World News Thread (Politics,whatever)

[benoitb]

In the end you pay more than 3/4 of every buck you make to the state. Modern slavery.

The problem is not that you pay 3/4 of what you earn as taxes. The problem is to know if that money is used in legitimate ways. Do you have free schools ? Do you have free public healthcare ? Do you have cheap energy ? Do you have well maintained roads and water networks ? Are older people getting an allowance so you don't have the burden to support them yourself financially ? etc...

I'm French (state organizes a lot through taxes and public money) and my wife is Korean (opposite mentality). I can tell you that the exploited young generation is far worse off in Korea.

 

[levi]

Private providers do better because they must serve their customers, as opposed to agents of the state who can command their subjects.

It's the way you tell 'em!

Without much thought I can bring to mind most of the rail operating companies in this country, BT Openreach, Facebook, Google, British Gas, most PPI firms that built our hospitals, Exxon, and the US internet companies as examples of private firms who couldn't give much of a toss about serving their customers better, as long as they don't move with their feet in significant numbers, and in the main, people don't. The markets ensure that who they actually need to satisfy are their shareholders, and if by doing that it means they need to run an efficient service then that's merely an accidental side effect (and in the main they've found that various lock-ins and advertising money spend are actually more efficient than spending any money to save money in the long term, and provide a better service for less). I'm afraid I'm not aware of any examples in your home country, but I don't doubt they're there - the UK and the US can't be that unique.

 

[ible]

with companies, you have to "vote with your wallet." when you don't have much in your wallet, your vote doesn't count for much.

with the government, you get to vote with your vote, which in an ideal world doesn't depend on money.

 

[Klumpen]

You can't vote with your wallet when it's about basic needs like shelter, water, local transportation, healthcare etc... which is why those should be state owned and free to use. Unfortunately taxes usually flow into other stuff.

 

[Caine]

The problem is not that you pay 3/4 of what you earn as taxes. The problem is to know if that money is used in legitimate ways.

The problem is that by taking it away from me than I lose the choice of spending it on matters than are important to me.

• Do you have free schools ? no
• Do you have free public healthcare ? no
• Do you have cheap energy ? no (in fact almost 75% of energy costs are taxes)
• Do you have well maintained roads and water networks ? yes, these are pretty decent albeit a bit congested.

Answers inline for brevity.

Are older people getting an allowance so you don't have the burden to support them yourself financially?

What? That does not make any sense. I am supporting them financially, through taxes. This does not work to my advantage. All the old people in my life that I care about are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and pay more taxes than they get in return as benefits.

I'm French (state organizes a lot through taxes and public money)

France actually worries me as a member of the Union, precisely because of this. I would hate it if they pushed their socialist policies on a larger scale.

with companies, you have to "vote with your wallet." when you don't have much in your wallet, your vote doesn't count for much.

with the government, you get to vote with your vote, which in an ideal world doesn't depend on money.

I do not see why someone who does not contribute financially to society, should have a say in what society spends its money on. It is very easy to vote with the wallet of someone else.

 

[Binky]

I do not see why someone who does not contribute financially to society, should have a say in what society spends its money on. It is very easy to vote with the wallet of someone else.

Because wisdom and contribution to society are poorly correlated with earnings. Many of the highest-earning members of society are borderline psychopaths who would sell their own grandmothers to maximise 'shareholder value'. Meanwhile, schoolteachers are paid pitifully little for difficult and crucially important work. There are stay-at-home parents who make good decisions, and media moguls who make bad ones.

On top of that, an individual's earning power is influenced by factors outside their control, including upbringing and random chance.

A fundamental question behind this, to my mind, is the extent to which an individual has the capacity for self-improvement. Social mobility. Despite the famous American Dream, it is empirically clear that those with wealthy, family tend to end up being wealthy too - and that isn't all down to genetics. An ideal society rewards hard work, not just being lucky.

