If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latinum?

[neozeks]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

The problem with this whole “wealth redistribution” thing is that “need” is a subjective term. What if one person decides that his wife's plastic surgery or his daughter's orthodontic treatment are basic needs, while another person considers them luxuries?

Honestly, this is ridiculous. Surely you can't equate things like food and shelter, things that are absolutely necessary for simple SURVIVAL with things like a plastic surgery. You'll live just fine without a plastic surgery; you sure as hell won't even LIVE without food or water. You may argue the exact limits of things like education, but at least this is non-negotiable.

The problem with using "need", rather than production, as a standard of payment is:...

And who's talking about using need as a standard of payment? It's been repeatedly stated that a middle way, something like the welfare states of Europe is the best way forward. The key is not 'from each according...' but EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

The problem with this whole “wealth redistribution” thing is that “need” is a subjective term. What if one person decides that his wife's plastic surgery or his daughter's orthodontic treatment are basic needs, while another person considers them luxuries?

Honestly, this is ridiculous. Surely you can't equate things like food and shelter, things that are absolutely necessary for simple SURVIVAL with things like a plastic surgery. You'll live just fine without a plastic surgery; you sure as hell won't even LIVE without food or water. You may argue the exact limits of things like education, but at least this is non-negotiable.

Which is an incentive to work.

If you know that a lack of work on your part will cause you to be unable to supply your needs, that is the greatest incentive of all to work, or fight your hardest to get work.

The problem with using "need", rather than production, as a standard of payment is:...

And who's talking about using need as a standard of payment? It's been repeatedly stated that a middle way, something like the welfare states of Europe is the best way forward. The key is not 'from each according...' but EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

You and others tend to bring up "middle of the road"--and you use the welfare states of Europe.

The EU is broken. It is collapsing. Welfare states do not work--for the reasons I, and others with me, have stated.

As for your claims about a middle of the road--look at the Wall Street Journal Economic Prosperity Index.

The more free an economy, the more prosperous a society.

Also--you speak of equal opportunity. I'm curious. What is it about free market capitalism that you think discourages equal opportunity?

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

No, we have not had true, full-fledged free-market capitalism for a long time--and neither has the UK.

Both countries have “mixed economies,” where the government has taken control of certain aspects of the market with “consumerist” regulations, minimum wages, environmental directives, subsidies, etc.

Subsidies are just one part of rampant “crony capitalism.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/01/13/lets_take_the_crony_out_of_crony_capitalism

Exactly. "Crony Capitalism" is not true capitalism. It is a corrupted form of capitalism caused by government actions--though subsidies, grants, tax loopholes, protectionist tariffs, etc.

If the government were truly concerned about equal opportunities, and a "level playing field", than it would get the heck out of the way. Stop propping people up--and stop trying to pull people down.

 

[neozeks]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Which is an incentive to work.

If you know that a lack of work on your part will cause you to be unable to supply your needs, that is the greatest incentive of all to work, or fight your hardest to get work.

And if fighting your hardest still isn't enough? You drop and die?

You and others tend to bring up "middle of the road"--and you use the welfare states of Europe.

The EU is broken. It is collapsing. Welfare states do not work--for the reasons I, and others with me, have stated.

I very much doubt Europeans would agree with you.

Also--you speak of equal opportunity. I'm curious. What is it about free market capitalism that you think discourages equal opportunity?

If I may quote Sci from higher up in the thread:

Secondly -- the idea that capitalism will ever constitute a true meritocracy is absurd. How can it when it's starting from an unequal economic basis? How can anyone reasonably call capitalism a meritocracy when some children are raised constantly hungry (which can cause life-long cognitive problems) and some children are elevated to the status of corporate executive simply because daddy runs the company?

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Actually, the premise is that the government is capable of providing for the needs of every person who is unable to meet those needs through private efforts. Government as supplementer and guaranteer, not primary provider.

Indeed. Quite frankly, Sci, where would you draw the line to that end?

Speaking as someone who has at times not had enough to eat or who has at times been at risk of losing his home growing up...

How is it not obvious beyond all measure that the basic necessities of life are having enough nutritious food to meet one's caloric needs, having shelter from the elements, and having medical care?

Seriously, the entire concept that it's hard to separate needs and wants is just absurd, especially to anyone whose ability to meet his needs has been in danger.

You mean like that liberal Bill Clinton -- before his work was undone by that conservative George W. Bush?

I mean like that conservative Newt Gingrich--whose "Contract With America" backed Clinton into a corner, forcing him to triangulate.

Oh, bullshit, Clinton was the guy who fixed the economy after Reagan and Bush Sr. screwed it.

Bush, BTW, ushered in even more prosperity, despite 9/11, with the Bush Tax Cuts.

Again with the bullshit. Bush's tax cuts resulted in most of the now-untaxed money going out-of-country as a result of globalization. Further, according to the Wall Street Journal, Bush created approximately three million jobs during his eight years in office, versus Bill Clinton's 23 million jobs. And, as Al Franken noted in his 2003 book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he had negative job growth up until later in his term.

The downturn happened as a result of the liberals in Congress fighting efforts--by Bush and others--to put a stop to the subprime lending.

Rush, we've had this discussion before. As I proved to you before, this downturn is not the result of any one thing, it is a result of multiple economic crises converging at once.

Yes, a greater effort to put an end to subprime lending should have happened, and yes, it was absolutely a bad idea to loan to people who were never going to be able to repay. We should also bear in mind that there's a thing called "predatory lending" that happened, too.

But the subprime crisis was not the only factor here. The thing that really turned it into a crisis that threatened the whole economy was the complete lack of regulation over the trading of derivatives. As explained here:

Since no one really understood what was in the MBS, no one knew what the true value of the MBS actually was. This uncertainty led to a shut-down of the secondary market, which now meant that the banks and hedge funds had lots of derivatives that were both declining in value and that they couldn't sell. When this happened, they stopped making new loans, which meant houses didn't sell, which only put more downward pressure on housing prices, which then caused more loans to default.

