Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

People also also need to realize that that first category of yours doesn't bloody matter if there's not enough of them to make a net drain. Bringing the drain down is arguably desirable (if and only if doing so is a net gain), but eliminating it is both functionally impossible and more likely than not to be a massive resource drain in and of itself, for little gain other than to make the lives of people who are already barely at or past subsistence level worse than they could be.

Also pretty good to remember that humans are pretty damn psychologically disinclined towards freeriding behavior. You generally have to break someone pretty hard and pretty persistently for them to be comfortable without some degree of control or growth (personal or otherwise) or whatnot in their life. The amount that don't care enough to improve their lives is only going to be smaller than those that do when something is monumentally screwed up with the environment they're in, and if that's happening you've got a much bigger problem than welfare for lower/no income folks.

[wierd]

Frumple:

Even the infamous Karl Marx outright spelled out the problem cited.  It's in his manifesto.

[smjjames]

edit: Re-entering what I said for clarity to weirds post below

Frumple:

Even the infamous Karl Marx outright spelled out the problem cited.  It's in his manifesto.

So, are you saying communism is the solution?

[wierd]

No. I am giving the devil his due. Not the same thing.

From wikipedia:

Marxian socialists argue that modern social democratic welfare policies are unable to solve the fundamental and structural issues of capitalism, such as cyclical fluctuations, exploitation and alienation. Accordingly, social democratic programs intended to ameliorate the issues of capitalism – such as unemployment benefits and taxation on profits – create further contradictions in capitalism by limiting the efficiency of the capitalist system by reducing incentives for capitalists to invest in further production.[12] Therefore, the welfare state only serves to legitimize and prolong the exploitative and contradiction-laden system of capitalism to society's detriment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_welfare


The democratic socialist idea (see below) for a replacement is not suitable in my opinion either, because of the same issues that plague even benign things, like anonymous self-reporting in scientific research studies. When a group must self-report, there is considerable error, that is so consistent that it can be modeled for.

Democratic socialists, such as the American philosopher and mathematician David Schweickart, contrast "social democracy" with democratic socialism by defining the former as an attempt to strengthen the welfare state and the latter as a political movement seeking to create an alternative economic system to capitalism. According to Schweickart, the democratic socialist critique of social democracy is that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized", and any attempt to suppress the economic contradictions of capitalism would only cause them to emerge elsewhere. For example, attempts to reduce unemployment too much would result in inflation, while too much job security would erode labor discipline. As socialists, democratic socialists aim to create an alternative to capitalism.[13] In contrast to social democracy, democratic socialists advocate a post-capitalist economic system based either on market socialism combined with worker self-management, or on some form of participatory-economic planning.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-report_study

So no, I do not advocate the socialist or communist views on how a society should operate.

I do not believe there even *IS* a valid solution.

[PTTG??]

Who he hell cares about the South China Sea Islands?

It has got to be the stupidest reason to threaten war in the history of the world. They're uninhabitable, most of them have no regular access to fresh water, and many of them are submerged at high tide. The USA doesn't even have a claim over them, we'd only be enforcing the ROC claim. This is not a reason to threaten to end the world!

[smjjames]

Who he hell cares about the South China Sea Islands?

It has got to be the stupidest reason to threaten war in the history of the world. They're uninhabitable, most of them have no regular access to fresh water, and many of them are submerged at high tide. The USA doesn't even have a claim over them, we'd only be enforcing the ROC claim. This is not a reason to threaten to end the world!

Because oil, and the Chinese are pushing 'historical claims'. It's whatever the saame reason why the Senkaku islands, which are similarily inhospitable, are disputed between China and Japan.

Complicating matters are other countries territorial claims in the area.

[wierd]

Expansions into international waters can have far reaching economic consequences, as shipping lanes that were once free international routes can now suddenly be crossing into "sovereign territory", and be subject to impoundments, seizures, and a number of other nasty things.

See also, "Death by 1000 cuts"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingchi

(specifically, use in modern parlance to describe a tactic that slowly destroys an adversary though lingering debilitation.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes, the main thing is 100% the effect those uninhabitable islands would have on the Law of the Sea Treaty (ironically, I seem to recall Trump criticizing the Law of the Sea Treaty). It makes almost the entire SCS China's territorial waters, by the claim they've staked.

[misko27]

Who he hell cares about the South China Sea Islands?

It has got to be the stupidest reason to threaten war in the history of the world. They're uninhabitable, most of them have no regular access to fresh water, and many of them are submerged at high tide. The USA doesn't even have a claim over them, we'd only be enforcing the ROC claim. This is not a reason to threaten to end the world!

