Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition

[smjjames]

 

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

 

Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only.

 

I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy?

 

A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy?

 

And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US?

 

 

 

GD was being pretty clearly sarcastic and/or tongue-in-cheek.

[Guard Dog]

At the risk or repeating someting I wrote a few pages back: Being poor is not a choice. Staying poor might not even be a choice. Staying poor by failing to take advantage ot the programs, opportunites, and charities that exist to help people in that situation IS a choice. 

 

But if you want to discuss the need for a Universal Basic Income at some point, one that REPLACES all other social benefits we are way overpaying for poor returns on, I'm open to that.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

No one starves to death in the United States. No one who is willing to keep a job goes without a home, a car if they choose, a HD television and at least basic cable. We have some of the richest "poor" people around because a reasonably good standard of living is not all that expensive. And that is due in large part to many different businesses competing for their dollars. If the only restaurant was Taco Bell how much do you think a taco would cost? By winners and losers I was really more referring to some folks getting rich and others... not. You don't see roving gangs of starving proles here you realize. Almost all Americans are doing well enough.

 

Again with the insinuation that homeless people are just lazy. It's such a great thought process because it goes like "only lazy people are ever homeless → I'm not lazy → I will never be homeless". If only.

 

I take it then that, for instance, the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans are just lazy?

 

A certain book I'm reading says that that, by 1993, just about 5% of all companies in the US had started looking into ways to automate processes and suppress jobs, where 75% of all jobs in the US were essentially repetitive tasks (i.e. easily substituted for a machine). I take it that the millions of people being laid off with no prospects of finding even a job flipping burgers are lazy? The downward slope in prime-age male % participation in the workforce hasn't changed despite the recent employment upturn, which is in part driven by poor quality job creation. Are those not able to find stable, full-time jobs lazy?

 

And no, you don't see roving gangs of starving proles because they turn to crime rather than starve. Are you sure you don't see roving gangs in the most economically depressed areas of the US?

 

 

 

GD was being pretty clearly sarcastic and/or tongue-in-cheek.

 

 

It does not always come over well on text forums.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Don't be so short sighted. It is easy to give in to the idea of a ruling class that is truly ruling, but that idea is a false one.

It isn't, the levers of power will continued to be pushed regardless of individual happiness or even who the individuals are. Your assumption that the ruling class needs to be all powerful to be considered rulers is strange. In feudalism a king did not stop being part of the ruling class because he couldn't dissolve feudalism as a system, he still is king and is more than able to shape his domain as he sees fit. Under capitalism we see a similar thing on smaller scales, the individual bourgeois can't dissolve the system out of sheer will, but they are still the ones pushing the levers by controlling production and distribution and politics.

Humans are, to a large extent, slave to the society they live in. This is not to say we can't have an individual personality, but our day to day actions will be, more or less, determined by the society in and how we handle it. This applies for the bourgeois just as much as it does for the proletarian. Neither one of those is truly in control of their fate. It is ludicrous to assume that a golden cage is less of a cage than a dirt one. The fact that the bourgeois is better off doesn't make him less of a subject to society's influence

How many of the rich genuinely need to work? None. Yet there are vast numbers of them who work long hours, week for week. Take Germany. If you look at the numbers, there is a positive correlation between income and overtime hours per week. While those who earn below 20.000 a year work on average 2 hours overtime per week, those who earn above 120.000 per week, so top earners, work on average 10 hours overtime per week. Do they have to? No. Do they do it anyway? Yes.

http://www.e-fellows.net/Karriere/Beruf-und-Karriere/Spitzenverdiener-machen-mehr-Ueberstunden

and is your bourgeois truly free in his decision when he works his overtime hours? He has to decide exactly in a way that will enable him and his company to survive. He doesn't rule, he reacts. And what he reacts to is the market; is really just the others trying to survive themselves. The market is a societal force because it is society. It is the way we organise the economy, and by that everything else. Basic ****, right?

The fact that the lives of everyone, including the ruling class, are shaped by material conditions does not mean that the ruling class is a myth.

it is far to simple to say that there is some evil clique in control. Sadly, it is a very powerful myth, because it is so beautifully simple. And wouldn't it be nice if it were so? If we could just start a revolution, chop of a few heads and be forever free?

The bourgeois aren't a cackling coven of witches or some other force of evil, they are simply people acting in their material interests, interests that are antithetical to the interests of the proletariat. Thus any action that merely aims to eliminate current bourgeoisie is not enough and placing blame on the bourgeoisie as individual actors is misplaced.

