the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Social Security is basically there for people who lack the foresight to plan for their retirement. The govt is not the only entity capable of handling your retirement funds reliably, in fact it's probably the least reliable option. Some here seem to forget how many promises the govt has made and broken over the years.

No it is not. It is an alternative insurance scheme that exists for the same reason that other insurance schemes exist. But it has a major advantage in that its compulsory nature allows it to avoid adverse selection (a big problem for insurance companies). There is simply no better method of assuring that the elderly do not end up in poverty and die early. Market schemes are prone to leaving out significant portions of the population, and unlike you, most people don't like the idea of elderly people dying in shacks. That is something that people are prepared to pay for as long as everyone else pays for it too.

You show me some other scheme that will have such widespread benefits for the elderly.

If SS had never been implimented, the elderly who were too stupid to put money aside for their retirement would deserve what they get.

What about those whose investments go bad through no fault of their own? What about people who are too poor to be able to afford insurance?

This is completely silly. What you are essentially saying is that we should replace a system that keeps the elderly in reasonable shape with nothing. A market system simply won't provide sufficient funds for enough people to make things better than the social security scheme does. You show me a market system that will do what social security does.

Unfortunately we are now stuck with a system that has encouraged years of govt dependency. Now it's a part of our culture to expect the govt to take care of you.

This is risible. And you say you come from New Zealand. Frankly, when I was growing up there we had the most generous welfare state in the world, and almost everybody worked. The only reason people don't work is that there are no good jobs.

And in the case of the elderly this is even sillier. They are too old to work, so they will be dependent on something, be it public or private insurance. There really isn't any difference here except that the government is organizing the insurance scheme rather than a private company.

People complain that the government may suffer from inefficiency in providing SS, but that ignores the fact that even if it is not as good as it could be, it is still providing a service that the market will not provide.

[Q Classic]

and still you're completely ignoring the meaning of that proverb, which, by the way, has very little to do with marriage in this context.

[Q Classic]

just because the market does not support something does not mean the government should step up to provide it.

or do you like the corporate bailouts that are given by the government ?

[chequita guevara]

I'm having more fun picking it apart than paying attention to a platitude which does not apply. Just because you believe the liberatarian claptrap doesn't mean it has a basis in reality.

[Q Classic]

libertarian claptrap has about as much validity as marxist claptrap. one is based off of self-interest, ignoring altruism, and the other is not, ignoring selfish behavior.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
public health care is cheaper? sorta. less upfront cost, higher taxes.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this again. Taxes just represent the portion of economic activity that we choose to do through the state rather than the market. In the case of health care the state can provide it more cheaply and more efficiently than private insurance (no Canadian will swap their system for the US system). It doesn't have nearly as much bureaucratic overheads as multiple insurance schemes and it doesn't suffer from adverse selection, because everyone is selected automatically.

If I'm an average person I can pay for my health care either through private insurance or public taxation. For some people private insurance would be cheaper, but for most people the public system works out cheaper. And in terms of percentage of GDP spent on health care versus results - Canada and other countries with public health care simply spank the US system. The same goes for education and a host of things states provide because markets would fail to provide them.

more efficient? ever been to the dmv? and it's my understanding that in canada, you do have to wait quite a while to get some things done..

Not really. The system here is quite good, although people do complain. But is it better that overall that some people get things done right away, and others never get anything done; or that everyone gets things done in a reasonable amount of time.

You can't compare the US. Government services are ridiculously underfunded there, so of course service will be lousy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
libertarian claptrap has about as much validity as marxist claptrap.

Actually, it has much less. Liberterianism are a bunch of ideas that someone made up, with very little relation to the real world. Marxism is the result of applied science and decades of study. This is why Marxism is still considered a useful analytical tool in sociology, anthropology, economic, politial science, and history. Libertarianism, on the other hand, despite having proponents, isn't.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, it has much less. Liberterianism are a bunch of ideas that someone made up, with very little relation to the real world. Marxism is the result of applied science and decades of study. This is why Marxism is still considered a useful analytical tool in sociology, anthropology, economic, politial science, and history. Libertarianism, on the other hand, despite having proponents, isn't.

That's because Libertarianism is strictly a moral thesis, about what is right and wrong. It has nothing to do with empirical science of any form.

That's why they're such a bunch of dreamers. All Libertarians should read Hobbes. In fact, everyone should read Hobbes. he explains exactly why we need a coercive state apparatus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But isn't Hobbes merely a theorist .

He wasn't acting out. He was doing it for about five years, well before Bush became his boss.

