Top earners, means testing etc.. Justified?

Scofflaw · 12-04-2009 12:22pm

You're claiming that social unrest in the nineteenth century (in England) was for greater libertarianism, yet the outcome of it - as we can observe - was greater social democracy.

How do you go about reconciling those two things, out of (mild) interest? And have you read out beyond England?

Ok.[/QUOTE]

Well, you've done it again.

amused,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 12-04-2009 1:13pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 12-04-2009 1:45pm

I don't think anyone can realistically claim that the agitation in favour of state interference in things like working conditions and poverty were 'liberal agitation'.

So the Jarrow Marchers - for example - were in search of psychological comfort?

Well, I was going to say that I was interested to see how deep the rabbit-hole goes, but I'm aware you're simply repeating the standard historical analyses offered by libertarian historians, who appear to be the only ones you're prepared to consider.

While many of the social reformers of the nineteenth century were undoubtedly Benthamites who believed in statist intervention as an instrument of social control, to argue that this is all there was to the movement to social democracy, and that the people were thereby somehow tricked out of a situation in which they were really better off, requires a level of delusion similar - again - to those who see geology as the result of the Biblical Flood. To argue that the movement to social democracy was driven by a psychological need for a paternal state rather than grinding poverty, labour exploitation, gross social and legal inequity, and a repressive state apparatus in the hands of the wealthy liberal minority, is, frankly, monstrous. Fortunately, I doubt anyone will buy that snake oil - but no doubt you'll be able to hold enough snake oil parties amongst yourselves to keep the flame alive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LoveDucati2 · 12-04-2009 1:54pm

Exactly, any country that sterilises people with a low IQ gets my vote.
They clearly could see how to improve society.

Think of all the scumbags that would never have been born here, and legions of generational dole scum would not exist.

Permabear · 12-04-2009 2:10pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 12-04-2009 2:17pm

I doubt any "historian of liberalism" is reliable. Would it not be more sensible to discover liberalism through a general history of its times?

What a waste of time it was me reading all those history books. I should just have asked you.

Er, no - does that form part of your mythology?

cordially,
Scofflaw

LoveDucati2 · 12-04-2009 2:37pm

This is the real reason why Ireland is destroyed.

As an accountant I have watching this deterioration happen since 2003 and I have had to put up with ignorant co-workers shouting ne down and telling me I was mad, that nothing bad was coming. Now the same people are experts.

Majority of Irish people are f*ckin idiots.

Permabear · 12-04-2009 3:16pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 12-04-2009 3:46pm

I explained that quite some way back. At no point have I seen any arguments offered as to why libertarianism works, or why its alternative history is correct. I don't see any reason for me to be running about offering arguments against what are simply unfounded claims on your part.

cordially,
Scofflaw

silverharp · 12-04-2009 4:54pm

I'd take the mgt. company model any day , if extreme free market is 0 on a scale of 10 , your analogy is about 2 , the mgt co doesnt have the power to borrow and the mgt co isnt incentivising poor economic and other behaviour.

I am honestly scratching my head here , it appears that the state and the majority of people have signed up for a delusional status quo. I can demonstrate that economic policy and monetary policy have serious flaws that undermine the stability of the system to the extent that from a cost benefit analysis is hard to defend, if there is no desire to change the system then who exactly has a right to complain. If on the other hand "dodgy" economics has followed dubious micro managing of economic affairs then there maybe hope that real reform will eventually come however it looks like the system needs to break before and real change will occur.
if "they" manage to pull this out of the fire , I'll tip my hat to them but i am not optimistic.

Permabear · 13-04-2009 1:16am

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 13-04-2009 1:20am

It's easy to get out of your depth in someone else's fantasy...

realistically,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 13-04-2009 1:40am

It is undoubtedly a very lightweight comparison, but on the other hand it's probably quite close to the way most people see it.

I think most people would indeed say that it's a case of bad management within a system which is itself imperfect but preferable to the alternatives. However, there's two elements here - the first being the global crisis, the second being position Ireland is in facing into that global crisis.

Now the former looks to me like one of the standard crises enjoyed at intervals since the invention of debt financing, exacerbated by various moves made by Greenspan back in 2001 that staved off a recession at the cost of inflating a bubble and, naturally enough, producing a much more serious crisis up the line.

So much, so predictable. What's unfortunate is where the Irish government has left us at the end of the boom years. It turns out that, on the back of the taxes from what should have been ruddy obvious to anyone was a property bubble, they expanded government spending right up to the limits of income. That's something that happens in third-world countries reliant on a single major cash resource (crop, mineral, whatever) when the world price for that export goes through the roof - the government expands the civil service (usually providing jobs for their voters, faction, affiliation) right up to the limits of income. When the price of the cash crop falls again, they're left in an unsustainable position. Amazingly, this appears to be what the FF/PD government did.

