Author
|
Topic: taxes for welfare programs
|
Vasil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9030
|
posted 07 May 2005 08:45 PM
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it [...] gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." "We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork." Milton Friedman Could society alleviate poverty in any serious measure through the co-operation of individuals and their donations in NGOs alone, or do we indeed rate freedom lower than what we as a group believe is important to society? That is, that society ought to want to help the poor through state welfare programs. Would it neccesarily be wrong to rate freedom lower than our perceived sense of the public good?
Some thoughts and questions. Feel free to ignore.
From: edmonton, AB | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Vasil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9030
|
posted 07 May 2005 09:19 PM
To clarify: I am using Friedman's quotes to The state is by nature anti free market. The US may be one of the most free markets in world but the only truly free market is the black market. Which has, of course, no government regulations. So if the "tax party of Canada" decides to take people's income and distribute to people who aren't working (which is normal and expected) are they anti freedom and elitist because they are deciding what is best for society instead of simply letting us donate to the salvation army? Could poverty be alleviated by relying on people's compassion alone? Or is it even of any concern that our freedom is notched down a bit because of what a small group thinks is best? Probably this did not clarify.
From: edmonton, AB | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 07 May 2005 09:24 PM
quote: Could poverty be alleviated by relying on people's compassion alone?
See the US for the answer to this. I'd have to say nope! Do you think there are enough people with compassion who are not already involved in decidedly uncompassionate hate mongering? Is your question: If we provide assistance to people through the government are we anti-freedom? is that your qiestion?
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 07 May 2005 09:30 PM
Freedom is great, freesom is wonderful, freedom is the best ... go practice it alone on some deserted island where it might actually work.Society by definition is restrictions on individual freedoms. Friedman argues from ideals to support his concept of free market, but if he wants to argue from the point of ideals, then ideally speaking without society and its arguments against the "belief of freedom itself", there would be no society to give rise to his wonderful "free markets". Force Friedman to live in the real world and he gets his ass kicked evry time. [ 07 May 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vasil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9030
|
posted 07 May 2005 09:52 PM
Well I think ironically it was the state that obliterated most major other groups involved in helping the poor. The churches and their religious orders cultivated the idea of helping the poor to the point where the state jumped in. Now, churches simply wouldn't be up to it since the state has completely pre-empted them. Their capacity for that has been nearly annihilated. But it would be interesting to find out whether the reduction in poverty since that happened (Has there been any?!) was due to a more efficient system under the state as compared to the church or other factors such as more opportunity for jobs. Was the church pre-empted because it wasn't doing as good a job? Now as we know there are other NGOs than the church that take up these tasks.
From: edmonton, AB | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 07 May 2005 10:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Vasil:
So if the "tax party of Canada" decides to take people's income and distribute to people who aren't working (which is normal and expected) are they anti freedom and elitist because they are deciding what is best for society instead of simply letting us donate to the salvation army? Could poverty be alleviated by relying on people's compassion alone?
Friedman himself didn't think so - hence, his idea of the negative income tax.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 07 May 2005 11:00 PM
quote: Originally posted by Vasil: Well sure, its fine to pick and choose the best examples in the world to support your point of view but low unemployment due to an positive nordic work ethic that is undeniable may be more responsible. I think fewer people use the social net there anyway so does it prove the system is resposible for the progress?
What? I'm not picking anything to support my point of view ... you asked a question as to whether it is possible. I am simply giving you an example of what might just be that possibility. You never stipulated that we had to exclude positive examples. As for some superior undeniable nordic work ethic ... have you someproof of what you spew? Jesus H. Christ you "regressives" can't keep a single thought in your heads long enough to actually discover the answer ... no wonder I can't stand you!
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Vasil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9030
|
posted 07 May 2005 11:04 PM
MacD maybe you missed the part where I said the only free market is the black market. Anyway I was talking about welfare programs but I'll bite. Simply put perfectly equal societies can never exist, evolutionary theory will tell you that. So we've got to do the best with what we have. Neither socialism nor a "free" market economy can provide equality. I don't want an equal society I want a society that merely doesn't let the least fortunate suffer and perish. As to freedom it was said man is only as free as immediate circumstances allow. gravity, time constraints, low IQ etc. How's a perfect society going to solve those awful limitations? And that's just nonsense to say that all title to land is derived from coercive force. You'd have to convince me.
From: edmonton, AB | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Vasil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9030
|
posted 07 May 2005 11:12 PM
NoYards Ok the work ethic thing was a bit of a stretch but let's go back. If fewer people use the social net in those countries does it really show that the social net is responsible for the less poverty? It seems to point to another factor.
We're cool eh, no hurt feelings? I suppose its inevitable. I'm new here.
