BF2S Forums Rand Illusion

Turquoise wrote:

Trust me.  I know how to handle a gun and someone wishing me harm.

Dishit jus got reel.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We definitely perceive the current situation differently.

If you want a good example of a society that takes a closer approach to what you're suggesting, look at Mexico.  They're pretty capitalistic but don't have much in the way of social programs, and as a result, their capital has more kidnappings for ransom than any other city.

Granted, Phoenix is now #2 on that list, but that's also because of Mexico (damn illegals).

How many great producers are their in Mexico? Great industrialists?

If there aren't any willing and able entrepreneurs nothing is going to be produced, period. Social programs might stave off the utter degradation of a society like that for some years, but the end result is the same. Society can't exist without production.

Carlos Slim was, for a short time, the richest man in the world.

I've never suggested that production or entrepreneurialship are unimportant.

What I'm suggesting is that the quality of life in a society is equal parts innovation and communion.

If you eliminate social programs like unemployment benefits, the presently unemployed rapidly get forced into either employment of crime. This results in a large drop in the number of low-skilled workers that are seeking employment (they either already have a job or become unemployable) also costs of law enforcement and prison services fly upwards. As the supply of unemployed low-skilled workers drops, their pay rapidly begins to rise as their bargining power rises (employers have to accept their wage increase demands as it's now very hard to find anyone to replace them). Businesses have to cope with the extra wage costs meaning lowering the pay given to middle class employees who see no change in their employment supply/demand, and raising prices. This means the middle classes loose income, see rising prices and have their savings eroded by high inflation rates and the business owners lose profit margins and inflation kills their savings too. The economy goes into a wage/price inflation spiral and everyone gets completely screwed.

Even if you don't personally care about the poor at all, if you're rich or middle class it makes perfect financial sense to pay 5% of the working population to sit at home doing nothing.

PureFodder wrote:

If you eliminate social programs like unemployment benefits, the presently unemployed rapidly get forced into either employment of crime.

No one is ever "forced" into a life of crime. The more businesses grow, the more opportunities there are to find a job.

PureFodder wrote:

This results in a large drop in the number of low-skilled workers that are seeking employment (they either already have a job or become unemployable)

Drop in the number of low skilled workers seeking employment by dropping benefits? They look for jobs or they starve.

PureFodder wrote:

also costs of law enforcement and prison services fly upwards.

capital punishment

PureFodder wrote:

As the supply of unemployed low-skilled workers drops, their pay rapidly begins to rise as their bargining power rises (employers have to accept their wage increase demands as it's now very hard to find anyone to replace them).

Despite the fact that there are more low-skilled workers in the market now, the rise in cost of employment would force companies to look into technology or other more efficient practices that could then be economical.

PureFodder wrote:

Businesses have to cope with the extra wage costs meaning lowering the pay given to middle class employees who see no change in their employment supply/demand, and raising prices.

You always pay the people who work well for you as much as possible. If anything you cut the most unproductive, and they will go into the low skill job market.

PureFodder wrote:

This means the middle classes loose income, see rising prices and have their savings eroded by high inflation rates and the business owners lose profit margins and inflation kills their savings too. The economy goes into a wage/price inflation spiral and everyone gets completely screwed.

Where is this inflation coming from?

PureFodder wrote:

Even if you don't personally care about the poor at all, if you're rich or middle class it makes perfect financial sense to pay 5% of the working population to sit at home doing nothing.

bull. shit.

Tower of toothpicks.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What you're suggesting is that the quality of life in a society is equal parts production and distribution of that production to the unproductive.

The quality of life could be vastly improved if the unproductive were shed.

Yeah, but the only way you could effectively shed the unproductive would be rather Nazi-esque.

Trust me, letting the poor get desperate isn't going to shed anything other than safety.

Trust you based on what? Your vast experience in running class revolutions?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Trust you based on what? Your vast experience in running class revolutions?

Trust I base on the amount of crime that already exists in my city as a result of poverty.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

If you eliminate social programs like unemployment benefits, the presently unemployed rapidly get forced into either employment of crime.

No one is ever "forced" into a life of crime. The more businesses grow, the more opportunities there are to find a job.

It may be a choice, but it's often a choice between starving and doing something that's highly profitable but illegal (like selling drugs).

legalize drugs

Legalizing pot would be a good start.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

This results in a large drop in the number of low-skilled workers that are seeking employment (they either already have a job or become unemployable)

Drop in the number of low skilled workers seeking employment by dropping benefits? They look for jobs or they starve.

