Save or Else

[Flame Of Liberty]

Some more food for thought about social security and how its going to be "fixed."

Can you imagine a government-free social security system? Or would old people die of hunger without the caring state?


The movement to privatize Social Security (fully or partially) may be the most ideologically duplicitous and fiscally irresponsible I've seen in my lifetime. It was proposed by Clinton and now by Bush. Whether it dies in the next few months or generates some monstrosity of a bill to be voted on, don't believe that there is anything in the works that is going to bring you more freedom.

...

There are many puzzles to this bizarre forced-saving program, not the least of which is why it is that so many people who claim to be for free markets are backing it. Perhaps this can be chalked up to the usual pandering of Washington think tanks. But I don't believe that this explains all of it. There seems to be a genuine intellectual error at the root here, stemming from a failure to believe that a genuine free market can actually provide for people in their old age.

Herein we see the cultural problem that government programs create. Once the system is in place, people have some internal sense that the world would fall apart without it. If the government made all our shoes and clocks, we might have a hard time imagining it could be any other way. Post-socialist governments of the old Soviet empire had a hard time understanding how society could work if people were allowed to move their residencies without government permissions.

The urgent task that genuine market thinkers need to take on is to help people imagine a pre-FDR world in which individuals prepare for their own futures, without government forcing them to or stealing from others in order to enact a central plan.

But, you say, that's not politically viable. Maybe not. But it makes a lot more sense than the creation of a new forced savings program to sit on top of the old forced intergenerational wealth transfer.

...

Once this faux-privatization idea is out of the way, we can get back to doing what believers in a free society should be doing: working toward getting government not more involved in society, but toward creating the intellectual conditions that enable people to imagine a world where government leaves the choice over how to use resources to individuals.

If more choice is the goal, let people drop out of the system. Don't create another coercive system and tell people they are being liberated.

Save or Else

[Claeren]

Yeah, not like homelessness is not already a HUGE problem in the States... yikes.... cat food sales are sure to continue to rise though...

Claeren.

PS - The Onion did a wicked parody of the US changes to their system last week....

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 23 2004, 06:09 PM
Yeah, not like homelessness is not already a HUGE problem in the States... yikes.... cat food sales are sure to continue to rise though...

Claeren.

PS - The Onion did a wicked parody of the US changes to their system last week....

Well then ask yourself what caused this problem. Free markets hardly caused it, because they do not exist.

State/state regulation is here because its supposed to take care of those who have problems to take care about themselves. You admited that it is not fullfilling its purpose.

Now ask yourself why is that. Because there`s not enough state interventions or because of state interventions themselves?

Thats the point thought. You want to cure a disease with bigger dose of the drug that caused the disease in the first place.

PS The changes in the US system need no parody. The changes are a parody.

[Looger]

canada has a state-regulated canada pension plan, it is not going to work.

state regulation means that CPP is a slush fund, but don't worry we'll just put the money back next administration.

oops, we've been voted out!

well, the next guys will put the money back.

still no, eh?

oh well.

seriously, it has always been my belief that CPP is just a hidden federal income tax. at least you can max out and not pay any more per year!

there's people that actually believe that baby boomers will clean it out, but quite honestly, if they paid into it, shouldn't it reflect that?

per person it works, so why not per 1 million people?

the money has been spent on non-pension stuff, plain and simple. it will run dry when the last of the boomers retire, then hopefully enough of us younger people would have seen this coming and set some aside. most people i know are quite aware they won't get a dime out of CPP.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Looger@Dec 23 2004, 09:59 PM
seriously, it has always been my belief that CPP is just a hidden federal income tax.

You are right, it is simply a federal tax, similar to health "insurance“ which is a tax as well. Pensioners are only paid as long as there is enough working people pouring money in. Because there is less and less economically active people, they are forced to pay more and work more years. This system morally unjustifiable and economically unmaintanable.

Thats the problem of all leftist propaganda. Their plans cannot achieve what they promise – take care of the poor in this case, infact it is not their purpose to achieve this claim. The purpose is not to take care of the poor (where the system obviously fails and badly), the purpose is to take care of left wing parasites. It is just too funny they are trying to hide their true colors by spewing propaganda about solidarity, equality and what not. It is just an icing on the cake that left wing ideology doesnt lead to either.

Simply put, the social security program is not an insurance program at all but rather a pure transfer scam designed to make the elderly dependent on the tax take from younger workers. The only path to reform involves dismantling this program completely.

