The "welfare state"?

 

If it is rigt for the government to steel 500 billion $ from tax payers money, not to mention tax cuts, to spend it on subsidies, bailouts and non bidding contracts, which are the modern day equivalent for subsidies, for companies that cannot keep up a desent check book that have failed managment that reward themselves for bringing the companey more and more into the red, then by God we deserve to be treated like these companies by giving the poor, the uneducated and most importantly the sick the same care that we give to companies that not only steel from us, but even outsource our jobs.

 

By the way I am talking about the US but the situation is exactly the same here in Saudi Arabia, just take one zero out and I am talking about KSA.

 

Al-Jassas  

 

In case you wondered I am a libertarian, I don't believe in taxes period.

 

But taxes must be imposed if we are to run a state. I detest the European welfare state because it is a nanny state not a welfare state. Welfare state means that only essentials are taken care of, retirement ensurance,  long term and expensive health care costs and basic education but the european model is just outragegous punishing the middle and upper classes because people chose not to take the right path in their life and thus the burden of keeping them is the responsibility of every one.

 

 But I even detest more what is hapening in the US. In the US companies that do not deserve get free money from those who do not own. One of the most essential aspects of capitalism is personal responsibilty, if you go on a venture you know what is in it for you and what is in it against you and whatever happens is your responsibility. That was what made Americas great companies back in the good old days. In those days these companies did not wait for government charity or lucrative contract given for free. They worked on great projects based on their own intiative and it worked. When the Wright brother approached the American government for help they were given the cold shoulder and yet the US became the world largest and most innovative aviation industry. Nowadays the congressionl corporate agents, wrongly called representative and senators, are far more interested in the prosperity of the corporation they represent than the welfare of their own citizen. Certain politicians call for doom and gloom when ever a social or economic legistlation is presented because it is steeling tax payers money and giving it to failiure, like what happened to the child health care bill. But when it comes to failed corporations that left no rule in the books that they did not break, that are full of irregularity and irresponsibility you see them the first to call for free bailouts with out any strings, like what happened in the latest credit crunch. In times of ecomonic hardships and in case of strategic economic sectors, there I have no problems with bailouts, loans that is, and tax cuts. But to bailout the greed of these corporations and their mismanagement is to say to them is totally unacceptable, in my humble opinion it is nothing but steeling.

 

Al-Jassas

Hello Ulrich

 

I exclusively heard Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlessinger for four years and still I was not convinced. I am neither a "liberal" nor a "conservative", I am Saudi Arabian and do not care for local politics of the US, I only care about foriegn policies. However if I were to be an  American, I would definitely be a classic Gladstonean-Lloyd Georgian liberal with a conservative outlook. 

 

As for solutions, they do exist. In Ireland for example there is an excellent complete and full health coverage system alogside private providers, an excellent retirement system and the country has a lower taxation level with respect to GDP (30.1 % if I remember correctly) than the US (34%-35). The same goes for Japan. Both countries have far more successful businesses than the US and far more competetiveness, productivity and a lot tougher laws against free bailouts.

 

There is no disagreement that people should pay for their own expenses, except those desperatly poor or bankrupt who are very small minority. But one thing I do not accept is for me to pay for the mistakes and wrong decision of others especially if these were companies that mismanaged their resources and then they come crying for help.

 

By the way I did not see the last of Moore's films.

 

Al-Jassas

 

 

Originally posted by Ulrich Wolff If that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel. Don't however claim to be Christian. The major institution that has enforced that on the public over the centuries has been the Church (most if not all churches). HAHAHAHA! You should not claim to be Christian either if you come in here with that.

I don't. I'm glad to see you are not being hypocritical about it. Many people are.

 

I can't count how many times God says "Ye will not help them, or preach to them because of their creed". For centuries religion has been the biggest aggressor for war. Marx himself "Religion is opium for the masses" Good will towards other people absolutely, it should NEVER be enforced by the government. Why not? Because you are taking away their right to be happy, and wealthy.

No-one has a right to be wealthy. Not even Paris Hilton. No-one has a right to be happy for that matter. It's not a question of rights, but of the biological fact that humans are a pack animal, and the social fact that the kind of social organisation you are talking about falls apart.

 

The two major economic/social lessons of the 20th century are that Soviet Communism doesn't work (exemplified by the fate of the Soviet Union, and its abandonment by China) and that free-market capitalism doesn't work (exmplified above all by the events of the 'thirties, but also the similar depressions of the 19th century, and the crime rate of societies like the US compared to that of the social democratic ones).

It is a right that must be pursued by an individual, not given to them.  Basically, you must fight for your own survival if you are capable. America has plenty of welfare programs for people who cannot provide for themselves. But, we will not tolerate lazy slouches. In my opinion let the rich be rich! Because they earned it.

In fact I don't have much trouble with rich people who earned their money. Vastly however in the US (as elsewhere) rich people are rich because their parents were. The moderately well off like Gates may make it to the super-rich, but the poor don't. (Even if they did in the days of the frontier, which is pretty doubtful)

 

What happens in the kind of society you describe is that the rich get richer and the poor poorer. As a result the economy eventually stalls because it depends essentially on the ability of the majority of the population to consume what is manufactured.

My point is that the system doesn't make her work. Or her parents for that matter. Conrad Hilton used to work, I'll grant you. The point is they have the FREEDOM, to either be productive people, or sit on their butts, and suffer for it. Paris Hilton does not have to be productive because she does not have to support herself. Which is exactly what a welfare state hands to people.