From: edmonton, AB | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 07 May 2005 11:29 PM
So your "limitation" on where I can argue from is that we have to have a society that makes sure it has poor people ... just so us rich people can feel superior I suppose.Yes, I'm sure it is Finlands superior work ethic and advanced free market that prevents welfare cases arising from sickness, accidents, physical limitations, etc. How do you know fewer people us their "safety net"? Maybe it's just that those who need to use the "safety net" are allowed to do so somewhere above the poverty line. You're starting from such a screwed up position I don't even think we're even playing the same game let alone in the same ballpark. If we're playing theoretical economy here, then why should I limit my responses to an economy that enforces poverty so it can use the poor to show how generous a free market really is?
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vasil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9030
|
posted 08 May 2005 12:13 AM
Good point about being able to access the social net above the poverty line.But I don't think that in finland or sweden that applies to welfare which I am talking about. By any index they have very free markets, showing that a social net and a free market don't have to conflict. And while the degree of social spending vary, the nordic countries haven't created a different system than we or the US have. A system that makes rich people feel superior... I'm sure there are plenty of snobs in helsinki. plenty even in havana too. Government can guarantee a standard of living but it can't boost your self-esteem. What I'd really like to see is more examples of of the the ideal societies that aren't even more coercive holding title to land. I think all you want is a readjustment to our current system.
From: edmonton, AB | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 09 May 2005 01:54 AM
After Chile's experiment in laissez-faire capitalism was finished, commentators said that Milton Friedman's economics and democracy were incompatible.
quote: Pinochet did not destroy Chile's economy all alone. It took nine years of hard work by the most brilliant minds in world academia, a gaggle of Milton Friedman's trainees, the Chicago Boys. Under the spell of their theories, the General abolished the minimum wage, outlawed trade union bargaining rights, privatised the pension system, abolished all taxes on wealth and on business profits, slashed public employment, privatised 212 state industries and 66 banks and ran a fiscal surplus.Freed of the dead hand of bureaucracy, taxes and union rules, the country took a giant leap forward ... into bankruptcy and depression. After nine years of economics Chicago style, Chile's industry keeled over and died.
Greg Palast I think that social democracies in Europe have come to the realization that full employment is an impossibility. Nor would we want full employment within a market economy based on a middle class consumption model. If just 5% of the world's population is producing a quarter of the world's pollution as it is, what happens when the the other 90% of the world adopts our same model?. Scientists have thought about it and come to the conclusion that we would outstrip our resources in nothing flat. And observe the state of the Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney plan for flexible labour markets. Canada and the US unemployment rates are what they are because of Orwellian statistics. One in four workers in North America are said not to earn a living wage right now. And our child poverty rates reflect that. The poster, Macabee, nailed up a brilliant quote for me the other day, "Our choices are socialism or barbarism." It seems that Bushco has already chosen barbarism. [ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Vasil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9030
|
posted 09 May 2005 07:10 PM
The sole regulation of a black market is that it may not exist; Otherwise in MOST ways it is a good study of what would happen if our economy was truly free of regulation. Cheating, stealing, occasional turf wars.It seems some progressives would have ready allies with many economists if they would want to work together towards the legalisation, regulation and taxation of certain activities. Could it ever happen? I don't have a problem with systems of a mostly free market mixed with public trusts. And yes the rate at which we are raping the earth is scary. But socialism or barbarism? You might remember that Orwell equated the two. What kind of socialism anyway? Cuba, China, the former Soviet Union? Or has this system yet to be contrived? Serious question. If you could explain the "Orwellian statistics" further I'd be interested in learning something.
From: edmonton, AB | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 09 May 2005 08:20 PM
The so-called "free" markets that Friedman wants are not free at all. They include many restrictions on how people can behave, and many substantive claims about what counts as a legal entity. For instance, they enforce the status of corporations as "persons", a bizarre counter-intuitive state of affairs which is certainly not necessary for markets tout court. They enforce the limitations on liability for investors in those corporations, so that where a small businessperson who goes into debt is in debt, a group of wealthy investors who approve the corporation they jointly own going into debt are not in debt. They defend contract law. They prosecute (non-white-collar) thieves. They regulate and restrict the abilities of workers to form bargaining cartels (i.e. unions) and what tactics they may or may not employ once they have done so (e.g. no secondary pickets, physical blockades, occupation of the workplace, sectoral strikes). With such things as "tort reform" they place limits on lawsuits that interfere with capital which are different from the limits of lawsuits that do not, thus blocking attempts to force businesses to internalize externalities. Most recently, they do things such as stopping companies from labelling foods "GM free" or "bovine growth hormone free", so as to protect those companies whose products cannot compete in this respect.Free markets! No infringements on freedom! What a pile of crap!!!
