tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post1120837189302337461..comments2024-02-27T14:44:07.868+01:00Comments on Greedy goblin: The fundamental problemGevlonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-72060330316415076422009-11-04T15:24:28.468+01:002009-11-04T15:24:28.468+01:00A serious issue with this proposal is that, as soo...A serious issue with this proposal is that, as soon as the party with political rights feels they "deserve" a bigger slice of the pie, they will automatically vote for some "improvement" measure.<br /><br />It maybe slavery, genocide, etc. We have seen more than once when whole societies (not only a few individuals) decide against human rights just because they are not an affected by those decisions.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695324258791872943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-83545510399761748522009-11-03T04:41:07.708+01:002009-11-03T04:41:07.708+01:00I feel sorry for anyone who takes your real life i...I feel sorry for anyone who takes your real life investment advice. It was good 18 months ago, but is bad now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-84054133862208471092009-10-29T02:03:15.592+01:002009-10-29T02:03:15.592+01:00Gevlon,
I am a student of economics, and I follow...Gevlon,<br /><br />I am a student of economics, and I follow politics, and I have long thought that one of the best things that could happen would be for people on welfare to have reduced political rights. :)<br /><br />People should not be allowed to vote themselves into ownership of their neighbor's property; that just exchanges guns for ballots.Artoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03445651644451198082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-56250148555975674172009-10-28T15:18:08.277+01:002009-10-28T15:18:08.277+01:00The real enemy is the corrupt rich who use their p...<i>The real enemy is the corrupt rich who use their power to sway the masses to gain more power and achieve whatever ends they see fit.</i><br /><br />^ This. THESE people are the problem. The poor are just a means to an end. These people are Ellsworth Toohey, James Taggart and Wesley Mouch. (Gevlon strikes me as someone who embraces the Ayn Rand objectivist philosophy. Perhaps he's even commented about it here before. Although I'm pretty much an American libertarian, I'm not (yet) extreme enough to very much with the Randians.)<br /><br />My own personal view is that in order to vote, or hold public office you need to:<br /><br />1. Pay taxes for a minimum of four uninterrupted years. Nobody should be dictating how to spend other people's money.<br /><br />2. Active duty in the military. If you are willing to put your life on the line for your country, your country does owe you a debt (even if you don't qualify under #1.)Beebopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-4552604252282921602009-10-28T14:29:58.882+01:002009-10-28T14:29:58.882+01:00You are missing who the real enemy of society is- ...You are missing who the real enemy of society is- it is not the poor, uneducated, and irresponsible members of society- they can still contribute greatly to a country with their labor, buying goods that keep others employed, and reproducing to increase the countries productivity and wealth of ideas. More people is only a burden when you are short on resources- US has plenty. And just because parents make poor decisions doesn't mean the kids will too. We need poor people to have more kids, because the wealthy elite of academia take steps to limit their reproduction because it is inconvenient, costly, and limits their ability to do whatever they want. The real enemy is the corrupt rich who use their power to sway the masses to gain more power and achieve whatever ends they see fit. They would love the ability to control the simple, sheeplike people in the world- driving them into deeper and deeper slavery, the whole time preaching hope and promising a bright future, while taxing them to the point of discouraging their ambition and taking away their freedoms. People who don't do a lot in the first place, don't tend to be involved in society and politics unless someone lures them with greed and tells them they will get lots of "freebies" if they support their cause. They will veil this in the shroud of "being fair" and "supporting the rights" of the downtrodden, but look at the results of the legislation they promote. Think long term. Look at the past and see how this will turn out. I say it is the responsibility of good citizens, whenever they see rising entities of power whether it be government, corporate, or religious, to check that growth and resist any efforts to pool power by actively working to reduce their power to a less corruptable level. Checks and balances- without them, our world is doomed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-20131290356571646792009-10-28T10:35:35.293+01:002009-10-28T10:35:35.293+01:00You really have no idea what you're talking ab...You really have no idea what you're talking about do you. Throw in the pot a little bit of pseudo- economics, add a pinch of both mashed sociology and crushed political theory, add a good dose of resentment and there you have it. A post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-26246238740572718512009-10-26T14:36:32.228+01:002009-10-26T14:36:32.228+01:00Lovely. your are back to unskilled workers.
