[Shaved Monkey]

The problem is one of scale. People tend to make bad assumptions when they figure out who can pay for what.
Which is why we can't afford this or any of the plethora of Socialist wet dreams being proposed. The country is sliding into poverty any way you look at it. This is "slow crash", aka the beginning of the Long Emergency.
Speculate as you will about this or other Socialist ideals. But there is no money for any of it.

The money is in the police, courts and prisons.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The problem is one of scale. People tend to make bad assumptions when they figure out who can pay for what.

In 2015, according to the latest government figures, the economy grew only 2.4%. That is almost exactly the same as the real inflation rate (much larger than official figures).

In fact, inflation during the last decade is 20.1% by government figures, and over 50% in real terms. Which means that unless you are earning some extraordinary rate of return, your nest egg is shrinking not growing (in purchasing power).

Which is why we can't afford this or any of the plethora of Socialist wet dreams being proposed.

KJ, you're a smart guy. Even though I don't always agree with your ideas, you use logic, etc.

Can you help me out here?

You say (as do very many folks) that the real (i.e. "true", I presume) inflation rate is "much higher than official figures", yet you cite nothing to back that up. Where do I look to find the "real" inflation rate, or at least something better than the official figures? Does the place you cite have a specific methodology and demonstrable objective data to back up their claims that inflation is "much higher"?

(I see people claiming this virtually every week on the internet, but not knowing whether they are just spouting emotion, some series of random blogger sites, or hopefully something much better, I find it hard not to dismiss such claims. Since you're making them, I am sincerely hoping you can educate me on the evidence).

I agree we generally can't afford the endless list of "stuff for free" programs the far left proposes. They tend to lack an ability to comprehend the scale of available money the way the far right tends to lack the ability to give credit to the success of the scientific method and the data it produces.

However, I'd like to point something out (which the far left tends to HATE). The assumption that the middle and lower classes are growing ever poorer due to income not keeping up is questionable. This ignores the fact that for a great many products that enhance the quality of life and (to some extent) define what middle class is, the products have gotten so much cheaper AND better that for a tiny amount of, say, 1970 real dollars, families can (and do) buy a TREMENDOUS amount of consumer goods they couldn't even buy 50 years ago. Microwave ovens is a classic example. (Reference: the book "Myths of Rich and Poor" by Michael Cox and Richard Alm.

Especially now that the ACA heavily subsizes medical care for "the poor", the idea that "the poor just can't keep up" despite all the social programs and how products have changed, doesn't really hold up. (Not being able to afford the latest and greatest of everything is FAR different than not being able to be comfortable, much less survive).

[dohboi]

"they do own a route around their territory that they pass over"

Subj, that sure sounds like a projection of your own ideas of ownership onto what was likely a fundamentally different mindset. I would put my body between anyone who was trying to harm my students and my class. That doesn't mean I think I own my students.

But we are generally so entrenched in the predominant value system that our imaginations can't even conceive that people might have a fundamentally different world view that we do. That is our fate. The world is mostly collapsing around us because we lack the imagination to conceive of another way.

We are mostly dying (and killing the world in the process) from poverty of the imagination.

For most of the rest, I am mostly with SG, SM and ol, who are expressing themselves much better than I could right now on the subject.

[SeaGypsy]

In remote areas of Oceania which I am familiar with, the most 'primitive' in PNG & nearby, there is definitely a sense of individual ownership over very specific 'objects' with the importance given them directly proportionate to the owner's life depending on that object. Example, you can be travelling along a main footway in the highlands & pick a mango off the side of the track- when, not if, the mango tree's owner tracks you down, if you are a foreigner they will give you a severe dressing down & demand 3-5 times normal price for the stolen fruit. A local would either pay or get a severe clubbing. Yet the land itself is Commons. On the other hand, when a natural superabundance occurred, tribal disputes would be held under treaty while everyone got a gutser. The ownership appears to be directly related back to the effort of the nurterer of the plant or animal in it's infancy or seedling phase. Definitely a very different but quite practicable, having been the norm in this region for the 'primitive agricultural societies'. The nomadic aboriginal systems are very different again, with ownership being all about position in the social pyramid.

[KaiserJeep]

KJ, you're a smart guy. Even though I don't always agree with your ideas, you use logic, etc.

Can you help me out here?

You say (as do very many folks) that the real (i.e. "true", I presume) inflation rate is "much higher than official figures", yet you cite nothing to back that up. Where do I look to find the "real" inflation rate, or at least something better than the official figures? Does the place you cite have a specific methodology and demonstrable objective data to back up their claims that inflation is "much higher"?