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 09 May 2005 08:46 PM
Unemployment is not some random force of nature; it's a deliberate program. The government and the banks may not pick out individuals and designate them to be unemployed, but they designate a percentage, and it would be morally reprehensible if they didn't look after those people's welfare.But then governments and banks don't care about people's welfare, which brings me to the true function of "welfare" or unemployment insurance. It's not there to ease the suffering of the poor; it's there to give the poor something to lose and therefore keep them in order. Welfare is there to protect the establishment. There's an old Russian joke that says Brezhniev lived in perpetual fear that one day he'd wake up to find the Communists had taken over Russia. Similarly, guys like Friedman live in perpetual fear that one day they'll wake up to a "free market" society. And why, when we think of "welfare" do we always associate it with the "poor"?
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 09 May 2005 09:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine: Unemployment is not some random force of nature; it's a deliberate program. The government and the banks may not pick out individuals and designate them to be unemployed, but they designate a percentage, and it would be morally reprehensible if they didn't look after those people's welfare.
I think the unemployed are to believe it's their fault they're unemployed. Better for them to believe it's their own fault for not having work than to know it's their designated job not to contribute to the erosion of concentrated wealth by working. quote:
And why, when we think of "welfare" do we always associate it with the "poor"?
Ralph Estes of the American University produced a study of the external costs that corporations impose upon employees, consumers, communities, and American society. The costs do not show up in profit and loss statements. In 1995, He estimated the costs at over $2.6 Trillion dollars annually. Ralph Nader puts the direct cost of corporate welfare handouts to profitable corporations at something like half a trillion each year while others say thay US taxpayers layout $2 trillion every year so that corporate America can earn about a half a trillion dollars in profits. This is in the US corporate welfare state where the number of workers expands each month by so many, and the number of jobs created is another number altogether. What happens to the ones who don't find a living wage job?. Paul Martin found a way of dealing with this phenomenon. With the stroke of a pen, qualifying for EI-UI-O work weeks can be made more difficult in this country. Mel Hurtig says that in the 13.25 years before FTA, Canada produced well over 3 million full time jobs. In the 13.25 years after FTA was signed, that number was about halved. In countries like Sweden, unemployed workers are counted as unemployed for up to five years of their last job and can access a wide range of job training programs. In Germany, you're counted as unemployed if you've worked 12 of the last 36 months, again with access to a range of job training programs. The incidence of low wage earners in North America is about one in four, whereas in Scandinavia and Europe, it's anywhere between 1 in 8 to 1 in 20. [ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 09 May 2005 09:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine: Unemployment is not some random force of nature; it's a deliberate program.
Not a particularly effective one, it would appear. Over the past 30 years, the average annual growth rate of the working age population was 1.44%, while employment grew at 1.76% a year. In 1976, 57.2% of working-age Canadians had a job. In 2004, the employment ratio was 62.7%. If corporations had succeeded at keeping the employment ratio at its 1976 levels, there would be 1.4 million fewer employed Canadians today. The question is: why didn't they?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 09 May 2005 10:33 PM
Real wage = observed (nominal) wage / price of goodsClearly, nominal wages have increased. And so has the cost of living. But it's my impression that nominal wages have risen faster than the cost of living (the CPI is probably the best index - at least, it's supposed to be). I'd very much like to attach a number to that impression, but it seems that StatsCan has no fewer than three separate series for wages over the perio 1976-2004, so nothing's directly comparable. I suppose I could splice them together to get a rough-and-ready estimate. But I was hoping that Fidel had a reference to someone who had already done that work for me.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 09 May 2005 10:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: I'm not aware of any evidence that real wages have declined since 1976.
But what's the real unemployment rate?. What about the steep decline in full time jobs created since freer trade with the elephant and more "self-employment" than ever before?. With the dollar over 82 cents, we can expect more living wage manufacturing jobs to go east so that Canadian's are freed up for higher value, more meaningful work, like shining seats at local coffee shops. And we won't mention the unmentionable - the most appalling child poverty rates associated with flexible labour markets in North America. [ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean Cain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3502
|
posted 09 May 2005 10:55 PM
From what I've seen, Statistics Canada reported that real wages in Canada have been virtually stagnant since about 1977, with miniscule increases during the late 1990s and the highest levels of unemployment since the Great Depression. Compare this with the Keynesian period 1945 to 1973, when real wages more than doubled and unemployment rarely reached 6%. Yup, I'm convinced. Supply-side monetarism in the 1980s and 90s was a smashing success. Three cheers for Milton Friedman! [ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]
From: Oakville, Ont. | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 09 May 2005 10:57 PM
Source? quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
So there we have it. An academic with blinders on as to the real unemployment rate, the steep decline in full time jobs created since freer trade with the elephant and more "self-employment" than ever before.