Soon, banks stopped lending to each other altogether, because they were afraid of receiving more defaulting derivatives as collateral. When this happened, they started hoarding cash to pay for their operations. Then they stopped lending to other businesses....

Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants. When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.

Had the derivatives market not been a part of this, the subprime crisis would have affected the housing market, but it wouldn't have threatened the entire banking system and thereby the entire economy.

It is, again, fundamentally dishonest to portray the current Great Recession as being only the result of subprime lending.

And it would be interesting to see how well that would work for Texas if it weren't a state with a lot of natural resources like oil and if its demographics were different.

And how is it doing now--after the economic downturn?

As of October 2008, Massachusetts's state budget was hurting due to unwise tax cuts.

As near as I can tell, 2007 is the last year we have for personal income per capita by state, so that information does not yet exist.

However, I'm aware of no data suggesting that Massachusetts has been hurt by the Great Recession any more than any other state, or that it has lost its position as 3rd in the nation by per capita income.

Yes, oil is a wonderful resource.

While it lasts. And only so long as everyone ignores the externalities it creates in the form of pollution.

1. You're an economist, now? A few weeks ago, you told me you were a 19-year-old just starting on his Political Science B.A.

And I am. What I mean is I simply adhere to the classical economics theory

In other words, you're not an economist.

You really should use less dishonest language.

--which includes Milton Friedman, BTW.

That depends on who you ask, since the definition is arguable.

Nonsense. In a country where 1% of the population owns 34.6% of privately-held wealth, the next 19% of the population owns 50.5% of the wealth, and the remaining 80% of the population owns only 15% of private wealth? Capitalism is the lopsided distribution of poverty.
<SNIP>
That 80% having to share 15% of the wealth amongst themselves almost certainly agrees with you.

Again, Sci--the economy is not a zero-sum game. Wealth is created, before it can be "owned".

You want to own more wealth? Create more wealth.

A nice but meaningless slogan you are using to divert attention from the fact that capitalism can be factually demonstrated to distribute poverty to more people than wealth.

Guess what, Rush? That 80% of the populace does create more wealth.

You want an example? Buddy of mine works for a shoe store. He works very hard and does his job very well. He sells a lot of shoes every day.

You know what happens to that wealth he generates each day? Most of it goes to the company he works for, while he gets paid minimum wage. His labor creates the wealth that goes to the company's owner -- an owner who, notably, does not work in the shoe stores he owns.

Workers do create more wealth. They create more wealth all the time. The problem is that modern American Capitalism -- which really ought to be called "Corporatism" -- distributes their wealth to the people on top instead of the people on bottom, as a result of the fact that workers are usually so desperate for money that they won't fight lopsided contracts that give them far less money than they're actually worth when you consider how much wealth they create in their jobs.

For my money, that 80% of the populace would be better off forming co-ops and keeping more of the wealth they create.

Ebenezer Scrooge was only one man (a fictional man, but anyhow...). The problem was himself. And indeed, in the end, a happier, kinder Scrooge gave a great deal to the charity.

And I'm sure he voted Liberal, too.

BTW...if you look at the quote you brought up--Scrooge mentiones the "Poor Law" and the "Treadmill". He was claiming, as you did, that it's the government's responsibility to care for the needy.

Um, no, those, like the "Sanctuary Districts" from DS9, were programs of exploitation disguised as help, not actual help.

When I was growing up and my mother couldn't find work, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army didn't pay for our food. When I needed a primary and secondary education, the Red Cross and Salvation Army didn't pay for my schooling. When we needed help paying for school lunches, it wasn't the Red Cross or Salvation Army that paid for my meals. When my grandparents were in need of funding to pay for large medical expenses, the Red Cross and Salvation Army didn't pay for their lifesaving drugs. When I went to university, the Red Cross and Salvation Army didn't pay for my tuition.

The government got us through all of that.

That's not to disparage them. When we suffered a fire, the Salvation Army was an enormous help. So was the government. They're important parts of society with important roles to play.

But they simply aren't as able to help people as the government is.

Sci...not to be cruel here...but did it ever occur to you that the expenses your family faced are the result of government intruding into the private sector in the first place--through regualtions, grants which inflate the system with money, lack of competition because of federal barriers to interstate competition, and so on?

No, my family had economic problems when I was growing up because my mother had problems finding a job because the economy of this area has been in a recession for the better part of twenty or thirty years because of a lack of barriers to entry. All the companies that used to own and operate the factories that were the breadbasket of my area left to find workers in other regions they could swindle into working for lower wages. The ultimate example of this, of course, is that of the company that moves its factories to Asia because workers there are desperate enough that they're willing to become wage slaves.

It was the increase in so-called "economic freedom" that led to my county having high unemployment and causing me to have been raised in poverty.

So how did I get through college? A loan, of course -- federally subsidized. Merit-based scholarships, both private and from my alma mater. Work -- I got work-study, and I also worked as a Resident Assistant. But, most importantly, through federal and state grants.

Government can and does make people's lives better when the free market fails them. I know -- it helped me.

As private charities have a limited, non-guaranteed supply of income, they have to make sure that every dollar counts, and that nothing is wasted on red tape.

Actually, plenty of private organizations spend more money on bureaucratic costs -- aka, "red tape" -- than government programs. Most insurance companies, for instance, spend far more on administrative costs than Medicare.

And Medicare is going broke.

Tell that to actual economist James K. Galbraith. He disagrees with you.

Of course, most federal government problems could be solved by a combination of cuts to military spending, smarter spending on social programs, and an increase on personal income taxes for the highest tax bracket and in corporate income taxes.

