Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.

And?

And I live in a developed first world nation.

And?

It's kind of hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the bootstraps are expensive and covered in Vaseline.

Wait, so barring getting something that can kill you, you're fine?

Something 1 in 15 Americans gets.

And that's just one of the many things which could financially RUIN me.

The fact that a person in a developed nation can be completely rock bottom RUINED by something like a car wreck or a hospitalization is insane. We should not be ok with this. This is not what it means to be capitalists.

sourclams wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think, and maybe I'm just a dirty liberal, that any person working full time, on the books, has "skin in the game."

...How? Regardless of your income level or unemployment status, if, net, you pay between zero and negative federal taxes, how is voting for higher taxes, either directly or through a candidate that will do so, anything but either indifferent to your individual financial situation or in your best interests?

It's not, but the wealthy seem to have no problem voting in their best interests!

Why is self interest in voting a bad thing?

And taxes have never been about fairness. Anybody that thinks that needs to lay down for a while. Taxes are inherently unfair. A man with a gun is making you pay an amount you cannot negotiate or avoid. That's unfair.

The only question is: what will bring in the most revenue while hurting the economy the least.

Rented Tritium wrote:
What's your solution, then? Tax the single mother of 3 until she's living on 16k again? If it's such a problem, how do you fix it?

Actually I would rather see the issue attacked from the other side--cutting spending. Then you can also cut taxes.

This may seem monstrous for you, but I personally feel no obligation to your 'mother of 3'.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.

And?

And I live in a developed first world nation.

And?

It's kind of hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the bootstraps are expensive and covered in Vaseline.

Wait, so barring getting something that can kill you, you're fine?

Something 1 in 15 Americans gets.

And that's just one of the many things which could financially RUIN me.

The fact that a person in a developed nation can be completely rock bottom RUINED by something like a car wreck or a hospitalization is insane. We should not be ok with this. This is not what it means to be capitalists.

Again you're saying that something that can kill you might ruin you.
1. That sucks. Thats life.
2. WTF you want me to do about it and why do I care?

Protip-before you start, I've had both appendicits and car wrecks.

Polonius wrote:It's not, but the wealthy seem to have no problem voting in their best interests!

Why is self interest in voting a bad thing?

I would hope that everyone votes for their best interests. Thus, equilibrium (well, over time). However when you create an entire entitlement class voting for unenlightened self-interest, eventually you reach a point where the scales have to tip back the other way--and at that point the pain becomes 'even worse'. Just look at the PIIGS as a case study for how quickly that exact situation develops, and resolves.

Unenlightened self-interest?

Wow dude, could you be any more condescending?

Polonius wrote:
And taxes have never been about fairness. Anybody that thinks that needs to lay down for a while. Taxes are inherently unfair. A man with a gun is making you pay an amount you cannot negotiate or avoid. That's unfair.

The only question is: what will bring in the most revenue while hurting the economy the least.

There is truth in this.

Though I will say that being extorted by a man with a gun is quite fair, in some sense. After all, its merely your own fault that you don't have a gun, a better gun, or more guns.

sourclams wrote:
This may seem monstrous for you, but I personally feel no obligation to your 'mother of 3'.

Thankfully, what you feel is only relevant in terms of convincing you how to vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:
I would hope that everyone votes for their best interests. Thus, equilibrium (well, over time). However when you create an entire entitlement class voting for unenlightened self-interest, eventually you reach a point where the scales have to tip back the other way--and at that point the pain becomes 'even worse'. Just look at the PIIGS as a case study for how quickly that exact situation develops, and resolves.

This is one of the worst posts I've read in a long time.

There is no such thing as "unenlightened self-interest". Self-interest is defined by, drum roll, the self. This means that whatever the self considers to be in its interests is in its interests. The only way to not be self-interested is to be deliberately not self-interested, and even then only if you are very narrowly defining the self.

Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."

Rented Tritium wrote:Unenlightened self-interest?

Wow dude, could you be any more condescending?

Do you believe that the majority of people are "enlightened"?

sourclams wrote:
Do you believe that the majority of people are "enlightened"?

Do you believe that you're enlightened?

sourclams wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's not, but the wealthy seem to have no problem voting in their best interests!

Why is self interest in voting a bad thing?

I would hope that everyone votes for their best interests. Thus, equilibrium (well, over time). However when you create an entire entitlement class voting for unenlightened self-interest, eventually you reach a point where the scales have to tip back the other way--and at that point the pain becomes 'even worse'. Just look at the PIIGS as a case study for how quickly that exact situation develops, and resolves.

Aren't nearly all American's part of an entitlement class? I mean, what does that even mean?

I think that paying a lower tax rate because you have only investment income rather than a day job is an entitlement.

I think that being able to deduct mortgatge interest is an entitlement.

I think being able to have the government back student loans is an entitlement.

If by entitlement class you mean poor, than I'm not sure why they need to be the first people in history to not vote with pure self interest.

sourclams wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Unenlightened self-interest?

Wow dude, could you be any more condescending?

Do you believe that the majority of people are "enlightened"?

