Welfare - are you for or against it and why?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Those who really truly need it, ought to get it. Those who just want it because they are very lazy, ought not to.

OK. Who decides who is deserving, you?

The notion of "the deserving poor" was very popular amongst the bourgeois of the Victorian era. It is based largely on the protestant work ethic,which came mainly from the Calvinist notion of predestination.IE being prosperous shows you are saved. Being poor shows you are damned. Hence only bad/lazy/ feckless people are poor.

I worked in welfare for over 25 years. I dealt mainly with the unemployed, the sick, homeless youth and refugees. I have never seen any evidence to support the stereotypes of welfare recipients.

The Australian Social Security Act has some very draconian punitive sections. It was part of my job to make decisions under the terms of the act and to impose penalties (Eg no welfare for 6 weeks) I hated being put in the position of judging people's "deservedness".Managed to avoid imposing penalties mostly, by a combination of lateral thinking and creative report writing .


Within my moral sensibilities,my position was and remains; there is one and only one criterium for welfare:NEED.

My attitude and modus was one of the dichotomy commonly found in welfare: one is either a bleeding heart or a complete arsehole.I did not notice any middle ground.Eventually I burnt out, and began turning into an arsehole. That's when I retired.


I guess Void and I disagree yet again.

[theVOID]

Right... right. The government wastes resources.

Are you denying the fact that government spending, especially in big governments, is less efficient than personal spending? What a laugh, someone purchasing their own insurance for instance is a method that involves far less bureaucracy, so Is someone giving to a local shelter.

We don't have unlimited resources to throw at our problems so we should be making the most effective use of what we have - government simply isn't the right choice for a myriad of things that they are involved in.

They spend all of our money on private jets

You've clearly missed the point, a valid comparison would be the difference between someone purchasing his own private jet and someone paying a government to purchase a jet for him.

Besides, what is wrong with someone buying a jet if they have the money for it?

and faulty investments

That was caused by a state guarantee, limiting the liability of the loan providers and providing an opportunity for reckless investment, if fannie and freddie weren't being guaranteed security on the loans by the government they wouldn't have bought sub prime loans in the first place because the risks are simply too great, government makes giving loans for housing attractive through subsidies and guarantees and suddenly these loans aren't untenable. This is what gave loan brokers the opportunity to make as many loan agreements as possible with people who couldn't afford them because they could simply resell the liabilities to fannie and freddy while taking a healthy cut of the transaction.

and toxic assets in a gambling attempt to turn this democratic nation into a plutocracy.

They didn't buy toxic assets so much as the assets became toxic when people realised the housing bubble was going to burst.

Also, these banks would have paid for their recklessness if the government hadn't bailed them out. The recession would have been sharper but afterwards the economy would be in a much more balanced state and the governments using these bailouts wouldn't now be in more debt than ever before.

Totally unlike that one guy - Bernie Maydoff or however you spell his name.

He's a criminal who ran a ponzy scheme, that's an entirely different situation, the greed is the only common factor, Bernie didn't get to piggy back off government stupidity.

I guess Void and I disagree yet again.

To me 'need' equals "Can't provide for themselves" not "Won't provide for themselves".

The goal is if welfare is restricted to those people private charity could likely handle most of the need which would save on government bureaucracy (and subsequently dollars), however, Charities aren't always efficient spenders, especially not at national or global levels, so the local organisations could take the job and provide for these people. People would also need to be taxed a great deal less, in a lot of nations welfare makes up almost half of government spending. The government would still need a safety cushion in case funding levels were low from donations (which is always a possibility), but it's ultimately a more efficient use of resources.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Are you denying the fact that government spending, especially in big governments, is less efficient than personal spending? What a laugh, someone purchasing their own insurance for instance is a method that involves far less bureaucracy, so Is someone giving to a local shelter.

We don't have unlimited resources to throw at our problems so we should be making the most effective use of what we have - government simply isn't the right choice for a myriad of things that they are involved in.

Are you denying that companies and businesses are just as inefficent, corrupt, and irresponsible?
Please. As if the profit motive made companies better and more altruistic and responsible...

You've clearly missed the point, a valid comparison would be the difference between someone purchasing his own private jet and someone paying a government to purchase a jet for him.

Besides, what is wrong with someone buying a jet if they have the money for it?

So it's fine when some rich blowhole blows millions on the maintainance, purchase, and storage of a corperate (not personal) machine that's utterly unnecessary other than getting past airport security but when the government blows a relatively similar investment - such as that line of military jets that was also brought to light as being a waste of funds - the government is inefficient and people and businesses are the ones who spend money appropriately?

That was caused by a state guarantee, limiting the liability of the loan providers and providing an opportunity for reckless investment, if fannie and freddie weren't being guaranteed security on the loans by the government they wouldn't have bought sub prime loans in the first place because the risks are simply too great, government makes giving loans for housing attractive through subsidies and guarantees and suddenly these loans aren't untenable. This is what gave loan brokers the opportunity to make as many loan agreements as possible with people who couldn't afford them because they could simply resell the liabilities to fannie and freddy while taking a healthy cut of the transaction.