(I see people claiming this virtually every week on the internet, but not knowing whether they are just spouting emotion, some series of random blogger sites, or hopefully something much better, I find it hard not to dismiss such claims. Since you're making them, I am sincerely hoping you can educate me on the evidence).

I agree we generally can't afford the endless list of "stuff for free" programs the far left proposes. They tend to lack an ability to comprehend the scale of available money the way the far right tends to lack the ability to give credit to the success of the scientific method and the data it produces.

However, I'd like to point something out (which the far left tends to HATE). The assumption that the middle and lower classes are growing ever poorer due to income not keeping up is questionable. This ignores the fact that for a great many products that enhance the quality of life and (to some extent) define what middle class is, the products have gotten so much cheaper AND better that for a tiny amount of, say, 1970 real dollars, families can (and do) buy a TREMENDOUS amount of consumer goods they couldn't even buy 50 years ago. Microwave ovens is a classic example. (Reference: the book "Myths of Rich and Poor" by Michael Cox and Richard Alm.

Especially now that the ACA heavily subsizes medical care for "the poor", the idea that "the poor just can't keep up" despite all the social programs and how products have changed, doesn't really hold up. (Not being able to afford the latest and greatest of everything is FAR different than not being able to be comfortable, much less survive).

To me, the true inflation rate is apparent from personal experience. I have lived 64+ years so far.

In 1967 when I started driving, gas was $0.18/gal. Today it is $3.59 and has been as high as $5.65 in the past couple of years. Call it 3140% inflation in 49 years.

In 1958, I remember buying fresh white bread at a bakery for $0.05 a one pound loaf. Today I paid $2.99, call it 5989% inflation in 58 years.

I remember when new Jeeps were below $1000 and I could not afford one - today they are $40,000, call it 4000% inflation in 50 years.

I remember when comic books had 44 pages and cost $0.07 each. Today a less entertaining "graphic novel", about the same size, is $17.99, call it 25,700% inflation in 50 years.

I remember candy bars for $0.05 that were larger than the $0.99 ones they sell today. Call that 2000% inflation in 40 years.

I could go on and on - but understand that the COLA (cost of living adjustment) used to adjust government dole programs excludes the cost of fuel and food - it measures only durable goods and housing and clothing and sundries - does that seem right to you?

I did not "cherry pick" my statistics - there just are not that many things I remember buying 50 years ago, along with prices.

I understood the value of money in the 1960's, and (judging by the prices I remember and can compare) The 1965 dollar is worth about 100X what the 2015 dollar is worth in purchasing power. But by the official Federal Bureau of Labor statistics, the 1965 dollar has 7.317X the purchasing power of today's dollar.

Remember that inflation compounds the same way bank interest does - you don't add up the figures over the years - you multiply. Which is why the BOL statistics tell you that after a decade of <1% inflation, total inflation is 20% - and I would place it at 50% myself. And since I started noticing the value of money in the 1950's, true inflation seems to be about 10,000%.

You really can't call it any closer than that - as you correctly pointed out, we spend money on very different things today. Digital technology in particular can be considered a second industrial revolution, due to the productivity increase it affords over manual and mechanical systems. The cost of a comfortable life is indeed lower today - but I believe that currency inflation is still robbing us of the quality of life enjoyed by our parents.

[SeaGypsy]

How 'smart' KJ (not). How much were wages when everything was 7 cents? Nonce. & what about your welfare solution? Drongo.

[KaiserJeep]

Inflation affects wages and prices both. The essence of the change is best expressed by "purchasing power" - what you can trade the currency for. Furthermore, there are regional variations - I have lived in Silicon Valley for 40 years, come August. Prices and wages are high here - relative to the rest of the USA. There are a few places, Silicon Valley and New York City and Nantucket Island among them, where real estate still appreciates. In the MidWest where I am moving, houses are losing about 6% per year in value - and a lot more if you consider that the dollars are inflating - losing purchasing power - as well.

I am more fortunate than most, because I own outright real estate in both Silicon Valley and Nantucket. It is my only slender hope of a comfortable retirement - I will not ever see my retirement funds grow in purchasing power, because the currency is inflating faster than the relatively poor choices of investment options I have are compounding. It made sense to be in the company retirement plan when they matched every dollar I contributed - but now the plan seems full of poor investment options when I no longer contribute. But the government will soak me big time if I take the money out - and somehow the company forgot to make a "gold coins to hide under the mattress" investment option.

