"Freedom" thread or something

The Doctor wrote: Responding here to both your statement about direct wealth transfers, and Logan's statement about government cuts.  First, I think direct wealth transfers would be the most efficient way to go, to get more money in the hands of the working poor and the non-working poor.  Of course, for the working poor, the easiest way to do that would be with full employment, a living minimum wage and to stop sending jobs oversees unless and until we do have full employment.  Maybe the CEO could you know make 40 million a year instead of 50 million a year and pay his employees a reasonable wage.  But if there is some other method for doing that, hey I'm all for it. @Logan, I have never once said nothing should be cut (not that you were accusing me of having said that).  I am perfectly willing to cut out wasteful programs, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, pork projects, military spending and so forth.  I just don't want to make any cuts on the backs of the poor.  And preferably not on the backs of the middle class either.  Some of those cuts should go to reducing the deficit and some of those cuts should go to expanding the social safety net.

So how would you feel about the Friedman idea of lump sum payments? Instead of this for x, that for y, this for z, and a hodge podge of programs...its just a direct payment to people. Simple, we pay in, they get. Far more efficient and more beneficial. Also if they have different needs (as they will) it can be used accordingly.
The irony that this idea is from Milty Friedman, the lefts anti christ!

Ah Doc now you've done it! That sir is the statement that matters most.
Why I became libertarian, to cut government to where it can sufficiently provide the "needs" we want for the lesser off.
And I've always been a strong supporter of civil liberties, non aggressive military, drug reform...there's more than econ.

Brilliant. Well now that a bridge has been built, Im burned out! The weekend is here and I have a 3dayer. Peace yall


Edited by JJLehto - January 25 2013 at 18:26

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: @Logan, I have never once said nothing should be cut (not that you were accusing me of having said that).  I am perfectly willing to cut out wasteful programs, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, pork projects, military spending and so forth.  I just don't want to make any cuts on the backs of the poor.  And preferably not on the backs of the middle class either.  Some of those cuts should go to reducing the deficit and some of those cuts should go to expanding the social safety net.  Well at least we agree on something. I think a lot of farmers and military folks are middle class though, so I don't know if you'd be willing to cut those programs after all.

But the biggest farm subsidies go to the biggest farmers.  It is an inefficient and unfair method of wealth redistribution.  Still, I would still want those smaller farmers helped when necessary.  As for the military personnel, I really don't like how large our military has become, where it is necessary to create wars and involve ourselves in things that we shouldn't be involved in simply to justify how large it's become.  Again though, I would not just want to throw those people out on the street, and I think an expansion of the social safety net is important here as is reaching a level of at least fuller employment with living wages. 

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: But the biggest farm subsidies go to the biggest farmers.  It is an inefficient and unfair method of wealth redistribution.  Still, I would still want those smaller farmers helped when necessary.  As for the military personnel, I really don't like how large our military has become, where it is necessary to create wars and involve ourselves in things that we shouldn't be involved in simply to justify how large it's become.  Again though, I would not just want to throw those people out on the street, and I think an expansion of the social safety net is important here as is reaching a level of at least fuller employment with living wages.  How do you propose to increase employment and wages at the same time? There is a finite amount of money to go around.

Whoa!  Did you just use one of my arguments?  Those at the very top are simply going to have to take a bit less of the pie than 7 of the 8 slices. 

The Doctor wrote: I actually approve of this idea, in spite of the fact that it came from Friedman.   It's silly to have welfare, food stamps, child care subsidies and so forth, when one lump sum would be much more efficient and provide families more flexibility in how they spend their allotment.

Doc has sanity left it appears ; )