They also have to make sure that the people they help are legit, and not mooching "welfare queens/kings" who are just trying to exploit the compassion of the people

As someone whose mother was forced out of unemployment benefits in a time of need because of a prior time of need, let me assure that the government makes an effort (I would argue an overzealous one) to weed out the people who are "mooching."

Again, this effort is due to welfare deform--Newt Gingrich, et al.

There, I fixed that for ya.

You can argue about the "cruelty" all you want, but it was a neccesary act, due to gaming of the system--and overall overdependency.

Yeah, it was necessary for my mother to almost get evicted to her apartment because she spent a year and a half searching for a job and got no unemployment help. Yeah, completely necessary for her and millions of other innocent Americans to undergo that kind of psychological trauma because there were a couple of bad apples somewhere.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Which is an incentive to work.

If you know that a lack of work on your part will cause you to be unable to supply your needs, that is the greatest incentive of all to work, or fight your hardest to get work.

And if fighting your hardest still isn't enough? You drop and die?

That is hardly Vulcan-like, sir. It more closely resembles Dr. McCoy.

And in answer to your question...no. In a true capitalist system, one rises as far as he is willing to climb.

You and others tend to bring up &quot;middle of the road&quot;--and you use the welfare states of Europe.

The EU is broken. It is collapsing. Welfare states do not work--for the reasons I, and others with me, have stated.

I very much doubt Europeans would agree with you.

Oh, just look at how the voters are changing their governments in various countries...moving to the right.

I refer you to one Daniel Hannan, British member of the European Parliment, who took PM Brown to task for his big government programs.

Also--you speak of equal opportunity. I'm curious. What is it about free market capitalism that you think discourages equal opportunity?

If I may quote Sci from higher up in the thread:

Secondly -- the idea that capitalism will ever constitute a true meritocracy is absurd. How can it when it's starting from an unequal economic basis? How can anyone reasonably call capitalism a meritocracy when some children are raised constantly hungry (which can cause life-long cognitive problems)--?

First, again, there must be a ladder for people to climb.

Otherwise, you gain widespread poverty.

By the way...I'm curious. Do you realze how lucky the poor of this country are to be poor here?

Compared to the poor of Hati, or Africa, or the average communist country--the poor here are rich, having on average two color TVs, one cars, a house, etc.

The fact that we call them "poor" is simply because they are at the bottom of the ladder. And because of the high standard of living, the ladder starts higher than others.

--and some children are elevated to the status of corporate executive simply because daddy runs the company?

As The Philosopher Said:

Only the man who does not need it is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.

...Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.

Is this the reason why you call it evil?

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

By the way...I'm curious. Do you realze how lucky the poor of this country are to be poor here?

Yeah, those 49.1 million Americans and 16.7 million children living in a state of food insecurity should be grateful! After all, instead of being undernourished in America, they could be severely clinically malnourished in Africa!

You're so lucky if you have one arm chopped off instead of two!

As The Philosopher Said:

Only the man who does not need it is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.

...Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.

Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Yeah, get down on your knees and lick the boots of the rich! They deserve their money because they're better than you! Never mind that it's your labor that generates their wealth, you parasite!

 

[neozeks]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

That is hardly Vulcan-like, sir. It more closely resembles Dr. McCoy.

Maybe, but I don't doubt Spock would agree with the sentiment. To quote Chief O'Brien on the Vulcans: 'With their sense of ethics? Definitely on the side of labor.'

And in answer to your question...no. In a true capitalist system, one rises as far as he is willing to climb.

Sorry, but those are just empty words. Will is good, but much good will it do you if you're at a perpetual disadvantage due to reasons completely outside your own responsibility.
Really, Rush, you keep talking about this idealized 'true' capitalism. Could you give me an example of it? What would happen to a person in the situation we discussed above in this 'true' capitalism?

Oh, just look at how the voters are changing their governments in various countries...moving to the right.

Yeah, but unlike the American right, European right has no intentions of removing the welfare system. They may disagree with the left about it's limits, but they mostly accept it as a good basic idea.

First, again, there must be a ladder for people to climb.

Fine. Not everyone can or should be equal. But it's ensuring that the bottom of the ladder is enough for survival and that you are given an opportunity to climb (if you wish) that's important.

By the way...I'm curious. Do you realze how lucky the poor of this country are to be poor here?

Somehow I doubt the knowledge that there are people with even more problems makes your own problems any less urgent.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Actually, the premise is that the government is capable of providing for the needs of every person who is unable to meet those needs through private efforts. Government as supplementer and guaranteer, not primary provider.

Indeed. Quite frankly, Sci, where would you draw the line to that end?

Speaking as someone who has at times not had enough to eat or who has at times been at risk of losing his home growing up...

How is it not obvious beyond all measure that the basic necessities of life are having enough nutritious food to meet one's caloric needs, having shelter from the elements, and having medical care?

Seriously, the entire concept that it's hard to separate needs and wants is just absurd, especially to anyone whose ability to meet his needs has been in danger.

No, my family had economic problems when I was growing up because my mother had problems finding a job because the economy of this area has been in a recession for the better part of twenty or thirty years because of a lack of barriers to entry. All the companies that used to own and operate the factories that were the breadbasket of my area left to find workers in other regions they could swindle into working for lower wages. The ultimate example of this, of course, is that of the company that moves its factories to Asia because workers there are desperate enough that they're willing to become wage slaves.

It was the increase in so-called "economic freedom" that led to my county having high unemployment and causing me to have been raised in poverty.

So how did I get through college? A loan, of course -- federally subsidized. Merit-based scholarships, both private and from my alma mater. Work -- I got work-study, and I also worked as a Resident Assistant. But, most importantly, through federal and state grants.

Government can and does make people's lives better when the free market fails them. I know -- it helped me.

