Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon
I would agree that not every government infringement of liberty warrants the label socialist, although on a larger level a rose by any other name still has thorns. It's ironic, however, that Tom chose pension reform as an example to illustrate the point that not all government infringement of liberty is socialism, both because our Social Security system represents a massive transfer of income from poor young minority workers to idle, elderly white women--surely one of the vilest forms of socialism--and because German Marxists in league with Bismark out-maneuvered German (classical) liberals to produce pension reform as their first socialist success. Most polls, incidentally, demonstrate that most Americans under the age of 40 do not believe that Social Security will be around to take care of them. Whether or not people need to be forced to save for themselves represents a value-judgement, not some sort of postulate of economics. I think we all agree that no poor person needs to forced to save for a wealthy person. DBL In a message dated 6/17/03 4:25:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Americans don't like to support something called socialism, but they often support socialism by some other name. David All but a very few Americans, including economists, are in favor of socialized money. That is the most pervasive socialist program in the USA. It's a mistake to confuse the word socialist by refering to gov't money as socialist money. Most folks, I'm sure, would state that socialist money means the gov't gives more money to those who need it, taking from those who have it. E.g. gov't socialist redistribution. I don't even know why you want to call the monopoly legal tender laws socialized money -- but now I'm not certain this is what you mean. There has long been a freedom-security trade off. People want both, but will usually choose more real/ felt security in return for small amounts of (unrecognized?) freedom. Social security is widely supported because of the certainty element, folks are sure that they'll be taken care of by the SS program. Since one of the main costs of inflation is the greater uncertainty, a reduced inflation/ uncertainty is worth quite a lot of freedom to many people. One conclusion I draw is support for mandatory savings programs, including, in Slovakia, a 3-pillar pension reform where the first pillar is a minimum poverty amount, pay-as-you-go from the budget; the second pillar is a required savings amount, which becomes your own inheritable property; the third is a tax-advantaged optional savings amount. Generally the irresponsible folk need to be forced to save more for themselves, to reduce the number of needy in the future. Tom Grey
RE: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon
Sorry, David, you misunderstood me (or at least what I thought I meant). I first tried to point out that gov't money was one thing, not so much socialism. But SS is something else -- I guess I should have said most folks would agree that social security is a form of socialism, but would add that it's pretty good. I certainly meant that SS is prolly the most recognized socialism/ socialist policy in the US. One of the ways to save SS is the, so far unpopular, means testing. The huge drugs bills should all include means testing. I certainly oppose forcing the poor to save or subsidize the rich! Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 June, 2003 12:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon I would agree that not every government infringement of liberty warrants the label socialist, although on a larger level a rose by any other name still has thorns. It's ironic, however, that Tom chose pension reform as an example to illustrate the point that not all government infringement of liberty is socialism, both because our Social Security system represents a massive transfer of income from poor young minority workers to idle, elderly white women--surely one of the vilest forms of socialism--and because German Marxists in league with Bismark out-maneuvered German (classical) liberals to produce pension reform as their first socialist success. Most polls, incidentally, demonstrate that most Americans under the age of 40 do not believe that Social Security will be around to take care of them. Whether or not people need to be forced to save for themselves represents a value-judgement, not some sort of postulate of economics. I think we all agree that no poor person needs to forced to save for a wealthy person. DBL
Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon
Thanks for the clarification Tom. I do agree that government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of socialism. I wonder though if most folks would agree that social security is socialism. Americans don't like to admit that they like socialism. and FDR sold social security by giving it its own devoted tax and claim that the tax is a retirement contribution. Millions of Americans view Social Security benefits as their right, not because they see the benefits as socialist redistribution, but rather because they view the benefits as socialist redistribution but rather as the result of their own contirbutions. It's no wonder that the primary beneficiaries of Social Security oppose means-testing. David In a message dated 6/17/03 10:27:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, David, you misunderstood me (or at least what I thought I meant). I first tried to point out that gov't money was one thing, not so much socialism. But SS is something else -- I guess I should have said most folks would agree that social security is a form of socialism, but would add that it's pretty good. I certainly meant that SS is prolly the most recognized socialism/ socialist policy in the US. One of the ways to save SS is the, so far unpopular, means testing. The huge drugs bills should all include means testing. I certainly oppose forcing the poor to save or subsidize the rich! Tom
RE: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon -- pension reform
Yes, many feel that, since they contributed, they should get the benefits. This lie is pernicious. All politicians should be stating that the money paid in has already gone out -- and money received by retired folks now is money taxed by current workers. On the other hand, that's also not sooo different than normal banks. I actually think a 3 pillar program for America might work, too: with a statement of exactly how much each worker has contributed (NO interest? same interest as on US savings bonds?) with that total lump sum being calculated and treated as the first (min benefit) and second pillars. A full second pillar includes forced savings, which becomes the property of the individual. And a third, IRA type optional pillar, which would reduce the basic benefits in some 1:2 proportion. Tom Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon Thanks for the clarification Tom. I do agree that government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of socialism. I wonder though if most folks would agree that social security is socialism. Americans don't like to admit that they like socialism. and FDR sold social security by giving it its own devoted tax and claim that the tax is a retirement contribution. Millions of Americans view Social Security benefits as their right, not because they see the benefits as socialist redistribution, but rather because they view the benefits as socialist redistribution but rather as the result of their own contirbutions. It's no wonder that the primary beneficiaries of Social Security oppose means-testing. David
socialism historical?
