--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 http://www-personal.umich.edu /~thecat/
On Sep , 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 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 . =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. --Danny's Grandpa (now also Great-Grandpa) Andrew.
--Apple-Mail-15-268367744--
|