I'm not usually the guy that pops in all "rarr rarr class warfare" but uh, you just said that people who get government assistance are "unenlightened"

I mean let them eat cake, amirite? I can't take you seriously anymore. I'm very sorry, because you seem pretty smart otherwise but man, that is just so twisted I can't really have this conversation without getting too mad at you. Have a great day.

dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."

Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.

sourclams wrote:

dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."

Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.

Yet the northern european model appears highly sustainable, and that's a high taxation, high benefit system.

It's also possible, and I don't mean to be mean... but let's just say that Russia, modern china, Greece, Italy, and Spain all have pretty miserable track records for governing themselves.

I think that a command economy is doomed to failure. But I think that there is a better blend of sustainable security while encouraging free market growth.

Saying "entitlements didn't work in Greece" is a little bit like saying "The spread offense didn't work at the University of Akron." In both cases, they're probably going to botch whatever system you try.

Polonius wrote:

sourclams wrote:

dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."

Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.

Yet the northern european model appears highly sustainable, and that's a high taxation, high benefit system.

(Looks over Euro crisis)
...er...yea...you might wait on that.

sourclams wrote:

dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."

Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.

Meanhwile, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are doing just fine, while people in the US suffer because their own countrymen aren't there for them in their hour of need. The "x is a failure" argument sure seems swell when you leave out the parts that don't agree with your point of view, eh?

EDIT: To counter Frazzled's statement, you do realise that none of the Scandinavian countries have the Euro, right? While it is true that a Euro collapse would hit us hard, it's won't be because we have "welfare states". It'll be because others played the system, just as third world countries suffer because we in the West play the system.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

sourclams wrote:

dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."

Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.

Yet the northern european model appears highly sustainable, and that's a high taxation, high benefit system.

(Looks over Euro crisis)
...er...yea...you might wait on that.

The Euro crisis doesn't really have anything to do with taxes and benefits, it has a lot more to do with higher level monetary policy.

Taxes and benefits came into it as a means to fix the first part, but they didn't actually cause it.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:while people in the US suffer because their own countrymen aren't there for them in their hour of need.

What?

Also:

Rented Tritium wrote:The Euro crisis doesn't really have anything to do with taxes and benefits, it has a lot more to do with higher level monetary policy.

What!?!?

The Euro crisis is a crisis of bond markets, which are driven by investor confidence in the ability of governments to repay debt. Which has just about everything to do with taxes and benefits.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

sourclams wrote:

dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."

Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.

Yet the northern european model appears highly sustainable, and that's a high taxation, high benefit system.

(Looks over Euro crisis)
...er...yea...you might wait on that.

The Euro crisis doesn't really have anything to do with taxes and benefits, it has a lot more to do with higher level monetary policy.

Taxes and benefits came into it as a means to fix the first part, but they didn't actually cause it.

And then there was...Greece.

Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?

Frazzled wrote:Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?

Outside Germany?

sourclams wrote:
Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'.

"Sustainable." Great buzzword, but basically meaningless. Over what period do you want things to be sustained?

sourclams wrote:
At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave.

Hasn't happened yet, though cheap air travel might change that.

sourclams wrote:
The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.

Well, there's also Northern Europe, Britain, France, Canada, and South America, but we'll just sweep those under the rug.

Are you under the impression that there is one solution which will solve all state problem for all time?

Well, there's also Northern Europe, Britain, France, Canada, and South America, but we'll just sweep those under the rug.

1. Europe is being downgraded - including France, and apparantely even Germany. The Euro itself contiunes to be in crisis. This is not a good example.
2. Britain had a debt crisis due to the 2008 events and has been forced to cut back spending, as Germany did.
3. South America is a hodge podge, but I don't know of any cradle to grave states there.

Frazzled wrote:

And then there was...Greece.

Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?

Including "being put on watch" pretty much makes any argument you tried to make null and void; Germany's certainly been "put on watch". France retain their ratings, as do most countries that aren't in the PIIGS. Besides, as I mentioned in my edit above, none of the countries in Scandinavia are in the Euro anyway, which means we're not in quite as bad a situation as the Euro countries.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

And then there was...Greece.

Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?

Including "being put on watch" pretty much makes any argument you tried to make null and void; Germany's certainly been "put on watch". France retain their ratings, as do most countries that aren't in the PIIGS. Besides, as I mentioned in my edit above, none of the countries in Scandinavia are in the Euro anyway, which means we're not in quite as bad a situation as the Euro countries.

When I said Euro I meant Europe, sorry.

Frankly Scandanavia has what all of 15 people in it? Its pretty and all but economically tiny. Plus you're having to import cheap foreign immigrants which seems to be creating some recent political problems there.

Here is the philosophy in a nutshell. I got mine, so screw the rest of you.

Or course, what people with that mentality forget is that they do not live in a vacuum. In order to really prosper, other people must also feel like they are rospering to a certain dgree or they will simply find a way to take what you have, one way or another.

Law of the jungle is fine, but there is always a bigger, meaner, stronger, predator.

As an alternative and amusing fact to the idea that "taxes and regulations make rich people leave countries!": many members of middle/upper class Chinese are leaving China not because of taxes or excessive regulations, but because of lax, ineffective, or downright absent regulation (especially in the food industry and in air quality) causing poor quality of life.

