Soviet-style Breadlines come to America.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That anyone could take this seriously is absurd and inane. Medieval famines were worse than Soviet-era ones, and your solution is laughably pathetic and inferior to the existing social infrastructure. You provide your own rebuttals.

Uhm, and this statement deals with what I just said how?

Have I advocated anywhere going back to a medieval system? No, I actually stated such was impossible in this thread, repeatedly. But my arguments don't matter; IP has to stick to his script.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That anyone could take this seriously is absurd and inane. Medieval famines were worse than Soviet-era ones, and your solution is laughably pathetic and inferior to the existing social infrastructure. You provide your own rebuttals.

Uhm, and this statement deals with what I just said how?

Have I advocated anywhere going back to a medieval system? No, I actually stated such was impossible in this thread, repeatedly. But my arguments don't matter; IP has to stick to his script.

You JUST USED medieval social programs as a fucking precedent and support for your own plan! Why would we preferentially shovel money into a system we abandoned a century ago because it was shitty when we could put the same money into a broader version of the existing, superior program?

[Coyote]

I have to admit, there is something coldly cynical about allowing the free market to dictate the price of food-- or, at least, food of demonstratable need like wheat, rice, etc. It takes basic human survival and out it on the scale of profitability like iPhones, cars, and Louis Vuitton. If I had my druthers, I'd eliminate taxes on food. But come to think of it, I think that basic controls on food prices (for necessities, I'm not talking about Twinkies and Lucky Charms here) is almost an ethical imperative.

I mean, isn't access to good, nutritious food part of overall worker health, which in turn contrivbutes to overall worker productivity and less absenteeism from sick days? The money "lost" by removing this wonderful opportunity for speculators to gouge will be made up in the economy in other ways by enhanced productivity and less absenteeism, eh?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Its also useless and inferior. Why not expand coverage and size of the food stamp program, which will actually provide more help to more people if you're not proposing to eliminate it? Again, nothing but "I feel this way" arguments.

No it's not, it would provide basic staples to help people through rough times in which the process of applying for and being approved for food stamps might take to long, and it would allow people who cannot be approved for food stamps but due to economic hardship or special circumstances do not have enough for food to get a portion of their food free, allowing them to use their food money on higher-end goods which can fill out their nutritional requirements. In short, providing basic staples for anyone to come and pick up, no questions asked, for free, as a government programme, is inherently complimentary to food stamps, and fills in the gaps in the food stamp programme.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Except the food market in this country has everything to do with price guarantees for the side of business and not the consumer, and nothing to do with lassiez-faire.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You JUST USED medieval social programs as a fucking precedent and support for your own plan! Why would we preferentially shovel money into a system we abandoned a century ago because it was shitty when we could put the same money into a broader version of the existing, superior program? :roll:

No, it was abandoned almost two and a half centuries ago and not replaced for almost two hundred years, causing enormous suffering in the Victoria era, you dolt. Again, however, refer to my post--having a second, supplementary system will fill in the gaps in the existing system. Expanding the food stamp programme would just make the programme accessible to the next level of wage-earners; having a supplementary system would conversely allow flexibility (the point of the proposal) to fill in the gaps in the system, making it sufficiently comprehensive.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No it's not, it would provide basic staples to help people through rough times in which the process of applying for and being approved for food stamps might take to long, and it would allow people who cannot be approved for food stamps but due to economic hardship or special circumstances do not have enough for food to get a portion of their food free, allowing them to use their food money on higher-end goods which can fill out their nutritional requirements. In short, providing basic staples for anyone to come and pick up, no questions asked, for free, as a government programme, is inherently complimentary to food stamps, and fills in the gaps in the food stamp programme.

Why would they provide only bread? What is the point when you could provide them better food? And if you think only the poor would use such a program, you're delusional. No questions asked? If you have no abuse controls, the price of this program will spiral completely out of control and make the situation worse.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why would they provide only bread? What is the point when you could provide them better food? And if you think only the poor would use such a program, you're delusional. No questions asked? If you have no abuse controls, the price of this program will spiral completely out of control and make the situation worse.

