Print

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

[Criptfeind]

The dictionary definition of Socialism is either uselessly broad, or a statement that all governments follow a Socialist ideology to some degree. All governments in history have distributed resources to some degree, although not usually to the general public's benefit until recently.

Right but no. That is not the dictionary definition. See post 276. Still it can be too broad, lucky we have all these wonderful sub definitions like the only one that comes to mind, democratic socialism.

[Vector]

So, how about that dissolving state government, guys?

[Criptfeind]

Who cares about that? WE HAVE SEMANTICS!

[PTTG??]

End this. Is a universal food stamp policy good or bad?

This is binary, though the elements that make it up are not. The net effect of implementing it is either good or bad. We may define the word we use to describe it later.

If we can't decide that now, let's move on to other things, like the whole disolvey-state-government-dealy.

[Criptfeind]

Don't know.

Don't care.

[Sowelu]

Bad, because it will cause prices to rise to the point to which food stamps don't do the poor any good.

[Taricus]

Bad, because it will cause prices to rise to the point to which food stamps don't do the poor any good again.

What prices exactly?

[Nadaka]

The argument that the price of food would increase dramatically and render it futile is a misapplication of supply and demand economics. The demand for food remains nearly fixed because people need about as much food as they need. And besides that there is still competition to drive prices down within the food stamp market because the government picks no monopolies.

[Sowelu]

Food prices.

If you give everyone a certain food budget that is only usable on certain kinds of food, which the non-poor can optionally suppliment with other money, then staple goods become essentially free to the consumer...if they spend non-food-stamp money on fast food or other non-qualifying comestibles, which a lot of people do.

Therefore, prices on qualifying goods will rise to the point where most people are meeting but not exceeding their food-stamp budget on staples and supplimenting them with whatever luxuries they would otherwise get.  The poor don't have the benefit of supplimenting their diet with non-qualifying goods, so they get screwed.

[Taricus]

That depends on the food tht does qualify.

[Sowelu]

A similar thing happens with insurance, actually, which is why I believe it would happen with food stamps.

Yeah, insurance companies cover a large part of you bill for major emergencies, but they also negotiate discounts with doctors that lets them provide services at like... 50% the regular price (that is, you + the insurance company together only pay 50% of what an uninsured person would).  Doctors raise their overall prices higher to compensate, which means that as more people get insurance, people who don't have it see their prices rise dramatically.

When a large negotiating bloc (in this case, people who have food stamps + surplus money to blow on non-qualifying food items) starts getting their stuff cheaper, the market responds by raising prices to the point where demand balances out, which screws over anyone not in that bloc (in this case, people who have food stamps but no surplus money).

[PTTG??]

...

That sounds like a reasonable argument.

[Taricus]

A similar thing happens with insurance, actually, which is why I believe it would happen with food stamps.

Yeah, insurance companies cover a large part of you bill for major emergencies, but they also negotiate discounts with doctors that lets them provide services at like... 50% the regular price (that is, you + the insurance company together only pay 50% of what an uninsured person would).  Doctors raise their overall prices higher to compensate, which means that as more people get insurance, people who don't have it see their prices rise dramatically.

When a large negotiating bloc (in this case, people who have food stamps + surplus money to blow on non-qualifying food items) starts getting their stuff cheaper, the market responds by raising prices to the point where demand balances out, which screws over anyone not in that bloc (in this case, people who have food stamps but no surplus money).

In a nutritional sense...

And in the healthcare side, if everyone has said cover how'd you price it?

[Nadaka]

This isn't deficit spending for foodstamps, the people with excess money who now get food stamps will be paying more taxes and won't really have an increase in what they can spend on food.

The comparison to insurance companies isn't really appropriate either. The government  is not negotiating to pay less food stamps for food than for cash customers like the insurance customers did.

The only real increase in demand for food is going to come from people who didn't have enough money to buy the food they need, but for whatever reason could not qualify for foods tamps previously. Hopefully that is a fairly small number of people.

[Aqizzar]

Yo, guys?  How about "No arguments about the definitions of communism and socialism".  Not in my thread.  I've watched it go round and round before, and it's just one big fucking pissing patch.  You wanna have a discussion about different ways of implementing food assistance, that's alright, I opened myself up for it.  But the point of the quote was the blatant attempt by the Republican side of the federal legislature to put a stick in the eye of organized labor with Food Stamps, which I think we can all agree should be topical-politics free.

Anyway, more coming soon.  Maybe I'll put this one up for a vote - "small government" conservatives legislating draconian anti-abortion enforcement, or literal white-washing of history to support repealing child-labor laws (for serious this time).

I'm not actually putting this up for a vote, that's just what I have on my plate.