Comments on Bush Orders an Invasion of the Social Security Trust Fund

Go to Making Free Marketeers Angry - Add a comment - Go to Bush Orders an Invasion of the Social Security Trust Fund

Damon...

Yes, I've seen the quote, although I can't quite recall the context right at this moment. And I prefer not to make judgements on societies or people, just observations which I recognise can be wrong

No, I am not happy to let the weak fall by the wayside in the interest of economic prosperity for the rest of society, or even for special interest groups. Like Sarwood, I've spent a lot of time helping people get out of their slumps; not with 100% success, but I'd venture to say better than 50% in lasting success, maybe even 60%..

And I don't particularly care what the rest of society thinks of my efforts or what judgements they make.

As for "infinite growth" in economies, most people look at money as being infinite. The only way for this to happen is by making money circulate faster - there is no need for an infinite amount; in fact, there may be too much of it even today.

When it comes to wealth, (as something different from money), I agree with you: the current paradigm is doomed to failure. It's based on scarcity and has been since Malthus (around 1812, when he calculated just how much raw resources there were). Why not go to the Buckminster Fuller approach - doing more with less - which fits in with the idea that we don't need an infinite supply of money?

posted by L.E.Gant on September 12, 2004 at 3:54 PM | link to this | reply

L.E.Grant...

...you are presumably familiar with the quote (Johnson, I think) "You can judge a society by the way it treats its weakest members." Both your society and mine fall over badly on this simple criteria, yet you seem to be happy to let the weak fall by the wayside in the interest of the economic prosperity of the rest of us.

In terms of economic growth, are you also aware that, on a very basic level, infinite growth (that the current paradigm calls for) on a finite planet (that we certainly inhabit) is an impossibility?

Just wondered how you would attempt to square these circles.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on September 12, 2004 at 4:39 AM | link to this | reply

Sarwood: "People like you" = "you"????

I thank you for the additional quote from the gospels. I am not against helping people when they need it. I do  it, and follow the additional maxim about right and left hands. But sometimes, a helping hand is best adminstered with a booted foot to the posterior, or letting people find their own solutions.

There's also the view that "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime". If you teach people how to better themselves, it is is THEIR responsibility to DO it, not yours. If they don't help themselves, then they deserve what they (don't) get. (Note: the "YOU" and "YOURS" in this paragraph is generic, not specifically "Sarwood".)

Good on you for helping people (adults and children) in need! May you collect all the blessings you deserve. (this time "you" = specifically "Sarwood". And no irony or sarcasm attached.)

But let's face it: most of them will always rely on others' generosity to get them what they want, and that's a zero sum game - with the concommitant reduction of what is available for everyone else. SSTF is a losing proposition, unless backed by economic growth at the individual level, and that happens only when people take responsibility for their own security funds.

posted by L.E.Gant on September 11, 2004 at 6:59 PM | link to this | reply

L.E.Gant

Major difference in my youthful "poverty" -- my father was a member of a union.  He made enought money so that he and my mother had to work only one job....   they could be with us in the evenings and on weekends and see to our homework, visit the school, attend our "performances." Encourage us.  We also had a free clinic for vacinnations.  We went there.  Our doctor made home visits and prescriped medicines over the phone...  very small charge.  My tuition to the prestigious University of Texas was $50 for a full semester. (which at the time was about one week's wages.)

As to the prejudicial assumptions I was objecting to,  I think you instructed me to go and tutor young people if I was so concerned about them.  That to me was an assumption that I had not actually tried that.  You were wrong.

As to what Christ said, he said "Even as you do unto the least of these, my brethen you have done it unto me, for I was hungry and you fed me not, I was naked and you clothed me not.........."   I don't think Christ would be pleased at the idea of us building our shareholder wealth off the backs of cheap labor to the point of oppression.  And that is what we are doing.

posted by sarwood on September 6, 2004 at 10:34 AM | link to this | reply

Sorry - forgot to trim off the last paragraph, which has a couple of starts and the comment I was replying to, so please ignore it....

posted by L.E.Gant on September 5, 2004 at 3:49 PM | link to this | reply

Sarwood: Relative to your last few words - if you want the courtesy of no "prejudicial assumptions", then extend it to others as well. I responded to your points, and, at no time, did I assume that you were anything but what you presented yourself as - someone who has middle class values, and I don't have anything against those values.
And I am happy for you that you raised your societal level from poor beginnings through your own efforts (and the sacrifices of your parents).
But think of it: if YOU could do it, then so can all those "poor" people. They are every bit as intelligent as you, have access to the same methods as you used, and can make the same sacrifices.

One thing to remember is that "poor" and "low wage" are too often defined by statistical means based on comparisons that might or might not be true. There will always be "poor" and "low paid" workers in every society when one compares one person's income against another's.
The definition of poverty used by many people in power, and which you are probably using by default, goes something like: those people and families who have an income less than 60% of the country median, something like 30% of the population! BY DEFINITION!