I didn't say bread, I said flour and grains. There are plenty of different kinds of grains; the key is that they're all easily stored, long-term, bulk-staples. And so what? If the government ultimately has to provide free raw grains to everyone in the country who wants them, we can just raise taxes. It's not like they aren't a necessity for everyone.

[Darth Wong]

Except the food market in this country has everything to do with price guarantees for the side of business and not the consumer, and nothing to do with lassiez-faire.

The agricultural commodities exchange markets were extensively deregulated in order to allow hedge funds to participate; that's laissez-faire.

[Broomstick]

Why, if I may? This isn't 2003

Why not? And the year has little or nothing to do with it.

Oh it has a lot to do with it, this is 2003 Marina. Her views there stood diametrically opposed to her views now. Such radical change is not uncommon, it often happens when people become disillusioned with a political system. In this case I'd call it a good thing, I don't like libertarianism any more than she does.

Again, the year is irrelevant. I disagreed her views then, and I disagree with them now. I realize that they are not the same set of views, that does not bar me from disagreeing with the new set as well as the old.

Which is not to say I'm overly enthused with capitalism, either - those who are not the minority at the top can truly suffer, and I am very much in favor of a social safety net and other features more commonly thought of (at least from a US viewpoint) as "socialist" to cushion to worst defects of capitalism. Not that I want to sashay off on that tanget.

And my point that Marina, upon deciding the "correct" way for herself to live, still wants to sledgehammer everyone else into the same box whether or not that's a good idea (and I would say not, since civilization requires a diversity of skills, jobs, and yes, lifestyles) still applies.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Except the food market in this country has everything to do with price guarantees for the side of business and not the consumer, and nothing to do with lassiez-faire.

The agricultural commodities exchange markets were extensively deregulated in order to allow hedge funds to participate; that's laissez-faire.

How can a market be laissez-faire when the domestic producers are uniformly subsidized and a special class of consumers are also subsidized? Just because one makes one policy decision among many in a particular market sector of one kind (in this case laissez-faire or deregulatory) does not immediately transmogrify the entire sector into a standard barer of that type of economic policy. The hedge fund speculating would not be so deleterious if the ethanol programs were scaled down or discontinued and if the farmer were not so heavily subsidized. You're talking about potentially introducing speculative pressure and introducing volatility into this market sector - hedge funds may but do not necessarily have to participate, nor is their participation automatically negative or excessive. Subsidizing domestic farmers and huge bloated ethanol programs is directly fucking with market fundamentals.

[Broomstick]

The simple answer is that I don't find material prosperity to be a necessarily ideal outcome. That is to say I find human happiness completely disconnected from economic success.

If you're not economically successful enough to afford food I find it doubtful you're happy. A certain minimum of economic success is required for survival needs, and that is certainly connected to human happiness. In other words, poverty sucks. It's not until your base needs are comfortably met that "total income" starts to have less relevance to "total happiness".

[Darth Wong]

Except the food market in this country has everything to do with price guarantees for the side of business and not the consumer, and nothing to do with lassiez-faire.

The agricultural commodities exchange markets were extensively deregulated in order to allow hedge funds to participate; that's laissez-faire.

How can a market be laissez-faire when the domestic producers are uniformly subsidized and a special class of consumers are also subsidized? Just because one makes one policy decision among many in a particular market sector of one kind (in this case laissez-faire or deregulatory) does not immediately transmogrify the entire sector into a standard barer of that type of economic policy.

I looked through the rules and can't seem to find the part where we announced the black and white fallacies are now acceptable. Perhaps you could direct me to that section, smart-ass. By your standard, there has never been any laissez-faire economics in the US, because there has never been any completely unregulated industry.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You are right, "nothing to do with laissez-faire" is incorrect because of the intervention of speculatory pressures by previously regulated interests. I guess what I was getting at is that "laissez-faire" usually refers to markets which are noted for little intervention by governments. The food market is one of the most heavily intervened sectors in the OECD. And in Marina's case, certainly her rants about capitalism in pure structural form do not apply to the food market particularly. I think the U.S. food market is one of the poorest examples of laissez-faire policy in the country, with its endemic subsidies and perverse incentives.

