the driving force (horses) and the
>> government is the controller of overall direction (the wagoneer),
>> society is the wagon. I feel like I am stating such obvious
>> well-understood things here...
> The difference may well be cultural. US citizens will not allow
> themselves to be treated as draft animals. That's what the Tea Party
> movement is all about.
But they are also riding in the wagon.
>>>>>>>> It is a fantasy that people love living on food stamps in a
>>>>>>>> trailer
>>>>>>> with 17 kids.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your fantasy, or one you've been told?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The only
>>>>>>>>> group it helps is the ruling class, until they run out of other
>>>>>>>>> peoples money to be "charitable" with. Mostly it's used to
>>>>>>>>> assure their re- election, until elections become irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go and see how well such a social system works in Philippines.
>>>>>>>>>> Many social programmes can be seen not just as chritable
>>>>>>>>>> enterprises but also good investments in the society which means
>>>>>>>>>> everyone benefits. What you propose would lead to corruption,
>>>>>>>>>> crime, desperation, underclass or a police state which is even
>>>>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well with a free market.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Homg Kong was a British colony and AFAIK had quite a few sensible
>>>>>>>> social programmes like state education and healthcare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They had/have very low taxes and few regulations, AIUI. Combined
>>>>>>> with the British sense of fair play, that allowed them to flourish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I don't know, and it doesn't seem you are too sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> So check it out. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Here is something, half of HKers live in public housing:
>>>>
>>>> Hong Kong
>>>> Main article: Public housing in Hong Kong In Hong Kong, the government
>>>> provides public housing through flats which are rented at a lower
>>>> price than the markets, and through the Home Ownership Scheme, which
>>>> are sold at a lower price. These are built and administered by the
>>>> Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong Housing Society. Nearly
>>>> half of Hong Kong population lives in public housing.[1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#Hong_Kong
>>>>
>>>> Hong Kong social department:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/
>>>
>>> Well, they do seem to be pretty efficient at it. Here's the taxrate
>>> schedule:
>>>
>>> <http://www.guidemehongkong.com/taxation/topics/hong-kong-tax-rates>
>>>
>>> It's 16.5% on corporations, max of 17% on individuals, with no sales or
>>> capital gains tax. There is a 15% property tax, which likely explains
>>> the low home ownership numbers.
>>>
>>> If it works for them, more power to them. I hope it lasts. What's
>>> your max tax rate?
>>
>> Income tax, 50% over quite a high ceiling ($0k?pa). For many there is
>> almost no income tax.
> In Hong Kong, the first dollar is apparently taxed at 2%, and the max is
> 17%. When everyone pays tax, everyone is more careful about how tax
> money is spent. If there is a privileged tax-exempt class, they will
> always vote for tax increases. That seems to me a conflict of interest.
> Why isn't that subject to regulation?
Everyone pays tax, I was just talking about income tax.
>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm not sure what
>>>>>>>>> the Chinese will do with it, but it had a long, successful run.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you think of an example of a centrally planned (euphemism for
>>>>>>>>> socialist) government that has been successful for more than a
>>>>>>>>> few decades?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The UK and Germany and France are all fairly socialist countries
>>>>>>>> compared to the extreme ideas you seem to have swallowed and are
>>>>>>>> *very* successful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How long do you think that will last?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Europe was leading the world in terms of wealth hundreds of
>>>>>> years before the USA was colonised, and it still is in some ways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Those dependent on government
>>>>>>> handouts are already rioting in the streets. In the US, freedom
>>>>>>> hasn't been an "extreme" idea until very recently. I can remember
>>>>>>> being told many times as a boy, "The world doesn't owe you a
>>>>>>> living".
>>>>>>> Socialism turns that on its head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is certainly very difficult to get the right balance between
>>>>>> helping people to get back onto their feet and making them
>>>>>> dependent.
>>>>>
>>>>> When has a government ever been successful at that? Churches and
>>>>> private charities are much more effective.
>>>>
>>>> They acheive a lot but I think social programmes have acheived a *lot*
>>>> more.
>>>
>>> Why do you think that? Is there any hard evidence, or just propaganda?
>>
>> The NHS is one of the largest employers in Europe, it is a gigantic
>> enterprise which dwarfs any charitable health care instituion AFAIK.
> Surely you're not claiming size alone is an achievement, especially for a
> government program. I'm surprised it's efficient in the absence of
> competition. Usually government programs result in spiraling costs,
> decreasing quality, and lengthy waits. I've heard rumors...
Its far fo perfect I can assure you but it is also very good.
>>> In the US, the social programs have been gigantic, costly flops. The
>>> numbers show the poor are worse off than before, and far more dependent
>>> on government handouts. Of course, that's not a bad thing if you're
>>> trying to get their vote.
>>
>> Not sure about the US, but here I would say we have seen an ongoing and
>> steady improvement in the standard of living of the majority of the
>> population since the end of WW2. There are ups and downs, now is a bit
>> flat IMO, but the trend is pretty clear to me. I do not need statistics
>> as I see it every day.>>
>>>> IMO that is exactly what the vast majority of people *do* even here in
>>>> the USSK : )
>>>
>>> I hope it continues to work for you, but I wouldn't bet on it.