In other words, Christ's words: the poor will always be with us.
So it would make little difference if everybody had a great technological education: only the marker that "defines" poverty would change.

That also addresses your question about goods and services provided by people who make a minimum wage - society has no choice but to have such people.
ANd think about it: you said yourself that you talk with people who brag about buying the cheapest goods

WHO ARE THEY?

Mostly those "poor" people on their $7.50 per hour. Who won't take on the cleanng jobs and low status jobs that your society needs to have done. Which makes it economical to bring in those workers from Bolivia, etc.

As I've said (somewhere) before, put the blame where it belongs - on the people who have not been taught how to make society work and compain about their low wages. And the socialistically inclined do-gooders who assume that taxes are a way of distributing wealth, as long they they get their little cut out of the proceeds.

Your $7.50 per hour example may be "poor" by N.A. standards, but there are people who are living on less than $1 income per DAY.too often defined by I grew up in "poor" circumstances myself and worked through high school, college and beyond -- very hard. My father was a carpenter. We lived in a one-bedroom house. My mother knew that education was the way to a better future for her children. And yes, individually, those 1,000,000+ workers can make that decision (although college tuition is MUCH more now than it was then.) However, beyond that accurate point is still the reality: Do we as a society want the goods and services provided by people who make minimum wage? What would happen if everybody got a great technological education and we had no "low-wage" workers? I think I can tell you, we would go out and "recruit" more from places like Mexico and Bolivia. Because that is what we have done in the past. They clean motel rooms, empty bedpans -- they are with the abandoned elderly when they die in a nursing home. They cook our food, wait on the tables in cheap restaurants, wash cars... they mow lawns and wash decks and carry cement for bricklayers. Do we want this labor done? Then shouldn't we as society pay the wages that give a working person the ability to live decency and in dignity? It's about us -- not the government and not the low-wage worker. It's about what kind of people we are... and how we view the justice of our own circumstances. Many I talk to brag about buying the cheapest goods... but they don't realize that often those goods were manufactured by oppressed or prison labor in China. Do we care? I hope so. As for teaching children math and reading. I have spent countless years tutoring project housing children.... and teaching job skills to adults who want to work to better themselves. I'm for it. Please don't make prejudicial assumptions about me that you know nothing about.

posted by L.E.Gant on September 5, 2004 at 3:47 PM | link to this | reply

LE Gant

I grew up in "poor" circumstances myself and worked through high school, college and beyond -- very hard.  My father was a carpenter.  We lived in a one-bedroom house.  My mother knew that education was the way to a better future for her children.  And yes, individually, those 1,000,000+ workers can make that decision (although college tuition is MUCH more now than it was then.)  However, beyond that accurate point is still the reality:   Do we as a society want the goods and services provided by people who make minimum wage? 

What would happen if everybody got a great technological education and we had no "low-wage" workers?  I think I can tell you, we would go out and "recruit" more from places like Mexico and Bolivia.  Because that is what we have done in the past.

They clean motel rooms, empty bedpans -- they are with the abandoned elderly when they die in a nursing home.  They cook our food, wait on the tables in cheap restaurants, wash cars...  they mow lawns and wash decks and carry cement for bricklayers.  Do we want this labor done?  Then shouldn't we as society pay the wages that give a working person the ability to live decency and in dignity?

It's about us -- not the government and not the low-wage worker.  It's about what kind of people we are...  and how we view the justice of our own circumstances.  Many I talk to brag about buying the cheapest goods... but they don't realize that often those goods were manufactured by oppressed or prison labor in China.  Do we care?  I hope so.

As for teaching children math and reading.  I have spent countless years tutoring project housing children....   and teaching job skills to adults who want to work to better themselves.  I'm for it.  Please don't make prejudicial assumptions about me that you know nothing about.

posted by sarwood on September 5, 2004 at 6:22 AM | link to this | reply

uh huh...

Hmmm, who was it that cast the deciding vote to dip into social security? Could it be Al Gore? YES!
Why did he do that when a surplus was all the rage?

Because the surplus wasn't real and government was running out of money because of wasting it on silly social programs, while less and less money came in because of Clinton's high taxes that strangled businesses, who then stopped producing, which is what led to layoffs and two years of negative growth in 1999 and 2000. Think about that, Damon!

If I worked for a company, I would not want to be earning 34¢ on the dollar which is what Kerry's tax hike plan will do for everyone. Since I work for myself, I can set my own prices and let my skills and the market determine my success, not government. That is my option, but many will stick to working for another company and invest their money in 401K's etc. as they do now. Will the market crash when everyone sells their 401K's? NO of course not because that money will be used to buy things in retirement. It's a cycle that is working and will continue too if government can keep it's hand out our pockets!

DAE

posted by DEMSareEVIL on September 5, 2004 at 12:10 AM | link to this | reply

Sarwood: You're right. It IS about enlightened self-interest. It IS about people caring for each other, and cooperating with each other to achieve a better world, or neighbourhood, or household. I haven't spent much time in the USA over the last 25 years, so I can't comment about the state of current middle class homes and neighbourhoods - I have not really been in touch with relatives who live over there in those kinds of circumstances. But I do know that those $7.50 per hour Wal-Mart employes want the latest and greatest products as advertised on television or promoted through 99.999% of American television shows, and spend far more than they should trying to get them - it's the same everywhere else, including Brazil.