[Darth Wong]

You are right, "nothing to do with laissez-faire" is incorrect because of the intervention of speculatory pressures by previously regulated interests. I guess what I was getting at is that "laissez-faire" usually refers to markets which are noted for little intervention by governments. The food market is one of the most heavily intervened sectors in the OECD. And in Marina's case, certainly her rants about capitalism in pure structural form do not apply to the food market particularly. I think the U.S. food market is one of the poorest examples of laissez-faire policy in the country, with its endemic subsidies and perverse incentives.

At the production end, it's certainly quite regulated. But recent deregulation of the agricultural commodities exchanges has allowed the hedge funds to step in and make a real mess of things. Farmers are finding that their operating costs have doubled in some cases. So it's not a matter of the entire industry being run on the principles of laissez-faire economics, but rather, more of an intrusion of laissez-faire economics into what was previously a relatively controlled industry.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You are right, "nothing to do with laissez-faire" is incorrect because of the intervention of speculatory pressures by previously regulated interests. I guess what I was getting at is that "laissez-faire" usually refers to markets which are noted for little intervention by governments. The food market is one of the most heavily intervened sectors in the OECD. And in Marina's case, certainly her rants about capitalism in pure structural form do not apply to the food market particularly. I think the U.S. food market is one of the poorest examples of laissez-faire policy in the country, with its endemic subsidies and perverse incentives.

At the production end, it's certainly quite regulated. But recent deregulation of the agricultural commodities exchanges has allowed the hedge funds to step in and make a real mess of things. Farmers are finding that their operating costs have doubled in some cases. So it's not a matter of the entire industry being run on the principles of laissez-faire economics, but rather, more of an intrusion of laissez-faire economics into what was previously a relatively controlled industry.

Essentially, we're trying lose. We're deregulating and taking government hands off where it allows the vultures and speculators to drive up prices and distort incentives, and we're simultaneously intervening to protect Big Food's bottom line by paying them to grown more expensive food and buying it for useless white elephant oil-substitute projects. The worst of both worlds, dirigisme and laissez-faire, in the same industry at the same time during a global crunch in supply. The effort with which the politicians will go to further enrich the ruling class at the expense of the global and domestic poor knows no limits.

[Darth Wong]

A certain minimum of economic success is required for survival needs, and that is certainly connected to human happiness. In other words, poverty sucks. It's not until your base needs are comfortably met that "total income" starts to have less relevance to "total happiness".

This minimum doesn't need to be very high for a lot of people. My family makes about $15,000 a year for all of us (which doesn't really include everything; we also get lots of subsidized things), and I'm actually quite happy with it; I have close to no desire to have anything more than what I have now.

I honestly have no idea how you can function on that level of income, but I congratulate your parents on making it work.

I've very convinced that one of the best things that could happen to America is if everyone got about that much money annually from the government just for being here. This would let them work for anything else they want while knowing their basic expenses are always taken care of (assuming they don't blow the money in some stupid way).

According to the 2006 US Census, there are ~115 million households, with an average of ~2.5 residents. If we hack $15k for 4 people down to 2.5 people, we get ~$9.4k, times 115 million households for a total of roughly $1.1 trillion per year. That's a pretty steep expenditure. Then again, you spend $700 billion per year on the military.

[Broomstick]

A certain minimum of economic success is required for survival needs, and that is certainly connected to human happiness. In other words, poverty sucks. It's not until your base needs are comfortably met that "total income" starts to have less relevance to "total happiness".

This minimum doesn't need to be very high for a lot of people. My family makes about $15,000 a year for all of us (which doesn't really include everything; we also get lots of subsidized things), and I'm actually quite happy with it; I have close to no desire to have anything more than what I have now.

Gee, how nice for you.

My Other Half's base medical expenses - that is, the medications and tests that keep him alive and functioning, as well as the necessary daily supplies to manage his various problems, costs $6,000 per year. That would leave only $9k a year for everything else.

My mother costs about (if I recall) 10-12k a year just to keep alive. That would leave her and dad 3k a year for everything else.

From outside my family, a person with celiac disease will require a more expensive diet to remain healthy than a person without the disorder.

See, the problem is not everyone has the same base needs.

I've very convinced that one of the best things that could happen to America is if everyone got about that much money annually from the government just for being here.

Who would pay for it? Where would the money come from?