>>>
>> I hope and I'm sure the US will move further in the direction of greater
>> social inclusion.
> We'll see what happens, but increasing "entitlements" while decreasing
> "social inclusion" in the tax base seems to be a path to destruction of
> both. People will always vote for benefits they think other people will
> pay for. If anyone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.
You seem to consider human beings to be selfish and materialistic.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 18, 2011, 12:22 am
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:39:53 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:52:00 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:53:07 +0100, Giga2" >>> Is that what you and
>>>> your neighbors are like? If not, why do you think
>>>>>> everyone else is? Most people want to help out people in need.
>>>>>> Few are as nasty as to just let someone die. Do you think the
>>>>>> government forcing people to be "charitable" has worked?
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you haven't answered so can only assume you would say "let
>>>>> them die".
>>>>
>>>> That also assumes you would. Is that true? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> Of course not.>>
>>>>> The recent banking scandals show that, arms dealers, drug dealers
>>>>> (pharmaceuticals included), poison food, GM food etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> How do you figure the free market "rewarded them"? Are they still in
>>>> business?
>>>
>>> Oh yes. Banks are motivated, along with many businesses, of making a
>>> profit this year, or even this *month*, and the future is ignored to a
>>> large extent. In a competitive system people will discount the future
>>> effects against advantages now in relation to their competitors
>>> sometimes. However if regulation forces all businesses to take account
>>> of certain long-term factors like the environment, human well being
>>> etc then those businesses that do take the sensible route will not be
>>> disadvantaged in relation to less well run and scrupuous
>>> business-people. This is all pretty obvious isn't it?
>>
>> Only to those who think forcing businesses to do what they want is
>> sensible. If left to their own devices, businesses which don't take
>> into account relevant factors will fail on their own.
>
> Unfortunately they can drag the rest of us down with them, i.e. banks in
> this case.
Do you really think banks would take on risky loans if they knew the
government wouldn't bail them out? The banks had no way of "dragging the
rest of us down". Only the government could, and did, do that.
>>Instead, the government
>> forces businesses to take stupid actions (e.g. forcing banks to make
>> loans to people who can't pay them back) and then forces taxpayers to
>> bail them out when the bubble collapses. That leaves the banks intact,
>> but dependent on the government for survival. How do you prevent that?
>
> I'm sure there are problems with some of the regulation but other parts
> are not strong enough.
After the regulations fail, it's easy to see the problems. Hindsight is
always 20/20. If a bank fails, some of its customers will lose money.
But when the government screws up, we all pay.
>>>>If they broke laws and escaped justice, isn't that a failure
>>>> of the government to perform its most important function - enforcing
>>>> the law?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or not having adequate regulation in place at all.
>>
>> Do you really think you can regulate common sense? Governments seem to
>> think so.
>
>
> No but you can have common-sense regulation.
What common sense tells you to make loans to people you know won't be
able to repay them?
>>>>>>>>>> It discourages
>>>>>>>>>> the makers and leaves the takers dependent on the unearned
>>>>>>>>>> value they get from bureaucrats, which is taken from those who
>>>>>>>>>> earned it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nonsense, people have an inate need to make something of their
>>>>>>>>> lives if given half a chance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right. Freedom inspires greatness and abundance. Socialism
>>>>>>>> reduces them to worrying about how to equally share the misery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to think socialism is the same as communism. It isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What differences do you see? Was the Union of Soviet Socialist
>>>>>> Republics communist?
>>>>>
>>>>> They tried to be as far as is possible. They were much more extreme
>>>>> than the UK yeah?!
>>>>
>>>> You said you think socialism is not the same as communism. You
>>>> didn't mention what differences you see.
>>>
>>> It's a difference of degree rather than type. Just like facism
>>> compared to the US, you are on the way but hardly there yet, I hope.
By Fascism, I assume you mean the National Socialist movement in 1930s
Germany. For me the issue is not whether the right or left has power,
it's about how much power we allow anyone to have.
I believe our US Constitution has it about right (for us anyway), so I
think we should limit the powers to those enumerated as specified
therein. All our elected officials, military, and peace officers swear
an oath to uphold that Constitution, but some don't take it seriously
enough, IMHO.
I suppose our Constitution (and D of I) are somewhat analogous to your
concept of the Crown. It's OK to amend it by the included process, but
it's treason to try to otherwise force changes. When people assume
powers not in the Constitution, I take it seriously, and so do a whole
lot of otherwise quiet, unassuming Americans. The next few years are
pivotal. Either we defend the Constitution, or we lose it.
>>>> Do you think their (USSR) concept was valid, but they just didn't do
>>>> it right?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I beleive in freedom and free markets, as I have said, balanced by
>>> regulation. For me enterprise is like the driving force (horses) and
>>> the government is the controller of overall direction (the wagoneer),
>>> society is the wagon. I feel like I am stating such obvious
>>> well-understood things here...
>>
>> The difference may well be cultural. US citizens will not allow
>> themselves to be treated as draft animals. That's what the Tea Party
>> movement is all about.
>
> But they are also riding in the wagon.
We emancipated slaves over a hundred years ago. We use machines to do
the manual work now, not people. Think of a multiperson bicycle with
everyone pedaling, not of the elite riding in a wagon pulled by slaves.
