[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2014-January-19, 13:11, said:

To my mind, virtually all currencies have some artificiality about them .Gold really is not worth 16K an ounce, or whatever it is it is selling for. And gold is only theoretically tangible. It really is not practical to keep it. One way or another, money has worth because people expect it to hold its worth. And really, I have more faith in the dolllar than I have in a pound of gold. I do not have absolute faith in either, but if I had to choose I would go with the dollar.

This may sound like saying it is all built on air. Well, to some extent I think that this is so. I don't expect that tying it to gold would help.

Monetary theory is apparently not as simple as it seems like it ought to be. Whether going back to a gold standard would be the Good Thing™ that the Austrians and others seem to think it would be I don't know, but it seems clear that the current fiat money situation is not the panacea that Lord Keynes and others think (or thought) it is.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-19, 17:22, said:

Spoken like a true Welfare Liberal.

Right. This makes your assertions much more credible.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-17, 21:30, said:

I don't think "promote the general welfare" means "become a welfare state". I do think that's what the US has become.

This website shows the actual numbers. 4.1% of the U.S. population is on welfare. Total welfare payments are less than 150 billion annually.

There are some genuine concerns, though. In 8 states welfare payments exceed salaries to teachers.

[kenberg]

Is "on welfare" a well-defined phrase? The site lists "on welfarte" and (more than three times as many) "on food stamps" as separate categories. Perhaps "on welfare" means recieving money under Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)?

The definition above the numbers says

Quote

Welfare is the organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups. Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. The Welfare system in the United States began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. Opponents of Welfare argue that it affects work incentives.

This mentions Medicaid and food stamps but I suppose the 12 million are for what they call "general welfare", whatever that means. And of course a big deal right now is the expiration of long term unemployment payments.


It appears to me that there are a lot of people, far more than 12 million, who are seriously in need of help. My idealistic notion of help is that it is provided to help people need less help later on. In reality, it sometimes works that way, sometimes not. It's my understanding that there has been some progress in getting people so that eventually they can become more self-supporting, but I am not prepared to argue this with numbers. Of course there will always be cases where a person simply will never be able to be self-supporting. But we should try to keep the number of such results down as much as possible. better for everyone, most especially the person directly affected.

[mycroft]

Blackshoe: I can't say what I want to say to your very blinkered thoughts, because that would be mean for no reason. However, people as far on the Overton Window as you are seem mean to me.

Because of the true welfare state, which the U.S. isn't even approaching (frankly, my country isn't even approaching, but at least this hole was filled), I am allowed to be the successful IT player in a niche and very desirable field. I make my company a large amount of money, a significant amount of which (but not enough), they pay me, and a significant amount of which (too much, of course) I pay the governments. Some of that (not enough, again, but you know) goes to providing the welfare state...

That made it possible for me to get the training I needed to be that successful IT player (at $450/semester tuition, that was extra because I was engineering, for instance).

Oh, and saved my life. Literally. And didn't crush me to death or bankruptcy - which would probably be the same thing, given what they saved my life from - while doing it. And which I will never be able to pay back, even if a majority of the taxes I pay for the rest of my life are earmarked for it. So I graciously pay my "too much" taxes -

Even if it goes to help people who think I should be dead. Of which, unfortunately, there are too many in my city and province. Some of whom play bridge, and are happy to tell me that the world should be different; more like your world.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-20, 05:57, said:

Right. This makes your assertions much more credible.

No, it makes the assertions about my assertions less credible.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2014-January-20, 11:23, said:

Blackshoe: I can't say what I want to say to your very blinkered thoughts, because that would be mean for no reason. However, people as far on the Overton Window as you are seem mean to me.

Because of the true welfare state, which the U.S. isn't even approaching (frankly, my country isn't even approaching, but at least this hole was filled), I am allowed to be the successful IT player in a niche and very desirable field. I make my company a large amount of money, a significant amount of which (but not enough), they pay me, and a significant amount of which (too much, of course) I pay the governments. Some of that (not enough, again, but you know) goes to providing the welfare state...

That made it possible for me to get the training I needed to be that successful IT player (at $450/semester tuition, that was extra because I was engineering, for instance).

Oh, and saved my life. Literally. And didn't crush me to death or bankruptcy - which would probably be the same thing, given what they saved my life from - while doing it. And which I will never be able to pay back, even if a majority of the taxes I pay for the rest of my life are earmarked for it. So I graciously pay my "too much" taxes -

Even if it goes to help people who think I should be dead. Of which, unfortunately, there are too many in my city and province. Some of whom play bridge, and are happy to tell me that the world should be different; more like your world.

