Subject:
|
Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:14:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2750 times
|
| |
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > My stance on this is surely colored by the history of the US, but I feel
> > that the primary reason that I live in the greatest nation in the world
> > is the melting pot effect. I would be completely open to allowing
> > anyone who wanted a fair shake to come live and work in the US. Today,
> > that might not work because we have a minimum wage and welfare, but in
> > the ideal world, we'd have neither and it would be a good thing for our
> > country and the world.
>
> Maybe it'd be a good thing for the country or the world -- but not
> necessarily for the individual voter. Anyway, we currently get enough
> non-economic refugees here in .nl that it severely skews the
> population count -- and in some cases we're talking here about people
> who don't even make a concerted effort to learn the language, but
> instead prefer to sit around hoping someone will feed them.
Right, but you've set yourselves up for that. By having all those
friendly social programs, you paint a great big target on your chest.
My grandfather expatriated to Australia from the US basically because it
would be easier to live on the dole. He was a writer, you see, and
couldn't do lesser work. So the Australian government kept him busy
writing stuff for subsistance wages that no market would have paid for.
If no one fed your refugees the problem would clear up in a couple of
ways. They'd stop comming. And, they'd die off or work.
> On a micro-scale, you can see the same thing happening in the majority
> of third-world countries. Only there it's the trek from the
> countryside to the cities. The result? Vast slums, health problems, as
> well as depopulation problems on the surrounding country. Not pretty.
Why do they do it? If it weren't better for them, do you suppose they
would continue to do it?
> The US could do that in the beginning of its lifetime because there
> were vast empty (well, after the cavalry came they were empty, anyway)
> swathes of land to be settled.
Even if we hadn't butchered and concentrated the natives, you could
still call the land essentially empty. I think the US could still do
it. And should.
> I don't know how the subsidies are handled near you, but the Eu does
> it like this: they guarantee farmers a 'subsistance price' for their
> produce (IOW, if you can't sell it for more than this, you can sell it
All kinds of produce? What if the market decides that gourds are
unpopular food (duh!) and a farmer could (ie the population wants more)
make more on muskmellon, but farmer X feels like planting gourds anyway.
Is the farmer subsidized for useless gourd production?
> to us), and if they have to buy stuff they either use it to feed the
> armies, feed the third-world poor, or sell it off, depending on whim
Yum! I'd like to be a European soldier when the gourd soup MREs come
down the pike.
> AFAICT. Apart from "what you do with it afterwards", I quite like the
> system.
It still seems wasteful. Is the philosophy behind it 'we need to pay
this to keep an agricultural infrastructure in case of war' or is it 'we
need to pay this to keep those poor gourd farmers living high on the
hog?' Out of curiosity, what do you think should be done with it afterward?
> > I think 'people' in the aggregate are better off with free trade. I
> > think that is black and white. But, there are many who would be 'hurt'
> > changing from the current system to a free one.
>
> How about regulatory tariffs, like tabacco, alcohol, and gas, to name
> the three most wellknown ones?
Well, what do you mean? I _think_ I think so in those cases too. In
the case of gasoline, there are issues of how to pay for environmental
damages and are taxes of some kind the best way. I'm not sure. Of the
systems I've heard, a surcharge per gallon (or litre) is best because
it's a user fee. A tax on owning a car is evil. Regarding tobacco and
alcohol, I just don't see any reason for tarrifs or taxes at all.
> > How is it irrelevant? When I was 20, I worked at a mid-sized custom
> > photo lab as a dark-room technician. Minimum wage went up and two kids
> > got canned. I should have, but my work was too good - or so I was told.
>
> Minimum wage in principle is good. Setting it too high is bad. Minimum
> wage should be a (preferably area-adjusted) _minimum_ living
> condition.
Minimum by whose standard? There were latinos in Chicago where I worked
who were willing to live with sixteen people in a two bedroom apartment.
That is well below the standard that we normally think of as minimal,
but well above being homeless. And with a little care, they could
probably keep that healthy. If that's what minimum wage did, I wouldn't
be starkly offended by it, I would only be morally outraged ;-) I think
it's a wrong thing to regulate, but I think most of the damage comes
from people getting more than they're worth.
> Cause, well, I'd rather see somebody starve fast than slow, if they
> have to starve. Less chance of them taking up criminal lifestyle.
I guess I think that's pretty poor reason to impose government regulations.
> > A little right wing. Not a whole lot. We might be fairly right wing by
> > European standards, but not the rest of the world - as I understand things.
>
> Discounting the undemocratic nations.. the average democratic nation
> is fairly left wing, AFAICT. China... Russia is going back to the
> communists... etc.
>
> If you count Pol Pot and Ceaucescu, why yes, the US is downright
> liberal.
OK, good. Now we're on the same sheet of music. Democracy (such as
we've enacted it) is a fairly liberal notion of how things should be run
anyway. And it's inherently flawed. We can do better.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| (...) Yes, I know. I really do. But it's not just the dole. It's also generally the better economic climate. (...) If the government stopped feeding them, they would be fed by charities. Maybe. At least, that's what the libertarians keep telling me. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| (...) Maybe it'd be a good thing for the country or the world -- but not necessarily for the individual voter. Anyway, we currently get enough non-economic refugees here in .nl that it severely skews the population count -- and in some cases we're (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