...Yeah, it was necessary for my mother to almost get evicted to her apartment because she spent a year and a half searching for a job and got no unemployment help. Yeah, completely necessary for her and millions of other innocent Americans to undergo that kind of psychological trauma because there were a couple of bad apples somewhere.

Sci...don't misunderstand me. I'm glad your mother got help. I'm glad you got your college degree. Really, I am.

I'm just curious. The government spent money to help you guys out. Now...where did that money come from? Who really provided it?

We did--the taxpayers. Which means we had less money to put into the economy--and the government had more money to...put into the economy.

Either way, it's not like the government has a supply laying idle. They have to take it from people in order to give it to people.

Rush, we've had this discussion before. As I proved to you before, this downturn is not the result of any one thing, it is a result of multiple economic crises converging at once.

Yes, a greater effort to put an end to subprime lending should have happened, and yes, it was absolutely a bad idea to loan to people who were never going to be able to repay. We should also bear in mind that there's a thing called "predatory lending" that happened, too.

But the subprime crisis was not the only factor here. The thing that really turned it into a crisis that threatened the whole economy was the complete lack of regulation over the trading of derivatives. As explained here:



Had the derivatives market not been a part of this, the subprime crisis would have affected the housing market, but it wouldn't have threatened the entire banking system and thereby the entire economy.

It is, again, fundamentally dishonest to portray the current Great Recession as being only the result of subprime lending.

Sci...you didn't "prove" anything to me. You did not tell me anythinng I didn't already know.

Now, here's my question...what created the derivatives "market" in the first place?

And it would be interesting to see how well that would work for Texas if it weren't a state with a lot of natural resources like oil and if its demographics were different.

Yes...it would.

So...is there such a state in the US--which has no natural resources?

As of October 2008, Massachusetts's state budget was hurting due to unwise tax cuts.

Unwise tax cuts...or unwise spending?

As near as I can tell, 2007 is the last year we have for personal income per capita by state, so that information does not yet exist.

However, I'm aware of no data suggesting that Massachusetts has been hurt by the Great Recession any more than any other state, or that it has lost its position as 3rd in the nation by per capita income.

Or otherwise, I take it.

Guess what, Rush? That 80% of the populace does create more wealth.

You want an example? Buddy of mine works for a shoe store. He works very hard and does his job very well. He sells a lot of shoes every day.

You know what happens to that wealth he generates each day? Most of it goes to the company he works for, while he gets paid minimum wage. His labor creates the wealth that goes to the company's owner -- an owner who, notably, does not work in the shoe stores he owns.

Workers do create more wealth. They create more wealth all the time. The problem is that modern American Capitalism -- which really ought to be called "Corporatism" -- distributes their wealth to the people on top instead of the people on bottom, as a result of the fact that workers are usually so desperate for money that they won't fight lopsided contracts that give them far less money than they're actually worth when you consider how much wealth they create in their jobs.

For my money, that 80% of the populace would be better off forming co-ops and keeping more of the wealth they create.

So...why don't they?

Again, the system you complain about is not true capitalism at all. As has been pointed out by scotpens, the system has been corrupted by government actions.

And I'm sure he voted Liberal, too.

Frankly, Sci, Scrooge was a fictional character. And his being a miser is not an indictment of "The Rich" in general. There are jerks in every system.

Um, no, those, like the "Sanctuary Districts" from DS9, were programs of exploitation disguised as help, not actual help.

Which is what inevitably happens when you give the government too much power.

Tell that to actual economist James K. Galbraith. He disagrees with you.

I'm sure he does.

On that note...tell what you say to the Congressional Budget Office. Consider:

http://medicareupdate.typepad.com/medicare_update/2010/01/cbomedicarespending2020.html

Of course, most federal government problems could be solved by a combination of cuts to military spending, smarter spending on social programs, and an increase on personal income taxes for the highest tax bracket and in corporate income taxes.

Let me ask you, Sci, how much of our nation's tax bill do the rich pay?

As of the IRS data of 2006, the most recent year available:

The top 1% of Americans pay 39.9% of the bill.

The top 10%, 71%

The top 50% pay 97% of the bill.

All this is after the Bush tax cuts.

How did this happen? It's a direct result of supply-side economics.

Tax cuts for businesses results in their having more money to invest in their business--expanding it, creating more jobs--and making a greater profit.

A greater profit means more for the government--i.e., even though the rich pay a lesser percentage, they actually pay more, because they create more wealth.

Again with the bullshit. Bush's tax cuts resulted in most of the now-untaxed money going out-of-country as a result of globalization. Further, according to the Wall Street Journal, Bush created approximately three million jobs during his eight years in office, versus Bill Clinton's 23 million jobs. And, as Al Franken noted in his 2003 book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he had negative job growth up until later in his term.

Frankly, Sci...I question the credibility of Al Franken. Is there a particular reason why I should accept the word of a professional comedian on matters of economics--especially considering his ad hominem attitude, as is indicated by his other book title, Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot?

Even if I did...as I said, 9/11 did cause a downturn. To be frank, I'd ask now-senator Franken--what caused the upturn later in Bush's first term?

In other words, you're not an economist.

You really should use less dishonest language.

A nice but meaningless slogan you are using to divert attention from the fact that capitalism can be factually demonstrated to distribute poverty to more people than wealth.

Oh, bullshit, Clinton was the guy who fixed the economy after Reagan and Bush Sr. screwed it.

Again, this effort is due to welfare deform--Newt Gingrich, et al.

There, I fixed that for ya.

Okay...wow. Well, at least you're honest about what you're thinking....

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

By the way...I'm curious. Do you realze how lucky the poor of this country are to be poor here?

Yeah, those 49.1 million Americans and 16.7 million children living in a state of food insecurity should be grateful! After all, instead of being undernourished in America, they could be severely clinically malnourished in Africa!

You're so lucky if you have one arm chopped off instead of two!