A long and rambling reply of which I can make little sense. And what the heck is "the Overton Window" anyway?

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-20, 12:02, said:

A long and rambling reply of which I can make little sense. And what the heck is "the Overton Window" anyway?

Well, I made sense of it. And I am very happy for mycroft, who is obviously a successful example of government assistance.

As for the "Overton Window," a quick look at Wikipedia shows this as the first paragraph of the entry under that title:

The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range of ideas the public will accept. On this theory, an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within that window rather than on politicians' individual preferences.^[1] It is named for its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003),^[2] a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.^[3] At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.

[kenberg]

Apparently it is also a novel by Glenn Beck. Should I buy it?

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on 2014-January-20, 15:37, said:

.... by Glenn Beck. Should I buy it?

That pretty much answers the question, doesn't it?

[32519]

Next bubble is securitised car loans.

[mike777]

as the title suggests we don't learn from the past so we repeat it.

Blackshoe to suggest a govt program does not work is to repeat it but add more

suggest a quote is conservative(anti spend) or fox news to get more clicks.

even Mycroft misses the main point...capitalism paid his tuition and created a job for his brilliant mind. In other words his own hard work and very hard work. without capitalism his job does not exist.

Mycroft is the poster child for free markets and not for welfare.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-20, 11:58, said:

No, it makes the assertions about my assertions less credible.

No, it is meaningless like most name-calling, and only makes you look small and your arguments empty.

I'm a gun nut so I must be "conservative" so I must believe X Y and Z. That's the way your mind works, isn't it?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2014-January-21, 01:05, said:

as the title suggests we don't learn from the past so we repeat it.

Blackshoe to suggest a govt program does not work is to repeat it but add more

suggest a quote is conservative(anti spend) or fox news to get more clicks.

even Mycroft misses the main point...capitalism paid his tuition and created a job for his brilliant mind. In other words his own hard work and very hard work. without capitalism his job does not exist.

Mycroft is the poster child for free markets and not for welfare.

Non sequiturial leap of faith.

[P_Marlowe]

kenberg, on 2014-January-10, 07:37, said:

Let me shift a minute to illustgrate a point. I have a friend who thinks the Federal Reserve is a menace. It isn't. But what is dangerous, and I think we are seeing it, is to place too much faith in the Federal Reserve. I am sure that Janet Yellen is brilliant and dedicated. Same for Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, Paul Volker, many others. But they are not gods, and they would probably be the first to note their own limitations, and the limitations of their powers regardless of their brilliance. The danger is that we decide we do not have to make sound decisions ourselves because if a problem arises the Fed will fix it. Maybe saints perform miracle, maybe not, but we don't and won't have a miracle performing saint running the Fed.

And this same danger applies to the debt. It's one thing to say that a little debt won't kill us, possibly even is good for us (maybe), but it is another thing entirely to say that the quite large debt, and our massive overall commitment, is nothing to worry about. We just cut some military retirement commitments. I doubt that this will be the last cutback needed in our commitments.


I also do not expect the immanent collapse of the United States. But again that is different from thinking we are in great shape. If we accept a responsibility to give future generations a strong and prosperous country, it is fair to ask how this plan is going. So-so, in my view.

To worry about debt is ok. But all debt is not equal. This is the point often ommitted.

If the debt finances things, that will be around a couple of years, than you have something, that can be used,
while you are paying down dept.
I.e. if you invest in infrastructure, and education / research is part of infrastructure, you are investing in the
future, in the children, that have to pay back the cost, when they have grown up, this is ok. Raising children costs
money, and those costs is not only paid by the parent, also by the society.
And children have to pay it back. I would not worry about this kind of debt. (*)

But you have other debt, like tax breaks, for those who may or may not need them.
Those who need them, may need money to raise children, the ones who have to pay back the debt, that we make to invest
in infrastructure, and we will need lots of peoble in the future.
But if you throw the money at peoble, who dont need it, the money is gone. And to worry about the amount of money that
goes down this way is reasonable.

Healthcare is in between. A reasonable health care system keeps the peoble healthy and productive, so that they can
pay back more with their work, but you have to watch, that you spend the money wisely.

With kind regards
Marlowe

(*) If you finance sensible things with your credit card, they cant be taken away that easily.
If you help your children with their education, they have the education, if you buy things to eat for you
and your children, you and your children will stay alive, if you buy cars / TV sets, wait for the next technology round
coming next week, and you can move most of the tings to the trash bin, ... maybe you recylce, but you wont get enough
to cover the interest.