... and I wonder how many pockets were greased by lobbists for those companies in order to enact those laws so allow the US citizens to foot the bill if their housing scheme failed...

They didn't buy toxic assets so much as the assets became toxic when people realised the housing bubble was going to burst.

Also, these banks would have paid for their recklessness if the government hadn't bailed them out. The recession would have been sharper but afterwards the economy would be in a much more balanced state and the governments using these bailouts wouldn't now be in more debt than ever before.

The government bailed them out (hindsight nonwithstanding) because jobs were at stake during a recession in which job losses were mounting - just as with the auto industry and I'm not just talking about the CEOs, but rather everyone else involved in those major banks that could have lost their jobs if they went bankrupt.

He's a criminal who ran a ponzy scheme, that's an entirely different situation, the greed is the only common factor, Bernie didn't get to piggy back off government stupidity.

You're damn right he is, so what makes you think that the customer and worker protections brought about by the government's hand in the economy makes us worse off to help protect us from the more malicious folks like him whose goals of power and money over human health, life, and dignity allow him to become the criminal that he is?
What makes you think that the balance of power in a society is better served when a purely capitalist society is just as bad as its opposite? You're in a daydream if you think people become more efficient and produce higher quality products if their job is in the private sector over the public sector.

[theVOID]

Are you denying that companies and businesses are just as inefficent, corrupt, and irresponsible?
Please. As if the profit motive made companies better and more altruistic and responsible...

Business spending is far more efficient than government spending, not as efficient as personal spending.

Corrupt businesses (save for those involved in the fraud of price fixing, something that is still illegal) can only really effect the public if they have an opportunity to gain unfair advantage through back door deals and favourable legislation - most of the corruption in business is isolated to the scope of the company, it is ultimately the share holders that suffer from business corruption, they are the ones who's resources are being stolen, very unlike the massive scope available to a corrupt government that can quite seriously effect everything.

As far as responsibility is concerned I must ask, regarding what?

I don't care about business being altruistic, it's not their responsibility, they exist to make profit. Altruism should be in the domain of the individual as much as is possible, we shouldn't expect corporations to fork out money and when they do we should praise them for it, reward them by giving them our business, if we can make these actions something that will assist in their public image and customer base it will give more businesses incentive to do the same.

In New Zealand right now there is a round table of the 30 biggest corporate bodies providing altruistic services to the people in Christchurch such as free phonecalls, food, shelter, manufactured goods, rental cars, properties etc. To say that the big corporates don't have the potential for altruism is plain wrong.

Your drawing all of this back to corporate interests is a red hearing, what is more important is personal spending, giving people their taxes back so they can buy their own health, home, contents insurance, letting people build homes without the red tape forcing the prices up, letting people come to their own decisions about the risks they want to take and making them ultimately responsible for their decisions.

So it's fine when some rich blowhole blows millions on the maintainance, purchase, and storage of a corperate (not personal) machine that's utterly unnecessary other than getting past airport security but when the government blows a relatively similar investment - such as that line of military jets that was also brought to light as being a waste of funds - the government is inefficient and people and businesses are the ones who spend money appropriately?

There is a BIG difference between someone being exuberant with their own money that was earned legitimately and government taking that money on penalty of imprisonment only to squander a good portion of it, if they take money from someone who has obtained it through force, fraud or coercion then FINE I'm more than happy to see it taken from them, but just because someone earns a ton of money through a business that sells goods and services at a great quantity or at a great margin does not mean they should be stolen from by the state. It's even worse when government are talking 25% (through income and sales tax) of the money available to those who aren't wealthy and funnelling it through their wasteful system. Make the first $50,000 tax free, that way no broke people will have to pay any taxes, they'll have their own money to spend their own way, personal spending is FAR more efficient, they'll get far better value for money.

People are not obligated to help others, we may judge their character based on such things, but it would still be wrong to steal from a wealthy person to give to others, especially when his only "crime" is being a successful entrepreneur - Call them selfish or a money hoarder if you like, that's not a crime, it just makes them a selfish and a bit of an ass. Does someone being selfish give me an ethical imperative to take from them? Is it ethical to steal from someone just because they're an ass? Fuck no.

... and I wonder how many pockets were greased by lobbists for those companies in order to enact those laws so allow the US citizens to foot the bill if their housing scheme failed...

Um... That's part of the fucking problem, if the government doesn't have that power then you CAN'T buy off politicians to get them to create taxpayer supported market conditions in favour of corporate interests. This is an argument for LESS government, not more...

The government bailed them out (hindsight nonwithstanding) because jobs were at stake during a recession in which job losses were mounting - just as with the auto industry and I'm not just talking about the CEOs, but rather everyone else involved in those major banks that could have lost their jobs if they went bankrupt.