Maybe if those "poor" 1,000,000 people working at Wal-Mart showed some enlightened self-interest instead of demanding that they have the same "rights" - as in assets and ownership - instead of doing their duty by those rights, they would be able to use what little they do have more productively. Maybe if people like you talked with them and showed them how to make better use of what they have, like teaching their children to read and write and do simple arithmetic instead of crying "poor me" because they don't have all those things like those characters in Friends or Sex in The CIty, they'd realise that they can achieve more with what they have.

So, sure: it is about enlightened self-interest, and it is NOT about the government being given the power to take from those who do work in enlightened self-interest to give to those who just want for the sake of wanting.

(and, in case you are wondering, I was brought up in a neighbourhood where, at one point, something like 50% of the people were unemployed and close to 99% were on minimum wages. I don't think I've hurt anybody by striving to "better" myself - except maybe when I took jobs that other people might have also taken, if they had the opportunity.)

posted by L.E.Gant on September 3, 2004 at 4:29 PM | link to this | reply

Interesting analysis, LEGant

Wal-Mart, for example, has over 1,000,000 employees who earn an average of $7.50 per hour without medical insurance or any benefits at all.   And that is just one company that employes workers at a low wages.  There are many many more.  How would you suggest that we convince these workers to hold on to a little more of their "capital"?  Read the book, "Nickel and Dimed" by a journalist who worked as a low-wage earner in the U.S. and then wrote about it.  Then come back and tell me about saving money in America's working class.  And you and others can give that snobby gesture to socially "correct" policy if you want, but what it really is is enlightened self-interest.  What do you think towns and neighborhoods become when people don't have enough money to save or to forego that second job in order to take care of their pre-adolescent who is sneaking out at night to find purpose and meaning with the local gang?  Well I don't want to live in that kind of world.  I chose America -- not Brazil as my home.  I like middle class communities that understand they are interdependent, where people have enough security to take care of the old and the young and their property besides. 

 

posted by sarwood on September 3, 2004 at 3:31 PM | link to this | reply

I'm not as up on USA politics as I used to be, but...

First, I am not an admirer of President Bush. I think he's an arsehole. On the other hand, I think that Kerry and your Democrats are a bunch of do-gooding wankers. But then, I don't have a vote in your elections, so my opinions are simply opinions. So, I'm not a defender of either set of policies. What it boils down to (from an outsider's POV) is that you have a choice of two undesirable approaches, one of which will take your country down slowly and one that will do so quickly. I'm glad that I don't have the choice.

But the economic view you postulate in your posting is rather pre-economics 101 that you suggest for Greenspan.

To start with, the point of buying shares is NOT to sell them on - it is to generate an income. If you (and other baby boomers) think that the share market is all about buying and selling, then go back to school and learn what shares really are.

Next, think of what capital really is - it's money that the taxes have already been paid on. Gains in capital are NOT income, unless one uses it as income, in which case it IS taxed, even under your system, and that's stupidity in action. Those people sitting on their yachts are doing so because their MONEY is working for them (earning an income, which is taxed). It does not matter what share values do - these people will never sell them (or only after years of holding them, which would reduce the tax to virtually zero anyways), so their "gains" are only on paper.

Sure, your average person (those close to the median income) pay tax on the money they have earned, just like businesses and rich people do. The difference is that the rich people (and businesses) also have capital gains (and losses) which are NOT income, and that capital gain is far larger than the incomes they would normally have.

Want to make a difference? Then get people to hold onto the money that they have paid taxes on - let them also build up their capital. Not in their piggy banks, but by investing in what will earn them an income matching or surpassing the income they get from working. Then you'll see that real free enterprise does work.

Oh, and, from what I've seen so far, Bush's approach is more likely to succeed than Kerry's, but it will still fail, but not for the socially/socialistically correct approach suggested in your posting.

posted by L.E.Gant on September 3, 2004 at 2:55 PM | link to this | reply

The thing is, with Greenspan and other free marketeers, it's not really

about sound economics -- it's about ideology. The myth of the laissez-faire utopia where government doesn't interfere and individuals earn their own wealth through their own labor and ingenuity and those who don't labor and have no ingenuity are the only ones who suffer poverty. Of course, it's a myth. As with many myths, there's some truth to it, but not enough to be applicable to the majority of people. I think Alan Greenspan and other laissez-fairers understand this truth somewhat, but I doubt they care. They believe in laissez-faire, period -- even if it can be proven disadvantageous for many or most working people. At its core might be a form of social Darwinism, or a belief that if we just tried laissez-faire 100%, it would somehow work out for everyone. I'm just speculating here.

posted by Dylan24 on September 3, 2004 at 6:17 AM | link to this | reply