Without permission. Maybe he should have simply been reprimanded, but firing is not out of line.

read it before you condemn it.

His superiors are accusing him of a raft of misbehaviors -- including "abusing his authority" and "failing to follow instructions." But as far as he's concerned, the reason he's facing dismissal is very simple: He's been in hot water since January 2001 -- when Bush administration officials took control of the Martin County Coal investigation.

Ah yes, so he was abusing authority and not following instructions, but it's all evil Bush's fault.... sure .

Especially since he's in the Department of Labor, where most of the people in the upper levels are Democrats who have been in the organization for decades. Sorry, don't buy it.

[DinoDoc]

I could do a better job saving my own money for retirement than the government is doing. (That's a big one for me.) If I had someone investing my money that did as crappy job as the SS "trust fund," I'd fire them fairly quickly.

[MrFun]

exactly, DD

[chequita guevara]

And you both miss the point.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I could do a better job saving my own money for retirement than the government is doing. (That's a big one for me.)

Yes, that is true. But if everyone did this, the overall results would be worse, since not everyone has the same resources or income as you.

Again, show me some way in which we could address poverty among the elderly that is better than social security. Private insurance markets won't work, because many people will be left out and many more will be paying more than they need to because of the typical problems that plague private insurance schemes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
just because the market does not support something does not mean the government should step up to provide it?

If it's something that people really need and can be done cheaper, then it would be completely stupid for the government to sit on its backside.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And you both miss the point.

We see your point -- we just counter-point with our disagreements.

[GePap]

The canard that the government is highly inefficient is just that, a canard.

It is taken as a matter of faith by enemies of government but they don't show much proof beyond the colloquial-do private police forces work more efficiently? I am told public education is highly inefficeint-somehow the other industrilaized states pull it of.

IN terms of efficiency of health, for example, it would be far more efficient to force people to have one or two comprehensive checkups a year so thjat disease is caught early on and treasted preventively, thus cutting the cost of overall healthcare dramatically. Only the public sector could do this.

As for Social Security-perhaps we should get rid of SS and force people to save-certainly this would mean the end of the profligate consumer society of today in which people can spend their way towards US prosperity by having to remember you can't create huge credit card debts: no more huge consumer spending. Cause we all want fiscal responsibility, right?

Bull.

[GePap]

We really should return to the glory days before all this big government..do you guys remember those glory days of wealth and safety and......

Oh wait, it was nothing like that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But isn't Hobbes merely a theorist

I don't know what this is supposed to imply. Milton Friedman is just a theorist if that's true.

Hobbes says, roughly, that if we allow a bunch of self interested people to act completely voluntarily, poverty, anarchy and death will be the result.

This isn't so much an empirical claim as a logical claim. It's what accounts for the famous "Prisoner's dilemma" thought experiment. In short if one acts in one's self interest then it's always rational not to contribute to any collective scheme that promises a general benefit. This isn't because people are innately evil, but because of lack of trust.

This is because if you don't contribute and others do, you are better off than if you all contribute. And if you don't contribute and no one else does you are better off than if you do and no one else does. Of course everyone does this and no one contributes. But it is entirely rational, from the individual perspective, to do this.

So if everyone acts voluntarily in their own self interest, everyone ends up worse off. This is the case in a wide variety of situations like funding the police, the military, honouring contracts, and countless other situations.

That's in a nutshell, why we need the state, an institution that forces people to contribute - because a situation where everyone contributes is better than one in which no one does. The state enforces trust.

It's also why we have compulsory auto insurance schemes and part of the reason why we have social security and welfare. Rich people think they don't gain anything from welfare. They do, they are buying their own security by preventing their being a mass of people who have little or no stake in obeying the social system.

[Q Classic]

If it's something that people really need and can be done cheaper, then it would be completely stupid for the government to sit on its backside.

as i believe in the free market, if it's something people really need, that's a demand, and something will rise--not necessarily with the government's intervention--to meet that demand.

as for high rates of savings: it helped some other countries with explosive capitalist growth. like japan and skorea, for instance. i know the cases are very different in a lot of respects, but more savings can be a good thing, believe it or not.

as for the glory days before big government: i never knew the, so i don't know. i do know that the government is now so sclerotic, so inefficient, and corrupt enough that probably nothing short of a revolution from within will change the state of things as they are now.