The banks that should have failed are now richer than before, it clearly didn't work.

Yeah more jobs would have been lost short to mid term, but there would also be a more balanced economy right now, instead it's even more twisted as a result of the bailouts and job losses being a slight number less than otherwise will not make a better long term picture - Governments think in terms of election cycles, there is no doubt that the stimulus and bailouts had a short term impact but they are going to make things worse long term, for starters the teaser interest rates on the new set of loans are going to expire soon, the government debt will start climbing faster and faster than before - Countries will have to cut more services, jobs, raise taxes, print money and lower the value of savings etc to a GREATER extent if they had let the economy rebalance the first time, If Bush had let the NASDAQ and DotCom bubble burst the first time there would have been no housing bubble and the outlook right now would be FAR better - What does Obama do? The same damn thing that bush did to cause the housing bubble, only 4 fold MORE spending - Shit is going to hit the fan in a few years, wait and see.

You're damn right he is, so what makes you think that the customer and worker protections brought about by the government's hand in the economy makes us worse off to help protect us from the more malicious folks like him whose goals of power and money over human health, life, and dignity allow him to become the criminal that he is?

*Sigh*

1. Criminals don't give a shit about regulations so it doesn't matter how many you put in place, people like Bernie are going to try and rip people off all the same. Government regulations or the lack there of are COMPLETELY irrelevant in that case.

2. Giving government the power to regulate is the same thing that creates the opportunity for businesses to influence politicians and get favourable conditions. A business with a tilted playing field can do far more damage than a business in a free market.

What makes you think that the balance of power in a society is better served when a purely capitalist society is just as bad as its opposite?

Just as bad? Bullshit. Capitalism is how the USA became the most powerful nation in the world while retaining all of the liberties it was founded upon. It was only with the increased interference that both the liberties and the prosperity has dissipated.

You're in a daydream if you think people become more efficient and produce higher quality products if their job is in the private sector over the public sector.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????

Firstly, Name me ONE state manufacturer that, tax funding included, creates better and cheaper products than a corporate rival. Doesn't mean shit if Pr (private) Sells product x for $3.99 and Pu (public) sells product x for $3.50 when Pu has also received tax funding greater than the difference - It's like saying Public General Practitioners are cheaper by 20% even when you take into account the fact that half of their costs are subsidised - All you do is make it untenable for people to use a private GPs because the government is already taking their wages to subsidies Pu GPs and the money being used by the government suffers the typical 20-30% waste.

Secondly, If you actually believe that public jobs are better why aren't you a full blown communist?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Business spending is far more efficient than government spending, not as efficient as personal spending.

That's... an entertaining opinion you have.

Corrupt businesses (save for those involved in the fraud of price fixing, something that is still illegal) can only really effect the public if they have an opportunity to gain unfair advantage through back door deals and favourable legislation - most of the corruption in business is isolated to the scope of the company, it is ultimately the share holders that suffer from business corruption, they are the ones who's resources are being stolen, very unlike the massive scope available to a corrupt government that can quite seriously effect everything.

I'll keep the 'doesn't affect the public' in mind the next time a city sues a company for dumping toxic chemicals in such a way as to affect the groundwater.
But hey, that's just india, it's not like companies never try to get around the evil EPA's enviornmental laws around here...

As far as responsibility is concerned I must ask, regarding what?

Oh... public health for example.
I believe cigarettes and smoke stacks that can cover an entire town in smog on a daily basis would each be an example of not being responsible.
Also: The BP oil spill and their blatant disregard for safety and environmental laws.

I don't care about business being altruistic, it's not their responsibility, they exist to make profit. Altruism should be in the domain of the individual as much as is possible, we shouldn't expect corporations to fork out money and when they do we should praise them for it, reward them by giving them our business, if we can make these actions something that will assist in their public image and customer base it will give more businesses incentive to do the same.

Indeed, and their desire to make a profit often supercedes that of their own customers and their own employees.

In New Zealand right now there is a round table of the 30 biggest corporate bodies providing altruistic services to the people in Christchurch such as free phonecalls, food, shelter, manufactured goods, rental cars, properties etc. To say that the big corporates don't have the potential for altruism is plain wrong.

And I've brought examples of companies behaving badly and for every corrupt, evil government that dared to get their hands in food safety, I can give twenty examples of governments that do just as well in terms of providing their promised services - regardless of relative power or influance - all the way from the federal level (the US government) to the local level (my own local city governments) who, every day, are making damn sure the roads are clear, people aren't freezing on the streets, and businesses have a good local climate in which to prosper, despite putting their filthy, filthy hands in the local economics and spending my money to do all of this.

Your drawing all of this back to corporate interests is a red hearing, what is more important is personal spending, giving people their taxes back so they can buy their own health, home, contents insurance, letting people build homes without the red tape forcing the prices up, letting people come to their own decisions about the risks they want to take and making them ultimately responsible for their decisions.