Temper, temper, Sci. You know, as well as I, that that was not my point.

Now...why are the poor here not severely clinically malnourished?

Because we have one of the highest standards of living in the world. And what caused this standard of living?

As The Philosopher Said:

Only the man who does not need it is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.

...Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.

Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Yeah, get down on your knees and lick the boots of the rich! They deserve their money because they're better than you! Never mind that it's your labor that generates their wealth, you parasite!

Sure...and never mind that without those evil rich people you so eargerly demonize...you would not have a job in the first place.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

That is hardly Vulcan-like, sir. It more closely resembles Dr. McCoy.

Maybe, but I don't doubt Spock would agree with the sentiment. To quote Chief O'Brien on the Vulcans: 'With their sense of ethics? Definitely on the side of labor.'

Which only indicates O'Brien's prejudices.

 

[Saito S]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I haven't read every post in the entire thread, but at least for the last page or two, the only ones making any sense are Sci, neozeks, and USS KG5.

Of course, I'm sure everyone here is well aware that the tangent on real-life politics & economics has become its own discussion, without a whole lot of relevance to Trek at this point. I'm not in any way criticizing that; I've participated in (indeed, helped create) my share of way off-topic discussions. But I bring it up because it relates to a point I find interesting: How much relevance can real-world economics have to the economics of the UFP, at all? I mean... we aren't given nearly enough information to draw solid, unarguable conclusions about the most basic nature of their economy, let alone the more intricate details of how it works, from canon materials only. And even if you include reference materials and novels, those hard, technical details about just how the economy functions remain elusive.

But do those details matter? Isn't this kind of like much of the tech in Trek?

I really don't know how a warp drive works. I don't know the exact, precise mechanics involved with the process that begins when someone at the helm pushes some buttons, and ends when the ship begins to travel faster than light. NO ONE knows the precise mechanics. It's fictional technology. But that's fine, because we don't really need to know exactly how it works, only what it does. I think the same is true of the economy, really. Oh, we can speculate about how this or that aspect might work, but none of us can really KNOW, with precise accuracy, every facet of how the economy functions. Because the writers don't even know.

And my take on "what it does": first off, the idea that "moneyless" means "no economy at all" is dumb. I wish that DS9 hadn't revisited it in that scene between Jake and Nog in "In the Cards", because then I could just write it off as one of those crazy Roddenberry ideas from TOS and earlier TNG that's best left forgotten. I think that physical currency is something the UFP has chosen to abandon, and they use "credits" instead. And the need to have wealth for its own sake is what has largely disappeared, but people will still want to have money in order to get cool stuff (which is similar to how I feel about money. Wanting a "thing" is not necessarily a 100% purely materialistic impulse. The main reason I wanted that figure of Nagato Yuki that sits on my desk is that I'm a fan of the character. But I needed money to buy the figure, so I "wanted more money" at that time). That said, I think that "basic needs" are met, one way or another. Meaning, if you CAN provide for yourself, great. Go for it. This also means you can live whatever lifestyle you like. If you cannot, then the government will help you out. You won't starve, or be homeless, or have to walk through torrential rainstorms with nothing but a t-shirt and slacks. But, if you want more than the basics - if you don't want to just be fed, but want to eat non-replicated, fancy steak dinners; if you don't just want a clean, functional living space, but a nice big house; if you don't just want a raincoat and sweater, but a suit of Tholian silk... you're on your own. This preserves a "ladder" concept, without anyone being forced to live in abject poverty or simply die of hunger out on the street.

The other thing this does is open the door for those who may not have the skills or motivation to enter any fields that could be classified as "business", but have the potential to be great artists or writers. Freed from the burden of having to spend time, energy, and money to feed and cloathe themselves (and because of their lack of skill and motivation to get into a really nice, high-paying corporate job, all they can get is retail or office work which doesn't pay as well), they can focus on trying to find their creative niche. There ARE people in the real world who are in that situation, who end up forced to choose between following their passion, and being able to keep a roof over their head. And that's sad. The idea of what Sci (I think it was Sci...someone in this thread) called the middle ground of "social democracy" would represent freedom from that problem. This is how I see the economy of the UFP, based on what I have seen and read within the Trek-verse.

And one idea I've had (this isn't particularly supported by canon or books, but nor is it refuted): Say someone wants to live life in a more "rough" way. Where every basic need is not necessarily guaranteed, and hard, productive work is required to keep up a certain standard of living. That's what some of the colonies are for. Colonies could range from the largest and most dependant on the technology and infrastructure of the UFP (these colonies would functionally resemble core homeworlds in many ways), to the really remote, small, "frontier" colonies that have to work to maintain themselves. And with many colonies falling somewhere in between. One set-up I could see would be for a colony intentionally making itself dependant on the week-to-week work of its own citizens to prosper, but the colony still possesses some technological basics (replicators, water and matter recycling, medical tech, and - perhaps most importantly - subspace transmitters) to stave off emergency situations. They are made up of those who value a feeling of independance and having to "work for a living", but still consider ensuring their safety and survival important enough to have that fall back. At the true extreme could be colonies that set themselves up without even that safety net, or leave the Federation to stake out on some planet in neutral territory.

So, my answer to the original question (thought I was gonna forget, didn't ya ) is that I probably wouldn't care about latinum, assuming I was a UFP citizen, but I would care a little bit about credits. Since, assuming I were similar to who I am today, there might just be times I see some object that I want. But nothing really extravagant, and if my basic needs are met, I would be far less concerned with money than I am in real life, that's for sure.

As The Philosopher Said:

Only the man who does not need it is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.

...Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.

Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Good gravy, that's dreadful. Who said that?

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Only the man who does not need it is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.

...Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.

Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Good gravy, that's dreadful. Who said that?

Unless I'm mistaken, a really horrible person by the name of Ayn Rand.