That's where socialism has always ended. There no point in repeating the
experiment.
Tea partiers don't want to control anyone but themselves and in turn will
not be subservient to anyone. We never went through serfdom, and we
don't intend to now.
>>>>>>>>> It is a fantasy that people love living on food stamps in a
>>>>>>>>> trailer
>>>>>>>> with 17 kids.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your fantasy, or one you've been told?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The only
>>>>>>>>>> group it helps is the ruling class, until they run out of other
>>>>>>>>>> peoples money to be "charitable" with. Mostly it's used to
>>>>>>>>>> assure their re- election, until elections become irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Go and see how well such a social system works in Philippines.
>>>>>>>>>>> Many social programmes can be seen not just as chritable
>>>>>>>>>>> enterprises but also good investments in the society which
>>>>>>>>>>> means everyone benefits. What you propose would lead to
>>>>>>>>>>> corruption, crime, desperation, underclass or a police state
>>>>>>>>>>> which is even worse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well with a free market.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Homg Kong was a British colony and AFAIK had quite a few
>>>>>>>>> sensible social programmes like state education and healthcare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They had/have very low taxes and few regulations, AIUI. Combined
>>>>>>>> with the British sense of fair play, that allowed them to
>>>>>>>> flourish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I don't know, and it doesn't seem you are too sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So check it out. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is something, half of HKers live in public housing:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hong Kong
>>>>> Main article: Public housing in Hong Kong In Hong Kong, the
>>>>> government provides public housing through flats which are rented at
>>>>> a lower price than the markets, and through the Home Ownership
>>>>> Scheme, which are sold at a lower price. These are built and
>>>>> administered by the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong
>>>>> Housing Society. Nearly half of Hong Kong population lives in public
>>>>> housing.[1]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#Hong_Kong
>>>>>
>>>>> Hong Kong social department:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/
>>>>
>>>> Well, they do seem to be pretty efficient at it. Here's the taxrate
>>>> schedule:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.guidemehongkong.com/taxation/topics/hong-kong-tax-rates>
>>>>
>>>> It's 16.5% on corporations, max of 17% on individuals, with no sales
>>>> or capital gains tax. There is a 15% property tax, which likely
>>>> explains the low home ownership numbers.
>>>>
>>>> If it works for them, more power to them. I hope it lasts. What's
>>>> your max tax rate?
>>>
>>> Income tax, 50% over quite a high ceiling ($0k?pa). For many there is
>>> almost no income tax.
>>
>> In Hong Kong, the first dollar is apparently taxed at 2%, and the max
>> is 17%. When everyone pays tax, everyone is more careful about how tax
>> money is spent. If there is a privileged tax-exempt class, they will
>> always vote for tax increases. That seems to me a conflict of
>> interest. Why isn't that subject to regulation?
>
> Everyone pays tax, I was just talking about income tax.
Right. In the US, that's the major source of money to redistribute for
political power. The others pale in comparison, and can sometimes be
viewed as user fees, such as using gas (petrol) tax to provide the public
road system. Few will complain about that.
>>>>>>>>>>I'm not sure what
>>>>>>>>>> the Chinese will do with it, but it had a long, successful run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you think of an example of a centrally planned (euphemism
>>>>>>>>>> for socialist) government that has been successful for more
>>>>>>>>>> than a few decades?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The UK and Germany and France are all fairly socialist countries
>>>>>>>>> compared to the extreme ideas you seem to have swallowed and are
>>>>>>>>> *very* successful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How long do you think that will last?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well Europe was leading the world in terms of wealth hundreds of
>>>>>>> years before the USA was colonised, and it still is in some ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Those dependent on government
>>>>>>>> handouts are already rioting in the streets. In the US, freedom
>>>>>>>> hasn't been an "extreme" idea until very recently. I can
>>>>>>>> remember being told many times as a boy, "The world doesn't owe
>>>>>>>> you a living".
>>>>>>>> Socialism turns that on its head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is certainly very difficult to get the right balance between
>>>>>>> helping people to get back onto their feet and making them
>>>>>>> dependent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When has a government ever been successful at that? Churches and
>>>>>> private charities are much more effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> They acheive a lot but I think social programmes have acheived a
>>>>> *lot* more.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think that? Is there any hard evidence, or just
>>>> propaganda?
>>>
>>> The NHS is one of the largest employers in Europe, it is a gigantic
>>> enterprise which dwarfs any charitable health care instituion AFAIK.
>>
>> Surely you're not claiming size alone is an achievement, especially for
>> a government program. I'm surprised it's efficient in the absence of
>> competition. Usually government programs result in spiraling costs,
>> decreasing quality, and lengthy waits. I've heard rumors...
>
>
> Its far fo perfect I can assure you but it is also very good.
I'm glad you're satisfied. Perhaps the tales we hear are just propaganda.
>>>> In the US, the social programs have been gigantic, costly flops. The
>>>> numbers show the poor are worse off than before, and far more
>>>> dependent on government handouts. Of course, that's not a bad thing
>>>> if you're trying to get their vote.