...or commit crime.

...and get shot

or you get shot.  It works both ways.  You know this.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

also costs of law enforcement and prison services fly upwards.

capital punishment

Capital punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment.

Right now. Like I think we're doing everything so efficiently right now.

I support reforming the appeals process, so that would lower the cost a lot.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Businesses have to cope with the extra wage costs meaning lowering the pay given to middle class employees who see no change in their employment supply/demand, and raising prices.

You always pay the people who work well for you as much as possible. If anything you cut the most unproductive, and they will go into the low skill job market.

In theory, yes, but some companies have phenomenally bad management.

And those companies will be weeded out.

Well, lately, they've been getting bailed out.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

bull. shit.

Tower of toothpicks.

Most economists accept the idea that a certain percentage of the population is unemployable.  Granted, 5% is a bit high.  3% is a more common assumption.

Actually it's 5% in the U.S. right now according to my current economics teacher. That doesn't mean that we pay those 5% to stay unemployed however, it only means that the economy is most efficient at x% unemployment. That number can change.

A certain amount of living assistance spending is necessary not only for the unemployable but for those who hit hard times.  The majority of people on welfare only use it for a short while.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

If you eliminate social programs like unemployment benefits, the presently unemployed rapidly get forced into either employment of crime.

No one is ever "forced" into a life of crime. The more businesses grow, the more opportunities there are to find a job.

It may be a choice, but it's often a choice between starving and doing something that's highly profitable but illegal (like selling drugs).

legalize drugs

Legalizing pot would be a good start.

Legalizing crack and heroine would be the best start. It's not Nazi-esque if they jump in the ovens themselves.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

This results in a large drop in the number of low-skilled workers that are seeking employment (they either already have a job or become unemployable)

Drop in the number of low skilled workers seeking employment by dropping benefits? They look for jobs or they starve.

...or commit crime.

...and get shot

or you get shot.  It works both ways.  You know this.

It's always a risk. Any alternative is unacceptable.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

In theory, yes, but some companies have phenomenally bad management.

And those companies will be weeded out.

Well, lately, they've been getting bailed out.

Again, I didn't say I agreed with what we are doing now.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Most economists accept the idea that a certain percentage of the population is unemployable.  Granted, 5% is a bit high.  3% is a more common assumption.

Actually it's 5% in the U.S. right now according to my current economics teacher. That doesn't mean that we pay those 5% to stay unemployed however, it only means that the economy is most efficient at x% unemployment. That number can change.

A certain amount of living assistance spending is necessary not only for the unemployable but for those who hit hard times.  The majority of people on welfare only use it for a short while.

There should be low interest loans designed for the purpose.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's not due to poverty, it is from skewed morality. What do you think the vast majority of the poor criminals would do if offered a construction job?

Most of them would work that job.  Most criminals aren't inherently bad people.  There's a big difference between a thief and a murderer.

If you're stealing shit to feed your family, you're desperate, not evil.

If you're killing people for fun, you're evil.

Then why aren't they already working a job in construction?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Legalizing crack and heroine would be the best start. It's not Nazi-esque if they jump in the ovens themselves.

Eh...  I suppose.  You've never been friends with someone who's had an addiction, have you?

Do you think I would be friends with someone who would get addicted?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's always a risk. Any alternative is unacceptable.

Pardon me for saying this, but I think you're a little crazy.

It's right there in the name.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Again, I didn't say I agreed with what we are doing now.

Nor do I, but the fact that it happens (and has happened several times before now) shows that we probably will never have a true free market.  The system is set up by the rich for the benefit of the rich, so if we're going to bail out the rich occasionally, I don't have a problem with helping the poor for a much lower cost.

Don't bail out anyone.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Then why aren't they already working a job in construction?

Trick question -- they are.  Illegals are employed by a lot of construction firms

But we are talking about the criminals in jail.

"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation." -George Washington

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But we are talking about the criminals in jail.

Our system isn't exactly conducive to helping felons find work after time served.

A smart businessman is a good judge of people.

Turquoise wrote:

Just because you're good at business, it doesn't make you wise.  Just because you have a lot of money, it doesn't mean you're superior to a poor person.

Yes it does, and so long as you have earned that money by your own right, yes it does. Wealth earned by your own merit is a direct measure of worth in a capitalist society.