Indeed, at the cost of the civil services that provides free, clean water, police, road clearing services, healthcare, education, making sure my food doesn't have rat poison in it, and allowing me to have something for when I retire regardless of the condition of the economy or even my occupation.

There is a BIG difference between someone being exuberant with their own money that was earned legitimately and government taking that money on penalty of imprisonment only to squander a good portion of it, if they take money from someone who has obtained it through force, fraud or coercion then FINE I'm more than happy to see it taken from them, but just because someone earns a ton of money through a business that sells goods and services at a great quantity or at a great margin does not mean they should be stolen from by the state. It's even worse when government are talking 25% (through income and sales tax) of the money available to those who aren't wealthy and funnelling it through their wasteful system. Make the first $50,000 tax free, that way no broke people will have to pay any taxes, they'll have their own money to spend their own way, personal spending is FAR more efficient, they'll get far better value for money.

I'm not talking about their own money, I'm talking about people who buy private jets for corperate or company use (I suppose I should have said 'corperate jets' but I was thinking something completely different.) Be that as it may, you talk as if companies haven't figured out how to squander their own money on bad investments or inefficiency.

People are not obligated to help others, we may judge their character based on such things, but it would still be wrong to steal from a wealthy person to give to others, especially when his only "crime" is being a successful entrepreneur - Call them selfish or a money hoarder if you like, that's not a crime, it just makes them a selfish and a bit of an ass. Does someone being selfish give me an ethical imperative to take from them? Is it ethical to steal from someone just because they're an ass? Fuck no.

Is it wrong to collaborate with your copetitors to be able to sell your product at 100x their market cost to a customer base that literally depend upon your product (like the pharma companies?)
Is that legally theft?
It might be in a society that allowed its government to get its filthy hands into monopoly busting and customer protection, which is where my tax dollars go.

Um... That's part of the fucking problem, if the government doesn't have that power then you CAN'T buy off politicians to get them to create taxpayer supported market conditions in favour of corporate interests. This is an argument for LESS government, not more...

Indeed, if the government doesn't have that power, then those companies don't need to buy off those politicians. Instead, those companies can do whatever lying, cheating, or other activities that would be illegal in a nation like the United States currently.
It's like saying that there wouldn't be any crime if there were no laws - as if that was a desirable position to have.

The banks that should have failed are now richer than before, it clearly didn't work.

Yeah more jobs would have been lost short to mid term, but there would also be a more balanced economy right now, instead it's even more twisted as a result of the bailouts and job losses being a slight number less than otherwise will not make a better long term picture - Governments think in terms of election cycles, there is no doubt that the stimulus and bailouts had a short term impact but they are going to make things worse long term, for starters the teaser interest rates on the new set of loans are going to expire soon, the government debt will start climbing faster and faster than before - Countries will have to cut more services, jobs, raise taxes, print money and lower the value of savings etc to a GREATER extent if they had let the economy rebalance the first time, If Bush had let the NASDAQ and DotCom bubble burst the first time there would have been no housing bubble and the outlook right now would be FAR better - What does Obama do? The same damn thing that bush did to cause the housing bubble, only 4 fold MORE spending - Shit is going to hit the fan in a few years, wait and see.

And that is a problem (that politicians are always thinking about their election cycles), which is a good analogy for the way companies are always thinking of maximizing their profits, even over human life.
Yes, we could have let those banks collapse and possibly have even allowed America to collapse into a third world nation along with them, given the number of destitute and jobless people that would have resulted once these huge huge companies defaulted and went belly-up.
How dare the government think of doing anything to help the nation they're charged with protecting and the economy they're charged with making sure doesn't collapse....

1. Criminals don't give a shit about regulations so it doesn't matter how many you put in place, people like Bernie are going to try and rip people off all the same. Government regulations or the lack there of are COMPLETELY irrelevant in that case.

Oh really? Are you sure about that?
Wow. What insight about how criminals don't care about the law, so clearly because criminals don't care about the law, it's pointless to regulate them. Are you serious? With that logic, then the only thing keeping the world from a perfect utopia is all law, government, and society everywhere. We should just live in total anarchy ... because people totally won't take advantage of other people like that. Puh-lease.

2. Giving government the power to regulate is the same thing that creates the opportunity for businesses to influence politicians and get favourable conditions. A business with a tilted playing field can do far more damage than a business in a free market.

Of course it gives them the opportunity to influence polticians - because there's a law or regulation they want to work around. If it didn't exist, they would be able to do it anyway regardless of the harm it would cause.

Just as bad? Bullshit. Capitalism is how the USA became the most powerful nation in the world while retaining all of the liberties it was founded upon. It was only with the increased interference that both the liberties and the prosperity has dissipated.