What ...Lovely. your are back to unskilled workers.<br /><br />What about the unskilled, morons running the company. The ones that intentionally understaff so they can get a raise for doing nothing.<br /><br />A good example at my company the head of our division sets a goal that is impossible to keep because of the economy and recent trends. If any one not at the executive level misses their projections this badly they are fired. Instead of being fired he gets praised and gets a bonus.<br /><br />The morons are not just at the bottom.<br /><br />btw I'm extremely worried about my company. We are running with a skeleton crew, we have ignored problems for 10 years. Its only a matter of time before our customers decide not to put up with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-84529152988593313722009-10-26T13:50:34.169+01:002009-10-26T13:50:34.169+01:00Once again, we have an overly simplistic model.
L...Once again, we have an overly simplistic model.<br /><br />Let's talk about "welfare" and education.<br /><br />Now, I am a professor, and I've been subjected to horrible budget meetings, so I know a bit about higher education in the U.S. Even in a private school, the tuition does not cover the cost of each student. Education (even in Europe) is a personnel-intensive profession. Even though professors are paid less than doctors, lawyers, businessmen, accountants, etc, they still must be paid a living wage (whatever that means for each town or city). If students want the "best" education, there must be lots of faculty--say, 1 faculty for every 15 students (and actually, that's a low number of faculty--you'd need some adjuncts to run a school on those numbers). <br /><br />The balance of educational costs is made up from endowments, which come from donor gifts. That's right, the kids at Harvard with no financial aid are not paying their own way. As it is, tuitions in the private schools average around $50,000 a year in the best institutions. No one can really pay more than that, and about half the students at each school pay less based on financial aid packages. Now, financial aid is important, because if a school doesn't provide it, they miss out on their best students--and who wants a class full of rich dummies? The reciprocal relationships created between donors and students are mutually beneficial. Donors want the best institution possible, which will only come about if the school attracts a wide variety of quality new students. As for students, they want the best education they can afford, and donors bring down the price. That is not to say that college is "affordable"--it simply isn't (witness me still paying my loans in my 30s). However, without the "welfare" of state money and private donors (or a combination, which is usual for public universities), the whole system crashes.<br /><br />The point is, no man or woman is independent. Even when we've apparently paid for things, we're still taking part in reciprocal social relations. You can't avoid them. You can't "pay your way." Human society is, and always has been, a cooperative enterprise.Sydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02170690746289154791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-88488784651867564822009-10-26T07:49:58.642+01:002009-10-26T07:49:58.642+01:00"People want "fun" at the end...&qu..."People want "fun" at the end..." People start with wanting food, shelter, companionship, peer recognition, fun is way down the line of wants.Psychologists say so anyway. <br /><br />"The uneducated, unskilled workers will be displaced ..."<br />Well international news do show the opposite trend.<br /><br />"This cannot be stopped by education"<br />Again this statement is false. Outsourcing, for the last 10 years, has shown that unskilled workers can be transformed into skilled workers, and that they can be employed in the services sector. Now the same happens with insourcing. Do you follow the news of your industry ? <br /><br />"The only way to overcome this, is putting welfare/basic income below the survival rate"<br />Welfare is already below the survival rate, in many countries. People still claim it, when they are out of work.<br /><br />"If you pay for being a student, you'll get lot of students .." Adults who are accustomed to supporting themselves tend to go find new jobs with their new skills. Which was the main motivation in establishing conversion courses. Graduates of degrees who were / are not in demand go and pick up new degrees. They don't sit at home. Do you follow your industry sector ? At all ? <br /><br />"If there is no punishment, people will take the loans and don't bother learning ..." Again the last 15 years have shown that this statement is false. Would you happen to have any data supporting this claim of yours ? <br /><br />"So we have an ever-growing group of welfare leech, who refuse to work for $5-10K/year, refuse to study and refuse to work as a servant..." Where have you got this ever growing population who decided to live on welfare ? Could you provide some data for this claim maybe ? Preferably data that shows a rising percentage of the population that refuses to work. <br /><br />"If today I'd start the "welfare party" in the USA with the only program point "moar welfare" aka "nerf the world", I'd get 10-20%.." You would get what the current administration gets, while it tries to reform health. Diminishing popularity.