Fun times.

Frazzled wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

And then there was...Greece.

Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?

Including "being put on watch" pretty much makes any argument you tried to make null and void; Germany's certainly been "put on watch". France retain their ratings, as do most countries that aren't in the PIIGS. Besides, as I mentioned in my edit above, none of the countries in Scandinavia are in the Euro anyway, which means we're not in quite as bad a situation as the Euro countries.

When I said Euro I meant Europe, sorry.

Frankly Scandanavia has what all of 15 people in it? Its pretty and all but economically tiny. Plus you're having to import cheap foreign immigrants which seems to be creating some recent political problems there.

If we're looking at the whole of the EU, then all of the Nordic countries. Come to think of it, the UK hasn't been downranked either, has it?

As for Scandinavia being relatively small economies; this is irrelevant, seeing as you asked for countries that weren't downranked. Claiming that Scandinavian countries don't count because our economies are small is either moving the goalposts or a No True Scotsman and, either way, a poor way of trying to avoid admitting bring wrong.

Guess what, high taxes don't make people move between states. This is easy, it is much harder to move between countires. I don't think high taxes will cause people to move from the US.

http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2011/08/04/new-data-taxes-dont-make-people-move-between-states/

Frazzled wrote:
1. Europe is being downgraded - including France, and apparantely even Germany. The Euro itself contiunes to be in crisis. This is not a good example.

The only established states no being downgraded are the Scandinavians, Japan (so far as I know) and China, all of which are socialist. From this we can infer that socialism is not necessarily the cause of negative state outcomes, and that, short of abject failure, its difficult to classify any "socialist experiment" as a failure.

We don't, sensibly, argue that the free market is awful because of Somalia, which is about as close to the literal definition of a free market as exists.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Britain had a debt crisis due to the 2008 events and has been forced to cut back spending, as Germany did.

And?

This goes back to "What do you mean by 'sustainable'?"

No solution is permanent.

Frazzled wrote:
3. South America is a hodge podge, but I don't know of any cradle to grave states there.

Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru...basically every state that isn't Chile; and even they're going that way.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

And then there was...Greece.

Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?

Including "being put on watch" pretty much makes any argument you tried to make null and void; Germany's certainly been "put on watch". France retain their ratings, as do most countries that aren't in the PIIGS. Besides, as I mentioned in my edit above, none of the countries in Scandinavia are in the Euro anyway, which means we're not in quite as bad a situation as the Euro countries.

When I said Euro I meant Europe, sorry.

Frankly Scandanavia has what all of 15 people in it? Its pretty and all but economically tiny. Plus you're having to import cheap foreign immigrants which seems to be creating some recent political problems there.

If we're looking at the whole of the EU, then all of the Nordic countries. Come to think of it, the UK hasn't been downranked either, has it?

As for Scandinavia being relatively small economies; this is irrelevant, seeing as you asked for countries that weren't downranked. Claiming that Scandinavian countries don't count because our economies are small is either moving the goalposts or a No True Scotsman and, either way, a poor way of trying to avoid admitting bring wrong.

The UK reduced its debt burden from the threat of a downgrade. They got on the ball.
Scandinavian countries. Thats Norway, Denmark, and Sweden right? Whats their sustainability in five or ten years as your population continues to age? How can it be sustainable when you have to import immigration for workers to support all the old farts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
1. Europe is being downgraded - including France, and apparantely even Germany. The Euro itself contiunes to be in crisis. This is not a good example.

The only established states no being downgraded are the Scandinavians, Japan (so far as I know) and China, all of which are socialist. From this we can infer that socialism is not necessarily the cause of negative state outcomes, and that, short of abject failure, its difficult to classify any "socialist experiment" as a failure.

We don't, sensibly, argue that the free market is awful because of Somalia, which is about as close to the literal definition of a free market as exists.

Frazzled wrote:
2. Britain had a debt crisis due to the 2008 events and has been forced to cut back spending, as Germany did.

And?

This goes back to "What do you mean by 'sustainable'?"

No solution is permanent.

Frazzled wrote:
3. South America is a hodge podge, but I don't know of any cradle to grave states there.

Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru...basically every state that isn't Chile; and even they're going that way.

Wait you think those countries are cradle to grave support? Er...no.

Polonius wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think, and maybe I'm just a dirty liberal, that any person working full time, on the books, has "skin in the game."

...How? Regardless of your income level or unemployment status, if, net, you pay between zero and negative federal taxes, how is voting for higher taxes, either directly or through a candidate that will do so, anything but either indifferent to your individual financial situation or in your best interests?

It's not, but the wealthy seem to have no problem voting in their best interests!

Why is self interest in voting a bad thing?

And taxes have never been about fairness. Anybody that thinks that needs to lay down for a while. Taxes are inherently unfair. A man with a gun is making you pay an amount you cannot negotiate or avoid. That's unfair.

The only question is: what will bring in the most revenue while hurting the economy the least.

The Colbert Principle; pluck the maximum possible amount of feathers with the minimum honking.

It all went wrong for the French in the end, because the goose was over-plucked.