A challenge for the lefties

You know, dte, you're spending a quite a lot of energy explaining why this exercise won't work, and why I'm wrong to propose it. I'm not interested in playing that game either.

Indulge me, dte. Instead of arguing with me, interview me. It might not work either, but that's something we've never tried, and if it gets frustrating, we can call it off any time. Come on, it's easy: "I hear that in Spendinavia, you have laws where your government takes from the rich and gives to the poor. What's the deal with that?" G'wan, man!

I'm not a lefty or righty, but here's my two cents:

dteowner said:

1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

Click to expand...

True, but a straw man. No one is trying to legislate people into prosperity. It's more about shoring up people who are falling through the cracks.

2) What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Click to expand...

Untrue. We all receive things every day we do not work for -- such as our lives, our bodies, sunshine, the kindness of strangers, the mutual assistance of others, etc. You seem to be confining yourself to viewing the issue materialistically. Not everything that counts can be counted. And even confined to the materialistic level, it is not a true statement. Plenty of the money in the world is made by people who "work" for it in only a loose sense, or not at all.

3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Click to expand...

Untrue. The government can "give" (or rather assign) rights and privileges, without taking from someone else. One of our government's functions is the preservation of liberty, which is a very large "giving" project, and yet there is very little "taking" involved.

4) When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Click to expand...

I would say that the end came a long time before that, if a nation allows itself to get to that point. But this is another straw man.

5) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Click to expand...

But you can multiply some things by sharing them. See Non-Zero Sum for lots of examples of the evolutionary thrust of win-win (vs. win-lose) solutions, biologically speaking. Sharing resources can (potentially, theoretically) mean a healthier community. Granted, I don't think that's how it's working out, but still... in the abstract, there is no contradiction between spreading resources around and having a better world.

Prime Junta said:

You know, dte, you're spending a quite a lot of energy explaining why this exercise won't work, and why I'm wrong to propose it. I'm not interested in playing that game either.

Click to expand...

It's important to explain the rationale for punting (if, in fact, there is to be a punt) so that it doesn't get misconstrued as laziness, spite, or an admission of guilt.

Prime Junta said:

Indulge me, dte. Instead of arguing with me, interview me. It might not work either, but that's something we've never tried, and if it gets frustrating, we can call it off any time. Come on, it's easy: "I hear that in Spendinavia, you have laws where your government takes from the rich and gives to the poor. What's the deal with that?" G'wan, man!

Click to expand...

Alright, alright. Worse than my wife... This will be rather haphazard due to lack of proper preparation. I don't like haphazard.

1) What do you, as a citizen of Spendinavia, deserve?
2) What does your government owe you (not the same question)?
3) How can your Spendinavian government claim progressive taxation is "fair"?
4) What the firetruck (word that starts with "f" and ends with "uck", doncha know) is "fair", exactly, and why should it be a goal anyway?
5) What do your fellow citizens of Spendinavia owe you?
6) Can your nation continue to exist if it is a longterm debtor?
7) Militarily speaking, what should be your nation's role- isolationist (guard your castle walls), regional (guard the nearby countryside), cooperative (share guard duties with the castle down the lane), exploitive (let the other castle guard it all, perhaps for a small chest of gold), expansionist (capture the castle down the lane), phantom (hope, really hard, that barbarians never knock on the door), other?

That ought to be a fair start, particularly since the first few are rather deeply philosophical.

I'm not ignoring the rest of y'all, BTW. I did say I would stick to clarifications only unless specifically asked to respond. I really don't want this to devolve into a froth-fest and I figure I'm more likely to get honest, genuine answers if people aren't concerned about getting nitpicked to death.

dteowner said:

Alright, alright. Worse than my wife… This will be rather haphazard due to lack of proper preparation. I don't like haphazard.

Click to expand...

Please! One question at a time!

1) What do you, as a citizen of Spendinavia, deserve?

Click to expand...

I deserve a fair shot at making the best of my life, regardless of the conditions I was born to, as far as it's feasible, anyway. I also deserve a second chance, if I'm unlucky or stupid, again as far as it's feasible.

2) What does your government owe you (not the same question)?

Click to expand...

Transparency, probity, to work responsibly toward the goals it has stated to its electors, and to be a loyal opposition if and when voted out of power.

3) How can your Spendinavian government claim progressive taxation is "fair"?

