easy jobs

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 4:07:43 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.

Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.

Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.

Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.

I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.

But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?

Wanting to do things yourself is basically the definition of
"conservative."

Wanting to tax someone else, and force yet someone else do what you
want done, is basically the definition of "progressive."

A 'progressive' is someone so generous, they'll give you the shirt
off everyone else's back.

It comes off their back too. James Arthur doesn't understand what socialism is about - or rather he pretends not to in order to produce sound bites aimed at the terminally gullible.

The idea that a nation has collective responsibilities to each of it's citizens, that falls on every citizen, is a very old idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

takes it back to Plato.

James Arthur - and the far-right-thinking people he hangs out with - want to renegotiate the contract to suite their particular interests, which mainly seem to be in paying out as little in tax as possible. It's short term idiocy, but that's conservatives for you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 12:39:59 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.

Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.

Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.

Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.

I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.

But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?

Wanting to do things yourself is basically the definition of
"conservative."

Wanting to tax someone else, and force yet someone else do what you
want done, is basically the definition of "progressive."

A 'progressive' is someone so generous, they'll give you the shirt
off everyone else's back.


One problem is that some people think they can understand chaotic
social systems, can predict the future, and can predict the
consequences of their policies. So they want control that they can
never have. Their real appetite isn't for progress, it's for power.

At bottom, their solution to every problem is to take something
that doesn't belong to them, and give it to someone who didn't
earn it. (Which solves nothing, naturally, but puts them in
charge of everything.)

Marx defined capitalism as the power of capital, machines and money,
the "means of production." He didn't understand that, even in the
earliest days of industrial society, the means of production is ideas.

The only way to find out what ideas work is to let lots of people try
lots of things and see what happens. Central control crushes new ideas
and amplifies bad ones.

Absolutely. I'm constantly amazed at the inventiveness of ordinary
people. Much of America's magic is that we've let them invent, and
have gotten the benefit of innovators other societies crush.

Our 50 states can try 50 sets of ideas too, and see what works.

I don't like "capitalism." I prefer "competitive economy."

Ditto "progressive" and "control freak."

I prefer "free enterprise," but capitalism's a fine word. "Capitalism"
just means that individuals are allowed to start and own businesses
(the 'means of production'), socialism means they aren't.

Technically much of what we see proposed today is 'fascism' --
individuals are nominally permitted to own businesses, but their
businesses are regulated "for the common good," effectively
operated by the State.

(You can 'own' the puppet but the State pulls the strings.)

That was Mussolini's epiphany -- fascism gives the two-bit community
organizer the ability to take over a country's means of production
without needing the money to pay for it, and without having the
army he'd need to seize it. (It's the leveraged buy-out version
of socialism.)

Plus fascism's "public-private partnerships" instantly convert industrial
enemies who'd bitterly oppose confiscation, into your new best buddies.

Fascism offers the tyrant-on-a-budget all the advantages of State
ownership of the MOP, economically, and without the State having to
run the MOP.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 4:06:51 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 6:21:44 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 2/21/20 5:17 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.

Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.

Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.

Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.

I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.

But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?

If you want to help someone, don't consign them to some bureaucrat,
just help them. If you see some trash, pick it up. If the storm
drain's clogged, unclog it.

That's common in my neighborhood, and I dearly love it.

It's a nice sentiment. Problem is I believe US conservatives are
habitual manipulators and pathological liars, who will say anything to
get the kind of government they like best, which is one where the
government exterminates their enemies for them.

That's your excuse for not pitching in?

It certainly doesn't address the idea of "pitching in", so it's difficult to see how James Arthur can construe it as an excuse for not pitching in.

That's weird. And irrational --
whatever you imagine other people do, you could still pitch in.

Except that he never said that he didn't.

> Besides, Bernie bros are the ones shooting congressmen.

Example?

> Conservatives are the ones picking the trash up after their rallies.

Actually, paid municipal workers.

I believe in the American experiment in self-government -- a distributed
government run mostly locally by the people themselves.

Rich local people, governing on the basis that they need to stay rich.

There have been quite a few other - later - experiments in self-government, and every last one of them is associated with lower levels of inequality in income.

The American experiment has survived so far, though Trump is high-lighting it;s defects. More recent experiments seem to have come up with more stable and equitable social orders.

I consider my fellow citizens as generally good and wise co-owners of the country we all run together. I don't mind if they're armed -- why would I? I
trust them.

Or as John Jay put it "those who own the country ought to govern it."

The practice of US politics seems to be that if you own more of the country, you have more influence over how it gets governed. This influence doesn't seem to be exerted to the benefit of those who own less of it.

The last thirty years of US economic growth have ended up in the pockets of the top 1% of the income distribution, while the remaining 99% haven't seen any of the benefit.

