the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Social Security is basically there for people who lack the foresight to plan for their retirement. The govt is not the only entity capable of handling your retirement funds reliably, in fact it's probably the least reliable option. Some here seem to forget how many promises the govt has made and broken over the years.

No it is not. It is an alternative insurance scheme that exists for the same reason that other insurance schemes exist. But it has a major advantage in that its compulsory nature allows it to avoid adverse selection (a big problem for insurance companies). There is simply no better method of assuring that the elderly do not end up in poverty and die early. Market schemes are prone to leaving out significant portions of the population, and unlike you, most people don't like the idea of elderly people dying in shacks. That is something that people are prepared to pay for as long as everyone else pays for it too.

You show me some other scheme that will have such widespread benefits for the elderly.

If SS had never been implimented, the elderly who were too stupid to put money aside for their retirement would deserve what they get.

What about those whose investments go bad through no fault of their own? What about people who are too poor to be able to afford insurance?

This is completely silly. What you are essentially saying is that we should replace a system that keeps the elderly in reasonable shape with nothing. A market system simply won't provide sufficient funds for enough people to make things better than the social security scheme does. You show me a market system that will do what social security does.

Unfortunately we are now stuck with a system that has encouraged years of govt dependency. Now it's a part of our culture to expect the govt to take care of you.

This is risible. And you say you come from New Zealand. Frankly, when I was growing up there we had the most generous welfare state in the world, and almost everybody worked. The only reason people don't work is that there are no good jobs.

And in the case of the elderly this is even sillier. They are too old to work, so they will be dependent on something, be it public or private insurance. There really isn't any difference here except that the government is organizing the insurance scheme rather than a private company.

People complain that the government may suffer from inefficiency in providing SS, but that ignores the fact that even if it is not as good as it could be, it is still providing a service that the market will not provide.

[Q Classic]

and still you're completely ignoring the meaning of that proverb, which, by the way, has very little to do with marriage in this context.

[Q Classic]

just because the market does not support something does not mean the government should step up to provide it.

or do you like the corporate bailouts that are given by the government ?

[chequita guevara]

I'm having more fun picking it apart than paying attention to a platitude which does not apply. Just because you believe the liberatarian claptrap doesn't mean it has a basis in reality.

[Q Classic]

libertarian claptrap has about as much validity as marxist claptrap. one is based off of self-interest, ignoring altruism, and the other is not, ignoring selfish behavior.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
public health care is cheaper? sorta. less upfront cost, higher taxes.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this again. Taxes just represent the portion of economic activity that we choose to do through the state rather than the market. In the case of health care the state can provide it more cheaply and more efficiently than private insurance (no Canadian will swap their system for the US system). It doesn't have nearly as much bureaucratic overheads as multiple insurance schemes and it doesn't suffer from adverse selection, because everyone is selected automatically.

If I'm an average person I can pay for my health care either through private insurance or public taxation. For some people private insurance would be cheaper, but for most people the public system works out cheaper. And in terms of percentage of GDP spent on health care versus results - Canada and other countries with public health care simply spank the US system. The same goes for education and a host of things states provide because markets would fail to provide them.

more efficient? ever been to the dmv? and it's my understanding that in canada, you do have to wait quite a while to get some things done..

Not really. The system here is quite good, although people do complain. But is it better that overall that some people get things done right away, and others never get anything done; or that everyone gets things done in a reasonable amount of time.

You can't compare the US. Government services are ridiculously underfunded there, so of course service will be lousy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
libertarian claptrap has about as much validity as marxist claptrap.

Actually, it has much less. Liberterianism are a bunch of ideas that someone made up, with very little relation to the real world. Marxism is the result of applied science and decades of study. This is why Marxism is still considered a useful analytical tool in sociology, anthropology, economic, politial science, and history. Libertarianism, on the other hand, despite having proponents, isn't.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, it has much less. Liberterianism are a bunch of ideas that someone made up, with very little relation to the real world. Marxism is the result of applied science and decades of study. This is why Marxism is still considered a useful analytical tool in sociology, anthropology, economic, politial science, and history. Libertarianism, on the other hand, despite having proponents, isn't.

That's because Libertarianism is strictly a moral thesis, about what is right and wrong. It has nothing to do with empirical science of any form.

That's why they're such a bunch of dreamers. All Libertarians should read Hobbes. In fact, everyone should read Hobbes. he explains exactly why we need a coercive state apparatus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But isn't Hobbes merely a theorist .

He wasn't acting out. He was doing it for about five years, well before Bush became his boss.

Without permission. Maybe he should have simply been reprimanded, but firing is not out of line.

read it before you condemn it.

His superiors are accusing him of a raft of misbehaviors -- including "abusing his authority" and "failing to follow instructions." But as far as he's concerned, the reason he's facing dismissal is very simple: He's been in hot water since January 2001 -- when Bush administration officials took control of the Martin County Coal investigation.

Ah yes, so he was abusing authority and not following instructions, but it's all evil Bush's fault.... sure .

Especially since he's in the Department of Labor, where most of the people in the upper levels are Democrats who have been in the organization for decades. Sorry, don't buy it.

[DinoDoc]

I could do a better job saving my own money for retirement than the government is doing. (That's a big one for me.) If I had someone investing my money that did as crappy job as the SS "trust fund," I'd fire them fairly quickly.

[MrFun]

exactly, DD

[chequita guevara]

And you both miss the point.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I could do a better job saving my own money for retirement than the government is doing. (That's a big one for me.)

Yes, that is true. But if everyone did this, the overall results would be worse, since not everyone has the same resources or income as you.

Again, show me some way in which we could address poverty among the elderly that is better than social security. Private insurance markets won't work, because many people will be left out and many more will be paying more than they need to because of the typical problems that plague private insurance schemes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
just because the market does not support something does not mean the government should step up to provide it?

If it's something that people really need and can be done cheaper, then it would be completely stupid for the government to sit on its backside.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And you both miss the point.

We see your point -- we just counter-point with our disagreements.