[Claeren]

There is no evidence beyond self interested mutual fund company 'studies' and fear mongering on the far right that our CPP is not going to work. Thanks to some Chretien era changes (gasp!) it is in incrediably good shape.

The Americans have been STEALING money from their system for years, leaving it underfunded just to pay for election day promises of yester-year.

Ironically, the capitalist country treated it as a secret tax, not the socialist one.



The way the free market deals with old age guys? DEATH. Rotting bodies in the streets. Ghettos. Beggers. Or at least the death squads hired by the rich to clean up the problem once it annoys them enough to make the investment worth while. (In other words the industrializing world 300-50 years ago.)

You are living in a bubble if you think life is so easy that everyone should save or pay the consequences.

Has it ever occured to you why communism took hold in Europe and Asia? Could it have been massive uprising by the underclasses fed up with their lot in life?

Free market = Massive disparity = eventual revolution of the underclasses

Communism = Massive disparity = eventual revolution of the underclasses

Mixed system of limited socialist mechanism working within an otherwise free market economy = Massive but barible disparity = relative peace, with open and stable markets for the industrious to exploit yet the opportunity to just live a life for the less capable or 'driven'. for profits.

I know which i chose.

Claeren.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 24 2004, 11:45 AM
There is no evidence beyond self interested mutual fund company 'studies' and fear mongering on the far right that our CPP is not going to work. Thanks to some Chretien era changes (gasp!) it is in incrediably good shape.

The Americans have been STEALING money from their system for years, leaving it underfunded just to pay for election day promises of yester-year.

Ironically, the capitalist country treated it as a secret tax, not the socialist one.



The way the free market deals with old age guys? DEATH. Rotting bodies in the streets. Ghettos. Beggers. Or at least the death squads hired by the rich to clean up the problem once it annoys them enough to make the investment worth while. (In other words the industrializing world 300-50 years ago.)

You are living in a bubble if you think life is so easy that everyone should save or pay the consequences.

Has it ever occured to you why communism took hold in Europe and Asia? Could it have been massive uprising by the underclasses fed up with their lot in life?

Free market = Massive disparity = eventual revolution of the underclasses

Communism = Massive disparity = eventual revolution of the underclasses

Mixed system of limited socialist mechanism working within an otherwise free market economy = Massive but barible disparity = relative peace, with open and stable markets for the industrious to exploit yet the opportunity to just live a life for the less capable or 'driven'. for profits.

I know which i chose.

Claeren.

Sweet rant, here here.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 24 2004, 12:45 PM
There is no evidence beyond self interested mutual fund company 'studies' and fear mongering on the far right that our CPP is not going to work. Thanks to some Chretien era changes (gasp!) it is in incrediably good shape.

What would you consider as a hard evidence? When the system finally collapses?

There is no proof of that the system is in incredibly good shame, whether theoretical or empirical,other that your faith in the system. Quick fact about the US system: in 1950, there were 16 workers paying Social Security taxes for every retired person receiving benefits. Today there are 3.3. By 2030, there will be only 2.

How is that fearmongering on the far right? How exactly is CPP different? And how is it in incredibly good shape?


But anyway, here is more "fearmongering from the American far right":

“The recent Trustees Report on Social Security reveals a bleak and dire federal program, headed for bankruptcy soon, and in desperate need of reform.The Trustees confirm that Social Security will begin to run a deficit by 2018, just 14 years from now, and the same date as in last year's report. Thus, while politicians dithered and tried to pretend the issue would go away, we moved another year closer to disaster. But the truly frightening numbers are found further into the report, and make clear the magnitude of the fiscal train wreck awaiting us.

The figure most cited in the media is the "present value" of Social Security's unfounded liabilities, $3.7 trillion, which represents the amount needed to cover shortfalls after the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2042. An additional $1.5 trillion would be needed to redeem the bonds in the trust fund, for a total unfounded liability of $5.2 trillion, on a present value basis. Present value calculations are an important number for economists and actuaries-they show the amount the government would have to set aside today (assuming it earned standard interest rates) to pay all promised benefits in the future. But, of course, the government cannot set aside $5.2 trillion today. That would be nearly half of our Gross Domestic Product.

Therefore, a better measure of Social Security's financial crisis is its actual cash deficit: the total amount that its expenditures will exceed its revenue from 2018 on. Measured in constant 2004 dollars, that shortfall is an astounding $26 trillion-$26,000,000,000,000.00.