Sci...don't misunderstand me. I'm glad your mother got help. I'm glad you got your college degree. Really, I am.

I'm just curious. The government spent money to help you guys out. Now...where did that money come from? Who really provided it?

We did--the taxpayers. Which means we had less money to put into the economy

Yes, we did. (And, yes, I'm part of that "we," too, because I also pay taxes to help other students.)

Because the American people have had the wisdom to realize that we all prosper more if we all sacrifice a little bit to help one-another.

And, yes, I'm be very, very happy to pay my taxes to help other people, too. (In fact, I just so happen to be doing my taxes this weekend.)

Sci...you didn't "prove" anything to me. You did not tell me anythinng I didn't already know.

And yet you keep claiming that something caused the crisis that did not cause the crisis. Go figure.

Now, here's my question...what created the derivatives "market" in the first place?

A lack of regulation, obviously.

As of October 2008, Massachusetts's state budget was hurting due to unwise tax cuts.

Unwise tax cuts...or unwise spending?

Unwise tax cuts.

Guess what, Rush? That 80% of the populace does create more wealth.

You want an example? Buddy of mine works for a shoe store. He works very hard and does his job very well. He sells a lot of shoes every day.

You know what happens to that wealth he generates each day? Most of it goes to the company he works for, while he gets paid minimum wage. His labor creates the wealth that goes to the company's owner -- an owner who, notably, does not work in the shoe stores he owns.

Workers do create more wealth. They create more wealth all the time. The problem is that modern American Capitalism -- which really ought to be called "Corporatism" -- distributes their wealth to the people on top instead of the people on bottom, as a result of the fact that workers are usually so desperate for money that they won't fight lopsided contracts that give them far less money than they're actually worth when you consider how much wealth they create in their jobs.

For my money, that 80% of the populace would be better off forming co-ops and keeping more of the wealth they create.

So...why don't they?

It varies. For some, it's because they've been raised since birth to buy into the propaganda that says that they can become one of the rich elites someday. For many others, it's simply that years of poverty, deprivation, and ill-treatment from their bosses have drained them of all spirit and ambition; their spirits have been broken. For others, they just don't think outside of hierarchical boxes.

Again, the system you complain about is not true capitalism at all. As has been pointed out by scotpens, the system has been corrupted by government actions.

Actually, considering that my complaint is that the government is often used to create laws that favor the rich, it would be more accurate to say that the elites have corrupted the government and then used that to corrupt business.

The problem isn't the government -- it's the corporate elites. Remove them and you remove the corrupting influence on the government.

Frankly, Sci, Scrooge was a fictional character. And his being a miser is not an indictment of "The Rich" in general. There are jerks in every system.

Fascinating how you'll excuse the rich in spite of a few bad apples but not people on welfare.

Um, no, those, like the "Sanctuary Districts" from DS9, were programs of exploitation disguised as help, not actual help.

Which is what inevitably happens when you give the government too much power.

Yes, that's right, that federal government issuing those Pell Grants are really exercising too much power over students' educations.

Tell that to actual economist James K. Galbraith. He disagrees with you.

I'm sure he does.

On that note...tell what you say to the Congressional Budget Office.

No, stop changing the topic. You answer Galbraith's claims first.

Let me ask you, Sci, how much of our nation's tax bill do the rich pay?

More than most but not enough.

I'm sorry, but they don't need to own a third of all the wealth. They could handle having to own a mere quarter instead.

As of the IRS data of 2006, the most recent year available:

The top 1% of Americans pay 39.9% of the bill.

The top 10%, 71%

The top 50% pay 97% of the bill.

I agree that that's wrong.

That top 1% should pay a full 50%, at least.

Tax cuts for businesses results in their having more money to invest in their business--expanding it, creating more jobs--and making a greater profit.

Sometimes. Depends on which part of the Laffer curve you're on, and it depends on whether or not there are barriers that make sure that those jobs are actually created in the United States instead of, say, China.

Frankly, Sci...I question the credibility of Al Franken. Is there a particular reason why I should accept the word of a professional comedian on matters of economics--especially considering his ad hominem attitude, as is indicated by his other book title, Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot?

Go ahead and find a credible source that says that he was wrong.

Of course, you're yet again distracting attention from the main point, which is that even the Wall Street Journal notes that President Bush created a paltry 3 million jobs -- a full 20 million less than Clinton did.

By the way...I'm curious. Do you realze how lucky the poor of this country are to be poor here?

Yeah, those 49.1 million Americans and 16.7 million children living in a state of food insecurity should be grateful! After all, instead of being undernourished in America, they could be severely clinically malnourished in Africa!

You're so lucky if you have one arm chopped off instead of two!

Temper, temper, Sci. You know, as well as I, that that was not my point.

Yes, I do. Your point was to change the topic from the fact that poverty and hunger exist in the United States by trying to point to another country and claim that it's worse there in order to make it seem like less of a problem than it is.

Well, who cares if it's worse elsewhere? It's bad here, too, and the fact that it's worse elsewhere doesn't make it any better.

Stop trying to change the topic.

Because we have one of the highest standards of living in the world. And what caused this standard of living?

Activist government intervention in the exploitive free market starting in the late 19th Century.

Yeah, get down on your knees and lick the boots of the rich! They deserve their money because they're better than you! Never mind that it's your labor that generates their wealth, you parasite!

Sure...and never mind that without those evil rich people you so eargerly demonize...you would not have a job in the first place.

And that's because the entire economy is structured so as to favor the rich. It's rigged from the beginning to favor them by granting them "ownership" of resources they don't even use and do not need, granting them the power to then set the terms by which others shall gain employment.

Your comeback to my argument is essentially my argument: That the system is designed to favor the rich and to create dependency upon them. The only difference is that you're spinning that like it's a good thing.