<br /><br />"In the EU, with lower employment rate, such parties (socialists) are common and get 30-40% and the other parties often have to make compromises with them, making the welfare a "holy cow" in the EU.." In the EU the socialists have lost ground during the last decade. As national and euro-parliamentary elections showed. As recorded in the news. In fact news, and history, show that when the going gets tough the socialists lose ground. Would this be familiar by any chance ? Has this happened before ?<br /><br />"As the employment rate drops, the "welfare party" gets more and more voters, gets more and more power, giving out more and more welfare. The higher welfare makes more jobs unfillable.." Really ? So why do the current news and 20th century history, show the exact opposite trend ? Would you say that for instance UK in the 80s or europe in the 30s and euro-parliament right now was/is the rise on the socialists ? Exacty how many socialist goverments exist in europe right now ? And of those, how many do really pursue a socialist agenda ? Honestly have your watched any news since you started playing wow ?<br /><br />Oh and your solution is a rehash of a 2500 years old practice ? <br /> <br />I would say that these posts show two things that may be of use.<br />1) read your national and international news. They document thoroughly the reasons why national debts and unemployment are rising, and its got nothing to do with technology. After all some of the most skilled and experienced people have been layed off in 2009 by profitable industries. And they weren't replaced by machines. (EDS IBM, HP,Dell, etc etc). Same thing happened 9 years ago. <br />2) If you are going to make a claim, you cant pick and choose your data. Either your theory fits them or it doesn't in which case its false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-39115721764966621412009-10-25T19:40:20.852+01:002009-10-25T19:40:20.852+01:00Humm your "predictions" are well documen...Humm your "predictions" are well documented, but you forgot one variable, Economics is a science, if GDPs start dropping bells will start to ring and steps will be taken by the appropriate entities to correct the bad trends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-6737634432448867142009-10-25T07:27:18.911+01:002009-10-25T07:27:18.911+01:00Yeah, that does sound like a good solution. I'...Yeah, that does sound like a good solution. I'd vote for you. Well, problem is, all those welfare have not lost their rights yet, so they would not vote for you, and you would lose the election badly. We have to figure out how to get you into power by using force, I'm afraid. This is going to be difficult but I stand behind you.Yagglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15177750815584983551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-57374599828484258122009-10-24T08:07:16.589+02:002009-10-24T08:07:16.589+02:00One of my favorite posts of yours, Gev. Bravo.One of my favorite posts of yours, Gev. Bravo.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00123929988970902320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-15218050011047123852009-10-24T02:52:27.645+02:002009-10-24T02:52:27.645+02:00Your proposed "solution" to making sure ...Your proposed "solution" to making sure there isn't a permanent welfare party by restricting welfare recipients from voting wouldn't work in reality (and is morally wrong since it basically sets up an indentured servant class). <br /><br />Here in the US, the so-called "Red" states (such as Texas and Mississippi) that typically vote conservative and are opposed to welfare are actually the states that receive the most federal assistance. The "Blue" states (like California and New York) that typically vote for liberals are the states that pay far more in taxes to the federal government and yet receive less in federal assistance than they pay in. Restricting a certain class of voters in this manner wouldn't necessarily have the desired effect as voters don't always vote just on their pocketbook.<br /><br />As for welfare creating a large mass of "welfare leeches," that was myth in the 1960s when the conservatives trotted it out, it was a myth when Reagan made a big issue out of it in the 1980s and it's still a myth today. At present in the U.S. federal government, food stamps, aid to children, etc. only accounts for about 2 percent of the total federal budget.<br /><br />The real problem is that we seen a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1% of the upper classes since the 1950s through corporate welfare. At present, corporations pay 9% of all taxes and individuals pay 56%. This is almost the exact reverse of the federal tax rolls in the 1950s. While the U.S. has one the higher corporate tax rates we actually have the lowest actual collection rate since there's so many corporate loopholes in the tax structure. This is the reason we have CEOs able to pay themselves $100 million and more a year in compensation. The only real "welfare leeches" are at the top of income ladder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-57886528379443829702009-10-24T00:54:24.897+02:002009-10-24T00:54:24.897+02:00Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy! Serv...Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy! Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-51394005828082057892009-10-23T20:40:02.147+02:002009-10-23T20:40:02.147+02:00There another potential solution: advance technolo...There another potential solution: advance technology fast enough to get to a (nearly) post-scarcity economy before society explodes.<br /><br />Granted, this is risky, and may strike some as techno-utopianism; but it's not impossible.<br /><br />With sufficiently advanced and sufficiently inexpensive robotics and computers, and sufficiently inexpensive energy we could supply food, clothing, and shelter (at, say a current lower-middle class level) to everyone for very little cost to the economy.<br /><br />But can we get technology to that point before Gevlon's collapse of civilization happens? I dunno.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505231241710012753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-40769432859106187102009-10-23T19:52:55.265+02:002009-10-23T19:52:55.265+02:00Gevlon,
As much as I enjoy your posts, I notice t...Gevlon,<br /><br />As much as I enjoy your posts, I notice that no where is there reference to corporate welfare or banks that rob the taxpayer coffers aided and abetted by politicians. <br />I assure you that the wealthy "deserving" of all rights and privledges in your society, are not going to volunteer to serve in wartime.<br /><br />You only seem to go after the bottom rungs of Western society...Brave New World anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-84922408429027324842009-10-23T19:39:16.678+02:002009-10-23T19:39:16.678+02:00Wow, ok...
1) it won't happen. Perhaps You cou...Wow, ok...<br />1) it won't happen. Perhaps You could review some historical works dealing with the situations of the poor (The Jungle comes to mind)…<br /><br />2) your solution is not any better than genocide. Those in power will force their opposition to be state-children, confiscating their power and thus create their n ruling class. (The return of the blacklist)<br /><br />3) assuming your proposal WOULD work, it's a horrifically labor intensive solution when they answer (which is being fought against by the right wing of all groups) is much simpler. To get welfare, you must get a job. If you cannot get a job, you must show up for X hours a day 5days a week at the welfare office (or some office set up for it). This be comes your job until a job becomes available. This causes 2 affects. 1 everyone has a job (either a job, or a job getting a job) 2 the stigma of being the one Guy who has been in the office forever, makes you the clear leech.<br /><br />The right-wing (Republicans here) hate this idea because it gives everyone a job. Which causes the wages to go up (why would i clean trash cans when Wendy's pays just as well) since wages go up, the money amassed at the top gets pulled back down into the middle and lower classes. And finally, eventually everyone gets paid according to their abilities, and not how much someone in their ancestory amassed (old money lasts for a much shorter time)<br /><br />TL:DR give people jobs to redistribute wealth, thus avoid major issues.Zerannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-45753913286434550422009-10-23T19:18:40.716+02:002009-10-23T19:18:40.716+02:00by the way, would it be also good if in case smth ...by the way, would it be also good if in case smth happens to keep your money in a stable course in cash, f.e. Euros?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-45894709695052040442009-10-23T18:52:51.056+02:002009-10-23T18:52:51.056+02:00@Csdx: being unemployed =/= being welfare leech. H...@Csdx: being unemployed =/= being welfare leech. He can live on unemployed INSURANCE (market product that he paid for while employed) or he as savings.<br /><br />It's a common mistake to believe that "you between jobs" is similar to a drunken, uneducated welfare leech.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-42116739096610031932009-10-23T18:43:59.150+02:002009-10-23T18:43:59.150+02:00Not having to deal with jury duty seems like a ben...Not having to deal with jury duty seems like a benefit. And not being able to vote ... another hassle avoided.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-25337397064128473212009-10-23T18:43:30.994+02:002009-10-23T18:43:30.994+02:00OK a few issues:
