The Social Contract?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um.. no it isn't. Like you said, Marx never saw the rise of the middle class, which destroys the entire theory.

Look at the stats... high debts and an aging population means that many social programs are in great peril... the trend has just started, but public spendings as a % of GDP is diminishing in most developed countries. Free and universal healthcare in SDs will be a thing of the past within 15 to 25 years.

You speak of the right selling the virtues of the market, but Bush has expanded spending more than Clinton did. The welfare state is here to say.

Yeah sure. What did he spend the money on? Social programs? And what dead horse have most American admins been banging on since the 90s (esp. the Repug ones)? free market... free trade=democracy... deregulation=freedom.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um.. no it isn't. Like you said, Marx never saw the rise of the middle class, which destroys the entire theory.

Incorrect. What Marx failed to forsee was welfare capitalism and the regulation of capital, that the state would protect the interests of capital even when capital was too greedy to agree to those necessary reforms.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at the stats... high debts and an aging population means that many social programs are in great peril... the trend has just started, but public spendings as a % of GDP is diminishing in most developed countries. Free and universal healthcare in SDs will be a thing of the past within 15 to 25 years.

Aging population is a transitory thing. I don't think everything will go into the ****ter because of one generation. Social Security, which has been running a surplus, will simply take from the general fund.

Public spending as a % of GDP is already too high in most places, over 50% in a lot of Europe.

Free and Universal HealthCare is going no where in most countries. Even though a lot of systems need huge reform.

What did he spend the money on? Social programs?

Um... YES! The Senior Prescription Drug plan is one of the biggest things he's spent money on, and the one that has gotten all the Conservatives in a tizzy. Also a good amount was spent in greater Medicare. He has spend more federal money on education than any other President, etc, etc.

And what dead horse have most American admins been banging on since the 90s (esp. the Repug ones)? free market... free trade=democracy... deregulation=freedom.

Obviously, you haven't been following why a lot of conservatives are unhappy with Bush, because he's moved away from a lot of it.

What Marx failed to forsee was welfare capitalism and the regulation of capital, that the state would protect the interests of capital even when capital was too greedy to agree to those necessary reforms.

Which comes about because the middle class decided to force it on the state. The welfare state didn't come before the middle class, it's the other way around. The rising middle class clamoured for things that would protect them as well.

[Kidlicious]

How many people know who the Hmong people are? The're South East Asians. They help the US in Vietnam so the US allows them all to immigrate to the US. For some reason they all come to Fresno. When they get here they suffer the most severe culture shock.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Aging population is a transitory thing. I don't think everything will go into the ****ter because of one generation. Social Security, which has been running a surplus, will simply take from the general fund.

Public spending as a % of GDP is already too high in most places, over 50% in a lot of Europe.

Ummm... the fact is that most SDs are still vastly imperfect and would need more money to function properly. Social spendings might be inefficient for the rich but they are terribly efficient for the poor, as constantly demonstrated by the lower crime rates, better accessibility to services, etc. So the fact that public spendings are diminishing in a nearly starved system shows that SDs are indeed in peril.

Of course you can't get to know all of that, because you just don't live in a SD.

Um... YES! The Senior Prescription Drug plan is one of the biggest things he's spent money on, and the one that has gotten all the Conservatives in a tizzy. Also a good amount was spent in greater Medicare. He has spend more federal money on education than any other President, etc, etc.

Wasn't the largest increase in the already superlative defense budget?

Obviously, you haven't been following why a lot of conservatives are unhappy with Bush, because he's moved away from a lot of it.

No, I've been following the actions of the biting falcons, and they are much more telling than the barking of old dogs. So what are NAFTA and FTAA about, the WTO, the IMF? When was the last time that America *suggested* that a country regulates trade, that it enacts protectionist policies? What's cool is that in international meetings we get to listen to the professional diplomats (who seem to be ignored at home) instead of the retarded politicians, and the "dialogue" is much more interesting.

So when do you expect the American conservatives to effectively force African countries to nationalize diamond mines and to stop talks around the FTAA?

Which comes about because the middle class decided to force it on the state. The welfare state didn't come before the middle class, it's the other way around. The rising middle class clamoured for things that would protect them as well.

Umm, no. The so-called "middle-class" was starving in the 30s when the first large-scale social programs were enacted. And the SDs of post-war Europe were built on ruined economies with borrowed money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the fact is that most SDs are still vastly imperfect and would need more money to function properly.

Not at all. In fact, I'd say they need less money. Their inefficient economies show that. After all they are Social Democracies, NOT Socialism. They need to get more efficient in their social programs, not more bureaucratic and wasteful.

Wasn't the largest increase in the already superlative defense budget?

The Iraq war was the costliest, but his social programs were a pretty penny.