Click to expand...

Oh, dear. This is a leading and confrontational question. I couldn't possibly answer it the way it's phrased!

4) What the firetruck (word that starts with "f" and ends with "uck", doncha know) is "fair", exactly, and why should it be a goal anyway?

Click to expand...

Also a leading and confrontational question, so I'm skipping it as well.

5) What do your fellow citizens of Spendinavia owe you?

Click to expand...

To play by the rules that we all have set together, through the governmental process in which we participate.

6) Can your nation continue to exist if it is a longterm debtor?

Click to expand...

Actually, Spendinavia is a long-term creditor. We're running a big trade surplus, and a long-term current-accounts surplus as well, although the 2008 financial crisis temporarily put our public finances in the red. We expect to be back in the black among the first countries in the world. We take great pride in our fiscal responsibility!

7) Militarily speaking, what should be your nation's role- isolationist (guard your castle walls), regional (guard the nearby countryside), cooperative (share guard duties with the castle down the lane), exploitive (let the other castle guard it all, perhaps for a small chest of gold), expansionist (capture the castle down the lane), phantom (hope, really hard, that barbarians never knock on the door), other?

Click to expand...

Personally, I believe it should be cooperative. However, many of my fellow-citizens are somewhat isolationist; they believe that cooperative arrangements run the risk of drawing us into conflicts of questionable morality. Some of us are also pacifists, which falls under "other" I guess.

That ought to be a fair start, particularly since the first few are rather deeply philosophical.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I was actually sort of hoping to take one question at a time, and see where the conversation would lead.

We'll stick to one at a time, then.

Prime Junta said:

I deserve a fair shot at making the best of my life, regardless of the conditions I was born to, as far as it's feasible, anyway. I also deserve a second chance, if I'm unlucky or stupid, again as far as it's feasible.

Click to expand...

And how does your country gage its success at giving you what you deserve? (for the record, the interviewer largely agrees with that particular answer)

While I agree that the sentences are completely out of context, I'll give'em a whack anyway.

dteowner said:

1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about the wealthy being out of prosperity? That's the key here: The wealthy are still wealthy, just slightly less so (oh no, they can't buy that 2nd yacht. Dang).

dteowner said:

2) What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Click to expand...

This is actually the rightie way of doing things. The wealthy remain rich and inherit wealth/gain it through the work of others, the poor remain poor no matter how hard they work for 8 dollars an hour. Saying "work harder" is unrealistic and shows a lack of understanding of what it is like to be poor - anyone born into poverty will never be given the same chance to go proper schools and get a serious education. The leftie way wants to change that by giving them a little nudge - doesn't mean they're supposed to get everything for free, but a little help is needed.

dteowner said:

3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

Click to expand...

Most governments do have a considerable income though, through oil, export and so on (not just taxes). Where they choose to invest those money is up to the goverment. It's entirely possible to build schools in a poor man's district instead of investing in nuclear weapons and what not.

dteowner said:

4) When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Click to expand...

Not at all. In Norway we have what the US would refer to as a *very* leftie goverment (Obama would be a rightie here), yet our unemployment rate is redicilously low (3,2% - was 2,5% before the financial crisis). Some people definetly want to simply sit around, do nothing and get paid for it, but most actually want proper economy (while the goverment will pay you enough to make sure you never have to go hungry in Norway, they won't pay you enough to buy a fancy car or build a nice house). Also, human beings enjoy peer recognition - we thrive in a society where we feel useful.

dteowner said:

5) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Click to expand...

Actually you can: Economy is more than basic math. It is dynamic. It changes. Divide large investments into smaller investments, and they often multiply to significantly bigger numbers than simply having it in one big account. In fact, single investments of a certain size is rarely the way to go - microtransactions tend to add up. That goes for people as well: Invest small sums in 100.000.000 people and the return is far greater than large sums invested in 1.000.000 people.

Certainly not perfect answers, but it might give you a little feedback. Keep in mind that I come from Norway, a country virtually without poverty, and with very little crime (29 murders in all of Norway in 2009). Our point of view is therefore very leftie to you Americans, and your rightie way of thinking is as alien to us as our way of thinking is to you.

Maylander said:

Who said anything about the wealthy being out of prosperity? That's the key here: The wealthy are still wealthy, just slightly less so (oh no, they can't buy that 2nd yacht. Dang)

Click to expand...