>>>
>>> Not sure about the US, but here I would say we have seen an ongoing
>>> and steady improvement in the standard of living of the majority of
>>> the population since the end of WW2. There are ups and downs, now is a
>>> bit flat IMO, but the trend is pretty clear to me. I do not need
>>> statistics as I see it every day.>>
>>>>> IMO that is exactly what the vast majority of people *do* even here
>>>>> in the USSK : )
>>>>
>>>> I hope it continues to work for you, but I wouldn't bet on it.
>>>>
>>> I hope and I'm sure the US will move further in the direction of
>>> greater social inclusion.
>>
>> We'll see what happens, but increasing "entitlements" while decreasing
>> "social inclusion" in the tax base seems to be a path to destruction of
>> both. People will always vote for benefits they think other people
>> will pay for. If anyone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.
>>
>>
> You seem to consider human beings to be selfish and materialistic.
You have yet to show why that by itself is a bad thing, assuming laws are
followed. Are you proposing thought control?
But I'm not the one advocating strict government control over people.
I've repeatedly pointed out I think normal average people are far more
competent to manage their own affairs and far more considerate of their
fellow citizens than any government has ever been.
OTOH, above, you imply you think people are so evil as to allow the poor
to starve in the street, unless they are forced by their betters to pay
for the government's hamhanded attempts at "charity", or "social
justice". That's never worked out, no matter how good the original
intentions were.
Posted by Giga2 on April 18, 2011, 7:53 pm
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:39:53 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:52:00 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:53:07 +0100, Giga2" >>> Is that what you and
>>>>> your neighbors are like? If not, why do you think
>>>>>>> everyone else is? Most people want to help out people in need.
>>>>>>> Few are as nasty as to just let someone die. Do you think the
>>>>>>> government forcing people to be "charitable" has worked?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see you haven't answered so can only assume you would say "let
>>>>>> them die".
>>>>>
>>>>> That also assumes you would. Is that true? I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not.>>
>>>>>> The recent banking scandals show that, arms dealers, drug dealers
>>>>>> (pharmaceuticals included), poison food, GM food etc etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you figure the free market "rewarded them"? Are they still in
>>>>> business?
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes. Banks are motivated, along with many businesses, of making a
>>>> profit this year, or even this *month*, and the future is ignored to a
>>>> large extent. In a competitive system people will discount the future
>>>> effects against advantages now in relation to their competitors
>>>> sometimes. However if regulation forces all businesses to take account
>>>> of certain long-term factors like the environment, human well being
>>>> etc then those businesses that do take the sensible route will not be
>>>> disadvantaged in relation to less well run and scrupuous
>>>> business-people. This is all pretty obvious isn't it?
>>>
>>> Only to those who think forcing businesses to do what they want is
>>> sensible. If left to their own devices, businesses which don't take
>>> into account relevant factors will fail on their own.
>>
>> Unfortunately they can drag the rest of us down with them, i.e. banks in
>> this case.
> Do you really think banks would take on risky loans if they knew the
> government wouldn't bail them out? The banks had no way of "dragging the
> rest of us down". Only the government could, and did, do that.
>>>Instead, the government
>>> forces businesses to take stupid actions (e.g. forcing banks to make
>>> loans to people who can't pay them back) and then forces taxpayers to
>>> bail them out when the bubble collapses. That leaves the banks intact,
>>> but dependent on the government for survival. How do you prevent that?
>>
>> I'm sure there are problems with some of the regulation but other parts
>> are not strong enough.
> After the regulations fail, it's easy to see the problems. Hindsight is
> always 20/20. If a bank fails, some of its customers will lose money.
> But when the government screws up, we all pay.
>>>>>If they broke laws and escaped justice, isn't that a failure
>>>>> of the government to perform its most important function - enforcing
>>>>> the law?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or not having adequate regulation in place at all.
>>>
>>> Do you really think you can regulate common sense? Governments seem to
>>> think so.
>>
>>
>> No but you can have common-sense regulation.
> What common sense tells you to make loans to people you know won't be
> able to repay them?
>>>>>>>>>>> It discourages
>>>>>>>>>>> the makers and leaves the takers dependent on the unearned
>>>>>>>>>>> value they get from bureaucrats, which is taken from those who
>>>>>>>>>>> earned it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense, people have an inate need to make something of their
>>>>>>>>>> lives if given half a chance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. Freedom inspires greatness and abundance. Socialism
>>>>>>>>> reduces them to worrying about how to equally share the misery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to think socialism is the same as communism. It isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What differences do you see? Was the Union of Soviet Socialist
>>>>>>> Republics communist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They tried to be as far as is possible. They were much more extreme
>>>>>> than the UK yeah?!
>>>>>
>>>>> You said you think socialism is not the same as communism. You
>>>>> didn't mention what differences you see.
>>>>
>>>> It's a difference of degree rather than type. Just like facism
>>>> compared to the US, you are on the way but hardly there yet, I hope.
> By Fascism, I assume you mean the National Socialist movement in 1930s
> Germany. For me the issue is not whether the right or left has power,
> it's about how much power we allow anyone to have.
> I believe our US Constitution has it about right (for us anyway), so I
> think we should limit the powers to those enumerated as specified
> therein. All our elected officials, military, and peace officers swear
> an oath to uphold that Constitution, but some don't take it seriously
> enough, IMHO.