Oh really? When was that? Was it after WW2 during the roaring fifties, when taxes was far, far higher than it was today? After the enormous number of social and regulatory laws that Hoover, FDR, and other presidents instituted?
Was this back during the industrial revolution after the civil war but before the depression when we were still on the gold standard and before things like big oil, the railroad monopolies, and other institutions that were dealt with through the institution of regulation?
I seem to recall the biggest and greatest American events (including the moon landing) well after the sweeping social reforms that made America much like it is today, which was a result of busting the monopolies that resulted from our far more unregulated history during the 1800s.
American Lassiez-Faire capitalism didn't last long until a few companies just fucking took over and started setting their own prices.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????

Firstly, Name me ONE state manufacturer that, tax funding included, creates better and cheaper products than a corporate rival. Doesn't mean shit if Pr (private) Sells product x for $3.99 and Pu (public) sells product x for $3.50 when Pu has also received tax funding greater than the difference - It's like saying Public General Practitioners are cheaper by 20% even when you take into account the fact that half of their costs are subsidised - All you do is make it untenable for people to use a private GPs because the government is already taking their wages to subsidies Pu GPs and the money being used by the government suffers the typical 20-30% waste.

Amtrak, DARPA, the Post Office, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and others I don't have the time to look up now. I couldn't find any government run manufacturing businesses and I'm not sure why you limited your question to those.
Further, your example is cutting hairs. I'm talking about the quality of service but mostly the ability of people to actually run these businesses or government organizations - not the price of a manufactured product or whether or not it recieves subsidies.
I assume because you're trying to "get" me somehow by focusing it into such a narrow topic, but I don't really care either way.

Secondly, If you actually believe that public jobs are better why aren't you a full blown communist?

For the same reason I'm not a libertarian. I'm really not interested in having the wealthy elite in this country run my life as much as I don't want a government to do the same. What you don't realize is that you're advocating the same thing as communism under the same magical and unrealistic thinking that makes people think communism can work.

[theVOID]

I'll keep the 'doesn't affect the public' in mind the next time a city sues a company for dumping toxic chemicals in such a way as to affect the groundwater.
But hey, that's just india, it's not like companies never try to get around the evil EPA's enviornmental laws around here...

Do I really need to point out the difference between corruption and negligence? Like I've said countless times already, I am against the use of force, fraud, coercion and negligence. This was a case of negligence, not a case of corporate corruption, that would demand some such situation where the company influences the government to get them to pass laws enabling their legal dumping of waste products.

If a company is polluting the water supply they are neglecting their responsibilities, so they get locked up. And there are already laws against pollution, do you really think more regulations are going to make a difference? No, but harsher sentences might.

Oh... public health for example.
I believe cigarettes and smoke stacks that can cover an entire town in smog on a daily basis would each be an example of not being responsible.

When companies lied about the safety of tobacco products they were being negligent and/or fraudulent, those are both things I condemn. Selling tobacco under full disclosure? I don't have a single problem with that, if the tobacco companies are honest about their products they can sell them to whomever still wants to buy them - at that point it is the decision (and therefore the responsibility) of the customers for whatever health problems they may face - Under a small government system the people who smoke are paying for their own healthcare so their smoking impacts their premiums and the non smokers aren't forced to carry the burden of their decisions.

I'm not for pollution, I'm fully of the opinion that anthropomorphic climate change is a fact and thus pouting is negligence, not just an aesthetic inconvenience as some would believe. Polluting to a certain extent (whatever that is I'm not sure) is another example of negligence and should be punishable by imprisonment.

Also: The BP oil spill and their blatant disregard for safety and environmental laws.

Again, Negligence. The BP execs should have been arrested.

Indeed, and their desire to make a profit often supercedes that of their own customers and their own employees.

As long as there is no force, fraud, coercion or negligence they can do what they like.

And I've brought examples of companies behaving badly and for every corrupt, evil government that dared to get their hands in food safety, I can give twenty examples of governments that do just as well in terms of providing their promised services - regardless of relative power or influance - all the way from the federal level (the US government) to the local level (my own local city governments) who, every day, are making damn sure the roads are clear, people aren't freezing on the streets, and businesses have a good local climate in which to prosper, despite putting their filthy, filthy hands in the local economics and spending my money to do all of this.

Firstly, I'm for the government being involved in necessary infrastructure, it is one of the roles I think the government should have, controlling the development and maintenance of the roads (but contracting to other companies rather than owning construction companies) is something that I believe is necessary.

Secondly, there are examples of companies behaving badly but they are both the minority of companies and the ones who should be made an example of by imprisoning their executive boards.

Thirdly, Government intervention does not make the regions economic climate more tenable, it has the complete opposite effect - regulation discourages growth and employment and makes it more expensive for businesses to compete, that leads to outsourcing etc etc.

Fourthly, Have you forgotten how utterly broke your country is? My concerns with spending and getting in to debt are not the consequences faced today, but those a few years down the track when the debt gets called in and the financial support dries out. You think things are bad now? Wait until THAT happens.