Are you accepting the viability of legislating the poor into prosperity as a given, then?

Anderson said:

And even confined to the materialistic level, it is not a true statement. Plenty of the money in the world is made by people who "work" for it in only a loose sense, or not at all.

Click to expand...

I believe you're treating the statement as a one-way street. I would offer that when Bill Gates cashes his dividend check with his only "work" being the passive act of holding stock, that money is taken from Microsoft and in turn from the employees of Microsoft. Thus, the workers have generated value but do not receive that full value back.

Does that change your answer?

I know magerette had a post in the thread early, but it appears to be gone. Did I miss something?

dteowner said:

Are you accepting the viability of legislating the poor into prosperity as a given, then?

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of prosperity. Enough to buy a Porsche? No. Enough to actually not go hungry, have access to schools and so on? Yes, no doubt. In most of Scandinavia we have income taxes ranging from 30-50%, depending on income (the more you make, the higher the tax is), and while some do not like that (mostly the very rich, business owners etc, and not doctors, lawyers and so on), most don't mind it.

I make quite a lot myself, and I don't mind paying significantly more than someone hardly capable of putting food on the table.

Maylander said:

Depends on your definition of prosperity.

Click to expand...

With a subjective goal, how do y'all measure if you're succeeding or not? Does it boil down to personal opinion, where one person thinks a reliable bowl of ramen qualifies as prosperity while another expects a t-bone to declare it prosperity while another expects no less than a 7-course feast every night to declare it prosperity?

dteowner said:

I believe you're treating the statement as a one-way street. I would offer that when Bill Gates cashes his dividend check with his only "work" being the passive act of holding stock, that money is taken from Microsoft and in turn from the employees of Microsoft. Thus, the workers have generated value but do not receive that full value back.

Does that change your answer?

Click to expand...

You realise, of course, that you have nearly quoted Marx here!! That's actually a very lefty PoV.

Could we have a definition of Wealth here. The problem I have, is that I'm asset rich and cash poor. (Well not that rich, but you get the idea). I have acquired assets over the years which according to the gov't means I'm wealthy, but I have very little REAL money. Assets don't spend; they don't put food on the table, but they count towards your assessed wealth. My home, my car are assets, as is my furniture, etc. Thoughts!!

dteowner said:

And how does your country gage its success at giving you what you deserve? (for the record, the interviewer largely agrees with that particular answer)

Click to expand...

For example, by looking at upward social mobility. If lots of people manage to become more prosperous and better educated than their parents, that's good. The converse is bad. So, for example, if we see a group of people that's stuck in poverty and poor education over many generations, we think that's a problem that we, as a society, should do something about. We also look at what happens to people who become unexpectedly unemployed or ill, for example, and try to make sure that they have the means to solve their problems with as little additional disruption to their lives. It's bad enough to lose your job or get cancer—going broke because of that would make it terrible! Bad things can happen to anyone and we don't choose our parents. If we want to be happy, we need to help each other out.

Corwin said:

Could we have a definition of Wealth here. The problem I have, is that I'm asset rich and cash poor. (Well not that rich, but you get the idea). I have acquired assets over the years which according to the gov't means I'm wealthy, but I have very little REAL money. Assets don't spend; they don't put food on the table, but they count towards your assessed wealth. My home, my car are assets, as is my furniture, etc. Thoughts!!

Click to expand...

You've got it backwards, Corwin. Money isn't wealth. Money is a way to measure wealth. You also always have the option of converting your illiquid assets to liquid assets—even if some of their measured (monetary) value may be "lost" in the process. So yeah, you are wealthy if you have lots of assets. If you have a liquidity problem, that just means that you haven't been entirely successful at managing them.

Yes, I agree PJ. Success has to be measured based on where you start in life; surpassing ones parents should always be considered an accomplishment.

Example: It takes more effort for the child of a pimp and a whore to get a regular job (instead of being a criminal), than it takes to become a scientist for the child of Albert Einstein and Marie Curie (if they had one, that is).

PJ, I could sell my house, but then where would I live? When I had it built years ago, it wasn't worth a great deal of money. Now with inflation and real estate prices increasing massively, it's worth a great deal. I've aquired things over many years, so what I have represents a lot of value now, but I wouldn't want to sell them; I don't want to turn my 'assets' into cash. I have thousands of books that are precious to me, etc. Why is money the measure?