It is all simple arithmetic. I don't understand why so many people screw it up. Currency is elastic, it inflates and deflates constantly. I was fortunate to have continuous employment for 44 years, more or less. But I was never able to move out of the 1100 square foot home I bought in 1986, either - but I can sell it for 8X what I paid, even though I took cash out about three times with mortgage refinances.

But note that I paid off the loan and am now debt free - after buying an education for both the wife and kid - and that after paying off my own education loans. All I had to do was live in a place infested with Liberals, for 39+ years. But nobody gave me anything, I worked for it all.

[SeaGypsy]

In other words, "Me, Me, look at ME?" Like a delinquent 13 year old. Guess it all fits with believing your kids have a ticket for the space doughnut. Onya mate for being willing to work so hard to buy THAT! Wow! Just wow ...

[Subjectivist]

"they do own a route around their territory that they pass over"

Subj, that sure sounds like a projection of your own ideas of ownership onto what was likely a fundamentally different mindset. I would put my body between anyone who was trying to harm my students and my class. That doesn't mean I think I own my students.

But we are generally so entrenched in the predominant value system that our imaginations can't even conceive that people might have a fundamentally different world view that we do. That is our fate. The world is mostly collapsing around us because we lack the imagination to conceive of another way.

We are mostly dying (and killing the world in the process) from poverty of the imagination.

For most of the rest, I am mostly with SG, SM and ol, who are expressing themselves much better than I could right now on the subject.

You are a smart guy Dohboi, why don't you look up an Anthropologist at your school and ask them?

[onlooker]

A lack of imagination and a lack of controlling our more baser instincts that compels us to acquire, to attain status, to attain power, to do and feel what feels good even if it is not desirable ultimately. Has not humanity acted like spoiled children with this incredible fossil fuel bounty. Children are characterized by acting on their impulses and instincts. Our species is young. Perhaps some day we may evolve beyond our maturation stage.

[KaiserJeep]

In other words, "Me, Me, look at ME?" Like a delinquent 13 year old. Guess it all fits with believing your kids have a ticket for the space doughnut. Onya mate for being willing to work so hard to buy THAT! Wow! Just wow ...

Inflation bites everybody, from you and me to Warren Buffet and the 50.1% of the US citizens on the government dole. Since the US dollar is the World's reserve currency, you owe it to yourself to figure out periodically whether you are winning or losing the battle to care for you and your descendants. I'm retired, and frankly paying more attention to such things than when I was working.

The primary problem is government budgets and spending, growing like there is no tomorrow in the service of the Oligarchs. You and I labored our entire lives to enrich somebody we don't even know - whose real assets are not currency for the most part, but ownership of the means of production.

Guess what - those mysterious figures will not be taking care of you and yours - you have to do that yourself, or die. Just the facts of life, and no matter what words you type into this thread, you will not change those facts, ever.

[Revi]

From Wikipedia on "mincome":

"She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[7] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[8][9]"

I find that the kids who have to work in my school sometimes don't graduate, and those with the means to play sports, etc. are the ones who go to college. It is creating an underclass, but what's new about that?

[dohboi]

Funny you should mention it, S. I was just reminded, in another context, of Cronon's Changes in the Land , where he discusses the difference between traditional practices of usufruct versus Western ideas of land ownership. It's a good read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_in_the_Land

[ralfy]

Reminds me of the argument that in the long run people will have to form small communities and work on needed skills.

[evilgenius]

I think the basic idea behind asking the question in the first place isn't so much to enter into a debate concerning the ethical construct behind transfer payments. I think what they are getting at is the idea that people are selfish, and won't, theoretically, engage in altruism unless they have first met their selfish concerns, chief amongst them being rent and food. I'd actually like to challenge that assumption. I'd like to say that, if we are ever going to get anywhere, people have to engage the same ethics before they satisfy their selfish needs as after.

You only have to understand the power of marketing a little in order to get that it has the power to convince people that they require novelty. They must have this new thing that is presented to them. If everybody else is doing or using it, then I have to as well. It looks shiny. Man, is that a beautiful thing!

I've said in other places that democracy exists in the Developed West as under a system of rights. Just like traffic is ruled by things like right of way, so too there are primal things that underlie these rights. We don't allow slavery because it took us a long time to understand that the individual has inalienable dignity. We are working toward equal pay for equal work because a similar understanding concerning gender is working its way through our interactions.

And, just like driving again, very many of the problems we have are due to how we act selfishly every day toward each other. After all, though, we do live under a capitalist structure as well as a democratic one. Capitalism is about competition, isn't it? Yeah, but what competition do you know that can go on as a going concern if it doesn't have any rules? Yet, so many of the rules we live by are unwritten. Being that way each one of us is free to emphasize whichever ones we think are important, and either give lip service to or ignore those we don't. Many of us are also pretty good at making up new rules that don't really make any sense except to them, or their selfish interests.