This would let them work for anything else they want while knowing their basic expenses are always taken care of (assuming they don't blow the money in some stupid way).

Ah, the Star Trek universe - but who defines "some stupid way"?

[Big Phil]

I've very convinced that one of the best things that could happen to America is if everyone got about that much money annually from the government just for being here.

Kind of like welfare, you mean?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The simple answer is that I don't find material prosperity to be a necessarily ideal outcome. That is to say I find human happiness completely disconnected from economic success.

If you're not economically successful enough to afford food I find it doubtful you're happy. A certain minimum of economic success is required for survival needs, and that is certainly connected to human happiness. In other words, poverty sucks. It's not until your base needs are comfortably met that "total income" starts to have less relevance to "total happiness".

But isn't subsidizing basic staples like I proposed a way to correct that? So aren't we actually in perfect agreement?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And my point that Marina, upon deciding the "correct" way for herself to live, still wants to sledgehammer everyone else into the same box whether or not that's a good idea (and I would say not, since civilization requires a diversity of skills, jobs, and yes, lifestyles) still applies.

*blinks* Where do I want to force people to do things, exactly, other than make it legal for workers co-op's to seize abandoned factories to operate, which is forcing the big corporations to either make property productive or let it be taken over, and my idea of central government planning for extremely large industries only (dirigisme) in conjunction with most corporations being owned by as many people as possible (Distributivism). Where is the force in this? It's just changing the law to give people more options. Oh, I suppose seizure of property through taxation and confiscation to the very rich is forcing them to be slightly poorer, but does anyone really care if they have to fly first class instead of chartering a Bizjet?

[thejester]

Oh horseshit. I'm not American so now it's actually my kneejerk reaction to capitalism being attacked?

yes it is. That's why everyone hastens to point out that the underlying ECONOMIC conditions are not the same, even though those conditions are irrelevant to the question of whether it'sa Soviet-style breadline. You CHOSE to add a discussion of economics to it, felt it was necessarily implied by the word "style" (even though it's not), and now you're pretending that there was no economic defensiveness about that at all. And your only excuse for doing this is that you felt it was implied by the word "style", which is pure bullshit, and the fact that I cannot objectively PROVE this even though there's no other tangible reason for introducing a discussion of underlying economics into this. But of course, how silly of me to think that your desire to rush into a defense of the economic situation could have anything to do with capitalism.

FFS mate, listen to yourself. You are determined to find some ulterior motive for our reactions, but when I didn't fit the mould of silly American I was suddenly some die-hard capitalist. I didn't even read Marina's blatherings about returning to medieval times until after I'd originally posted. My reaction was based off the fact that yes, style does imply something, and I clearly was not alone. No, Soviet-style breadlines aren't iconic because people stretched around the corner - because, y'know, that is the nature of all breadlines - but because they represented the wider failure of a command economy. So we didn't choose to add economics too it, the OP did.

[Big Phil]

snip

You plan to tax the hell out of the wealthy so that everyone else can sit on their asses doing nothing and getting paid for it? How long before the wealthy head for greener pastures and everyone else is starving?

[phongn]

Medical expenses should be covered entirely by the government at no out of pocket expense whatsoever to the patient. That is another one of the best things that can happen to America right now. The free money program would have to be coupled with things like medicare to actually cover all the expenses needed to survive.

Why totally free? As far as I can tell, most socialized systems do require payment to some extent or another. Single-payer insurance systems generally require a premium and services rendered often have their own (affordable) fees attached.

[Darth Wong]

FFS mate, listen to yourself. You are determined to find some ulterior motive for our reactions,

Because I don't believe that anyone can seriously and honestly convince himself that the word "style" means "proof of underlying identical socio-economic conditions." I even gave numerous examples of other uses of the term "Soviety-style" or "Russian-style" in which nobody would even dream of making such a connection, and not one of the people promoting this idea bothered to comment on any of them.

Hell, you don't even try to defend this absurd leap in logic; you simply attack me for not being able to prove any particular hypothesis for whatever this ulterior motive might be. So either you know it's indefensible and are playing games, or you've got some kind of mental disease which prevents you from either seeing the problem of constructing a rebuttal to my arguments on the matter.