I still don't think there...OK a few issues: <br />I still don't think there's a problem with potential collapse or merely stagnation. You've continued to make (as I see them) unfounded assertions about how unemployment will continue to increase. (Also you stop at 20%, why not take 20% of 20%, etc until you end up with one person in one job and all of us are welfare leeches).<br /><br />Even if you force the person to make the 'choice' of staying on welfare, it's not really one. If your options are death (starve, die of an untreated disease) or not death (welfare), I'd argue there's pretty much no choice in the matter. <br /><br />You really seem to also believe that people on welfare stay on it continually. Most forms of welfare, are temporary and meant to be. See things such as unemployment insurance (which companies (and employees indirectly) pay for), student loans, disaster relief, etc. These are all meant to help people through temporary situations and not permanent. So taking away someone's right to vote because they got hit by a hurricane seems to be an inappropriate solution.<br /><br />Also taking rights away from the poor has pretty much been a standard in all ages previous. Before we gave women the right to vote, you had to be a landowning male to get things done. <br /><br />Also (if we believe your declining employment hypothesis) your plan would accelerate the gap between the wealthy and poor. Currently that's the rate it's rising without people having the restrictions on income (no manager jobs (even at McDonalds), paying back all assistance, etc). So those in power would have even more incentive to threaten those under them to either work for less or get fired completely. And then it'd be that much harder to hire people back on (especially if a higher level boss fired a mid-level manager, he's ruined since he can't find a new job in his skill set due to your restrictions). So your system might cause the economic collapse you worry about by accelerating the unemployment rate.csdxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-9509649103478321932009-10-23T18:41:06.840+02:002009-10-23T18:41:06.840+02:00Gevlon, unfortunately, removing a welfare recipien...Gevlon, unfortunately, removing a welfare recipient's right to vote will never happen. That's because welfare recipients vote disproportionately for one political party. Therefore, that party would have to give up power in order to make that change (i.e., the country will collapse before it happens).<br /><br />And in regard to Smeg's post: how is the Army in Australia any different than any government job in that regard?<br /><br />I'm pretty sure the Army isn't looked down upon b/c they work harder and do dirtier jobs than most of the government workers.thehampsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333883891642767644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-30482477646180810312009-10-23T18:39:49.158+02:002009-10-23T18:39:49.158+02:00If the issue is people not wanting to work for 10k...If the issue is people not wanting to work for 10k when they can get welfare for 5k... but companies can't pay more then 10k in orde to still make a profit...<br /><br />What about a governemnet subsidy to the these companies that cannot pay higher wages? The 5k from welfare can be given to the company so that they can higher an employee at 15k a year while still maintaining a profit margin. To prevent abuse of the system the companies that take the subsidies are capped out at say 3% profit and anything over that is sent back to the government to help pay for the subsidy. <br /><br />This will make it easier for starter business to create jobs and decrease unemployment. The goal for the companies being to stop being subsidized so they can keep the higher profits while still maintaining a standard of living for the employees.<br /><br />This would in theory also prevent inflation because the companies wouldn't have to charge more for their product in order to break even.What's my main Again?http://whatsmymain.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-4662190517456540932009-10-23T17:41:59.975+02:002009-10-23T17:41:59.975+02:00@Hugh: there are not enough manual labor positions...@Hugh: there are not enough manual labor positions, that's the point of all.<br /><br />If someone gives up hope repaying he may remain on welfare eternally but that's no reason for crime. If he is a welfare-child, he still have his personal rights (like go where he wants to), while convicted criminals don't. I suggest to take away political rights, not personal ones.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-82478705633615025002009-10-23T16:52:20.005+02:002009-10-23T16:52:20.005+02:00there's a few flaws with your solution. First...there's a few flaws with your solution. First off, if someone has worked his whole life and paid taxes I think they should get some kind of credit towards welfare. The employed pay for the unemployed through welfare so it wouldn't be very fair to hit some hard times later in life and have to pay that amount back even though you've already paid taxes for 20 years.<br /><br />Second, by having a welfare tab and adding to it with crimes you will make rehabilitation that much harder. If your tab gets too high you might just abandon hope at ever paying it back and life a life of crime instead.<br /><br />My solution is to fill all manual labour government jobs with welfare recipients. If you receive welfare then you must show up for your government appointed job and sweep the streets, pick up trash, mow lawns, etc... For this you will get paid just enough to scrape by. If you want to improve your life you need to go find other work arrangments. You could combine this with a loss of civilian rights. If you are on welfare then I think gun ownership, voting and having children should be out of the question until you better your situation.Hugh Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08216457623708725478noreply@blogger.com