Create an egalitarian economy where everyone starts off equal and where the wealth that workers create actually goes to the workers rather than to people who "own" the wealth yet do not create it, and then we'll start talking about creating a capitalist meritocracy.

But until then, you can't create a capitalist meritocracy because it's all building on an un-merit-based, unegalitarian foundation.

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

By the way, anyone who's interested in a far more honest take on economics should read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^Oh, it sounds rediculous and insane, I know. But in effect, I'm demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.

Jeeeezus.



Just STOP. Find your own frakkin' schtick.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Okay...in answer to your question about artists, Saito S...yes, I know that they may not be particularly successful in a field of business. But to be frank...did Leonardo da Vinci or Michaelangelo get assistance from the government in making a living? Only to the extent that their works may have been bought from them.

Now...as for today...even if artists won't be particularly succesful right away...still, many of them today rely on "day jobs" to make their living, while working on their works of art off duty.

It all comes down to this, folks: do you want to rely on others for your living--relying on either charity or coerced taxation? Or do you want to fight, struggle, and possibly make it on your own?

Now...I'm not slamming Sci, or anyone else who would choose option 1--and I do apologize if anyone concluded that. I'm simply stating this: I would choose option 2--and I believe, for the reasons stated, that that is more practical than option 1.

And to be frank, I would not care to have money taken from my check, by force, to support people I don't even know--people who, it is claimed by the government, will use my money better than I can. I do not believe that. As a rule, that which is given to you, without any effort on your part, is not treated as respectfully as that which you have worked hard to earn.

Now, does that make me stingy? Not at all. As I said, I am a firm believer in voluntary charity. And as a rule, Americans are a charitable people.

I do not believe that the government has the right to take, by force, money from me, and give it to someone else--as if they deserve that money, and I do not, regardless of whether I worked hard for that money or not--and regardless of whether that other person earned that money or not.

Now...tempers have flared here--and believe me, I deeply regret that--as I'm sure everyone else does, too. Nonetheless...I feel all this had to be said. The government does not have a "stash" somewhere, where it can give to the needy at no expense to anyone else. In order to get that money...it has to take it from others.

Slam the "rich" all you want--but, like it or not, without the rich, millions upon millions of jobs would be lost. The Big Businesses of this country provide a valuable service to the country--without them, those workers who are asserted to be the victims would not have those jobs in the first place.

You say they are the true creators of wealth? Without the employers, there would be no opportunity for that wealth to be created. So who is the true creator?

Those employers could hire different people than they do--and the production would be roughly the same. The differences are more apparent, however, when there is a change of leadership.

Now...as for the claim that the government should regulate the businesses, for the sake of the worker and the consumer--consider this: what makes the government more qualified to run a business than a legitimate businessman--especially considering how so few politicians have had any business experience in the first place?

Now...there are no easy answers. There always will be people who fail--even in a "utopia" such as the UFP. Just ask Bashir's father.

There are, however, simple answers--not easy, but simple. Consider:

First...look at Woodrow Wilson. A "progressive"--a man of big government. He gave us the Federal Reserve...the "Progressive" Income Tax...and Prohibition--an example of the government thinking it can run your life better than you can...the Treaty of Versailles (which led to the destruction of Germany--and the easy rise of Hitler)...and the League of Nations, to oversee world affairs.

Was it all worth it? Well...no.

Under Wilson, a depression hit in 1920. Unemployment skyrocketed to 11.8%. GNP fell 24% (compared to a 2.4% drop in' 09). In some ways...it was worse than the Great Depression of ten years later. If you doubt this, check the records.

So...why didn't this depression last as long as the one that came later--despite WWI, and everything else?

Under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, taxes were cut from 77% to 25%. Government spending was cut in half. And then...Coolidge was content to sit back and just stay out of the way of the market, saying, "The business of Ameica...is business."

Result? The unemployment rate fell to a literal all-time low in peacetime American history: 1.8% It was also the largest expansion of the middle class in American history. People started having telephones--and electricity--and cars--and radios. That was the Roaring 20's.

Things only got messed up under Herbert Hoover. Often laughably called a champion of "rugged individualism" (which is how he styled himelf after his mistakes led to the Depression), he actually was a progressive.

Remember his campaign promise: "A chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage." He promised to supply people's needs, by (allegedly) "making" even more prosperity. He proposed...a mixed economy--effectively, the "middle of the road" between Wilson and Coolidge. But...what happened?

Under him, the Federal Reserve took charge of the economy when it observed that things were slowing down (normally, things would drop a little, in mild "buyers markets", and then go back up). It poured new "cheap money" into the marketplace, to make things rise even more--it got into Wall Street--and the rest is history.

Now, it wasn't just this. A lot of people did make stupid choices in the market. Yet...unlike the 1920 depression...the Great Depression went on for more than a decade. Why?

Because the government stepped in. FDR created agency upon agency, created bureaucracies and new regulations...and the Depression went on. The "New Deal" is often credited with getting us out of the Depression--but in reality, it made things worse, by prolonging it. If you look at the unemployment rate...it reached a high in 1932...slowly decreased over the next few years--and then plummited once again in 1937.

Now...what is the point of this history lesson?

The point is that you cannot trust the government to take care of you. Yes, it can provide you with crutches, or "fill your belly with bacon and beans"--albiet temporarily--but in the end, the solutions proposed by the state are inferior, in every single way, to the solutions of a truly free market--the market we had under Coolidge. Thoughout our history following, the freer a market we had...the more prosperous a nation we had.

That's my POV...and I welcome yours.

I haven't read every post in the entire thread, but at least for the last page or two, the only ones making any sense are Sci, neozeks, and USS KG5.

Well...I sincerely hope this improves your take...on the other side.

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Okay...in answer to your question about artists, Saito S...yes, I know that they may not be particularly successful in a field of business. But to be frank...did Leonardo da Vinci or Michaelangelo get assistance from the government in making a living? Only to the extent that their works may have been bought from them.