> I suppose our Constitution (and D of I) are somewhat analogous to your
> concept of the Crown. It's OK to amend it by the included process, but
> it's treason to try to otherwise force changes. When people assume
> powers not in the Constitution, I take it seriously, and so do a whole
> lot of otherwise quiet, unassuming Americans. The next few years are
> pivotal. Either we defend the Constitution, or we lose it.
>>>>> Do you think their (USSR) concept was valid, but they just didn't do
>>>>> it right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I beleive in freedom and free markets, as I have said, balanced by
>>>> regulation. For me enterprise is like the driving force (horses) and
>>>> the government is the controller of overall direction (the wagoneer),
>>>> society is the wagon. I feel like I am stating such obvious
>>>> well-understood things here...
>>>
>>> The difference may well be cultural. US citizens will not allow
>>> themselves to be treated as draft animals. That's what the Tea Party
>>> movement is all about.
>>
>> But they are also riding in the wagon.
> We emancipated slaves over a hundred years ago. We use machines to do
> the manual work now, not people. Think of a multiperson bicycle with
> everyone pedaling, not of the elite riding in a wagon pulled by slaves.
> That's where socialism has always ended. There no point in repeating the
> experiment.
> Tea partiers don't want to control anyone but themselves and in turn will
> not be subservient to anyone. We never went through serfdom, and we
> don't intend to now.
>>>>>>>>>> It is a fantasy that people love living on food stamps in a
>>>>>>>>>> trailer
>>>>>>>>> with 17 kids.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your fantasy, or one you've been told?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The only
>>>>>>>>>>> group it helps is the ruling class, until they run out of other
>>>>>>>>>>> peoples money to be "charitable" with. Mostly it's used to
>>>>>>>>>>> assure their re- election, until elections become irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Go and see how well such a social system works in Philippines.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many social programmes can be seen not just as chritable
>>>>>>>>>>>> enterprises but also good investments in the society which
>>>>>>>>>>>> means everyone benefits. What you propose would lead to
>>>>>>>>>>>> corruption, crime, desperation, underclass or a police state
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is even worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well with a free market.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Homg Kong was a British colony and AFAIK had quite a few
>>>>>>>>>> sensible social programmes like state education and healthcare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They had/have very low taxes and few regulations, AIUI. Combined
>>>>>>>>> with the British sense of fair play, that allowed them to
>>>>>>>>> flourish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well I don't know, and it doesn't seem you are too sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So check it out. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is something, half of HKers live in public housing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hong Kong
>>>>>> Main article: Public housing in Hong Kong In Hong Kong, the
>>>>>> government provides public housing through flats which are rented at
>>>>>> a lower price than the markets, and through the Home Ownership
>>>>>> Scheme, which are sold at a lower price. These are built and
>>>>>> administered by the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong
>>>>>> Housing Society. Nearly half of Hong Kong population lives in public
>>>>>> housing.[1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#Hong_Kong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hong Kong social department:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, they do seem to be pretty efficient at it. Here's the taxrate
>>>>> schedule:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.guidemehongkong.com/taxation/topics/hong-kong-tax-rates>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's 16.5% on corporations, max of 17% on individuals, with no sales
>>>>> or capital gains tax. There is a 15% property tax, which likely
>>>>> explains the low home ownership numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it works for them, more power to them. I hope it lasts. What's
>>>>> your max tax rate?
>>>>
>>>> Income tax, 50% over quite a high ceiling ($0k?pa). For many there is
>>>> almost no income tax.
>>>
>>> In Hong Kong, the first dollar is apparently taxed at 2%, and the max
>>> is 17%. When everyone pays tax, everyone is more careful about how tax
>>> money is spent. If there is a privileged tax-exempt class, they will
>>> always vote for tax increases. That seems to me a conflict of
>>> interest. Why isn't that subject to regulation?
>>
>> Everyone pays tax, I was just talking about income tax.
> Right. In the US, that's the major source of money to redistribute for
> political power. The others pale in comparison, and can sometimes be
> viewed as user fees, such as using gas (petrol) tax to provide the public
> road system. Few will complain about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not sure what
>>>>>>>>>>> the Chinese will do with it, but it had a long, successful run.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you think of an example of a centrally planned (euphemism
>>>>>>>>>>> for socialist) government that has been successful for more
>>>>>>>>>>> than a few decades?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The UK and Germany and France are all fairly socialist countries
>>>>>>>>>> compared to the extreme ideas you seem to have swallowed and are
>>>>>>>>>> *very* successful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How long do you think that will last?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well Europe was leading the world in terms of wealth hundreds of
>>>>>>>> years before the USA was colonised, and it still is in some ways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Those dependent on government
>>>>>>>>> handouts are already rioting in the streets. In the US, freedom
>>>>>>>>> hasn't been an "extreme" idea until very recently. I can
>>>>>>>>> remember being told many times as a boy, "The world doesn't owe
>>>>>>>>> you a living".
>>>>>>>>> Socialism turns that on its head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is certainly very difficult to get the right balance between
>>>>>>>> helping people to get back onto their feet and making them
>>>>>>>> dependent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When has a government ever been successful at that? Churches and
>>>>>>> private charities are much more effective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They acheive a lot but I think social programmes have acheived a
>>>>>> *lot* more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think that? Is there any hard evidence, or just
>>>>> propaganda?