Of course, this isn't to say that there aren't gormless, lazy, good-for-nothings in society. There certainly are - but you can't start using income figures to measure the value of someone's opinion!

 

[Klumpen]

Because wisdom and contribution to society are poorly correlated with earnings. Many of the highest-earning members of society are borderline psychopaths who would sell their own grandmothers to maximise 'shareholder value'. Meanwhile, schoolteachers are paid pitifully little for difficult and crucially important work. There are stay-at-home parents who make good decisions, and media moguls who make bad ones.

On top of that, an individual's earning power is influenced by factors outside their control, including upbringing and random chance.

A fundamental question behind this, to my mind, is the extent to which an individual has the capacity for self-improvement. Social mobility. Despite the famous American Dream, it is empirically clear that those with wealthy, family tend to end up being wealthy too - and that isn't all down to genetics. An ideal society rewards hard work, not just being lucky.

Of course, this isn't to say that there aren't gormless, lazy, good-for-nothings in society. There certainly are - but you can't start using income figures to measure the value of someone's opinion!

 

[klapse]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/economic-mobility-united-states-compared-europe-scandinavia/

Economic mobility is another area in which one naively assumes it is easy to compare, but upon closer examination, turns out to be more difficult to meaningfully measure.

Also Lynne on MR blog makes a point relevant to wealth disparity / mobility that should be mentioned more often:

"The one important factor being left out of the wealth discussion: How much of the income/mobility disparity is the result of parasitic/exploitative economic activity rather than creative activity (creating new jobs, creating new products, etc.)?"

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...does-the-inequality-immobility-link-mean.html

 

[Caine]

There certainly are - but you can't start using income figures to measure the value of someone's opinion!

Don't get me wrong. I fully agree with that. However, just because you have a valid opinion does not mean you get to spend the money of someone else. Those that are dependent on the government for their income (e.g. those on unemployment benefits and civil servants) have a conflict of interest when electing a new government. It is very easy to spend money that you do not have to work for yourself.

Civil servants are a bit of a difficult case, but it feels to me that their freedoms should be more restricted to dissuade the endless growth of government. In my opinion, a government doing work that could be done by businesses is not something to celebrate as often (but not always) the businesses do a better job (e.g. more cost-effective, economically sustainable and by voluntary transactions). It is also easier for government to correct misconduct of private companies than to cut into their own flesh and self-regulate (which companies are not particularly great at either).

I say, we should vote with our wallet (as much as possible) and resort to taxation and state run solution if and only if there is no other way. Much of the welfare state is just a form of government run insurance (and not in a good way either). Not surprisingly. the as much as possible part is always a huge topic of debate. I am personally of the opinion that the further a ruling body is removed from its voters, the less power and responsibility it should have. Placing the ultimate responsibility on an individual ruling over him or herself.

So what is the proper balance then? I honestly do not know. I think current governments are way too big these days. All signs point in the direction of this only getting worse.

 

[CabinetofJoy]

You can't vote with your wallet when it's about basic needs like shelter, water, local transportation, healthcare etc... which is why those should be state owned and free to use. Unfortunately taxes usually flow into other stuff.

I have heard the following ideas spoken as capable solutions-

Line-item taxation where you get to choose which parts of the government you not going to fund.

None-of-the-above voting where If an election is held and NOTA wins, that election is void and a new one must take place with all new candidates.

 

[levi]

Not spending money with a company to chastise them for bad behaviour is a terribly useless thing to do as long as other people carry on regardless. You'd be much better of spending your time in educating others about why company X is bad, and you could even carry on enjoying the product of that company yourself, although that would make you a hypocrite.

Regarding the ineffectualness of small government people, the problem is if they do get voted in they suddenly find out what a useful and powerful machine even a middling government actually is. The most recent candidate for this I can think of is Donald Trump who seemed to be aligned with quite a few little government positions in the run up to the vote, but actually seems to have fallen in love with his military and perhaps also Macron who seemed to be more business-aligned than the usual candidates, but I guess his problem in actually doing much in that direction is the politics of the average frenchman.