Indeed, at the cost of the civil services that provides free, clean water,

Another role I think government should have.

police, road clearing services,

Again what I deem to be necessary social services. A public police force is one of the most important responsibilities for government, it is plainly detrimental to have a justice system that is motivated by profit. For that same reason I also think prisons should remain public, though prisoners should be required to work their debt to society off.

healthcare,

I believe basic healthcare is necessary, something for the destitute poor, those who are not should buy their own health insurance.

education,

Debatable, private schools are generally better in every aspect. I wouldn't mind state subsidies for the poor to help them afford education, but again I would prefer that we aren't taxed to fund across the board public education and instead familes would pay for their children's education with a private school.

making sure my food doesn't have rat poison in it

And how exactly do they do that other than upholding the threat of imprisonment for negligence?

and allowing me to have something for when I retire regardless of the condition of the economy or even my occupation.

Ideally you wouldn't be taxed so you could save for your own retirement and the government wouldn't continue with an ever expanding money supply that diminishes the purchasing power of those savings. I am strongly of the opinion that inflation is the single biggest detriment to low income earners, not only does it diminish the value of savings, it also causes constant increases in the cost of living. A level of social support for the destitute poor is, again, reasonable, but ultimately it should be our own responsibilities to ensure that we have a retirement fund such to provide a comfortable lifestyle when we cease work.

I'm not talking about their own money, I'm talking about people who buy private jets for corperate or company use (I suppose I should have said 'corperate jets' but I was thinking something completely different.)

That is their (the shareholders) money, if they want a corporate jet they can have one.

Be that as it may, you talk as if companies haven't figured out how to squander their own money on bad investments or inefficiency.

They do and they should suffer the consequences, a good business is one that minimises bad investments and is efficient with it's resources. That is not to say that every company is a model of efficiency, it is to say that generally private organisations are much more cost efficient than governments. Those who make too many bad investments and waste money will fail, so be it.

An example:

A few state owned enterprises here were losing money since they were bought into public control some 30 years prior, the state owned telecom was a liability that was sucking in money, this was almost entirely due to the government trying to predict the market trends and manipulate them to meet a predetermined agenda, it was only when telecom was sold that it become profitable, more affordable and contributed more to the country than it cost. This was the case for all of the assets that were sold. The ones who were maintained were locked out, the government has absolutely no active role in setting the agenda, they operate as if they were private companies for which the taxpayers are the shareholders.

Is it wrong to collaborate with your copetitors to be able to sell your product at 100x their market cost to a customer base that literally depend upon your product (like the pharma companies?)
Is that legally theft?

While that article isn't in great detail it appears to be a case of corporate fraud, again something that I believe is an offence that should be punishable by imprisonment.

It might be in a society that allowed its government to get its filthy hands into monopoly busting and customer protection, which is where my tax dollars go.

Right, some tax dollars, most of them go places they're better off not being. You seem to think i'm an Anarchist or something, not at all true.

Indeed, if the government doesn't have that power, then those companies don't need to buy off those politicians. Instead, those companies can do whatever lying, cheating, or other activities that would be illegal in a nation like the United States currently.

That is all fraud, it's still illegal.

My point again was that a government that creates favourable conditions is worse than a government that simply upholds the law - The risk of corruption is too high to give governments that kind of power to shape the economy. What the most greedy company can do within the confines of the law in a free market is BETTER than what the most greedy company can do given unfair advantage by government.

It's like saying that there wouldn't be any crime if there were no laws - as if that was a desirable position to have.

I agree that would't be desirable, I don't at all advocate no laws, I advocate less regulation, tougher punishments.

And that is a problem (that politicians are always thinking about their election cycles), which is a good analogy for the way companies are always thinking of maximizing their profits, even over human life.

They go to jail if they have contributed to someone's loss of life. Again a case of neglecting their responsibilities and obligations to the law.

Yes, we could have let those banks collapse and possibly have even allowed America to collapse into a third world nation along with them, given the number of destitute and jobless people that would have resulted once these huge huge companies defaulted and went belly-up.

Crash? Absolutely no. These nations would have faced a longer and deeper recession or even a depression but would have recovered in a much more healthy state, instead they've just prolonged the problem with debt and it's going to be even worse than it should have been. It's just like a junkie who's high on heroin, he can keep dosing to keep himself from feeling like absolute shit, but he's still going to feel rotten and each time he doses to making himself feel better he had a bigger withdrawal than before. Eventually if he doesn't come down he's going to crash. Our countries have an addiction to cash and the governments crave popularity, the end result just like the junkie's ever growing severity of withdrawal is the ever growing deficit. Ultimately just like the junkie can go through the withdrawals and after some serious pain get back to normal, the government can stop spending and make some decisions that will be painful and unpopular in the short term, but it's the only way they're ultimately going to solve the problem of the imbalance in the economy and get out of their ridiculously large debts.

How dare the government think of doing anything to help the nation they're charged with protecting and the economy they're charged with making sure doesn't collapse....

