 |
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: 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.
quote: 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.
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: 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
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: 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 Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:32
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: 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
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 13-12-2003 at 01:43
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: 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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:32
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|