You want a central government to oversee & control your inferior
fellow citizens (whom you do not trust to manage their ordinary
affairs, much less to vote and run the country).

Actually central government needs to monitor the state of the country as a whole. If it detects abuses, it needs to legislate to correct them - but that legislation applies to everybody, equally. You aren't managing their ordinary affairs.

> You'd have said central government pacifying these untrustworthies with freebies and essentials, which the love-based central government would confiscate from evil tycoons (and irredeemable deplorables).

Central government is funded by taxes, collected from everybody. Progressive taxation collects more form the rich, because they have more to collect, and benefit more from services like defense, police and judiciary. Trust-worthiness doesn't come into it.

James Arthur does like to see services like universal health care and universal education as freebies, but society happens to work better if you handle them that way. US health care costs half a much again per head as French, German and Dutch health, which happen to deliver marginally better outcomes.

It's the latter theory that denigrates, considers fellow citizens
enemies & untrustworthy, disarms them, and wipes 'em out, generally.

Scandinavia, Germany, and the Netherlands haven't been wiped out by governments that collect more in taxes and deliver more in benefits that the US system does.

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/changing-world-happiness/

Figure 2.7 puts the US at 19th on the list.

Every last one of them has a more sensible attitude to gun control that the US and much lower rates of gun homicide. The population isn't disarmed, but you do have persuade the police that you are sane enough to be trusted with a gun, which might inconvenience James Arthur.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 11:20:38 PM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

At bottom, their solution to every problem is to take something
that doesn't belong to them, and give it to someone who didn't
earn it. (Which solves nothing, naturally, but puts them in
charge of everything.)

All successful governments both tax and spend. Your attempt to spin this
as an aberration is... lame.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 9:39:59 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The only way to find out what ideas work is to let lots of people try
lots of things and see what happens. Central control crushes new ideas
and amplifies bad ones.

False, twice. One can project an idealization into the future, make sensible predictions.
And, 'central control' gave us 0.100" DIP spacing when it was necessary to have
multiple-sourced ICs, gave us TCP/IP when industry pretended SNA was a
networking scheme we could all love, and standardized cellphone
charge so one socket will recharge your phone, and that of your SO, and
the next ten guests or relatives who show up at the door.

Central control is the ONLY solution to smog killing folk in cities. Trying to
destroy the EPA because it exercises 'central control' is a bad habit of some
politicians, not to be applauded. That's not the only problem for which our
social institutions apply central control, either.

No adult should be unappreciative of this.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 6:20:38 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 12:39:59 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

<snip>

At bottom, their solution to every problem is to take something
that doesn't belong to them, and give it to someone who didn't
earn it. (Which solves nothing, naturally, but puts them in
charge of everything.)

James Arthur is insatiable in his pursuit of the inaccurate sound bite.

Taxation is what makes society work. James Arthur resents it, but it represents what it costs to live in a collaborative society.

The people who get supported (to some extent) by other peoples taxes haven't earned what they get by the sweat their brows, but rather by being members of the same collaborative society.

The bureaucrats that pass the money over aren't exactly in charge of everything either. Doling out social security isn't exactly a megalomaniacs dream job.>\

Marx defined capitalism as the power of capital, machines and money,
the "means of production." He didn't understand that, even in the
earliest days of industrial society, the means of production is ideas.

The only way to find out what ideas work is to let lots of people try
lots of things and see what happens. Central control crushes new ideas
and amplifies bad ones.

Absolutely. I'm constantly amazed at the inventiveness of ordinary
people. Much of America's magic is that we've let them invent, and
have gotten the benefit of innovators other societies crush.

Joseph Swann invented - and patented - the light light bulb in parallel with Thomas Edison. He wasn't crushed by English society - quite the reverse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan

If James Arthur knew a bit more history he might be amazed by what actually happened, as opposed to getting excited the stories he gets fed by the American exceptionalism propaganda machine.

Our 50 states can try 50 sets of ideas too, and see what works.

I don't like "capitalism." I prefer "competitive economy."

Ditto "progressive" and "control freak."

I prefer "free enterprise," but capitalism's a fine word. "Capitalism"
just means that individuals are allowed to start and own businesses
(the 'means of production'),
Socialism means they aren't.

Wrong. Communism doesn't like individual ownership. Socialism is perfectly happy with it. The cooperative movement counts all the people working together in an organisation as the owners of that organisation, which is even more egalitarian (and perfectly practical. though not always that easy to realise in practice).

Technically much of what we see proposed today is 'fascism' --
individuals are nominally permitted to own businesses, but their
businesses are regulated "for the common good," effectively
operated by the State.

There's a long gap between not being allowed to rip off your customers any way you like, and being effectively operated by the state.

It's an inconvenient gap for James Arthur's argument by sound-bite, so he ignores it.