Neither is Sarajevo. Neither is Danzig. Why die for the South China Sea?

Yes, the main thing is 100% the effect those uninhabitable islands would have on the Law of the Sea Treaty (ironically, I seem to recall Trump criticizing the Law of the Sea Treaty). It makes almost the entire SCS China's territorial waters, by the claim they've staked.

I don't recall Trump ever bothering to have a consistent position on international treaties like that, so it's fine. Unless Putin feels strongly about it, that is.

Also, this is an interesting problem Spicer finds himself in

[smjjames]

Not to mention that China is trying to throw it's weight around and establish it's sphere of influence, particularily historical influence that they had centuries ago in the region before they went into isolationist mode.

Yes, the main thing is 100% the effect those uninhabitable islands would have on the Law of the Sea Treaty (ironically, I seem to recall Trump criticizing the Law of the Sea Treaty). It makes almost the entire SCS China's territorial waters, by the claim they've staked.

They're also trying to do it by building artificial islands (granted, they are using reefs, but still), which doesn't count in maritine law. Same reason why other artificial constructs like oil rigs don't extend a countries territorial waters.

[wierd]

Which, ironically, is at the heart of the dispute.

China says "We have historical claim, to go along with our buildout of fake islands! That means they should count!"

The rest of the world goes "Nuh uh. Stop that shit."

China plays chicken at that point, putting warships in the area, claiming they are on "border patrol".

[Reelya]

I think the overall effects of welfare need to be taken into account. We can't just pick one aspect and say that's the whole story.

Welfare might do more than just feed people and reduce work incentives a little (though the vast majority of people still work even in countries with decent welfare).

Welfare reduces incentives to make money any other way, so not just in the way we say is "good", but it also reduces incentives to make money in ways we say are "bad". i.e. crime. And crime of course is paid for by everyone, not just the person who was stolen from, in the form of higher insurance premiums, more police work, and higher prison populations. All of which are far less cost-effective than merely ensuring people are fed the first place.

Also, poor nutrition is one of the highest correlation factors with low grades and school dropouts. Feeding school kids is one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing dropout and boosting grades, which of course means less kids in crime and poverty later, so less costs down the line.

[Reelya]

Two things. One, crime isn't inherently in an attempt to make money. Two, I see no downsides to trying to improve the nutrition options for students in public schools.

If there was no basic food stamps etc you'd definitely see an uptick in property crime. At the very least it would be the cute kind with starving local kids stealing stuff to eat from houses. We can at least hope that it would cute in a Huckleberry Finn style way.

That's the problem with saying "what property crime?" because we/you live in societies in which they do in fact feed people to avoid this sort of thing happening. Remember, half of Australia was sent here for stealing a loaf of bread, the same loaf of bread

[Reelya]

I was really referring to the first point. That sort of crime is already suppressed so it's hard to quantify but we can in fact look at societies with no welfare. You get a lot more beggars and pickpockets and the like. Sure, there are more low-paid hard working tough types, but there are way more people just sort of existing outside the formal system.

Another interesting point was what I read in a libertarian article arguing against school lunches. The author pointed to research that suggests that kids who took the free breakfast had no better grades than kids who didn't take the free breakfast, therefore that "disproves" the idea that the free breakfast helps to improve grades.

Which ... no, that's not what it shows. There's a self-selection bias involved in whether you want the free breakfast, so you'd have to compare kids who couldn't choose a free breakfast vs those who could. What the "equal grades" thing shows is that "food security" is a level playing field (thus the penalty from grades disappears) if you offer free breakfasts.

[redwallzyl]

I was really referring to the first point. That sort of crime is already suppressed so it's hard to quantify but we can in fact look at societies with no welfare. You get a lot more beggars and pickpockets and the like. Sure, there are more low-paid hard working tough types, but there are way more people just sort of existing outside the formal system.

Another interesting point was what I read in a libertarian article arguing against school lunches. The author pointed to research that suggests that kids who took the free breakfast had no better grades than kids who didn't take the free breakfast, therefore that "disproves" the idea that the free breakfast helps to improve grades.

Which ... no, that's not what it shows. There's a self-selection bias involved in whether you want the free breakfast, so you'd have to compare kids who couldn't choose a free breakfast vs those who could. What the "equal grades" thing shows is that "food security" is a level playing field (thus the penalty from grades disappears) if you offer free breakfasts.

its also extremely important that everyone gets it no mater their situation. if its stigmatized then kids are vary unlikely to take it even if they really need it.