I've explained why their actions are only going to have short term gain, the long term consequences are going to be much worse, they should have taken their tough medicine when they first got sick. The best thing the government can do is let the economy sort it's self out, let the bad decisions have their consequences.

Wow. What insight about how criminals don't care about the law, so clearly because criminals don't care about the law, it's pointless to regulate them. Are you serious?

Yeah, in most cases. Laws against fraud, force, coercion and negligence as well as much tougher sentences are really the best you can do, telling businesses how to direct their resources, what contracts and terms they are allowed to agree to, how they have to structure their liabilities etc is mostly a waste of time that is detrimental to the growth and prosperity of the economy, it makes it more expensive for the businesses who are not interested in breaking the law to continue to grow - regulation makes all business suffer to prevent the few malicious. stronger punishment and stronger deterrents for those who do break the law are more effective.

With that logic, then the only thing keeping the world from a perfect utopia is all law, government, and society everywhere. We should just live in total anarchy ... because people totally won't take advantage of other people like that. Puh-lease.

Complete strawman. I'm not saying no laws I'm saying we should replace a great deal of regulation with after-the-fact punishments and much stronger deterrents, more prison sentences instead of more nanny-watch and fines, otherwise we are penalising those who would not do wrong because of the few that would.

Of course it gives them the opportunity to influence polticians - because there's a law or regulation they want to work around. If it didn't exist, they would be able to do it anyway regardless of the harm it would cause.

You simply cannot have a tilted playing field without force, as long as the government creates favourable conditions and uses the threat of police force to maintain that playing field you will see much much worse than a government who is simply concerned with those who offend, a government who doesn't have so much power as to be able to so thoroughly manipulate the direction of the economy and the allocation of resources in the first place.

Oh really? When was that? Was it after WW2 during the roaring fifties, when taxes was far, far higher than it was today?

Prior to that as well, And as I've heard in many economic debates and lectures on this exact subject people didn't actually pay more taxes, the tax system was structured at a maximum level and then depending on the circumstance you would be given tax breaks - That is in complete opposition to a system that starts at a minimum taxable amount and enforces tax on special circumstances. Equating the raw tax brackets from the two tax methods is like comparing apples and oranges, you have to find a commonality, like total percent of income paid given all the circumstances, to make a meaningful comparison.

After the enormous number of social and regulatory laws that Hoover, FDR, and other presidents instituted?

Are you serious? With Hoover debt rose 20% and his efforts to end the depression were such a failure that he got obliterated in the elections for his second term. Hoover was a statist and the country suffered for it, even FDR slammed him for taxing and spending and mismanaging the economy.

FDR wasn't much better economically, though he was an amazing diplomat, he managed to do precisely what I am concerned will happen by stimulating the economy, he caused a deep recession, it only essentially ended because of the war. He also created social security which is essentially a state-run pay as you go ponzy scheme, just like that the first people to get in do great, but after a couple of generations the system becomes untenable and the last people into the scheme risk losing everything, despite paying for the retired generations.

Was this back during the industrial revolution after the civil war but before the depression when we were still on the gold standard and before things like big oil, the railroad monopolies, and other institutions that were dealt with through the institution of regulation?

You know that on the gold standard the cost of living went down every year for decade after decade right?

I seem to recall the biggest and greatest American events (including the moon landing) well after the sweeping social reforms that made America much like it is today, which was a result of busting the monopolies that resulted from our far more unregulated history during the 1800s.

Made america like it is today? Yeah, swimming in debt and more unequal than ever.

American Lassiez-Faire capitalism didn't last long until a few companies just fucking took over and started setting their own prices.

You might want to read that article again, it's not so closely aligned to your position as you think, For instance, it has examples of EXACTLY what I am talking about when I say 'favourable conditions'.

"These companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by the colonial administrators. Even after the American Revolution, many of these colonial holdovers still functioned due to the contracts and land they held."

And an argument against needed anti-monopolistic measures:

"Just as U.S. Steel couldn't dominate the market indefinitely because of innovative domestic and international competition, the same is true for Microsoft. A non-coercive monopoly only exists as long as brand loyalty and consumer apathy keep people from searching for a better alternative"

And an argument for why monopolies aren't necessarily bad:

"The break up of AT&T by Reagan in the 1980s gave birth to the "baby bells". Since that time, many of the baby bells have begun to merge and increase in size in order to provide better service to a wider area. Very likely, the break up of AT&T caused a sharp reduction in service quality for many customers and, in some cases, higher prices"

Anticompetitive conditions spawned by the government, go figure...

Amtrak, DARPA, the Post Office, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and others I don't have the time to look up now.

What do they make, what do they sell it for? What do competitors sell it for? How much funding do they receive?

All of that information is necessary to determine whether or not these public companies actually produce more for less.

I couldn't find any government run manufacturing businesses and I'm not sure why you limited your question to those.

1) Because they're easy to evaluate. 2) I didn't just talk about manufacturing, i made the point regarding GP's too.