> (You can 'own' the puppet but the State pulls the strings.)

The strings that stop you ripping off or poisoning your customers. It makes it more expensive to do business, so the people that lose some of the their potential profits feel painfully constrained.

That was Mussolini's epiphany -- fascism gives the two-bit community
organizer the ability to take over a country's means of production
without needing the money to pay for it, and without having the
army he'd need to seize it. (It's the leveraged buy-out version
of socialism.)

By which James Arthur means communism. Democratic socialism - with multiparty coalition governments delivering finely tuned versions of the socialist ideal - works much too well for him to pay any attention to it.

Mussolini started off as a socialist, but found that it constrained him from the kind of antics that he fancied.

Plus fascism's "public-private partnerships" instantly convert industrial
enemies who'd bitterly oppose confiscation, into your new best buddies.

Fascism and Communism are variations on the theme of government as the biggest protection racket in town. A criminal conspiracy calls the shots.

Trump does seem to have aspirations towards that kind of operation.

Fascism offers the tyrant-on-a-budget all the advantages of State
ownership of the MOP, economically, and without the State having to
run the MOP.

Hitler did demonstrate that having a dictatorial nutcase in charge of the means of production has significant disadvantages.

Trump has less power, but a decidedly poor grasp of reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:28:21 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 9:39:59 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The only way to find out what ideas work is to let lots of people try
lots of things and see what happens. Central control crushes new ideas
and amplifies bad ones.

False, twice. One can project an idealization into the future, make sensible predictions.

Nobody can do that. Not even the Federal Reserve. Wait and see.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:37:33 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 11:20:38 PM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

At bottom, their solution to every problem is to take something
that doesn't belong to them, and give it to someone who didn't
earn it. (Which solves nothing, naturally, but puts them in
charge of everything.)

All successful governments both tax and spend. Your attempt to spin this
as an aberration is... lame.

And they all do it equally well?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:20:34 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 12:39:59 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.

Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.

Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.

Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.

I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.

But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?

Wanting to do things yourself is basically the definition of
"conservative."

Wanting to tax someone else, and force yet someone else do what you
want done, is basically the definition of "progressive."

A 'progressive' is someone so generous, they'll give you the shirt
off everyone else's back.


One problem is that some people think they can understand chaotic
social systems, can predict the future, and can predict the
consequences of their policies. So they want control that they can
never have. Their real appetite isn't for progress, it's for power.

At bottom, their solution to every problem is to take something
that doesn't belong to them, and give it to someone who didn't
earn it. (Which solves nothing, naturally, but puts them in
charge of everything.)

Marx defined capitalism as the power of capital, machines and money,
the "means of production." He didn't understand that, even in the
earliest days of industrial society, the means of production is ideas.

The only way to find out what ideas work is to let lots of people try
lots of things and see what happens. Central control crushes new ideas
and amplifies bad ones.

Absolutely. I'm constantly amazed at the inventiveness of ordinary
people. Much of America's magic is that we've let them invent, and
have gotten the benefit of innovators other societies crush.

Many of the great inventors were amateurs, not formal scientists.
There are some good reasons for that. I might write a book.

Our 50 states can try 50 sets of ideas too, and see what works.

I don't like "capitalism." I prefer "competitive economy."

Ditto "progressive" and "control freak."

I prefer "free enterprise," but capitalism's a fine word. "Capitalism"
just means that individuals are allowed to start and own businesses
(the 'means of production'), socialism means they aren't.

"Capitalism" has become synonymous with big banks, Wall Street, and
giant established - and anti-competitive, anti-inventive - industries,
namely control by the rich few. So I prefer to emphasize economic
pluralism, competition. It's just words.

Technically much of what we see proposed today is 'fascism' --
individuals are nominally permitted to own businesses, but their
businesses are regulated "for the common good," effectively
operated by the State.

The logical response to that is to offshore as much production and
profits as possible. True fascism (or progressivism) would try, with
great difficulty, to outlaw that.

(You can 'own' the puppet but the State pulls the strings.)

That was Mussolini's epiphany -- fascism gives the two-bit community
organizer the ability to take over a country's means of production
without needing the money to pay for it, and without having the
army he'd need to seize it. (It's the leveraged buy-out version
of socialism.)

Plus fascism's "public-private partnerships" instantly convert industrial
enemies who'd bitterly oppose confiscation, into your new best buddies.

Fascism offers the tyrant-on-a-budget all the advantages of State
ownership of the MOP, economically, and without the State having to
run the MOP.

Fortunately, in most Western countries, the government is incompetent
at fascism too. Life could be better, but it ain't bad. The people who
really get hurt from socialist/populist ideas are the lower classes.
We are smart enough to work around things.







--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 7:26:00 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:28:21 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 9:39:59 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The only way to find out what ideas work is to let lots of people try
lots of things and see what happens. Central control crushes new ideas
and amplifies bad ones.