[Q Classic]

and hobbes? he's got a lot of good ideas, but he's also got a lot of wierd ones.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap


As for Social Security-perhaps we should get rid of SS and force people to save

But that's basically what SS does. The only difference is that the government administers the scheme as a monopoly to prevent problems of adverse selection and inflation of overheads.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and hobbes? he's got a lot of good ideas, but he's also got a lot of wierd ones.

That's true. But his point about collective action problems has never been refuted and it stands as a comprehensive refutation of a completely free market.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

If it's something that people really need and can be done cheaper, then it would be completely stupid for the government to sit on its backside.

as i believe in the free market, if it's something people really need, that's a demand, and something will rise--not necessarily with the government's intervention--to meet that demand.

Something did rise to meet that demand. It's called social security. Before social security, we had massive senior poverty. Knowing some history might disabuse you of your libertarian BS. Libertarianism always collapses in the face of real history.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And you both miss the point.

I don't really care because I fail to see how it is at all relevent.

I also dislike the robbing Peter to pay Paul mentality that seems to be SOP for the trust fund as well. The people currently on SS are recieving the money they put into the system, they are recieving the money I put into the system today. That is both morally offensive to me and ill-advised as a long term solution to its continued solvency.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Increasing the population is not necessaryto maintain the vialbity of SS. All that needs to increase is productivity.

Agreed.

Which is why socialist nations cannot afford SS.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Agreed.

Which is why socialist nations cannot afford SS.

They did better than what has followed them. Socialist countries, for all their faults. Didn't have old people picking through garbage dumps like they have in Russia.

edit: typo

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and hobbes? he's got a lot of good ideas, but he's also got a lot of wierd ones.

I'll add to this. Capitalists must agree that Hobbes is right about collective action problems, because the same principle is what makes competitive markets work.

For example, a bunch of hat store owners have product they wish to sell, but none of them want to discount their wares. But none of them want to be left with any unsold stock. So it is entirely rational for me as a hat seller to discount my hats so that I sell all my stock and better for me if no one else does since then I will sell all my hats. If I don't discount I am more likely to be left with unsold hats.

But if I don't discount and everyone else does, then I will end up with a load of unsold hats when everyone has sold theirs.

So, by the very same logic that operates in the Prisoner's Dilemma, I have to discount, and so does everyone else. That's how a competitive market fixes prices.

And it doesn't matter even if I know what the other hat sellers are going to do, it is still rational for me to discount.

See - the very thing that makes markets work (voluntarism) also shows that they can't be the solution to all our ills.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon


No it is not. It is an alternative insurance scheme that exists for the same reason that other insurance schemes exist. But it has a major advantage in that its compulsory nature allows it to avoid adverse selection (a big problem for insurance companies). There is simply no better method of assuring that the elderly do not end up in poverty and die early. Market schemes are prone to leaving out significant portions of the population, and unlike you, most people don't like the idea of elderly people dying in shacks. That is something that people are prepared to pay for as long as everyone else pays for it too.

Yeah, I like the idea of elderly people dying in shacks.

You show me some other scheme that will have such widespread benefits for the elderly.

I can't say I have all the answers, but I know what doesn't work.

What about those whose investments go bad through no fault of their own? What about people who are too poor to be able to afford insurance?

If your investments are diversified, and you transfer your money into low-risk areas well before you retire, this won't be a problem.

How can someone be too poor to put money aside for retirement, yet they can afford to pay into SS? It's one or the other.

This is risible. And you say you come from New Zealand.

So I'm not a real New Zealander unless I support socialist government programs?

Frankly, when I was growing up there we had the most generous welfare state in the world, and almost everybody worked. The only reason people don't work is that there are no good jobs.

Yeah, that's why NZ has historically had significantly higher unemployment than the US.

And in the case of the elderly this is even sillier. They are too old to work, so they will be dependent on something, be it public or private insurance. There really isn't any difference here except that the government is organizing the insurance scheme rather than a private company.

Exactly, and as with all things government, there is no competition and therefore no motivation to provide value for money.

People complain that the government may suffer from inefficiency in providing SS, but that ignores the fact that even if it is not as good as it could be, it is still providing a service that the market will not provide.

Yes, the market would no doubt provide a better sevice.

[MrFun]

Let's keep a tally folks -- Cali has used three rolleyes so far.

[chequita guevara]

There once was a country that built a great wall to keep out barbarians. It was very costly, and very expensive, but it worked, no barbarians came. But generations passed, and no one remembered that there were barbarians, and they began to complain about the cost of the wall, and why should they have to pay. We've never seen a barbarian, they don't exist.

And so they stopped maintaining and manning the wall. And the barbarians came and killed them, stole their women and children, and took their land.