PSS: Just found, one link does not prove anything, but the conclusion that the money spend, is payed back with interest
later, is a conclusion I can follow
http://opinionator.b...type=blogs&_r=0

[kenberg]

P_Marlowe, on 2014-January-21, 10:07, said:

To worry about debt is ok. But all debt is not equal. This is the point often ommitted.

If the debt finances things, that will be around a couple of years, than you have something, that can be used,
while you are paying down dept.
I.e. if you invest in infrastructure, and education / research is part of infrastructure, you are investing in the
future, in the children, that have to pay back the cost, when they have grown up, this is ok. Raising children costs
money, and those costs is not only paid by the parent, also by the society.
And children have to pay it back. I would not worry about this kind of debt. (*)

But you have other debt, like tax breaks, for those who may or may not need them.
Those who need them, may need money to raise children, the ones who have to pay back the debt, that we make to invest
in infrastructure, and we will need lots of people in the future.
But if you throw the money at people, who don't need it, the money is gone. And to worry about the amount of money that
goes down this way is reasonable.

Healthcare is in between. A reasonable health care system keeps the peoble healthy and productive, so that they can
pay back more with their work, but you have to watch, that you spend the money wisely.

With kind regards
Marlowe

(*) If you finance sensible things with your credit card, they cant be taken away that easily.
If you help your children with their education, they have the education, if you buy things to eat for you
and your children, you and your children will stay alive, if you buy cars / TV sets, wait for the next technology round
coming next week, and you can move most of the tings to the trash bin, ... maybe you recylce, but you wont get enough
to cover the interest.

PSS: Just found, one link does not prove anything, but the conclusion that the money spend, is payed back with interest
later, is a conclusion I can follow
http://opinionator.b...type=blogs&_r=0

I am pretty much in agreement with all of this. I would add this though: In addition to "if you throw the money at people, who don't need it" we have to consider "if you throw the money at people, who do need it but have no sense". I am fully on the side of helping people develop their skills and their lives. Some people are very hard to effectively help. I expect that most of us do not need an academic study to see the truth of this, we just consult our memories.

But yes, not all debt is equal and I am all in favor of government giving a helping hand.

[onoway]

P_Marlowe, on 2014-January-21, 10:07, said:

PSS: Just found, one link does not prove anything, but the conclusion that the money spend, is payed back with interest
later, is a conclusion I can follow
http://opinionator.b...type=blogs&_r=0

I agree with your comments and found the link interesting. The findings are comparable with others I have read.

In Canada it is estimated to cost over $100,000 per year per man to keep him in jail. The $100,000 doesn't include such things as the costs of getting him or her TO prison nor say anything about what happens when they get out, nor include the impact their antisocial behaviour has on the victims, both in their own mental and physical well being as well as loss or damage to their possessions.

That's way way way more than anyone is estimating it would cost to help a family at risk. Such help would likely mean that that child would never end up in the justice system in the first place.

Seems to come down to pay me now (when I am young and need help) or pay me later (through jails and mental health institutions.) The thing is that people hate to think that someone else is getting something for nothing, especially if its something of "theirs" (tax dollars) and although the majority of people on welfare are in real need of help, there will always be some who scam any system. Of course those are the ones most people focus on.

One thing I thought was interesting in the study was the observation that the money was unconditional seemed to be important. This is a point which has come up more than once in Canada. Once a client got over a certain threshhold of income..fine, but the threshold was set so low as to not only keep them in poverty, but jeapordise any future help available.. "why did you leave your job" etc.

More than one way to charge for help and humiliation/disrespect is one way that many (not all, for sure) welfare workers use (intentionally or not) on their clients, many of whom already have little or no self respect for being there in the first place. Someone with no self respect is unlikely to be able to teach their kids how to have any., Having the money come unconditionally wipes those issues out.

Still, it's interesting how many people don't object to or even think about the costs of the justice system (jail) but they do object strenuously to providing for needy kids. Perhaps that's why the US has such a comparitively high percentage of their population in jails. http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0 It's not a cost effective way to budget.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-21, 03:05, said:

No, it is meaningless like most name-calling, and only makes you look small and your arguments empty.

I'm a gun nut so I must be "conservative" so I must believe X Y and Z. That's the way your mind works, isn't it?

Nope.

[32519]

Emerging market contagion threatens rich countries.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2014-January-20, 08:41, said:

This website shows the actual numbers. 4.1% of the U.S. population is on welfare. Total welfare payments are less than 150 billion annually.

There are some genuine concerns, though. In 8 states welfare payments exceed salaries to teachers.

I gather that 10% of the US GDP involves or depends upon lawyers and legal actions. Maybe the welfare "problem" is not located where it appears to be?