^ You know, 40 years ago, CEOs of large companies were perfectly happy making 35 times what the lowest paid worker made.  It's still that way in most of the rest of the civilized world, usually somewhere between 20-50 times the lowest paid worker.  (as to a previous question from Brian that I never got around to answering, there it is).  I don't see why it is slavery to say, you know Mr. CEO, you really shouldn't be making more than 50 times the lowest paid worker. If you want to, and it is your privately owned company, you can pack up and leave.  If it is a public company, you are certainly allowed to quit your job as CEO and go to another country where you still won't make any more.  As for closing down plants of a publicly-owned company and moving them overseas to increase your bonus, nope.  Sorry.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^ You know, 40 years ago, CEOs of large companies were perfectly happy making 35 times what the lowest paid worker made.  It's still that way in most of the rest of the civilized world, usually somewhere between 20-50 times the lowest paid worker.  (as to a previous question from Brian that I never got around to answering, there it is).  I don't see why it is slavery to say, you know Mr. CEO, you really shouldn't be making more than 50 times the lowest paid worker. If you want to, and it is your privately owned company, you can pack up and leave.  If it is a public company, you are certainly allowed to quit your job as CEO and go to another country where you still won't make any more.  As for closing down plants of a publicly-owned company and moving them overseas to increase your bonus, nope.  Sorry. Why cap it at 50 times? Why not 25, or 10 or why not make it a law that everyone has to earn the same amount? Or why don't you just personally set the wages of everyone in the country regardless of cost structures, demand or merit. That way you can make sure everything is "fair." You love to call CEOs greedy and selfish, but I can't imagine anything more selfish than telling people they are not allowed to have the money they worked for and that people willingly gave them because you don't like it.

When I become emperor I will certainly take that under advisement. 

No I don't like it, and there are a lot of other people who don't like it.  I'm not the lone voice in a crowd saying that's unfair.  I'm sorry, but gorging your own pockets at the expense of those who have less economic power than you is greedy and selfish.  Expecting a bit more fairness is not. 

^I have no employees Logan.  I'm talking about employers sharing the wealth a little bit more with their employees.  Not all of it, just more than they currently do.  How they used to, how they still do in the rest of the world.  Don't understand why that's so hard for you?  Planning on becoming a rich CEO someday and hoping you'll be able to cheat your workers out of their livelihood to stuff your own pockets?

thellama73 wrote: You're not talking about "sharing." You're talking about stealing. That's why it's so hard for me. It's hard for me because you and your ilk use code words to get people on your side, because when you say what you really mean it sounds abhorrent. You don't want people to "share" their money, you want to take it from them. You aren't "asking" the rich to pay a little more, you're threatening them with imprisonment if they don't. You aren't interested in people paying "their fair share" (which you still refuse to define after being asked  repeatedly,) you want them to pay whatever you decide, and when that's not enough, you will keep increasing the number. You don't want "social justice," you want forced redistribution of wealth. Tell me, do you believe in any property rights at all, or is everything fair game for the state to use as it sees fit?

It isn't stealing.  If you cheat me out of my stereo and I call the police and they come take it from you and give it back to me, that isn't stealing, it is returning what was rightfully mine to begin with.  These CEOs who are making 400 times their lowest paid employees are STEALING from their employees and it is only right that the government threaten them with imprisonment if they don't give it back.  If it takes force and government intervention and the threat of imprisonment to make these CEOs act with fairness and stop STEALING from their employees, then yes, I'm all for it.  Of course, it would be better for all if the CEOs willingly acted like decent human beings and weren't forced to.  Unfortunately, many of them have proven over the past 30 some years that they can't be trusted with that. 

I think it is you who don't believe in property rights.  Your idea of property rights is whatever you can take from anyone else, with a few limits that basically protect the wealthy. 

3rd part O (for Owner) agrees to pay C $75 an hour to run his company, and E1, E2 and E3 respectively $10 an hour to do the basic work of the company.  Remember, it is O paying E1,2 and 3, not C.  However, C has an idea, he will get rid of E3 and make E1 and E2 work harder for the same amount of pay, and some of that $10 an hour that E3 used to make will go in his pocket and he'll be a hero to O.  Now C is making $80 an hour, E3 is making nothing and E1 and E2 are each working 1.5 times as hard for the same amount of money.  O is also raking in an extra $5 an hour, but for purposes of my argument, that is irrelevant.  C has stolen not only from E3 but also from E1 and E2.  I know you don't think there is any property right in a job, which is why your property rights are all about protecting the rich, but people have a moral property interest in their job if not a legal one. 

To avoid argument over the issue, let's also say that there was no other reason to fire E3, he wasn't a bad employee, and none of them were standing around with their thumbs up their butt with nothing to do.  The firing was in no way business related.  It was solely for the purpose of enriching the CEO further.


Edited by The Doctor - January 25 2013 at 20:24

^I'll have what he's having.