Turquoise wrote:

Once you get back to the idea of equality, you start to realize that the way society is set up, you can't just chalk everything up to Darwinism.

Equality of opportunity, not of result.

Turquoise wrote:

Natural selection mostly only applies to animals other than humans.  Business and social customs change the playing field quite a bit.  The problem is that business wields a lot of influence over government, which means laws are designed to favor shortsighted greed.

Just because the traits are not how fast you can run or how well you can blend in does not mean the same principles of natural selection don't apply.

Government should not be dealing with anything in the realm of business, so this should be a non-issue.

Turquoise wrote:

There's no money in helping felons find work, so few lawmakers bother with it.

Why should anyone be finding work for someone else?

Turquoise wrote:

Now, if the payscale for every industry was exactly relative to the amount of work done and its importance to societal functioning, then yes, you could make that claim.

This is exactly what wages are supposed to be. Obviously wages aren't extremely flexible to handle every little up and down in production, but your pay is precisely what you are worth to society. It is the very definition of it.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Once you get back to the idea of equality, you start to realize that the way society is set up, you can't just chalk everything up to Darwinism.

Equality of opportunity, not of result.

But we don't have equality of opportunity.  That would only be possible via Plato's Republic.

And yet better than anywhere else, America is where you have the most ability to raise your station in life. It would be even better if the government was more hands off the economy.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Natural selection mostly only applies to animals other than humans.  Business and social customs change the playing field quite a bit.  The problem is that business wields a lot of influence over government, which means laws are designed to favor shortsighted greed.

Just because the traits are not how fast you can run or how well you can blend in does not mean the same principles of natural selection don't apply.

The principles that apply to society are based on money and connections.  That's very different from biological imperatives.

Did you read Atlas Shrugged?

If you haven't possibly one of the biggest themes in the book is how disgusting connections and pull are concerning worth in society.

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose you could say that it's Social Darwinism, but the difference is that Social Darwinism is not necessary for the continuance of a species.

Regular Darwinism is necessary for animals other than humans for survival.

Social darwinism is just as vital to the survival of society as darwinism is to species.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

There's no money in helping felons find work, so few lawmakers bother with it.

Why should anyone be finding work for someone else?

You missed my point.  Would you hire a felon?  If you would, then your response is quite different from the norm.

I would hire anyone based on merit. Anyone with brains would do the same.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Now, if the payscale for every industry was exactly relative to the amount of work done and its importance to societal functioning, then yes, you could make that claim.

This is exactly what wages are supposed to be. Obviously wages aren't extremely flexible to handle every little up and down in production, but your pay is precisely what you are worth to society. It is the very definition of it.

Not in my opinion (or in the opinion of many others).  A teacher is worth much more than a car salesman.

A mechanic is worth more than a lawyer.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Once you get back to the idea of equality, you start to realize that the way society is set up, you can't just chalk everything up to Darwinism.

Equality of opportunity, not of result.

But we don't have equality of opportunity.  That would only be possible via Plato's Republic.

And yet better than anywhere else, America is where you have the most ability to raise your station in life. It would be even better if the government was more hands off the economy.

They used to be, and when they were, there was more poverty and less opportunity.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Natural selection mostly only applies to animals other than humans.  Business and social customs change the playing field quite a bit.  The problem is that business wields a lot of influence over government, which means laws are designed to favor shortsighted greed.

Just because the traits are not how fast you can run or how well you can blend in does not mean the same principles of natural selection don't apply.

The principles that apply to society are based on money and connections.  That's very different from biological imperatives.

Did you read Atlas Shrugged?

If you haven't possibly one of the biggest themes in the book is how disgusting connections and pull are concerning worth in society.

Yes, but it rings rather hollow coming from someone who fought government intervention to lessen their influence.

To me, Rand is an ideologue.  She presents some interesting ideas, but only a small portion of them can be feasibly applied to society.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose you could say that it's Social Darwinism, but the difference is that Social Darwinism is not necessary for the continuance of a species.

Regular Darwinism is necessary for animals other than humans for survival.

Social darwinism is just as vital to the survival of society as darwinism is to species.

I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree with that one too.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why should anyone be finding work for someone else?

You missed my point.  Would you hire a felon?  If you would, then your response is quite different from the norm.

I would hire anyone based on merit. Anyone with brains would do the same.

Well, again, your meritocratic approach is not the norm.  It would be nice if it was, but human nature dictates otherwise.