X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,HTML_MESSAGE, MR_DIFF_MID,RCVD_IN_SORBS,SMILEY autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Sender: 1.5 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l8UIKlux031112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:20:47 -0400 Received: from jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.132]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l8UIKBT7021938; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:20:11 -0400 Received: FROM smtp112.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp112.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.229.93]) BY jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46FFE8ED.62AA5.19658 ; 30 Sep 2007 14:20:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 47901 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2007 18:20:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.185?) (kb8pwy Æ sbcglobal.net Æ 69.221.69.119 with plain) by smtp112.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2007 18:20:27 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: hWYAft8VM1lt8G.h9tm0eypQgA4ZFkgE.jafGw4KDG0WCq3.3ObcAZwnGsFaHUNjTZdVymk0ra0Xfodom2WkfI6kpjN573uJHZ60 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-15-268367744 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:20:48 -0400 To: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Dave Morris Subject: Re: mind the gap --Apple-Mail-15-268367744 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sorry I dropped out of the discussion that I kind of started. I was overwhelmed at work for a couple weeks, then intimidated by the 85 new messages. :-) But I've read through most of the responses, it's a cool discussion. I agree with this conclusion from Andrew and appreciate the historical perspective. But now, having come to this conclusion (I think), the harder (and therefore more interesting :-)) question is about the specifics. "What level of basic minimal support should the socialist aspect of our society provide?" My stock market question was a subset of that, as there will be socialist controls on that too, but I'm convinced that first I need to study more about how the stock market currently works and what controls/limits are already in place before I can participate intelligently in that conversation. So first I'd like to see if we can agree on an answer to the above. My answer would be that everyone, no matter how badly they screw up, or how lazy they are would be guaranteed the following forever no matter what: food, shelter, safety, education, health care This does not include any luxury, entertainment, or particularly high quality of these things, but at a minimum everyone will have these. The food should be nutritional enough to stay healthy (which saves money on the health care). Shelter is a bed, clothes, heat in the winter, survivable lack of heat in the summer, etc.. I picture this being provided in government housing, but there has to be provision of safety in these places, so that people have the opportunity to try to improve their lot without it constantly being taken away by criminals. Education is key to everything. And the health care should include the basics, preventative care etc., but maybe not extreme measures that are extremely expensive. So everyone survives, but they're on their own to compete in the free market for the level of luxury they want, and there's no effort to equalize distribution of wealth beyond the above minimums. Do people agree? What should be added or removed? How would you refine the definition of these sub-items? We could have a separate discussion on each one, I'm sure. But it seems like a coherent solution to all of them would be better. I think our country is rich enough that we can and should provide the above. Further I think that we could easily do it in a fashion that most people would not use it, yet it would provide a hugely valuable service to those who did. Thoughts? I've actually come around over the last few years to think that the ideal distribution of wealth in a society, in practice, is a gaussian curve. Mostly middle, but some really rich, and therefore also some really poor. Some people get screwed at the lower end, some rightly so and some not rightly so, and thus we have the basic support discussed above just in case they were stuck there unfairly. But some people do amazing things at the upper end that would never be possible if things were distributed equally. I didn't used to believe this, but the more I look at how inefficient the government is at trying new things compared to billionaires with money to risk, the more it seems essential. So this is the viewpoint I'm coming from- not to provide equality or prevent accumulation of wealth, but to establish what level of minimum safety net should be in place. Or if people are still too sick of this thread, never mind, and in a bit I'll ask about the stock market details again. :-) Dave Morris cell: 734-476-8769 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/ On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:11 AM, Andrew Reeves wrote: > Danny, and everybody else in this dinosaurian debate > (please forward as appropriate, as I am not sure how to do that): > > You are goading me to enter the fray, but I am still resisting. > One of > the great luxuries I am enjoying as an American is that I do not > HAVE to get > involved in debates of this sort, in glaring contrast to early- > Communist > Hungary in the late 1940's when "Dialectic Materialism: the > Overthrow of > Exploitation in a New and Just Society" became a required subject > in the > CHEMISTRY (as well as any other) curriculum at the University while > the > classes on "Resonance Theory of Chemical Bonding", along with all > biology > classes based on the gene theory of heredity, were dropped. This > was by no > means an isolated phenomenon: ideologic purity was valued higher than > technical expertise in all Communist societies whose first priority > was, > naturally, self-preservation. It was this mentality, eventually > overriding > all other considerations, that was the decisive kick in my ass to > assume all > the dangers and difficulties of escape and starting a new life from > scratch > in the West. > > You guys seem to have been asleep (or perhaps not born yet) > during most > of the twentieth century. As far as I am concerned, the mention of > dinosaurs > in the salutation was not only a reference to their size, but also > to their > obsoleteness. Today, after the conclusion of this most turbulent > century in > human history, it is no longer necessary to compare societal > systems on > their THEORETICAL beauties. We now have historic experience. The > "Daddy" > model, the "Coconut" model, and all others, including the "value > surplus" > model of Marx, are of course ludicrous oversimplifications.You can > debate > those models until you are blue in the face. Why not just look at the > HISTORIC RECORD, and realize that Socialism, for all its good > intentions, > DOES NOT WORK and must be eventually propped up by police support > that in > the Stalinist/Maoist extreme became a veritable nightmare. > Capitalism, for > all its basic selfishness, WORKS and does not need internal > reinforcement. > That does not mean that it is perfect, and the Capitalist system is > indeed > constantly subject to vigorous debate and changes here-and-there. > Try to > just suggest this in a Socialist/ Communist society and you know > where you > will end up. And if you say it is unfair to compare the American > model to > say Russia which was subject to absolutism even under the Czars, I > have the > perfect controlled experiment for you: Just compare East and West > Germany > 1949-1989. One people, one tradition, comparable industrial/ > agricultural > base; only the occupying power and the governments they imposed was > different. Then compare their standard of living, personal > freedoms, even > the bare looks of towns and villages. QED, and you guys can go on > beating > your dead horse. > > --Danny's Grandpa (now also Great-Grandpa) Andrew. > > --Apple-Mail-15-268367744 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sorry I dropped out of the = discussion that I kind of started. I was overwhelmed at work for a = couple weeks, then intimidated by the 85 new messages. :-)