>>>>
>>>> The NHS is one of the largest employers in Europe, it is a gigantic
>>>> enterprise which dwarfs any charitable health care instituion AFAIK.
>>>
>>> Surely you're not claiming size alone is an achievement, especially for
>>> a government program. I'm surprised it's efficient in the absence of
>>> competition. Usually government programs result in spiraling costs,
>>> decreasing quality, and lengthy waits. I've heard rumors...
>>
>>
>> Its far fo perfect I can assure you but it is also very good.
> I'm glad you're satisfied. Perhaps the tales we hear are just propaganda.
>>>>> In the US, the social programs have been gigantic, costly flops. The
>>>>> numbers show the poor are worse off than before, and far more
>>>>> dependent on government handouts. Of course, that's not a bad thing
>>>>> if you're trying to get their vote.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure about the US, but here I would say we have seen an ongoing
>>>> and steady improvement in the standard of living of the majority of
>>>> the population since the end of WW2. There are ups and downs, now is a
>>>> bit flat IMO, but the trend is pretty clear to me. I do not need
>>>> statistics as I see it every day.>>
>>>>>> IMO that is exactly what the vast majority of people *do* even here
>>>>>> in the USSK : )
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope it continues to work for you, but I wouldn't bet on it.
>>>>>
>>>> I hope and I'm sure the US will move further in the direction of
>>>> greater social inclusion.
>>>
>>> We'll see what happens, but increasing "entitlements" while decreasing
>>> "social inclusion" in the tax base seems to be a path to destruction of
>>> both. People will always vote for benefits they think other people
>>> will pay for. If anyone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.
>>>
>>>
>> You seem to consider human beings to be selfish and materialistic.
> You have yet to show why that by itself is a bad thing, assuming laws are
> followed. Are you proposing thought control?
> But I'm not the one advocating strict government control over people.
> I've repeatedly pointed out I think normal average people are far more
> competent to manage their own affairs and far more considerate of their
> fellow citizens than any government has ever been.
> OTOH, above, you imply you think people are so evil as to allow the poor
> to starve in the street,
They do let them starve in some countries! Anyway this is way off-topic and
I don't really see us agreeing on this issue.
>unless they are forced by their betters to pay
> for the government's hamhanded attempts at "charity", or "social
> justice". That's never worked out, no matter how good the original
> intentions were.
>
Posted by Bill Ward on April 18, 2011, 8:39 pm
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:53:59 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:39:53 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:52:00 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 06:53:07 +0100, Giga2" >>> Is that what you and
>>>>>> your neighbors are like? If not, why do you think
>>>>>>>> everyone else is? Most people want to help out people in need.
>>>>>>>> Few are as nasty as to just let someone die. Do you think the
>>>>>>>> government forcing people to be "charitable" has worked?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you haven't answered so can only assume you would say "let
>>>>>>> them die".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That also assumes you would. Is that true? I don't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not.>>
>>>>>>> The recent banking scandals show that, arms dealers, drug dealers
>>>>>>> (pharmaceuticals included), poison food, GM food etc etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you figure the free market "rewarded them"? Are they still
>>>>>> in business?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes. Banks are motivated, along with many businesses, of making a
>>>>> profit this year, or even this *month*, and the future is ignored to
>>>>> a large extent. In a competitive system people will discount the
>>>>> future effects against advantages now in relation to their
>>>>> competitors sometimes. However if regulation forces all businesses
>>>>> to take account of certain long-term factors like the environment,
>>>>> human well being etc then those businesses that do take the sensible
>>>>> route will not be disadvantaged in relation to less well run and
>>>>> scrupuous business-people. This is all pretty obvious isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Only to those who think forcing businesses to do what they want is
>>>> sensible. If left to their own devices, businesses which don't take
>>>> into account relevant factors will fail on their own.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately they can drag the rest of us down with them, i.e. banks
>>> in this case.
>>
>> Do you really think banks would take on risky loans if they knew the
>> government wouldn't bail them out? The banks had no way of "dragging
>> the rest of us down". Only the government could, and did, do that.
>>
>>>>Instead, the government
>>>> forces businesses to take stupid actions (e.g. forcing banks to make
>>>> loans to people who can't pay them back) and then forces taxpayers to
>>>> bail them out when the bubble collapses. That leaves the banks
>>>> intact, but dependent on the government for survival. How do you
>>>> prevent that?
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are problems with some of the regulation but other
>>> parts are not strong enough.
>>
>> After the regulations fail, it's easy to see the problems. Hindsight
>> is always 20/20. If a bank fails, some of its customers will lose
>> money. But when the government screws up, we all pay.
>>
>>
>>>>>>If they broke laws and escaped justice, isn't that a failure
>>>>>> of the government to perform its most important function -
>>>>>> enforcing the law?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or not having adequate regulation in place at all.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think you can regulate common sense? Governments seem
>>>> to think so.
>>>
>>>
>>> No but you can have common-sense regulation.