If it's all right for Paris Hilton to sit on her hands and get funded, why is it wrong for other people? Quite apart from the economic arguments for the welfare state, which are determinative from a non-ethical point of view.

Because you go to jail (or at least ostracised) if you don't. 'From each according to his ability', remember? Ok, lets throw every one who doesn't work into jail, so they can have free food, and free beds.  While we pay for it.  That teaches people to work real hard

Now you are supporting Communism. What happened to freedom?

Marxist communism is not bad in words. In action it is not possible.

Well I agree with the second sentence but not the first. Marxist analysis is flawed I think, but that's another topic.

 

The welfare state isn't Marxist. At least it's not a Marxist concept or the Marxist ideal. It's foundations are more on religion and empirical economic analysis than anything else.

 

Originally posted by Ulrich Wolff So, if we did things your way, and had  a government run medical system. Just check out Canada's medicare system. A lot of them die waiting for health care, or try to get in America or some other country.

 

Straight nonsense. The real truth is that stacks of Americans depend on buying their medicines in Canada (or Mexico even) because they can't pay for them in the US.

 

Americans pay more than anyone else in the world for health care. And they have the 37th best service as a result (according to the WHO). I had the bad luck to be in the US four years ago when I had a minor heart problem. As a result I was in hospital for two nights, and on an operating table (only a local anaesthic) for about a half-hour while they put in a stent.

 

The bill? Thirty three thousand dollars.

 

I investigated what it would have cost the government system (not me personally) in Luxembourg. Answer: a little over three thousand euros, of which I would have had to pay some 300. I repeat: the cost to the system in Luxembourg was one tenth of the cost in the US.

 

Of course not too many of the tens of millions of uninsured in the US would have been able to fork out thirty-three thousand. They would have got the treatment (thanks to one of the few pieces of welfare state federal legislation) but they would still have had to pay the bill by instalments.

 

It's unbelievable the way Americans will put up with the health system they have, pay way over the odds for it, and still claim other people's systems are worse.

 

 

Looked at the population of Japan lately? This is small?

Japanese 123 million to the US 300 million.

Ridiculous. It may well have been tinkered with.

Mistake, three years. years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

Nope.

Please state more then nope. Lower taxes increase production because the populous  has more money to spend, and invest. Thus creating more market.

Straight nonsense. The real truth is that stacks of Americans depend on buying their medicines in Canada (or Mexico even) because they can't pay for them in the US.

Medication is cheap in Canada, what I was referring to was medical service. I will illustrate my point below.

 

GDP per capita tells you nothing about productivity, it only gives a rough sketch about the wealth distribution in a country without going much into detail. In most countries it is enough to make an accurate assumption but as you see in the list, Qatar is number 15 with 33 000$ but that is not the case their, half the street of the capital aren't even paved and people stil live in tents from poverty there. Also, it does take into account non-effective population like unemployed (12% in France, 15% in Germany), retired and children which in percentage terms take roughly half of the population away. I will not go deep into the mumbo jumbo of economic indicators and how to analyze them because they are beyond this discussion, but if you are interested go to the world bank site and the economist intelligence unit for starters and you will find there some interesting facts.

 

As for health care, unfortunately, the current situation in the health care is just beyond the laws of supply and demand. Health care costs in the US and abroad have been growing counter to every supply and demand law  that exist. Not mentioning tax breaks and subsidies for the industry which are overpriced, the growth in costs passed both industry as well as national inflations rates and the service per dollar given has deteriorated significantly. This is not supply and demand.

 

Al-Jassas

 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Patch   GDP per capita tells you nothing about productivity,

Agreed. GDP per hour worked is a better measure (while still not perfect, being money-based as GDP derivatives must be). The OECD gives the top dozen countries for GDP per hour normalised so the US is 100, as

 

Norway 122
Luxembourg 121
Belgium 110
France 103
Ireland 102
USA 100
Netherlands 95
Germany 91
Denmark 88
Sweden 86
UK 86
Finland 85
Austria 83

 

Japan comes in as 70, and one of the worst is South Korea at 40.

 

The full table is buried way down the page at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/7/29880166.pdf

and gives the base figures for population, GDP, hourse worked and so on.

 

I can't locate any decent international tax comparisons, but as I recall, the US tax burden (federal plus state, direct plus indirect) is a fair bit higher than the UK nowadays, though lower than the countries above it in the table.

 

Anyway one should, where there is no compulsory health system payment, add on to taxes the payments made for private insurance or treatment, since the payments are not voluntary, except in the sense that a muggee handing over his wallet to a mugger is acting voluntarily.

 

 

 

I am now reading Milton Friedman's book "Bright Promises, Dismal Performance" and the guy has lots of good points. On principle, I am with minimal regulation and government interference in the economy however, like Friedman acknowledged, there are certain sectros of the economy that the government has to interfer and play with because they are beyond the capability of the private sector. The current system for free choice of health insurers must stay as it is because frankly, if you have a job you should take care for yourself and pay your own expenses, ma government should never allowed to exist. But unemployed who lost their insurence as well as elderly and the underaged children all should be covered in a national scheme that replaces MEDICARE/MEDICAID programs. Already the US pays on its citizens per capit through those two programs more than france does and France has a better coverage. How the system works, well I do not know the system in the US, it can be implemented via state level or county level or what ever but the nearer to the consumer the better the deal,  Vermont covered all the children there and the system can be a starting point.

 

Al-Jassas