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of socialism. Does the meaning of socialism include a time frame, so that a policy that is socialist after that time is not socialist before that time? What is socialism, what year does it take effect, and why is the time element involved? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Health insurance for kids
When I was in grad school, my wife's health insurance policy through work allowed an employee to add a spouse for $1000 per year (I cannot remember the exact numbers, but these are close) or add a spouse and children for $2000 per year. And it didn't matter whether you had 1 child or 10. Since she worked for UNC, I figured it was a political decision. Now I work for the state of Texas and my policy is set up similarly. Adding my wife costs $150 per month and adding any number of children costs $120 per month. And her policy at a law firm is also structured the same way. How can this be rational? -Jeffrey Rous
Re: Health insurance for kids
Now I work for the state of Texas and my policy is set up similarly. Adding my wife costs $150 per month and adding any number of children costs $120 per month. And her policy at a law firm is also structured the same way. How can this be rational? -Jeffrey Rous Find out whether the insurance company has laid down this policy or whether the employer is subsidizing the extra children. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: socialism historical?
Political labels are notoriously contextual. The passage of a few years renders many labels unintelligible. However, there is something more interesting to say. Political parties frequently co-op specific policies, which distorts our association of a label with a policy. Example: the two politial parties in the US have played football with balanced budget. Perot also made a big deal about. So what label would you use? Fabio On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Fred Foldvary wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: government money, as it predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of socialism. Does the meaning of socialism include a time frame, so that a policy that is socialist after that time is not socialist before that time? What is socialism, what year does it take effect, and why is the time element involved? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Health insurance for kids
Otherwise, perhaps people feel a social obligation to help support children in the society. This behavior might also be for PR purposes. If some textile worker is laid off b/c their labor is more expensive than foreign they might not be as likely to play the part of Marxian victim of industry to the media with all the [rationally] irational remarks that come with that if their kids were relatively cheap to provide medical insurance for. That of course assumes that employers of unskilled laborers behave similarly to the employers of skilled labor. I'd speculate that this is the caseunskilled laborers have a versatile set of skills, and a wide universe of prospective employers if they lose a job, thus the costs of groaning after losing it are low. On the other hand, an immature response if one was fired from a proffesional position might have more dire consequences, and thus possibly a lower chance of say, a fired law partner complaining to the media. Daniel L. Lurker - Original Message - From: Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:05 pm Subject: Re: Health insurance for kids At 02:52 PM 6/17/2003 -0500, Jeffrey Rous wrote: When I was in grad school, my wife's health insurance policy through work allowed an employee to add a spouse for $1000 per year (I cannot remember the exact numbers, but these are close) or add a spouse and children for $2000 per year. And it didn't matter whether you had 1 child or 10. Are employees with more kids more attractive as employees? If so, this this could be a compensating wage. Otherwise, perhaps people feel a social obligation to help support children in the society. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: socialism historical?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 07:41:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Socialism developed in the early and mid-19th century as a rejection of classical liberalism, Wrong. You seem to confuse the concept of socialism with the word socialism. Just like classical liberalism can be traced back to chinese taoists or to greek stoicists, socialism can be traced back to chinese legists or greek platonists. Plato's much praised The Republic is your typical national-socialist utopia. So yes, the word socialism appeared and became popular in the early nineteenth century, some time after the word liberalism, to denote the opposite trend in ideology. But both concepts or traditions seem to be as old as society itself. What they all have in common, rather, is the subordination of the individual to some sort of higher collective, whether, as in the case of communism, the international working class, or, as in the case of national socialism, the nation (the people of a particular ethnicity), or, as in the case of liberal socialism, democracy or the People (a vague notion not necessarily incorporating a particular notion of ethnicity). In practice many of these types of socialism (of which I've listed only a few) overlapped, and we see, as I mentioned in an earlier email, when the German Marxists allied themselves with the monarchists to pass government-mandated pensions over the opposition of German liberals. While most forms of socialism have been statist, not all statism has been socialistic. The primary statist ideology prior to classical liberalism, classical conservatism, took as its justification not the subordination of the individual to some higher collective, but the divine right of kings to rule (one might say subordination of the individual to God through God's alleged representative on earth, the king). The post-modern left, for that matter, has to some degree moved beyond socialism anyway. The environmentalist movement in particular has shifted from conservation for the sake of future generations of humans to protecting the environment for its own sake. Even more than socialism, environmentalism harks back to medieval calls for subordination of the individual to a non-human higher good. David -- [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ]