To put this in context, in 2018, the first year that Social Security will run a cash deficit, that shortfall will be approximately $16 billion, or roughly the equivalent of the current budgets for Head Start and the WIC nutritional program.

Or, if you would rather look at it in terms of taxes, in the first year after Social Security starts running a deficit, the government must acquire revenues equivalent to nearly $200 per worker. By 2042, the additional tax burden increases to almost $2,000 per worker, and by 2078 it reaches a crushing $4,200 per worker (in constant dollars). And it continues to rise thereafter. Functionally, that would translate into either a huge increase in the payroll tax, from the current 12.4 percent to as much as 18.9 percent by 2078, or an equivalent increase in income or other taxes.”

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Claeren@Dec 24 2004, 12:45 PM
The Americans have been STEALING money from their system for years, leaving it underfunded just to pay for election day promises of yester-year.

The system itself is designed to be underfunded at all times. As Montreal Economic Institute writes:

“The Cost of Government Income Transfers Will Be Far Greater Than the Net Gain to the Intended Beneficiaries

WHEN THE WAR ON POVERTY WAS DECLARED in the United States in the mid-1960s, and the government of Canada began its pursuit of « the Just Society, » it was widely believed that poverty could be eliminated if only citizens were willing to transfer a little more income to the less fortunate members of society. They were, and income transfer programs expanded substantially. Social Welfare transfer payments, which include Old Age Pensions, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, Canada Pension Plan and a range of miscellaneous programs, are the largest component of government spending and are growing faster than any other component of spending other than interest on the public debt.

In spite of this monumental effort, and the generosity of taxpayers, The National Council on Welfare and the Canadian Council on Social Development claim that there are still 4 million Canadians living in poverty! In part, according to Christopher Sarlo, the author of the book Poverty in Canada, published by the Fraser Institute in 1992, this impression of persistent poverty is largely a result of the way in which poverty has been measured. A more sensible measurement of poverty, excluding students and others for whom low income is a temporary state, finds it to be less of a problem. However, there can be no doubt that there is a persistent problem of poverty, and the question must be why that is so, given the nearly $100 billion which is taken from taxpayers and redistributed through government programs.

Economic analysis indicates that their ineffectiveness reflects a more general proposition: it is difficult to transfer income to a group of recipients in a manner that will improve their long term well-being. Once again, this proposition reflects the unintended secondary effects of the transfers. [See James Gwartney and Richard Stroup, « Transfers, Equality, and the Limits of Public Policy, » Cato Journal (Spring/Summer 1986), for a detailed analysis of this issue.] Three major factors undermine the effectiveness of income transfers.
First, an increase in the size of the transfer sector will ###### economic growth. Income is not like « manna from heaven. » Neither is national income an economic pie that is baked by the government so slices of various sizes can be served up hot to people throughout the country. On the contrary, income is something that people produce and earn. It is earned by individuals who provide others with goods and services for which they are willing to pay.

Tax and transfer policies adversely influence both the taxpayer's and the transfer recipient's incentive to earn. As taxes to finance the transfers increase, taxpayers have less incentive to produce and earn and more incentive to invest in wasteful tax shelters. Some choose, in the face of higher taxes, to drop out of the formal economy and resort to barter or other less efficient forms of economic activity. Similarly, since transfer benefits tend to decline as the income of a recipient increases, the recipient will also have less incentive to earn since net income will increase by only a fraction – and in many cases only a small fraction – of the additional earnings. Thus, neither taxpayers nor transfer recipients will produce and earn as much as they would in the absence of the transfer program. In addition, the reallocation of income by politics will encourage people to spend more time politicking and less time producing. All of these factors will ###### economic growth, which will tend to reduce the welfare of the intended beneficiaries as well as that of other citizens.

Second, competition for transfers will erode most of the long-term gain of the intended beneficiaries. In a world of scarce resources, governments must establish a criterion for the receipt of income transfers and other political favours. If it did not do so, the transfers would bust the budget. Generally, the government will require a transfer recipient to own something, do something, or be something. However, once a criterion is established, people will modify their behaviour to qualify for the « free » money or other government favours. As they do so, their net gain from the transfers declines.

There is a third reason for the ineffectiveness of transfers: programs that protect potential recipients against adversity arising from their imprudent decisions encourage choices that increase the likelihood of the adversity. The transfers do two things to potential beneficiaries: a) they make the consequences of the adversity less severe and B) they reduce the incentive of potential recipients to take steps to avoid the adversity. The problem arises because these two things exert conflicting influences.