But I've read through most = of the responses, it's a cool discussion. I agree with this conclusion = from Andrew and appreciate the historical perspective. But now, having = come to this conclusion (I think), the harder (and therefore more = interesting :-)) question is about the specifics.=A0

"What level of basic = minimal support should the socialist aspect of our society = provide?"=A0

My= stock market question was a subset of that, as there will be socialist = controls on that too, but I'm convinced that first I need to study more = about how the stock market currently works and what controls/limits are = already in place before I can participate intelligently in that = conversation. So first I'd like to see if we can agree on an answer to = the above.=A0

My answer would be that = everyone, no matter how badly they screw up, or how lazy they are would = be guaranteed the following forever no matter what:

food, shelter, safety, = education, health care


This does not include any = luxury, entertainment, or particularly high quality of these things, but = at a minimum everyone will have these.=A0 The food should be nutritional = enough to stay healthy (which saves money on the health care). Shelter = is a bed, clothes, heat in the winter, survivable lack of heat in the = summer, etc.. I picture this being provided in government housing, but = there has to be provision of safety in these places, so that people have = the opportunity to try to improve their lot without it constantly being = taken away by criminals. Education is key to everything. And the health = care should include the basics, preventative care etc., but maybe not = extreme measures that are extremely expensive.=A0

So everyone survives, but = they're on their own to compete in the free market for the level of = luxury they want, and there's no effort to equalize distribution of = wealth beyond the above minimums.

Do people agree? What = should be added or removed? How would you refine the definition of these = sub-items?=A0 =A0We could have a separate discussion on each one, I'm = sure. But it seems like a coherent solution to all of them would be = better. I think our country is rich enough that we can and should = provide the above. Further I think that we could easily do it in a = fashion that most people would not use it, yet it would provide a hugely = valuable service to those who did. Thoughts?


I've actually come around = over the last few years to think that the ideal distribution of wealth = in a society, in practice, is a gaussian curve. Mostly middle, but some = really rich, and therefore also some really poor. Some people get = screwed at the lower end, some rightly so and some not rightly so, and = thus we have the basic support discussed above just in case they were = stuck there unfairly. But some people do amazing things at the upper end = that would never be possible if things were distributed equally. I = didn't used to believe this, but the more I look at how inefficient the = government is at trying new things compared to=A0billionaires with money = to risk, the more it seems essential.=A0 So this is the viewpoint I'm = coming from- not to provide equality or prevent accumulation of wealth, = but to establish what level of minimum safety net should be in = place.


Or if people are still too = sick of this thread, never mind, and in a bit I'll ask about the stock = market details again. :-)

Dave = Morris
cell: 734-476-8769

On Sep = 11, 2007, at 1:11 AM, Andrew Reeves wrote:

=A0=A0 = Danny, and everybody else in this dinosaurian debate
(please forward as appropriate, as I am not sure how = to do that):

=A0=A0 = You are goading me to enter the fray, but I am still resisting. = One of
the great luxuries I am enjoying = as an American is that I do not HAVE to get
Hungary in the late 1940's when = "Dialectic Materialism: the Overthrow of
CHEMISTRY (as well as any other) = curriculum at the University while the
classes = on "Resonance Theory of Chemical Bonding", along with all = biology
classes based on the gene theory = of heredity, were dropped. This was by no
means an = isolated phenomenon: ideologic purity was valued higher than
technical expertise in all Communist societies whose = first priority was,
naturally, = self-preservation. It was this mentality, eventually = overriding
all other considerations, that = was the decisive kick in my ass to assume all
the dangers and difficulties of escape and starting = a new life from scratch
in the = West.

=A0=A0 = You guys seem to have been asleep (or perhaps not born yet) = during most
of the twentieth century. As far = as I am concerned, the mention of dinosaurs
in the = salutation was not only a reference to their size, but also to = their
obsoleteness. Today, after the = conclusion of this most turbulent century in
human history, it is no longer necessary to compare = societal systems on
their=A0 THEORETICAL beauties.=A0 We now have historic = experience. The "Daddy"
model, the = "Coconut" model, and all others, including the "value surplus"
model of Marx, are of course ludicrous = oversimplifications.You can debate
those models = until you are blue in the face. Why not just look at the
HISTORIC RECORD, and realize that Socialism, for all = its good intentions,
DOES NOT WORK and must be = eventually propped up by police support that in
the Stalinist/Maoist extreme became a veritable = nightmare. Capitalism, for
all its basic = selfishness, WORKS and does not need internal reinforcement.
That does not mean that it is perfect, and the = Capitalist system is indeed
constantly = subject to vigorous debate and changes here-and-there. Try to
just suggest this in a Socialist/ Communist society = and you know where you
will end up. And if you say = it is unfair to compare the American model to
say Russia which was subject to absolutism even = under the Czars, I have the
perfect = controlled experiment for you: Just compare East and West = Germany
1949-1989. One people, one = tradition, comparable industrial/agricultural
base; only the occupying power and the governments = they imposed=A0 = was
different. Then compare their = standard of living, personal freedoms, even
the = bare looks of towns and villages. QED, and you guys can go on = beating
your dead horse.



=

= --Apple-Mail-15-268367744--