Now, for some people that simply illustrates just how wrong it is to allow a government to tax / borrow / spend at all. Of course, that's very much the same argument as claiming that we shouldn't drive cars because they crash, or have courts because sometimes they come to the wrong verdict - in other words, a really silly one.

So, personally, I don't see any kind of fundamental or systemic problem here - I see an oversight failure. We - the Irish electorate - asked only that the party continue, and that we shouldn't be bothered with either details or problems. Classically, that lack of oversight in any business unit will produce exactly what we see here. That is not a fundamental failure of business, it's a very well-known and easily avoidable error.

cordially,
Scofflaw

silverharp · 13-04-2009 9:02am

100% agree. But you wont get Greenspan or Bernanke to admit it , maybe they dont even see it that way. The bogus solutions like bailing out the US auto makers suggest that they still cant see it. I'd add it's more then a standard recession , it will probably be written up as the new great depression.
Again the free market approach would have closed down Freddie and Fannie years ago, this was one of the main causation factors and it is an indictment of social engineering or whatever it is called.

No problem there , but the gov. if listening to O'Cuiv last night is an example doesnt see it that way and the solutions of the budget appears to be protecting public jobs over private and running up unproductive debt that will kill the average peron in the years ahead

I think you have pushed your analogy too far. the driver has been told to drive as fast as he wants becasue the car is so "well made" , what he doesnt know is that the airbags and ABS dont work because the "engineers" dont know how to make them. to go back to a clarkson metaphor I came across before , "driving would be safer if there was a big spike in the steering wheel instead of airbags"

So you are left with a choice , tinker around the issues and wait for the same problems to come around in 20/30 years , or have a serious reinvention of the system to avoid being beholden to the musings power hungry cvil sevants and central bankers?

I dunno , you have observed that the US political process produced increasing bubbles and bursts due to inappropriate intervention in the market. I've seen nothing that the political class here will learn from this, A Zebra doesnt change its stripes, the systematic problem here is that the gov. will always be too big based on the underlying income of the economy and more importantly it is not capable of reducing its size unlike a family or a company when hard times hit.

Permabear · 13-04-2009 12:02pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 13-04-2009 3:28pm

Curiously enough, I'm successfully self-employed, and have been for over fifteen years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 13-04-2009 4:25pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 13-04-2009 4:33pm

Well, it was in response to "spoken like a true bureaucrat". As to whether being self-employed affects one's politics - certainly I would think it would affect one's view of whether it is right to tax the entrepreneurial, since that's a matter of immediate practical interest. I generate wealth, and I generate jobs, and I don't have an objection to being taxed in order to support society - I regard those who whine about doing so as selfish, no matter what intellectual dishonesty they engage in to support their selfishness.

regards,
Scofflaw.

Permabear · 13-04-2009 4:40pm

This post has been deleted.

ionix5891 · 13-04-2009 4:54pm

and dont forget the stunning blonde's

Scofflaw · 13-04-2009 4:57pm

If I could pay people nothing, I could generate an infinite amount of jobs. Tax is not my major expense by any means - that would be salaries and services.

There are very few people who have an infinite appetite for work and risk. Most small business owners (and small businesses produce most of the jobs) aim for a balance of work and income that satisfies them (and ideally provides a certain amount of cushion). Reducing their tax burden will actually result in them working less, not more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 13-04-2009 5:46pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 13-04-2009 6:13pm

Well done. Again, though, I see that rather than offering any actual mechanisms whereby libertarianism is a better socio-economic system than social democracy, you have simply outlined how it appeals to you, reiterated your belief that it is better, and put forward a rosy vision of a libertarian society where everyone is like you. If you are incapable of telling me why it is better - how it works out better for everyone else besides you - why do you think anyone should take your beliefs seriously?

Also, I have no idea why you have brought in the command economy. It's pretty much mathematically provable that not only do command economies not work in practice, they cannot even work in theory - however, they're not what's involved in social democracy, so I don't see the relevance.

However, taking your garden business as an example, what will actually happen if the business meets your comfort requirements is that you won't be interested in expanding, diversifying, or seeking new markets, but will continue to run the business at a perfectly happy ticking over level. That's how most businesses operate - it's one of the things that venture capitalists look out for. Most people who are self-employed will tell you that being able to run a business so that you get maximum life for minimum work is very far from a failure to be an "astute businessman" - it is, instead, the point for most people. Perhaps they are simply "astute people" rather than people for whom business is an end in itself - or perhaps the vast majority of business people simply aren't astute, although, to be honest, being able to remain in business for themselves for anything more than two years is more than most people can manage.

Personally, I run my business at a level that is comfortable for myself (and my family), and do a fair amount of pro-bono work in my spare time. I'm still happy to pay taxes to support the poor, though, because the poor, by and large, would benefit very little from my services as a website developer. Nor is charity an adequate substitute for welfare (shown in several studies), nor is consumption the pro-bono activity you make it out to be. I thought everyone had seen through the "consumption is the source of all good" mantra by now, but it seems I was wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Top earners, means testing etc.. Justified?

Comments