If you subsidize something, you will get more of it. Anti-poverty transfers are no exception to this general rule. Transfers directed toward the poor encourage high-risk lifestyles (for example, the use of drugs, dropping out of school or the workforce, births by single mothers, marital dissolution, and abandonment of children by fathers). All of these choices tend to increase the number of people who are poor. These secondary effects may not be very important in the short term. Over the longer term, however, the unintended negative consequences will be more severe. In addition, the government anti-poverty transfers crowd out private charitable efforts by families, individuals, churches, and civic organizations. When taxes are levied to do more about a problem, private individuals and groups will predictably adjust and do less to alleviate the problem.

From an economic viewpoint, the failure of transfer programs ranging from farm price supports to anti-poverty programs is not surprising. When the secondary effects are considered, economic analysis indicates that it is extremely difficult to help the intended beneficiaries over the long term. Because behaviour changes when benefits are offered there may even be a perverse effect, as with the increase in unemployment caused by unemployment insurance, so that the situation is actually made worse rather than better.“

[Flame Of Liberty]

Ironically, the capitalist country treated it as a secret tax, not the socialist one.

What capitalist country? The US is not a capitalist country, it is a country with mixed economy, the system you know you chose. Your views are kind of contradictory, aren`t they?


The way the free market deals with old age guys? DEATH. Rotting bodies in the streets. Ghettos. Beggers. Or at least the death squads hired by the rich to clean up the problem once it annoys them enough to make the investment worth while. (In other words the industrializing world 300-50 years ago.)

I hope this is intentionaly exagerrated comment and you dont actualy believe that freedom and man`s reason deals with old age guys like that. Beause that belief is more dangerous than you may think. To answer your questions – voluntary interpersonal cooperation helps where coercive authority failed miserably.


You are living in a bubble if you think life is so easy that everyone should save or pay the consequences.

Who is living in a bubble? Someone who thinks current pension systems are in incredibly good shape.

However, you have not explained why we should be forced to save for our own retirement? Why there should be an obligatory pension fund system? Why not leave it to an individual?

And yes, everyone should pay the consequences of their own action. What is so strange about it?

The proposed reforms are about one thing – to increase forced payments. It is the only way to keep the system alive for a little longer. Then it may seem to someone that the system is alive and well.

However, partial privatization does not solve one of the main problems with the whole thing – collosal waste within the state sector. Therefore it should be of no surprise that the funds are missing somewhere else – where they are needed, in other words the result is less funds available for charities which are far more efficient in looking after elderly.

State social policy displaces voluntary activities and makes people dependent on state and in turn it cannot properly look after them.


Has it ever occured to you why communism took hold in Europe and Asia? Could it have been massive uprising by the underclasses fed up with their lot in life?
Free market = Massive disparity = eventual revolution of the underclasses
Communism = Massive disparity = eventual revolution of the underclasses
Mixed system of limited socialist mechanism working within an otherwise free market economy = Massive but barible disparity = relative peace, with open and stable markets for the industrious to exploit yet the opportunity to just live a life for the less capable or 'driven'. for profits.

I hope you do realize that eventhough there is (or there will be eventually, but for a sake of the argument) a disparity on free markets, the living standards are far higher than living standards in communist countries? BTW speaking of classes, is marxism still being taught on canadian universities? Libraries on liberal universities all over the world are the only places of permanent revolution.


I know which i chose

Thats OK. But why do you force your choice upon the others? In other words, why do I have to (if I was a Canadian) be a part of your ”choice” (a part of CPP)?

[Claeren]

You put in detail what i said generally. That the American system was designed to fail and any chance it had at success was eliminated when what little was being put away was redirected elsewhere.

The Canadian system has recovered nicely over the past couple years after an increase in contributions, decent market returns, the establishment of a committee to ensure growth and sustainability (and the implementation of many of their suggestions), and a general commitment to ensure a viable CPP system for our elderly.

The CPP is substantially different then the American pension plan system. And while not perfect, the Canadian system, and our preparedness for the coming seniors boom, is considered top in the world.

Is it any surprise that the American social system is failing to meet the needs of the poor and those who need it to the benefit of the wealthy and those who do not need it? The American social program/support failure, and the societies general inability to help (just help) provide for the bottom ~50% of their population, is NOT evidence that social programs do not work but only that the wealthy politicians and their wealthy benefactors and the greedy people that help elect them are too self interested to give them a chance. The same reason that America ranks near the bottom of most every ranking of quality of life.

