Moderator: Peak Moderation
Now don't get snippy.stevecook172001 wrote:who said anything about handouts? Get your head out of your ideological arse.
Look VT, when we have a system where, if someone puts in a full day's work, they are paid sufficient to put a basic but decent roof over their head, enough to feed their families, enough to pay their other unavoidable bills, when there is equal access to social care and healthcare and when there is equal and equitable access to education and, finally, where everyone is guaranteed a job that pays at least the above; when all of the above is true, only then can you come out with talk about "handouts". Only then would it be legitimate to talk about withholding resources from people if, for example, they were able to work, there was the work available and paid enough and they refused to do it.vtsnowedin wrote:Now don't get snippy.stevecook172001 wrote:who said anything about handouts? Get your head out of your ideological arse.
If you distribute wealth equitably then it fallows that some will have done more to receive their share then some others, as human variation in ability and effort applied cannot be overcome by any set of rules or distribution scheme. That is reality and nothing you can say or propose will overcome it.
Did you even read, much less consider what I posted? The problem is that there are in fact some people who will not show up and put in a full days work. Guaranteeing them a good paying job is a waste of money. Equal opportunity is one thing. Equal results is another and quite impossible to do and efforts towards that end are futile.stevecook172001 wrote:Look VT, when we have a system where, if someone puts in a full day's work, they are paid sufficient to put a basic but decent roof over their head, enough to feed their families, enough to pay their other unavoidable bills, when there is equal access to social care and healthcare and when there is equal and equitable access to education and, finally, where everyone is guaranteed a job that pays at least the above; when all of the above is true, only then can you come out with talk about "handouts". Only then would it be legitimate to talk about withholding resources from people if, for example, they were able to work, there was the work available and paid enough and they refused to do it.vtsnowedin wrote:Now don't get snippy.stevecook172001 wrote:who said anything about handouts? Get your head out of your ideological arse.
If you distribute wealth equitably then it fallows that some will have done more to receive their share then some others, as human variation in ability and effort applied cannot be overcome by any set of rules or distribution scheme. That is reality and nothing you can say or propose will overcome it.
Until then, what you have come out with, above, is mindless right wing bollocks that has obviously been inculcated into you from childhood such that you are quite unable to understand how ridiculous it sounds.
Past experience here in the UK from about 1945 to 1960, most definitely YES. The government in those days was certainly what people in the USA today would call "socialist" (as, indeed, was FDR's governmentvtsnowedin wrote:You think that a socialist government will be better able to deal with the coming shortages in energy supply? Very naive considering past experience with socialist governments.stevecook172001 wrote:If they are not overtly socialist, no. If they are overly socialist, maybe.vtsnowedin wrote: Do you think any government in the UK, no-mater how competent, will be able to avoid such things post peak?
). There was a desperate shortage of all sorts of things just after the war, housing, energy and food included. As far as I know, it didn't kill anyone...at least, if it did, that wasn't deliberate on the part of government.Bit of a tricky one... You can argue that society needs the cleaners just as much as senior consultants at a hospital; yet consultants do take certain risks undertaking surgery on patients and planning follow up care and the like, as well as undergoing all those years of university and on the job training.vtsnowedin wrote:Now don't get snippy.stevecook172001 wrote:who said anything about handouts? Get your head out of your ideological arse.
If you distribute wealth equitably then it fallows that some will have done more to receive their share then some others, as human variation in ability and effort applied cannot be overcome by any set of rules or distribution scheme. That is reality and nothing you can say or propose will overcome it.
I sort of agree with this, but straight forward "wealth distribution" won't work. Treating all labour as equal value can though, as in an hour of the surgeons labour is no more valuable than the farmers. Sure, for many years of study the surgeon relied on the farmer to grow his food for him, and therefore the surgeon needs to "repay" the farmers labour, but it does not mean that the surgeons labour is worth 5 times more than the sod-kickers for the rest of the surgeons life. I reckon the surgeon should get "double time" for the same number of years as he was learning, then revert back to equal labour rates thereafter. Also, one should only be able to claim for "hours of quality work", not for "hours" sleeping on the back stairs while "on the job".Bit of a tricky one... You can argue that society needs the cleaners just as much as senior consultants at a hospital; yet consultants do take certain risks undertaking surgery on patients and planning follow up care and the like, as well as undergoing all those years of university and on the job training.
When I started writing that I was going to use cleaners at an office of JP Morgan and comparing them with the bankers who worked there but realised that I would get shot down!
Being a surgeon or a banker is more fun than being a cleaner, so the cleaner needs more 'compensation', as they say across 't pond.bigjim wrote: Bit of a tricky one... You can argue that society needs the cleaners just as much as senior consultants at a hospital; yet consultants do take certain risks undertaking surgery on patients and planning follow up care and the like, as well as undergoing all those years of university and on the job training.
When I started writing that I was going to use cleaners at an office of JP Morgan and comparing them with the bankers who worked there but realised that I would get shot down!
There is also supply and demand to consider. The number of people qualified to do a cleaners job is quite large where those qualified to do surgery quite small. If you raise cleaners wages you will have an over supply of them and if you restrict surgeons wages you will get a drastic shortage of them.biffvernon wrote:Being a surgeon or a banker is more fun than being a cleaner, so the cleaner needs more 'compensation', as they say across 't pond.bigjim wrote: Bit of a tricky one... You can argue that society needs the cleaners just as much as senior consultants at a hospital; yet consultants do take certain risks undertaking surgery on patients and planning follow up care and the like, as well as undergoing all those years of university and on the job training.
When I started writing that I was going to use cleaners at an office of JP Morgan and comparing them with the bankers who worked there but realised that I would get shot down!
The laws on grain were to have a more enduring effect on the history of Rome. From at least the time of the fourth century B.C., the Roman government bought supplies of corn or wheat in times of shortage and resold them to the people at a low fixed price. Under the tribune Caius Gracchus the Lex Sempronia Frumentaria was adopted, which allowed every Roman citizen the right to buy a certain amount of wheat at an official price much lower than the market price. In 58 B.C. this law was "improved" to allow every citizen free wheat. The result, of course, came as a surprise to the government. Most of the farmers remaining in the countryside simply left to live in Rome without working.
Slaves were freed by their masters so that they, as Roman citizens, could be supported by the state. In 45 B.C., Julius Caesar discovered that almost one citizen in three was receiving his wheat at government expense. He managed to reduce this number by about half, but it soon rose again; throughout the centuries of the empire, Rome was to be perpetually plagued with this problem of artificially low prices for grain, which caused economic dislocations of all sorts.[2]
http://mises.org/daily/3498
Well said!biffvernon wrote:And so say all those who think they would be on the downside of the income redistribution.vtsnowedin wrote:income redistribution will not work now.