False, twice. One can project an idealization into the future, make sensible predictions.

Nobody can do that. Not even the Federal Reserve. Wait and see.

The Federal Reserve is notoriously not talkative about future projections. That's
not a general principle ("they cannot"), rather it's their organizational rule ("they will not").

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 7:24:34 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:37:33 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 11:20:38 PM UTC-8, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

At bottom, their solution to every problem is to take something
that doesn't belong to them, and...

All successful governments both tax and spend. Your attempt to spin this
as an aberration is... lame.

And they all do it equally well?

Obama's EPA did a more effective job of water and air quality assurance than
Trump's does, so no, all governments do not do equally well. Was there
ever a reason to doubt that?

The freedom of information act means the US government acts in the sunlight, you
really CAN watch what is happening, and make constructive suggestions.
No adult should need to ask vague questions like the above.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 2:24:03 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 23:20:34 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 12:39:59 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:39 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

<snip>

Many of the great inventors were amateurs, not formal scientists.
There are some good reasons for that. I might write a book.

If it stopped him posting here for while, that would be good. Granting the nonsense he posts here, he's unlikley to find a publisher.

<snip>

Technically much of what we see proposed today is 'fascism' --
individuals are nominally permitted to own businesses, but their
businesses are regulated "for the common good," effectively
operated by the State.

The logical response to that is to offshore as much production and
profits as possible. True fascism (or progressivism) would try, with
great difficulty, to outlaw that.

Actually, the logical response is to invest money in automating manufacture on-shore, which negates the advantage of offshore cheap labour.

That means investing capital, which capitalists do as little of as possible..

Margaret Thatcher excoriated English industry for having low productivity per head compared with their German counter-parts. Some UK economist looked into it, and found that if you controlled for capital investment per worker, UK workers were more productive. The problem was that UK manufacturers didn't invest enough capital per worker.

Fortunately, in most Western countries, the government is incompetent
at fascism too.

How would we know? Nobody goes in for it

Life could be better, but it ain't bad. The people who
really get hurt from socialist/populist ideas are the lower classes.

Populist ideas can be damaging to every social class. Democratic Socialism as practiced in Scandinavia and Northern Europe works very well for the lower classes.

They don't have the kind of glaring income inequality that afflicts the US, and the social disasters that come with it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(book)

Median incomes are higher than in the US, and happiness is higher.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2018/CH2-WHR-lr.pdf

See table 2.2

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

We are smart enough to work around things.







--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[bitrex]

On 2/25/20 12:07 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 3:07:49 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:17:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 10:48:07 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
The personally-charitable but socially-uncaring conservative is an odd
duck. Performing these acts of generosity like driving errands for ill
neighbors I assume at no cost to them, while one must surely be
conscious that there are thousands of other people in a similar position
who have nobody to help them. Nobody to help with their own as-difficult
situation or "help them help themselves" as the saying goes.

Again, you're rationalizing and over-complicating the situation.

Someone needed help, so I helped them. If we all pitch in, we can
help everyone.

Will James Arthur do all the work for them himself, too? If he won't
take on the responsibility for all of them then who; all the generally
deeply-caring Americans out there? Or do his daily good works, kick back
and vote Republican, and tell himself everything would fix itself if
only liberalism didn't exist, "I've done my part." But
they're not suffering 40 years from now it's happening right this minute.

I'm OK with the government handling the difficult cases and providing
for them. I don't have a martyr complex.

But doesn't that boil down to you wanting other people to do it, and
pay for it too?

Wanting to do things yourself is basically the definition of
"conservative."

Wanting to tax someone else, and force yet someone else do what you
want done, is basically the definition of "progressive."

A 'progressive' is someone so generous, they'll give you the shirt
off everyone else's back.

Cheers,
James Arthur

A Republican is someone so gullible that they'd gladly let the police
search their home so long as they told 'em "We're checking for illegal
immigrants"

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 1:27:11 AM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

I used this reference:
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html

$9,105.08 invested in 1982 was worth $502,417.21 in 2019.

That's a 55.17-fold increase in 37 years, an annualized return of 11.4%.
(1.11448 ^ 37 = 55.2).

Have I missed something?

You have not missed much.

I dislike Social Security. Many people can not save for retirement and many more could but do not save anything, so it is necessary to have something like Social Security. But it should have a way for some of the money to be invested in something that actually pays dividends. Unfortunately the Democrats will not even discuss the idea. I am talking about maybe 5% being able to be invested and maybe giving up 8 % of the payout from the government.

Dan

But any positive return will always beat the return of government
taking your money and spending it on retired people when you're
young, then hoping they'll take some new youngsters' money and
give it to you when you retire.

Cheers,
James Arthur