>>
>> What common sense tells you to make loans to people you know won't be
>> able to repay them?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It discourages
>>>>>>>>>>>> the makers and leaves the takers dependent on the unearned
>>>>>>>>>>>> value they get from bureaucrats, which is taken from those
>>>>>>>>>>>> who earned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense, people have an inate need to make something of their
>>>>>>>>>>> lives if given half a chance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right. Freedom inspires greatness and abundance. Socialism
>>>>>>>>>> reduces them to worrying about how to equally share the misery.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to think socialism is the same as communism. It isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What differences do you see? Was the Union of Soviet Socialist
>>>>>>>> Republics communist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They tried to be as far as is possible. They were much more
>>>>>>> extreme than the UK yeah?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said you think socialism is not the same as communism. You
>>>>>> didn't mention what differences you see.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a difference of degree rather than type. Just like facism
>>>>> compared to the US, you are on the way but hardly there yet, I hope.
>>
>> By Fascism, I assume you mean the National Socialist movement in 1930s
>> Germany. For me the issue is not whether the right or left has power,
>> it's about how much power we allow anyone to have.
>>
>> I believe our US Constitution has it about right (for us anyway), so I
>> think we should limit the powers to those enumerated as specified
>> therein. All our elected officials, military, and peace officers swear
>> an oath to uphold that Constitution, but some don't take it seriously
>> enough, IMHO.
>>
>> I suppose our Constitution (and D of I) are somewhat analogous to your
>> concept of the Crown. It's OK to amend it by the included process, but
>> it's treason to try to otherwise force changes. When people assume
>> powers not in the Constitution, I take it seriously, and so do a whole
>> lot of otherwise quiet, unassuming Americans. The next few years are
>> pivotal. Either we defend the Constitution, or we lose it.
>>
>>>>>> Do you think their (USSR) concept was valid, but they just didn't
>>>>>> do it right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I beleive in freedom and free markets, as I have said, balanced
>>>>> by regulation. For me enterprise is like the driving force (horses)
>>>>> and the government is the controller of overall direction (the
>>>>> wagoneer), society is the wagon. I feel like I am stating such
>>>>> obvious well-understood things here...
>>>>
>>>> The difference may well be cultural. US citizens will not allow
>>>> themselves to be treated as draft animals. That's what the Tea Party
>>>> movement is all about.
>>>
>>> But they are also riding in the wagon.
>>
>> We emancipated slaves over a hundred years ago. We use machines to do
>> the manual work now, not people. Think of a multiperson bicycle with
>> everyone pedaling, not of the elite riding in a wagon pulled by slaves.
>>
>> That's where socialism has always ended. There no point in repeating
>> the experiment.
>>
>> Tea partiers don't want to control anyone but themselves and in turn
>> will not be subservient to anyone. We never went through serfdom, and
>> we don't intend to now.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a fantasy that people love living on food stamps in a
>>>>>>>>>>> trailer
>>>>>>>>>> with 17 kids.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your fantasy, or one you've been told?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The only
>>>>>>>>>>>> group it helps is the ruling class, until they run out of
>>>>>>>>>>>> other peoples money to be "charitable" with. Mostly it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> used to assure their re- election, until elections become
>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go and see how well such a social system works in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippines. Many social programmes can be seen not just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chritable enterprises but also good investments in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> society which means everyone benefits. What you propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would lead to corruption, crime, desperation, underclass or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a police state which is even worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hong Kong seemed to do pretty well with a free market.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Homg Kong was a British colony and AFAIK had quite a few
>>>>>>>>>>> sensible social programmes like state education and
>>>>>>>>>>> healthcare.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They had/have very low taxes and few regulations, AIUI.
>>>>>>>>>> Combined with the British sense of fair play, that allowed them
>>>>>>>>>> to flourish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well I don't know, and it doesn't seem you are too sure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So check it out. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is something, half of HKers live in public housing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hong Kong
>>>>>>> Main article: Public housing in Hong Kong In Hong Kong, the
>>>>>>> government provides public housing through flats which are rented
>>>>>>> at a lower price than the markets, and through the Home Ownership
>>>>>>> Scheme, which are sold at a lower price. These are built and
>>>>>>> administered by the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Hong Kong
>>>>>>> Housing Society. Nearly half of Hong Kong population lives in
>>>>>>> public housing.[1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing#Hong_Kong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hong Kong social department:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, they do seem to be pretty efficient at it. Here's the
>>>>>> taxrate schedule:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.guidemehongkong.com/taxation/topics/hong-kong-tax-
rates>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's 16.5% on corporations, max of 17% on individuals, with no
>>>>>> sales or capital gains tax. There is a 15% property tax, which
>>>>>> likely explains the low home ownership numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it works for them, more power to them. I hope it lasts. What's
>>>>>> your max tax rate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Income tax, 50% over quite a high ceiling ($0k?pa). For many there
>>>>> is almost no income tax.
>>>>
>>>> In Hong Kong, the first dollar is apparently taxed at 2%, and the max
>>>> is 17%. When everyone pays tax, everyone is more careful about how
>>>> tax money is spent. If there is a privileged tax-exempt class, they
>>>> will always vote for tax increases. That seems to me a conflict of
>>>> interest. Why isn't that subject to regulation?
>>>
>>> Everyone pays tax, I was just talking about income tax.
