Modern Economics

[Bravus]

You do have a point, Ed, and thank you for explaining it. I still maintain that it is ironic for those whose argument is 'government is corrupt' to support someone who has done so much to corrupt government. (But I didn't and wouldn't say 'how dare they make that argument'.) Pointing to corruption on the 'other side' is still a case for finding better ways to root out corruption, rather than a case for finding ways to root out government.

I concede that I probably derailed the argument (not that this thread was exactly running on rails anyway) in a partisan manner, and that it would have been better to leave out that one paragraph and make the simple point. Let me do that now, and try to do it in future:

Welfare abuse is not grounds for getting rid of welfare, government corruption is not grounds for getting rid of government unless it can be shown that abuse is inherent in the very nature of welfare, and corruption in the very nature of government.

[there buster]

Quote:

I still maintain that it is ironic for those whose argument is 'government is corrupt' to support someone who has done so much to corrupt government.

And it is still an ad hominem attempt to discredit the argument by discrediting those who make the argument.

[bevin]

Pragmatically the question is -

Which kind of country is more likely to survive and prosper...

(a) one where an government provides support in fixing the damage done by natural disasters large (Katrina) and small (low IQ babies caused by alcohol-drinking mother), or

( one where the only support is charity

We have pointed out problems with both - abuse, inefficiency, and inadequacy.

Like most large-scale human-effect decisions, the direct experiment can not be run, real life has not explored all the options, and the models are obviously inadequate.

Historically countries that have changed from relying on charity to tax/welfare systems have improved their average living standards - although, again, it is hard to show this was a causative relationship.

On an international scale now, we are running into a situation where the choice of taxation methods is effecting the demise and flourishing of centers of production - and effecting whether the taxes can be raised.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Welfare abuse is not grounds for getting rid of welfare, government corruption is not grounds for getting rid of government unless it can be shown that abuse is inherent in the very nature of welfare, and corruption in the very nature of government.

Well-stated, Bravus, and an accurate assessment IMO.

[there buster]

Quote:

Which kind of country is more likely to survive and prosper...

(a) one where an government provides support in fixing the damage done by natural disasters large (Katrina) and small (low IQ babies caused by alcohol-drinking mother), or

( one where the only support is charity

We won't get anywhere profitable when we start with poor reasoning.

In the first place:

A hurricane is a natural disaster. Hurricanes will happen regardless of human behavior. Human actions may exacerbate or ameliorate the effects of such disasters, but human actions do not cause natural disasters.

Fetal alcohol syndrome is the direct result of actions by a human being. It is not the result of the mother or child being struck by a meteor.

Conflating the two will not lead to coherent conclusions or policy decisions.

Second, these are policy decisions, not state character qualities. The 'kind' of country that exists does not depend upon policy decisions such as these. The Soviet Union had government policies and programs to provide for all of these types of situations. So does Sweden. They are nonetheless not the same kind of country.

[bevin]

1: "The poor you will always have with you". I have no control over either hurricanes and the existence of incapable-of-looking-after-themselves individuals. They are both things that have to be addressed.

2: Countries, like many things, can be distinquished on many dimensions. The word 'kind' does not refer to a specific dimension. One can refer to a rich or poor kind of country, a large or small kind of country, a hot or an cold kind of country.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

I have no control over either hurricanes and the existence of incapable-of-looking-after-themselves individuals. They are both things that have to be addressed.

From bad reasoning to worse. You have 'no control' over the number of planets in the solar system, 'no control' over the asteroid belt, 'no control' over fire ant colonies, 'no control' of Africanized (aka 'Killer') Bees. You have 'no control' over your height, and 'no control' over the tides. The list of things over which you have 'no control' is, in practical terms, infinite.

At best then, that statement is a waste of time. My original point remains: that while you have 'no control' over either one of those things, the two are vastly different, and will not be susceptible to the same sorts of actions.

Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, and volcanic activity are things over which no human control can be exercised. We cannot even predict these things with precision, or very far in advance. No set of incentives or disincentives will precipitate or prevent these events.

But whether a mother drinks alcohol and causes her child to have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome--while it is something you cannot control-- is not something utterly beyond human control. Incentives or disincentives may have some effect on that individual mother's decisions.

If you continue to obfuscate this matter, I will have to conclude you are not serious.

Quote:

Countries, like many things, can be distinquished on many dimensions. The word 'kind' does not refer to a specific dimension. One can refer to a rich or poor kind of country, a large or small kind of country, a hot or an cold kind of country.

Rather than play semantic games, perhaps you would like to specify which of the amazing array of 'kinds' you had in mind? Simply stating it might mean lots of things is just another way of obscuring meaning and bogging down any substantive discussion.

[bevin]

Let me know exactly why you think I need to address the number of planets in the solar system as much as I need to address the issue of hurricanes.

I did not realise it mattered much to me if there was 8 or 10 planets, but clearly you think this number is as important as Hurricane Katrina. I am fascinated to hear how such an acclaimed writer could meet such as conclusion - obviously your understanding is as far above mine as the eagle is above the earth worm.

I agree with you that dealing with fetal alcohol syndrome is within human control. That is exactly why we are discussing it - because we can do something about it.

Being such an accomplished writer, I am sure that you can work out for yourself, with just a little of the brilliance you put into your replies here, which dimensions are relevant. But, to save you too much wear and tear on your brain, I will give you a hint. Social welfare programs have very little impact on land mass or lattitude.

/Bevin