If you subsidize something, you will get more of it. Anti-poverty transfers are no exception to this general rule. Transfers directed toward the poor encourage high-risk lifestyles (for example, the use of drugs, dropping out of school or the workforce, births by single mothers, marital dissolution, and abandonment of children by fathers). All of these choices tend to increase the number of people who are poor. These secondary effects may not be very important in the short term. Over the longer term, however, the unintended negative consequences will be more severe. In addition, the government anti-poverty transfers crowd out private charitable efforts by families, individuals, churches, and civic organizations. When taxes are levied to do more about a problem, private individuals and groups will predictably adjust and do less to alleviate the problem.

From an economic viewpoint, the failure of transfer programs ranging from farm price supports to anti-poverty programs is not surprising. When the secondary effects are considered, economic analysis indicates that it is extremely difficult to help the intended beneficiaries over the long term. Because behaviour changes when benefits are offered there may even be a perverse effect, as with the increase in unemployment caused by unemployment insurance, so that the situation is actually made worse rather than better.“

So why is America, the first world nation with the lowest level of social assistance, the most impoverished? Why does it have the largest number (and growing) of people living in urban slums? Highest levels of violence and drug use? A entire social class of millions and millions of people living in absolute poverty with literally no chance of escape??

What i do know is why they have also have the richest peoples, and it is because middle class people buy garbage like this without thought. So that each year a VERY small number of them can join the rich while a substantially larger number can fall into poverty.

More CPP specific though, our system rewards people who are employed, make good money, etc., and punishes those that do not. Each year you get a receipt for how much you contributed and it shows you how much you will get upon retirement. People who do not or rarely contribute will get the bare minimum while the middle class will get larger amounts and the wealthy get nothing unless they fall into a situation where they need it. Hardly a blind transfer of funds...

Lastly in regards to your second post, the Montreal Economic Institute and the Fraser Institute are nothing but FAR right-wing, pro-anything-America, lobby groups of propaganda. Using them to support your argument merely proves my initial point, that "there is no evidence beyond [...] fear mongering on the far right that our CPP is not going to work."

[Claeren]

The level to which you have purposely not engaged in any thought regarding my post makes me hesitate to respond to the third part.

Ironically, the capitalist country treated it as a secret tax, not the socialist one.

What capitalist country? The US is not a capitalist country, it is a country with mixed economy, the system you know you chose. Your views are kind of contradictory, arent they?

Come on, America is THE capitalist country in the history of the world. The mixed system they have is:

1) The least comprehensive in the first world.
2) Lacks sincere effort in implementation.
3) Was almost totally built up as a response to communism, and the threat of quite literally social revolution. (Your opposition to stronger socialism is ironically, at least to a point, also part of this same ideological push) The programs were merely a concession of the wealthy to maintain the social contract of control through the cold war, NOT about human justice and equality like in the rest of the world.

In other words, it should not be a surprise that the programs fail, are wasteful, or that they would sabotage and steal from the pension plan funds. It is the American experience specifically and not social-programs themselves that are the failure (relative to all Americans not the wealthy controlling few, for them it is quite the success, no doubt).

The way the free market deals with old age guys? DEATH. Rotting bodies in the streets. Ghettos. Beggars. Or at least the death squads hired by the rich to clean up the problem once it annoys them enough to make the investment worth while. (In other words the industrializing world 300-50 years ago.)

I hope this is intentionally exaggerated comment and you don’t actually believe that freedom and man`s reason deals with old age guys like that. Because that belief is more dangerous than you may think. To answer your questions – voluntary interpersonal cooperation helps where coercive authority failed miserably.

gahahahaha... who is being idealistic now?

ALL i said was that a MIXED system (not communism) builds stability but maintains markets. History PROVES that absolute capitalism destroys lives and results in incredibly horrible living conditions for the poor. It also shows that those poor are not lazy but are born into a perpetual and growing cycle of poverty from which there is no escape. Only someone having never tasted such horror could be so naive. Travel in American-dominated totally capitalist 3rd world nations as i have and you will see what i am saying is not exaggeration. People living in stinking swamps while their neighbours drive BMW's. Their unclothed children cowering in piles of sh*t under the shadows of razor wire lined walls guarded with M-16's. Meanwhile the tax rate is low and no healthcare, pension plans, or welfare, and the rules lax! Way to go, capitalist utopia!! If only those poor people would work harder and use reason through their lives they would be able to provide for themselves! gah....