[Hurlshort]

It seems odd that we are talking about homelessness and no one has brought up the massive part that substance abuse plays. 

[ShadySands]

and mental illness

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

"The fact that the lives of everyone, including the ruling class, are shaped by material conditions does not mean that the ruling class is a myth."

 

This is what our dispute comes down to; wether the ruling class rules or reacts. You say people, I say system. I think we're just gonna go in circles, really.

No, you are claiming that the ruling class does not actually rule, I am claiming that they do in fact rule. Ruling does not require absolute power.

[BruceVC]

At the risk or repeating someting I wrote a few pages back: Being poor is not a choice. Staying poor might not even be a choice. Staying poor by failing to take advantage ot the programs, opportunites, and charities that exist to help people in that situation IS a choice. 

 

But if you want to discuss the need for a Universal Basic Income at some point, one that REPLACES all other social benefits we are way overpaying for poor returns on, I'm open to that.

I know for a fact that there are people in South Africa who chose to live on the street as it gets them a decent income from begging

 

2133 is making the classic " SJ assumption 101 " , he means well but he lives in a first world country and thinks there is no such thing as beggars who want to live on the street and staying poor 

[injurai]

Another big part of homelessness if not leaving your community. A lot of people might live in an expensive city but can't afford it. But never choose to move away for cost of living. Then they get evicted and their vices take over.

[Orogun01]

Another big part of homelessness if not leaving your community. A lot of people might live in an expensive city but can't afford it. But never choose to move away for cost of living. Then they get evicted and their vices take over.

Seems like that ties to the mental health issue.

 

I met homeless and they seem to be fine with being homeless; the ones that are not crazy at least, it seems that is only society that has issue with people not wanting to be productive.

[Gorgon]

I see a couple of regulars on my train ride to work, begging.  Money in it if you're good at it, have a friendly dog for a prop. all tax free and more than they would make holding down a job.

And yet any one of these guys could get a place to live and money for food if they wanted to. Have a little pride, it doesn't come back if you let it go like that. 

 

Then I see one of the recent immigrants who are likely here illegally, those guys do it because otherwise they they starve. That's something else entirely. 

[BruceVC]

It seems odd that we are talking about homelessness and no one has brought up the massive part that substance abuse plays. 

 

Im sure you remember my personal experience with my niece and drug addiction, I have  learnt and believe the best way to help people who are addicts is to follow a strict and uncompromising  approach

 

You dont cut them off like her family did but rather keep an open door but only if they are prepared to go to rehab. So you absolutely support them around getting to rehab and helping them on that initiative only

 

The addict must want to take that first step to getting clean, if they aren't prepared to do that you have to keep your distance

 

Under no circumstances must you support them if they aren't in rehab or prepared to go. So if they chose to live on the street and do drugs that has to be there reality 

 

 

I see a couple of regulars on my train ride to work, begging.  Money in it if you're good at it, have a friendly dog for a prop. all tax free and more than they would make holding down a job.

And yet any one of these guys could get a place to live and money for food if they wanted to. Have a little pride, it doesn't come back if you let it go like that. 

 

Then I see one of the recent immigrants who are likely here illegally, those guys do it because otherwise they they starve. That's something else entirely. 

Yes this is  also a good overall point, this is very common is SA

 

There are real examples of homeless people who need to beg to survive. Poverty is there only outcome and its about survival 

 

For other people being homeless is something they could change through concerted effort 

[Raithe]

"RIP Republican Health Care Bill. In lieu of flowers, please send new representatives to Congress in 2018."

[Raithe]

[redneckdevil]

I've been wondered why in a capitalist country we are in, why don't we let that work for our health insurance and medical bills?

In what way could we make medicine and hospital treatments and stuff cheaper since no one can afford it?

Like how they jacked up the prices for insulan from less than 10 bucks a pop to hundreds of dollars simply because they can, so would a better option be instead of insurance, instead make it the same amount of payments instead directly to the hospital with the same not as bad to your credit penalties we already have? Meaning drug companies aren't getting paid the full cost they are asking at a jacked up rate and forces them to get lower amount because health Care is still forced on the hospitals to give.

Right now I feel like anything the govt is gonna do for the health Care is gonna blow up since most are much more knowledgeable about law but not as big a focus on economics.

Sorry early morning ramblings

[injurai]

If it was a truly free market, then prices would be set based on old people who have banked savings and are fully vested into their insurance policies. They would also rise significantly due to the rich people around the world using it to side step their nations socialized health.