Sorry, Fidel, but when I see claims about data that don't pass the sniff test, my instinct is to go to the source and see for myself. Here are the CANSIM series I used to show that employment has grown faster than the working-age population: V2062811 V2062817 V2062810 V2062816 V2062815 If you have something equally solid, I'd appreciate a reference. [Edited to add:] And let's hope that this is the last time you feel obliged to refer to me as 'blindered' without telling me what I've overlooked. I don't mind being wrong; but before I can learn anything, I need to know why I'm wrong. [ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 09 May 2005 11:14 PM
Mel Hurtig, "The Vanishing Nation" p366Canada's Unemployment Rates for the last half of the 20th Century 1950s 4.2 percent 1960s 5.0 percent 1970s 6.7 percent 1980s 9.3 percent 1990s 9.5 percent Average Annual GDP Growth Rates during last 4 decades 1960s 5.11 percent (when corporations paid taxes) 1970s 4.43 percent 1980s 2.95 percent 1990s 2.28 percent Mel says, "In the 1980's, full-time jobs accounted for 58 percent of all new jobs created, but in the 1990's they made up a pathetic 18 percent of new job creation."
You and Mel seem to be painting totally opposite puctures of what's been happening in Canada, Stephen. Keep both hands on the table where we can see'em eh!.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 10 May 2005 12:11 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: The question is: do these infringements lead to bad outcomes? Why?Again, this is not a rhetorical question. If you can show how eliminating these restrictions would make people better off, it'd be an actual argument.
With due respect, Mr. Gordon, the shoe is on the other foot. The side making claims that taxation, social programs, environmental regulations etc. are horrific because they infringe freedom and "free markets" do not is the neocon side. I'm simply pointing out that it's a silly argument because "free markets" also require infringements on freedom. If we can agree that it's a silly argument, we can then start to talk about what makes people better off. But it's Mr. Friedman, the neoliberal economist, who appears to have based his arguments on content-free moralizations. I am merely getting those out of the way so that we can talk about the more sensible issues you describe. And considering that it was, after all, Mr. Friedman's vacuous claims that were made the premise of the thread, I don't think I need apologize for addressing them. Perhaps I expressed myself with a bit of exasperation at the continued hypocritical smugness of these "free market" devotees. But it does get up my nose rather that it seems the very people most eager to endorse a surveillance police state and gut their country's protections of civil rights, due process and so on, not to mention placing draconian restrictions on rights to unionize, strike and so forth, then turn around and decry the least curb on their precious markets and corporations as anathema because it limits freedom, forsooth! And Vasil--I knew everything in the movie "The corporation" and plenty more already when I saw it. It was a useful starter kit for people who hadn't thought about the issue before. Have you seen it? Were you able to comprehend what it said? [ 10 May 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 10 May 2005 12:12 AM
quote: Originally posted by Vasil: To SeanCain:Also I don't believe we ever followed the Reagan-Thatcher policies in Canada. So maybe it would be better to examine the trends of real wages of the US and UK.
*snicker* Brian Mulroney *snicker again*
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean Cain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3502
|
posted 10 May 2005 12:44 AM
quote: Originally posted by Vasil: To SeanCain:Also I don't believe we ever followed the Reagan-Thatcher policies in Canada. So maybe it would be better to examine the trends of real wages of the US and UK.
You don't have to be a Reagan-lover or a Thatcherite to institute corporate managed trade agreements, cut taxes on business and the rich, raise interest rates to unprecedented levels, slash social spending and almost double the unemployment rate.
This is what Mulroney did from 1984 to 1993. The wage decline has been even worse in the U.S. According to the Census Bureau in Washington D.C., real wages in the United States have declined about 15% since 1973 (more than 25% in some industries). Why is it that when conservatives declare war on unions, gut social programs and allow millions of good paying jobs to move offshore, they all of a sudden become so SHOCKED to learn that incomes for working class people are actually declining?
From: Oakville, Ont. | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vasil
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9030
|
posted 10 May 2005 07:48 PM
I saw "the corporation" and I thought it was good.To roughly quote Friedman in the documentary. "I don't believe in democracy. You don't believe in democracy. If we did, we wouldn't have any problem if 55% of the population voted to put to death the other 45%" So he can understand the real world. I will claim a large part of ignorance when comparing Mulroney with Reagan. How has Britain been doing with Blair who can be considered to have carried on Thatcher's legacy?
From: edmonton, AB | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|