Plenty. Patronage from nobles is what form it took then.

I believe in the Commons, a set of common resources that is for "the people". The government is the guardian of the "commons". The commons manifest in all sorts of ways, but bottom line, we are a better society for it, rather than everything being subject to "the market".

Taxes are the price we pay for a quality civilization.

And history PLAINLY shows that "the market" alone isn't sufficient to get things done. Every...EVERY successful, prosperous free society out there is a sythesis of free market and "socialist/interventionist" methods. Because both approaches have weaknesses and blindsides, and, wisely instituted and administered, the two can be used to shore up the weaknesses of the other.

Neither works alone.

No, you can't trust the government to "take care of you". But, conversely, sometimes things happen that are bigger than you, beyond your control. And sometimes, charity simply isn't enough.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^Sir...how does it show that? I gave the stats for the 20's. Things only went bad after the government got in the way.

Now...I admit...that there is need for government. After all, "If men were angels...no government would be neccesary."

Nonetheless, regulation of the private should be strictly limited to criminal law. I.e., laws against fraud, laws against theft, laws against murder, and the like.

However...the government has no right to claim the power to tell people how to run their businesses. It has no right to prop up our companies (that's what causes "crony capitalism"/"corporatism" in the first place), and it has no right to bring them down.

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^Sir...how does it show that? I gave the stats for the 20's. Things only went bad after the government got in the way.

That's one interpretation, of course.

However...the government has no right to claim the power to tell people how to run their businesses. It has no right to prop up our companies (that's what causes "crony capitalism"/"corporatism" in the first place), and it has no right to bring them down.

Of course not. But if "too big to fail" is a problem, then interventionist steps of some sort must be taken to prevent it.

And if laws don't exist to stop it, "crony capitalism" WILL develope.

If laws don't stop it, companies WILL pollute. If laws don't stop it, businesses WILL heap abuses upon employees. On and on and on.

History clearly shows the "honor system" is insufficient.

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

It all comes down to this, folks: do you want to rely on others for your living--relying on either charity or coerced taxation? Or do you want to fight, struggle, and possibly make it on your own?

Now...I'm not slamming Sci, or anyone else who would choose option 1

Yet again, you falsely conflate the idea that there should be a strong social and economic safety net -- and the idea that capitalism is unegalitarian and does not reward merit - with the idea that people should give up self-direction in their lives.

And, Rush? I hate to tell you this, but even in a Capitalist Utopia, everyone still relies on other people for their livings. Whether it's in the form of trade, charity, or taxation, the fact of the matter is that people rely on one-another to survive.

And to be frank, I would not care to have money taken from my check, by force, to support people I don't even know

Yes, you've made it very clear that you don't recognize your moral and legal obligations to help your fellow Americans.

I do not believe that the government has the right to take, by force, money from me,

Which means that you do not believe in civilization. The essential rule of which is that to get, you have to give.

Now...tempers have flared here--and believe me, I deeply regret that--as I'm sure everyone else does, too.

I don't regret a damn thing. The economic system you advocate for is deeply immoral, exploitive, oppressive, and anti-democratic, and I don't think there's anything wrong with getting angry at oppressive systems like yours.

Nonetheless...I feel all this had to be said. The government does not have a "stash" somewhere, where it can give to the needy at no expense to anyone else. In order to get that money...it has to take it from others.

Yes. And if Paris Hilton's feelings get hurt at tax time, she can go cry on her yacht.

Slam the "rich" all you want--but, like it or not, without the rich, millions upon millions of jobs would be lost.

Yet, again, you repeat an argument that essentially boils down to, "They give us things so we should be grateful."

Yet again, I would point out to you that if the economy were structured differently, those same jobs could be created democratically, without need for the rich. That's what happens with co-ops -- the workers fire the boss instead of the boss firing the workers.

After all, in any food chain, the most expendable member is the one at the top.

You say they are the true creators of wealth? Without the employers, there would be no opportunity for that wealth to be created.

Nonsense. Workers could easy come together to create democratically-organized enterprises and create their wealth -- and keep it -- that way.

To say nothing of the fact that the corporate elite could also choose to allow workers to keep more of the wealth that they create instead of hoarding it through the economic blackmail called "firing."

Now...as for the claim that the government should regulate the businesses, for the sake of the worker and the consumer--consider this: what makes the government more qualified to run a business than a legitimate businessman

1. You are falsely conflating regulating a business with running a business.

2. The government is more qualified than a businessman to regulate a business for the same reason that a shepherd is more qualified than a wolf to guard the sheep.

There are, however, simple answers--not easy, but simple. Consider:

First...look at Woodrow Wilson. A "progressive"--a man of big government. He gave us the Federal Reserve...the "Progressive" Income Tax...and Prohibition--an example of the government thinking it can run your life better than you can...the Treaty of Versailles (which led to the destruction of Germany--and the easy rise of Hitler)...and the League of Nations, to oversee world affairs.

You are being fundamentally dishonest about the role of Woodrow Wilson here.

First off, Wilson was much less progressive than you're portraying him as. He was a vicious racist and an imperialist who conquered Latin American and Caribbean countries on behalf of Wall Street and segregated the Federal civil service.

Secondly, he did not give us the Treaty of Versailles. He was opposed to the way the Treaty treated Germany.

Yet...unlike the 1920 depression...the Great Depression went on for more than a decade. Why?

Because the government stepped in. FDR created agency upon agency, created bureaucracies and new regulations...and the Depression went on. The "New Deal" is often credited with getting us out of the Depression--but in reality, it made things worse, by prolonging it.

Patent nonsense. The Great Depression hit because of economic bubbles that finally burst, and it was the New Deal that saved the country from the Depression by creating jobs. Basic Keynesian economics -- the same things that are going to save this country from the current Great Recession.