However, you have not explained why we should be forced to save for our own retirement? Why there should be an obligatory pension fund system? Why not leave it to an individual?

And yes, everyone should pay the consequences of their own action. What is so strange about it?

I did exactly that in my post, but you told me i was just exaggerating and now tell me in the next breath i have not done so... ??

It is not strange, it is just horrible. You are not grasping what it means to not have money at all and no way to get it. Big reality check for you, you DIE. It is not exaggerating, that is what happens when you homeless, with no food, and no medical care. There is no other option.

What are you arguing, that massive charity organizations will fill the government void and help all thesew poor souls out? How is that different then now? Are people not just going to continue to be lazy as you say?

Your entire argument hinges upon the logic that the fear of death and poverty are so great that people will no doubt 'logically' provide for themselves. Unfortunately that means two things. One, is that the fear must be REAL and that means unprepared people are dying and falling into poverty and living horrible lives. IF they are not then there is no fear and your logic fails. Secondly, that fear f the future mandates action now. Unfortunately again, millions and millions of people, the majority no doubt of America, is one paycheck away from absolute collapse. It does not matter to them if they are 'logically supposed to save', they need to feed their children and gas up their car TODAY. They are left worrying about the future when it comes and in your world that means the first instant they are sick or the moment they grow old they are thrown to the wolves for not 'thinking ahead'.

Has it ever occured to you why communism took hold in Europe and Asia? Could it have been massive uprising by the underclasses fed up with their lot in life?
Free market = Massive disparity = eventual revolution of the underclasses
Communism = Massive disparity = eventual revolution of the underclasses
Mixed system of limited socialist mechanism working within an otherwise free market economy = Massive but barible disparity = relative peace, with open and stable markets for the industrious to exploit yet the opportunity to just live a life for the less capable or 'driven'. for profits.

I hope you do realize that eventhough there is (or there will be eventually, but for a sake of the argument) a disparity on free markets, the living standards are far higher than living standards in communist countries? BTW speaking of classes, is marxism still being taught on canadian universities? Libraries on liberal universities all over the world are the only places of permanent revolution.

Ah.... that is what i said! Communism works as well as your perfect idealistic world, in other words it doesn't!! You are the other side of the same frikkin coin! American neo-conservatism is the new communism! Fear of anything that isn't free, fattening, and/or moral (aka: american-conservative-christian).

I am saying a mixed system allows a balance. Capitalism is allowed to flourish while its detrimental effects on the underclass is mitigated enough for simple survival through limited social programs. I am not saying anyone should simply provide a middle class income for the lazy, but simply that failure to do anything but rely on 'volunteers and charity' is a recipe for social collapse in the same fashion as it struck the communist world.

And what are you saying, Marxism is banned in America? That studying the mistakes of history has no benefit?

I know which i chose

Thats OK. But why do you force your choice upon the others? In other words, why do I have to (if I was a Canadian) be a part of your ”choice” (a part of CPP)?

You are saying the same thing.


Claeren.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Okay, we should start with looking for a middle ground, because or views fundamentally differ on crucial things, therefore our conclusions are incompatible. The glaring example – profit. Whereas you, in accordance to marxist views, see profit as an evidence that the rich eploit the poor, that the rich capitalist steal surplus value that righfully belongs to workers. On the other hand, i see profit as a result of mutualy voluntary exchange that always increases utility of all parties involved. In other words, free markets always and everywhere bring mutual benefits – where one gives up what he values less than what he acquires. No one is exploiting anyone.

Consequently, while you see capitalism as a wild jungle system where the weak are at mercy of the strong, i see capitalism as system where thanks to the comparative advantage the weak have the best chance to utilize their abilities, eventhough they are weaker in every facet of the game. In other words, capitalism is the only way how the poor can increase standards of their living, in fact that is exactly what has happened in the western world over last century.

The fact this is not widely understood shows in the thread about China, where posters seem to think its is bad for foreign companies to invest in rural China and „exploit“ peasants living there. The fact that peasants working even for a buck a day are better off than before is not seen. Therefore in no way they are taken advantage of, on the contrary, they are given a chance they never had before. Simply, capitalism and globalization increases wealth of all involved.