>>
>> Right. In the US, that's the major source of money to redistribute for
>> political power. The others pale in comparison, and can sometimes be
>> viewed as user fees, such as using gas (petrol) tax to provide the
>> public road system. Few will complain about that.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not sure what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Chinese will do with it, but it had a long, successful
>>>>>>>>>>>> run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you think of an example of a centrally planned (euphemism
>>>>>>>>>>>> for socialist) government that has been successful for more
>>>>>>>>>>>> than a few decades?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The UK and Germany and France are all fairly socialist
>>>>>>>>>>> countries compared to the extreme ideas you seem to have
>>>>>>>>>>> swallowed and are *very* successful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How long do you think that will last?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well Europe was leading the world in terms of wealth hundreds of
>>>>>>>>> years before the USA was colonised, and it still is in some
>>>>>>>>> ways.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Those dependent on government
>>>>>>>>>> handouts are already rioting in the streets. In the US,
>>>>>>>>>> freedom hasn't been an "extreme" idea until very recently. I
>>>>>>>>>> can remember being told many times as a boy, "The world doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> owe you a living".
>>>>>>>>>> Socialism turns that on its head.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is certainly very difficult to get the right balance between
>>>>>>>>> helping people to get back onto their feet and making them
>>>>>>>>> dependent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When has a government ever been successful at that? Churches and
>>>>>>>> private charities are much more effective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They acheive a lot but I think social programmes have acheived a
>>>>>>> *lot* more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think that? Is there any hard evidence, or just
>>>>>> propaganda?
>>>>>
>>>>> The NHS is one of the largest employers in Europe, it is a gigantic
>>>>> enterprise which dwarfs any charitable health care instituion AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>> Surely you're not claiming size alone is an achievement, especially
>>>> for a government program. I'm surprised it's efficient in the
>>>> absence of competition. Usually government programs result in
>>>> spiraling costs, decreasing quality, and lengthy waits. I've heard
>>>> rumors...
>>>
>>>
>>> Its far fo perfect I can assure you but it is also very good.
>>
>> I'm glad you're satisfied. Perhaps the tales we hear are just
>> propaganda.
>>
>>>>>> In the US, the social programs have been gigantic, costly flops.
>>>>>> The numbers show the poor are worse off than before, and far more
>>>>>> dependent on government handouts. Of course, that's not a bad
>>>>>> thing if you're trying to get their vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure about the US, but here I would say we have seen an ongoing
>>>>> and steady improvement in the standard of living of the majority of
>>>>> the population since the end of WW2. There are ups and downs, now is
>>>>> a bit flat IMO, but the trend is pretty clear to me. I do not need
>>>>> statistics as I see it every day.>>
>>>>>>> IMO that is exactly what the vast majority of people *do* even
>>>>>>> here in the USSK : )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope it continues to work for you, but I wouldn't bet on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I hope and I'm sure the US will move further in the direction of
>>>>> greater social inclusion.
>>>>
>>>> We'll see what happens, but increasing "entitlements" while
>>>> decreasing "social inclusion" in the tax base seems to be a path to
>>>> destruction of both. People will always vote for benefits they think
>>>> other people will pay for. If anyone pays taxes, everyone should pay
>>>> taxes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You seem to consider human beings to be selfish and materialistic.
>>
>> You have yet to show why that by itself is a bad thing, assuming laws
>> are followed. Are you proposing thought control?
>>
>> But I'm not the one advocating strict government control over people.
>> I've repeatedly pointed out I think normal average people are far more
>> competent to manage their own affairs and far more considerate of their
>> fellow citizens than any government has ever been.
>>
>> OTOH, above, you imply you think people are so evil as to allow the
>> poor to starve in the street,
>
> They do let them starve in some countries!
Most people don't want others to starve. Those that are starving can't
help others, even though they may want to. Mass starvation has occurred
in nearly every prior socialist/progressive country, but seldom in free-
market societies.
> Anyway this is way off-topic
> and I don't really see us agreeing on this issue.
Correct. Thanks for a civil and informative discussion.
>>unless they are forced by their betters to pay
>> for the government's hamhanded attempts at "charity", or "social
>> justice". That's never worked out, no matter how good the original
>> intentions were.
>>
>> your neighbors are like? If not, why do you think
>>>> everyone else is? Most people want to help out people in need. Few
>>>> are as nasty as to just let someone die. Do you think the government
>>>> forcing people to be "charitable" has worked?
>>>
>>> I see you haven't answered so can only assume you would say "let them
>>> die".
>>
>> That also assumes you would. Is that true? I don't think so.
>
> Of course not.>>
>>> The recent banking scandals show that, arms dealers, drug dealers
>>> (pharmaceuticals included), poison food, GM food etc etc.
>>
>> How do you figure the free market "rewarded them"? Are they still in
>> business?
>
> Oh yes. Banks are motivated, along with many businesses, of making a
> profit this year, or even this *month*, and the future is ignored to a
> large extent. In a competitive system people will discount the future
> effects against advantages now in relation to their competitors
> sometimes. However if regulation forces all businesses to take account
> of certain long-term factors like the environment, human well being etc
> then those businesses that do take the sensible route will not be
> disadvantaged in relation to less well run and scrupuous
> business-people. This is all pretty obvious isn't it?