Corwin said:

PJ, I could sell my house, but then where would I live?

Click to expand...

Rent? Another, smaller house, or a house in an area where real estate is less expensive?

The French have a system called "viager," by the way. The idea is that once you're retired, you can sell your house for a lump sum of money, which is usually a good deal less than the market value. The trick is that control of the house only gets transferred to the buyer once you shuffle off this mortal coil. It's, essentially, a gamble—the buyer is betting that you'll croak sooner rather than later, and you're betting that you'll croak before the lump sum runs out. An alternative involves a pension rather than a lump sum.

(Remember Jeanne-Marie Calment, that French lady who lived to 125? She made a deal like that, at the ripe age of 90. The buyers died before her.)

When I had it built years ago, it wasn't worth a great deal of money. Now with inflation and real estate prices increasing massively, it's worth a great deal. I've aquired things over many years, so what I have represents a lot of value now, but I wouldn't want to sell them; I don't want to turn my 'assets' into cash. I have thousands of books that are precious to me, etc.

Click to expand...

In that case, what are you complaining about? You clearly like those things more than the money you could get for selling them, or the other things you could buy for that money. You've made a set of choices over the course of your life. As a result of those choices, you've ended up with a certain set of assets. If you had made other choices, you would have ended with a different set of assets, which might be worth more, or less, or be more or less liquid, when measured in dollars. And should you decided that you'd rather have more liquid assets, you can still exchange the assets you have for other assets.

Of course, you can always feel that you would rather have EVEN MORE assets—for some odd reason, most people do. But that, too, is a different matter.

Why is money the measure?

Click to expand...

Why is a meter the measure of distance? Why is a second the measure of time? Why is a dollar the measure of wealth? We find it convenient to measure wealth in some way, just like we find it convenient to measure time or distance. "Money" is the name we've given to the measure of wealth.

Corwin said:

You realise, of course, that you have nearly quoted Marx here!! That's actually a very lefty PoV.

Could we have a definition of Wealth here. The problem I have, is that I'm asset rich and cash poor. (Well not that rich, but you get the idea). I have acquired assets over the years which according to the gov't means I'm wealthy, but I have very little REAL money. Assets don't spend; they don't put food on the table, but they count towards your assessed wealth. My home, my car are assets, as is my furniture, etc. Thoughts!!

Click to expand...

Absolutely understand that. That's exactly why I threw it out there. It seemed to me that the sentence was being viewed solely as rightie doctrine and thus disputed; when shown to also cover leftie doctrine, I figured opinions might change.

I don't particularly want to define "wealth" although I do hope that the lefties attempt to do so. It's highly subjective, me thinks, which is why I'm turning to questions of gaging.

Prime Junta said:

For example, by looking at upward social mobility. If lots of people manage to become more prosperous and better educated than their parents, that's good. The converse is bad. So, for example, if we see a group of people that's stuck in poverty and poor education over many generations, we think that's a problem that we, as a society, should do something about. We also look at what happens to people who become unexpectedly unemployed or ill, for example, and try to make sure that they have the means to solve their problems with as little additional disruption to their lives. It's bad enough to lose your job or get cancer—going broke because of that would make it terrible! Bad things can happen to anyone and we don't choose our parents. If we want to be happy, we need to help each other out.

Click to expand...

OK, so let's take the entire citizenry of Spendinavia and assign each of them a "prosperity index" from 1 to 99, where the sorriest bastard in the nation gets a 1 and your creme-de-la-creme of extravagance, Prime Minister Pancy Nelosiov, scores a cool 99. Mean = 50, median = 50, no mode. For purposes of this question, the methods you use to determine the prosperity index are unimportant and can safely be ignored. Let's say, thru your programs that encourage support of the bottom of the spectrum paid by the top of the spectrum, that (using a constant index) you manage to successfully raise the bottom from their dregs. Spendinavia now has a range of 10 to 90. Have you improved the prosperity of your nation?

As a followup, is the "lot in life" of our favorite sorry bastard different if he climbs from his previous 1 to a glorious 10 under the new regime? (edit- and just to forestall the zero-sum dismissal, this question can be asked if the results of your programs yield prosperity indices of 10 to 172.