That brings us to another problematic point. History of capitalism. I honestly do not know from where did you get the idea pure capitalism destoroys the poor. Couple of things. First, if you look into history how people lived before the industrial revolution (beginning of the capitalism as we know it) the poor lived in clay huts together with their animals, they had no running water, not to mention electricity, average life span was 40 years. How many people in the US live like that?

Here is a study about American poor The Myth of Widespread American Poverty. It is a very interesting read, one thing how the poor are classified – for example, in the year 1995 70% of households classified as poor had one car, 27% of households classified as poor had 2 or more cars. 41% of „poor“ households own their own home and their average home has 3 bedrooms. Isnt that ridiculous?

Just shortly after industrial revolution, working masses could enjoy higher living standards than rich feduals did only years earlier. To suggest that capitalism caused enmasse poverty is ridiculous. If you are interested in facts, here is another article The Myth of the Working Poor. It is a real eye opener for all on the left side of the spectrum, who cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

If you talk about American dominated third world countries, i hope you arent telling me these countries are capitalist countries? Becasue you couldnt be further from the truth, free markets are non existent there, rule of juntas and dictatorships on the other hand flourish. Again, the problem are totalitarian regimes and lack of capitalism/globalization and not that there`s too much of either.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Another thing, pure capitalism is not an utopia. Thats another myth of the left. The fact that current welfare states are parasiting on capitalism should give you an idea, if there were no markets to „build upon“ states would be standing on water and quickly collapse. Another myth is that the current mixed welfare states are maintanable in the long run. I could give you another link refuting this myth, but again you would dismiss it as far right fearmongering. The main difference between countries is the ratio between free markets and state coercion, in other words „how much“ of capitalism they tolerate. I hope you arent going to argue that standard of living in highly capitalist countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong is lower than in Sub Saharan Africa where capitalism is non existent.

Back to the topic at hand though. You are pointing out that many people do not think ahead. Well thats one of main points – different time preferences of individuals. Some people have high time preferences some low, some prefer to spend now, some prefer to save for later consumption. Imagine a young family raising kids – they need to spend their money now, but your caring state comes over and forces them to hand over bucks for their retirement. I ask why? How are these people better off if you change their choices using force? Dont they have a rigth to do whatever they want with their earned money? Maybe they prefere spending their money now and expect their kids to look after them when they grow old. How does the state know?

You argue that CPP is different from the US system. That is just another lack of common ground between us. The fact is, though, both are based on forced payments. Details do not really matter. People are forced to fork out money now in exchange for a pretty promise they will receive retirement payments later. No explanation why this should be so, other than ill informend opinions that they will die if they were let to take care about themselves.

Another of your arguments is that the Canadian system has recovered nicely over the past couple years after an increase in contributions, decent market returns, the establishment of a committee to ensure growth and sustainability (and the implementation of many of their suggestions), and a general commitment to ensure a viable CPP system for our elderly. I can give you hundreds of examples this is not so, but you would dismiss them as rants of the far right.

So I will ask you this – how can you say the system is getting decent market returns (for example)? How do you know what I consider decent market returns? If i was free to use my money in a fund of my choice, i would be chosing between low risk/low return or high risk/high return or something in between. Now i have no such choice, CPP invests my money the way it does and i have no way of changing anything. How am i better off now if i would invest my money differently if i was allowed to do so? Your opinions that „all is good“ are only arbitrary. Why not people let invest themselves? Why be so paternalistic? Because people are stupid and would die if the state didnt take care of them? And who governs the state? People, who are in their office because those stupid voters voted for them. But how can someone so supid and unable to look after himself be smart enough to vote right?

You flat out dismiss studies done by Fraser Institute and Montreal Economic Institue as far right fear mongering. But how is that fearmongering, when they merely show data given by the state itself? Governmental figures show in how bad shape their system is. Fraser Institute and Montreal Economic Institue do nothing else than explain why did it happen and what can be done to fix it. I hardly see any fearmongering there.

I am not saying studying the mistake history has no benefits. But the main benfit is to learn from them. The left has not done so, and is dragging down everyone with them.

[Cowperson]

Just adding this to the mix, today's editorial in the New York Times: "The Social Security Fear Factor."

Basically saying Flame of Liberty is full of hot air. Hey, blame the New York Times, not me:

As it often does with dissenting professional opinion, the administration is ignoring the actuaries. But that doesn't alter the facts or common sense. If the $10 trillion figure is essentially bogus, so is the claim that Social Security is in crisis. The assertion that doing nothing would be costlier than enacting a privatization plan also turns out to be wrong, by the estimates of Congress's own budget agency.