I'm not that big of a fan of small government myself fwiw. I tend to think there are plenty of situations where the profit motive isn't well aligned with what we actually want the company to be doing. But in the same breath, the reasons people tend to give for voting one way or the other often don't seem to be well grounded in reality either. I used to think that what we really needed was a popular technocrat who's a bit of a polymath, but the history of technocracy can't be spelt out without significant mention of the government of the soviet union (and we know how that turned out), plus we know how popular most 'experts' are just at the moment.

Edit: I think it'd be a very good thing to have a none-of-the-above candidate, and all that entails. I've often been tempted myself to write that on my ballot, but as of yet there's always been a reason to vote for one candidate over another even if it's simply 'anyone but that lot', and voting tactically on that basis.

 

[second exodous]

Um, so the guy had his shoes on the wrong feet when he went kaboom? I'm thinking this and the reason for picking the career he did is somehow related. . .

 

[Null]

Um, so the guy had his shoes on the wrong feet when he went kaboom?

Huffing poison gas'll do that to you, it also makes your teeth glow in the dark and you can microwave food by rubbing it on your nose.

 

[ible]

if poor people were excluded from the vote, do you think rich people would vote to put in meaningful safety nets for them? in an ideal world, i'd hope so... but i think the premise is two steps backwards, even if it's essentially what happens. is human value based upon their economic output? (money is weird in the first place.) or perhaps social contributions? i think these things are pretty superficial and easy to game.

i also find it a bit gross to think that some businesses (pharma, insurance, etc.) can profit based on whether someone lives or dies. (at least in America.)

 

[Klumpen]

if poor people were excluded from the vote, do you think rich people would vote to put in meaningful safety nets for them? in an ideal world, i'd hope so... but i think the premise is two steps backwards, even if it's essentially what happens. is human value based upon their economic output? (money is weird in the first place.) or perhaps social contributions? i think these things are pretty superficial and easy to game.

i also find it a bit gross to think that some businesses (pharma, insurance, etc.) can profit based on whether someone lives or dies. (at least in America.)

 

[Caine]

if poor people were excluded from the vote, do you think rich people would vote to put in meaningful safety nets for them?

Perhaps not, though then there is also the risk of there not being a safety net for yourself and/or your loved ones when they need it. Also, people who are struggling to survive are more likely to resort to crime, which costs money too. Idealism aside for the moment, European crime rates seem to be lower than in the US. How much of that can be attributed to a safety net? How do the costs of justice departments compare? I would like to know how those correlate.

in an ideal world, i'd hope so...

On the flip side, if the majority of the population does not want the safety nets, should they then be there?

is human value based upon their economic output?

Yes.

i also find it a bit gross to think that some businesses (pharma, insurance, etc.) can profit based on whether someone lives or dies.

Making a profit on people living is great. It is a fantastic incentive to keep them alive. Undertakers make their livelihood by people dying. Is that bad?

 

[klapse]

Not spending money with a company to chastise them for bad behaviour is a terribly useless thing to do as long as other people carry on regardless.

I stopped reading here. If a company in a competitive industry does something that a few percent of their customers do not like, they can quickly face loss of profitability, even an existential crisis. This could be triggered by anything from treating some customers badly, to endorsing an unpopular political position, to purchasing from some unpopular nation, or just offering a shoddy product one season. (The quantum Bigfoot almost killed that hard drive manufacturer in the mid-90s.)

Free individuals do punish companies out of existence constantly. They almost never manage to abolish a government agency.

 

[elw3]

Jo idiots, this is a news thread, i want to read about news here.
Spare me with you faggotry opinions about how shit should work out in that autistic head of yours.

 

[Null]

i want to read about news here.

I trimmed my beard today.

 

[levi]

Jo idiots, this is a news thread, i want to read about news here.

Snipped for not being a dick about it. This is the offtopic discussions forum; you're welcome