Then too, like traffic again, we can tend toward behaving in ways that are blatantly against the rules, but everybody does them so what's the big deal? What's wrong with stomping on the gas pedal when the light turns yellow? Aw, come on, I can too fit on the turn arrow, it only went from yellow to no arrow a half-second ago. What's wrong with me tailgating those people who I think are too slow, and everyone is too slow? What do you mean I should turn my head every time I make a lane change? I have how many taillights out? Racism is like this. Sexism is like this. Oppressing workers is like this. There are rules against all of these things within our societies(both written and unwritten), but there is also the way we behave collectively, either to tow the line or fudge the rules.

Trying to say that there is some kind of understood pass for our bad behavior until we satisfy our selfish needs is anathema to the conversation. Our understanding of rights has only ever been increasing.

What we really lack is proper management. Our politicians are beholden to too many special interest groups and are not free to act according to the public's true interests. Neither are the people free to form their own notions of what is really going on. There is no serviceable framework to address daily grievances, either, that are expressed through behavior or complaint. Nobody wants to listen to the mountain of dissatisfaction that some things generate every day. And, yet, it is those things, like poorly signed or designed intersections, which, in many cases, lead to so many of our bad behaviors.

[onlooker]

I think what Evil is saying can also be understood via the Tragedy of the Commons. Which states: The tragedy of the commons is a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole by depleting some common resource. So establishing a framework for the common good either via rules and rights is fine and needed. Yet it will not work if individuals do not accept and comply with this value and ethics system. It is all too common throughout history to see individuals, groups and societies acting selfishly in their own interest without due deference to the interests of others. To me it is the one overriding intractable problem in the human makeup and in our stage of evolution as a species. I suspect that to do so must involve an enlightened, just and all encompassing code of ethics that society must strictly enforce and adhere to without exception.

[evilgenius]

I don't think it can be that strict. I used the traffic metaphor for a reason, to illustrate how we can be non-compliant and the whole thing still goes on. Yes, there are accidents. And when they do happen there are almost always habits that went into causing them. Management is how we can properly address getting people to both perceive and address their bad habits, before something happens. Although management is beyond that, of course. It is about recognizing where we are going, for instance, with our way of building huge apartment blocks that stretch on for miles without them also containing a single place to buy anything you might want to have in your refrigerator.

Management should be about seeing the catch-22's that so many people live under. How there are too many fast food and liquor stores approved in poor areas. How poor people and minorities who get things like lead paint settlements, and are therefore by the very nature mentally incapacitated, can then be set upon by those who offer them pennies on the dollar now in return for somebody else getting the settlement's payments over time. How developers in local areas often run for and land on town or county council, and proceed to enable a develop at all costs agenda. How a group of politicians can allow a big box store to come in without properly evaluating the impact it will have on established local businesses. How big boxes can use that to maneuver a reliance upon their operations, tax subsidized all the way, with the intention of eventually pulling out so that they can sweep a much broader service area containing many small towns into one single operation that everyone now has to drive many more miles to. These and many more.

[ennui2]

Think of if this way. If you spend years trying to grow a chestnut tree to swap out your annual carbs with perennials and some drunk douchebag comes along on New Year's eve and decides to chop it down for shits and giggles. With billions of people on the planet there's just a very low tolerance for error. Natural systems are slow and easily damaged, like a Jenga puzzle. You'd have to have a truly brutal dictatorship to make sure nothing gets disturbed.

[Subjectivist]

Think of if this way. If you spend years trying to grow a chestnut tree to swap out your annual carbs with perennials and some drunk douchebag comes along on New Year's eve and decides to chop it down for shits and giggles. With billions of people on the planet there's just a very low tolerance for error. Natural systems are slow and easily damaged, like a Jenga puzzle. You'd have to have a truly brutal dictatorship to make sure nothing gets disturbed.

There is a lot of truth in this, though I believe a strict cultural ethic could be as effective as a police state in achieving the protection needed. Take Japan for an example, even huge cities like Tokyo are very clean by western standards. Why? Because f an average resident sees a piece of trash on the street they pick it up and put it in a garbage can. In an American city very few people would do that, and some would seek to kick over the garbage cans and make matters worse. It's a cultural thing.

[ennui2]

I don't see any sort of movement on that cultural ethic. Permaculture has not penetrated the mainstream despite decades of promotion from the fringe. Culture evolves too slowly to meet the challenges we're facing.