Further, your example is cutting hairs. I'm talking about the quality of service but mostly the ability of people to actually run these businesses or government organizations - not the price of a manufactured product or whether or not it recieves subsidies.

Considering subsidies and costs is absolutely essential in making the determination...

I assume because you're trying to "get" me somehow by focusing it into such a narrow topic, but I don't really care either way.

Pick a broader topic then.

For the same reason I'm not a libertarian.

Firstly, I'm not a libertarian, I'd consider myself a right-liberal.

Secondly, To me the reasons for not being a communist and not being a libertarian seem opposite ends of the scale.

I'm really not interested in having the wealthy elite in this country run my life as much as I don't want a government to do the same.

I don't want the elite running the country either, and their most effective tool for doing so is through the government. When they get the government on their side they have the police on their side, we should keep the government completely independent of business interests.

What you don't realize is that you're advocating the same thing as communism under the same magical and unrealistic thinking that makes people think communism can work.

You've already shown no real understanding of my position, either that or you've deliberately applied it poorly to score points. After this response you should have a more than clear understanding of much of my position and an understanding of how bad your assumptions were about it.

[HeyItsZeus]

Why do you trust the "private sector" so much? The private sector will abuse everything (as government does) if it's to their benefit, as history shows. That's why we regulate the private sector.

The private sector is not a benign force as libertarians make it out to be...

Back on point: I support welfare for those who need it. A proper system should be put into place for it to work though.

::" Government WASTES RESOURCES, they're the most inefficient spenders you will EVER find. The private sector isn't supposed to be something to help us all out, it's not a fantasy story,it's just the ideathat when people are in charge of their own lives there is more capital available for a society to progress, when people can make their own contracts without the myriad of regulations bogging them down services can be provided cheaper, when the government doesn't direct assets (like giving subsidies for houses) and bail out business (which should have failed for being reckless), guarantee investments (which are supposed to be by their very definition a risk) there is less chance of a financial meltdown.

Rather than letting them get their grubby little paws on everything we should have harsher prison sentences to deter people/organisations from using force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities. "::

BOLD: So does the private sector........... besides government can be reformed. Greed can not be reformed though.
UNDERLINED: Stop dreaming.... if it wasn't for regulation big business would really fuck you over!

"....we should have harsher prison sentences to deter people/organisations from using force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities." -I completely agree with you there.

May I ask a question? Do you support lasez-faire (forgive my French spelling) capitalism?

[everythingafter]

If you post on this discussion, I only ask that you vote in the poll (either before or after discussion) as well so that we can see how this strong atheist community views welfare.

So believers can't vote? I don't care. Just playing devil's advocate ... ironically.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

To me 'need' equals "Can't provide for themselves" not "Won't provide for themselves".

I understood that,and have some problems with the notion: 'won't' is a moral judgment and very hard to define in law,(the basis of government welfare) and virtually impossible to administer with any consistency.

I also disagree.My definition of need is 'being without'.Period.

As I said,we agree to differ,again.

[theVOID]

BOLD: So does the private sector........... besides government can be reformed. Greed can not be reformed though.

1. No, the private sector in general is far more cost effective. Again though, that's a red hearing on your part, I am not advocating government control be given to the private sector, I am advocating returning the resources and responsibilities to individuals.

2. Government isn't immune to greed, as you know.

3. Greed is fine so long as it doesn't manifest through force, fraud, coercion or negligence. I don't think the fact of someone being greedy should be any reason for punishment, it is how they express this greed that matters.

4. The equivalent of government reform in the private sector is demand for their products and services, should that diminish a new executive board and CEO are put in place of the failed ones. It's commonplace.

UNDERLINED: Stop dreaming.... if it wasn't for regulation big business would really fuck you over!

Again, as long as they don't use force, fraud, coercion or become negligent I don't care what they do - If I dislike a business I don't give them my money. Regulation effects the vast majority of businesses that would do no wrong in order to punish the few who would, rather than so many decent businesses small and large being subject to the added costs of doing business we should have much tougher punishments for those who have done wrong - It's very much alike the bullshit anti-terrorism laws that treat innocent people like they're potential criminals.

"....we should have harsher prison sentences to deter people/organisations from using force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities." -I completely agree with you there.

That we should have harsher sentences or we should replace some regulation with harsher sentences? I think the latter should be preferred, 1) It doesn't have a negative impact on ethical business owners, 2) It's more resource effective.

May I ask a question? Do you support lasez-faire (forgive my French spelling) capitalism?

Yeah, but with one distinction, some instances should be removed from the market rather than being kept in the market and then having government interfere. Police, road, power infrastructure, defence, stockpiled resources for disasters, water, prisons, law, Fire services, emergency ambulances, healthcare for the very poor and a few other things - I genuinely believe that a government could be effective with about 1/16th of the activity they are currently involved in - Any government that is in the red is doing something seriously wrong.