 

Health needs to be regulated in some regard. The major problem I see with it is that you need to pay doctors well to lure them into such a grueling highly regulated industry. You need to pay them well to justify their years of training. You need to pay them well so those that got through on loans can pay them back. They negotiate ask for a lot from the insurance companies because they are worth a lot.

 

If the market was free, they'd still jack the prices up as long as they were maximizing profit. You'd have lesser institutions coming in and serving the bottom rung with a lesser services. You'd be back to square 1.

 

That said, I'm not convinced a single payer system won't do significant damage to the world medical industry. America's system works hard for the whole world, not just her people. So it's always funny to see people in Europe acting like righteous for all the medical advances that are the result of the US's industry. It's really the insurance companies greed to hold onto their own wealth that bargains medical prices down, not the individual payer. So having a single state payer would really gut the financing of the US industry.

[HoonDing]

Just let it fail.

[Namutree]

I've been wondered why in a capitalist country we are in, why don't we let that work for our health insurance and medical bills?

 

Same reason why we have eminent domain and government bailouts, we aren't a capitalist country anymore. We are a dysfunctional hybrid of contradicting ideas whose remaining prosperity is due to the infrastructure and systems established by classical liberals that have YET to fully removed. Don't worry though; it's on it's last legs.

[Gorgon]

With universal health care it's done for cost. The invisible hand of Capitalism can't compete with that, whatever they tell you. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

With universal health care it's done for cost. The invisible hand of Capitalism can't compete with that, whatever they tell you.

 

The invisible hand sucks because when you expect it to tug on something it ends up pushing its finger into something else. Sneaky bastard.

[Hurlshort]

 

I've been wondered why in a capitalist country we are in, why don't we let that work for our health insurance and medical bills?

 

Same reason why we have eminent domain and government bailouts, we aren't a capitalist country anymore. We are a dysfunctional hybrid of contradicting ideas whose remaining prosperity is due to the infrastructure and systems established by classical liberals that have YET to fully removed. Don't worry though; it's on it's last legs.

 

 

We still lead the world in dramatic hyperbole, at least.

 

There is a rather long list of US companies that are industry leaders in innovation that would seem to refute your claims.

[Zoraptor]

With universal health care it's done for cost. The invisible hand of Capitalism can't compete with that, whatever they tell you. 

 

Capitalism just plain doesn't work well with 'public good' stuff because you either cannot put a dollar value on it or someone else pays when things go bad. Healthcare is just not like going to a shop to buy an apple or something more significant like building a house.

 

When you want healthcare you want to get well. But the vendor only makes money if you're sick, so it's always in their economic interest for you not to die, but only to be sufficiently well that you can keep paying for treatment*. Add in insurance and it's in their best interests for you not to get sick (which fits your best interests as well) but if you do get sick then their best interest is for it to cost the minimum amount. There's also the fact that if you need healthcare you generally need healthcare in a way you don't need to build a house or buy an apple, it's often not an option where you have unlimited time to wait, rent a house or buy a banana instead.

 

Socialising it keeps the minimum cost motivation, but it means that there's also a big motivation to make sure people don't get sick at all, and are fixed quickly and effectively if they do. The bad aspect is that there will be cases where the cost to the whole to fix an individual is too high, but it isn't like that isn't the case in a privatised/ capitalist system anyway.

 

*It also incentivises stuff like the painkiller addiction epidemic in the US. Prescribe painkillers, person gets addicted, continued profit. Prescribe painkillers, person doesn't get addicted, far more limited profit. Social costs of addiction, they're socialised of course, it's in the name!

[Namutree]

 

 

I've been wondered why in a capitalist country we are in, why don't we let that work for our health insurance and medical bills?

 

Same reason why we have eminent domain and government bailouts, we aren't a capitalist country anymore. We are a dysfunctional hybrid of contradicting ideas whose remaining prosperity is due to the infrastructure and systems established by classical liberals that have YET to fully removed. Don't worry though; it's on it's last legs.

 

 

We still lead the world in dramatic hyperbole, at least.

 

There is a rather long list of US companies that are industry leaders in innovation that would seem to refute your claims.

 

Which ones?

[Hurlshort]

Are you sure this isn't supposed to be in blue text?

 

https://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/2017

 

Here is a neat visual map I found too:

 

http://fortune.com/fortune500/visualizations/?iid=recirc_f500landing-zone1

 

I mean, can you really name a tech company that has the reach of Apple or Google worldwide? I suppose Samsung and Sony are fairly close. I'm all for a healthy dose of cynicism, but you are crossing into the ridiculous with your talk. The country isn't going collapse anytime soon. 

[ShadySands]

Jeff Sessions Wants Cops to Seize More Money From Suspected Criminals