Over a 75-year time frame, Social Security's shortfall is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $2 trillion and by the Social Security trustees at $3.7 trillion, a manageable sliver of the economy in each case. If the shortfall is on the low side, Social Security will be in the black until 2052, when it will be able to pay out 80 percent of the promised benefits. If it is on the high side, the system will pay full benefits until 2042, when it will cover 70 percent.

Contrary to Mr. Bush's frequent assertion that Social Security is constantly imperiled by political meddling, it has in fact been preserved and improved by political intervention throughout its 70-year history, most significantly in 1983. The system could - and should - be strengthened again by a modest package of benefit cuts and tax increases phased in over decades.

You may have to register to view this story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/opinion/...ticle_popular_1

Cowperson

[Flame Of Liberty]

Basically saying Flame of Liberty is full of hot air. Hey, blame the New York Times, not me

If the left wing propaganda paper says so then it is a compliment.

I have posted studies, analyses and figures done by many different research institutes, not to mention figures admitted by governmental agencies. You posted an opinion article written by one of those people "right wing" is calling out as liars. You decide which one has more merit in it.

New York Times is one of media who constantly massage public opinions. In other words, "right wing" policy and research insitute do nothing else than point out lies and deceptions of NYT and the like. Left wing propaganda feels threatened by facts - thats a good thing.


If the $10 trillion figure is essentially bogus

Says who? The whole point is - it is not bogus and it is not OK. Any proof to this bogus statement?


The assertion that doing nothing would be costlier than enacting a privatization plan also turns out to be wrong, by the estimates of Congress's own budget agency.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I am not in favor in privatization of social security. I am in favor in total and complete dismantling of it.


Contrary to Mr. Bush's frequent assertion that Social Security is constantly imperiled by political meddling, it has in fact been preserved and improved by political intervention throughout its 70-year history, most significantly in 1983.

Again, this is pure BS, nothing else. It is a FACT political interventions do not improve nothing but lives of politicians. No matter how many times NYT editor will repeat his lie, it will remain a lie. Economic theory vs. opinion pulled out of one`s ass that was proven wrong over and over many times in human history. It is your call.

To sum it all up - Mises institute, Cato, Fraser Institute fight this very propaganda and downright lies NYT and the likes spew every day. The left has nothing to show for their ideology other than destoryed lives of millions in their quest for social egalitarianism and forcing their own will upon everyone else. The article you posted shows that this fight is far from over.

[Flame Of Liberty]

To further prove my point, here`s a report about how media (Canadian in this case) downright lie in their opinion articles. And it is not one or two articles, but almost every single medium out there. This case is about health care, but it applies on social security themes as well.


The Media`s Private Health Care Scare

A SPECIAL CANSTATS REPORT, JULY 30, 2002

COMPARING clinical outcomes of private versus public health-care delivery has received scant public attention in Canada. Most of the debate has concentrated on public medicine’s relative economic performance, cost-containment strategies, and administration. But when a study appeared in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on May 28, 2002 purportedly “the first of its kind” to contrast risk-adjusted mortality rates in private for-profit and private non-profit hospitals across a vast patient population, journalists jumped on the story.

What follows is a retrospective analysis of how the media covered this influential study.

That the implications of this study were so badly misunderstood and exaggerated by the media should put Canadian journalists, policy makers, and the general public on guard. As this case study demonstrates, the limitations on a study’s significance to a major public policy issue like health-care reform, even if those limitations are admitted in the journal article itself, can be elided or ignored altogether in subsequent media coverage.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jan 5 2005, 02:38 PM
It is a FACT political interventions do not improve nothing but lives of politicians

What? That's pretty jaded, why not tear down the government along with Social Security, and truly allow each to fend for themselves, hmm?

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 7 2005, 11:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 7 2005, 11:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Jan 5 2005, 02:38 PM
It is a FACT political interventions do not improve nothing but lives of politicians

What? That's pretty jaded, why not tear down the government along with Social Security, and truly allow each to fend for themselves, hmm? [/b][/quote]
I am in favour of a small government, but not no government

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jan 7 2005, 06:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jan 7 2005, 06:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Jan 5 2005, 02:38 PM
It is a FACT political interventions do not improve nothing but lives of politicians

What? That's pretty jaded, why not tear down the government along with Social Security, and truly allow each to fend for themselves, hmm? [/b][/quote]
Actually, I think that's what Flame of Liberty is saying.

Cowperson