When was the last time that America *suggested* that a country regulates trade, that it enacts protectionist policies?

Why should it tell countries to do stupid things?

So when do you expect the American conservatives to effectively force African countries to nationalize diamond mines and to stop talks around the FTAA?

Why would American conservatives become socialists? They are mad that Bush is pandering to the populists... why become them themselves?

The so-called "middle-class" was starving in the 30s when the first large-scale social programs were enacted. And the SDs of post-war Europe were built on ruined economies with borrowed money.

So the first welfare state provisions came about in the New Deal? I suggest you read up on the history of the Supreme Court and how they were striking down many state provisions which were welfare provisions based on Lochner. Yes it took the New Deal for the SCOTUS to reverse course, but the states were passing a lot of social welfare legislation in the 10s and 20s. Just because a lot of it got struck down doesn't mean that it didn't form the basis for the federal social programs.

IIRC, the states of Europe had an infant welfare state before WW2 (that's what happens when you have a paternalistic monarchy which is supposedly enlightened). Just because it wasn't a socialist welfare state didn't mean it didn't exist.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

This is what you anti-SSers don't get. It doesn't matter how much money there is. Even a fully funded pension system that magically required no input from current workers will still fail if there aren't enough young workers to support the economy as a whole. If one person is supporting two retirees, that is still the case whether the pension system is private or public. Either you have a demographics problem or you don't. Either there are enough people who are so productive that the economy can support a large non-working population or there aren't.

Unless we had a really bizarre ratio of old and infirm to workers this isn't true. If people had actual assets put aside over the years to pay for their retirement (whether in a completely private system, government regulated system, etc.) the system would work fine. The system would not require any inputs at all, as the assets necessary to support the elderly would already exist. The labor market would adjust itself accordingly (ie people who worked in gerentology would be in demand and have secure livelihoods, which would attract more people to the field), as would the capital markets (where more money would probably be invested overseas in markets which showed more promise for growth).

Note that this system is the one which works despite fairly wide swings in demographics. It's the pay for grandpa systems which suck wind whenever the birthrate drops or the average age increases.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
If people had actual assets put aside over the years to pay for their retirement (whether in a completely private system, government regulated system, etc.) the system would work fine. The system would not require any inputs at all, as the assets necessary to support the elderly would already exist.

This isn't actually true. Savings still require an input of living labor to be realized. Without new workers, savings evaporate in a vacuumme of inflation, stock prices fall, etc. As well, with more people invovled in caring for the elderly, less people are involved in productive labor, which further narrows the amount of input into the system, public or private. Unless productivity increases massively, you still have the same problem.

[Japher]

Unless productivity increases massively, you still have the same problem.

It has, and that is part of the problem being seen in the jobless rates.

As for setting aside money, that is all fine and dandy if you can keep up with the time value of money. Investing in gov' bonds and treasuries is not something the common man even thinks of. Educations on how to handle money are few and far betwee, and are usually self taught. Economics and CPAs only learn how to handle other ppls money.

Concer; health care will increase, especially in cases dealing with elderly, over the next couple decades. What about after that? What will happen to that industry and the economy when the baby boomers start dying off? We never think of that, we never think of the future. American's are too in to instant gratification.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This isn't actually true. Savings still require an input of living labor to be realized. Without new workers, savings evaporate in a vacuumme of inflation, stock prices fall, etc. As well, with more people invovled in caring for the elderly, less people are involved in productive labor, which further narrows the amount of input into the system, public or private. Unless productivity increases massively, you still have the same problem.

Yep. I think communists understand this better than most people.

[Japher]

You think communist have a greater understanding about productivity?

More manpower doesn't always equal more productivity.

I think the capitalist understands this more. Perhaps a commie capitalist would understand it the best.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Or at least a forward looking capitalist economist, Japher. You are totally correct about the viewpoints of most Americans.

[GePap]

Organized hierarchical societies have survived for thousands of years, and if anything have only become stronger and more organized with time. Liberterians are sad outsiders without much hope.

I think the capitalist understands this more. Perhaps a commie capitalist would understand it the best.

Wouldn't it be economist whyo understand it best?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
You think communist have a greater understanding about productivity?

Sometimes. 99% of commies don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, but this only means they're like 99% of the population.

More manpower doesn't always equal more productivity.

Correct-a-mundo

I think the capitalist understands this more.

Not really. Even begining Marxism discusses how this works. The problem is, most commies are Marxists in name only and maybe have only read The Communist Manefesto. It's not very easy to read his work, and even less easy to understand it. It's taken me years and it was only when I read Hegel that Marx suddenly opened before me.

Perhaps a commie capitalist would understand it the best.

The first review of Marx's Das Kapital was as a "how to manual" for the aspiring capitalist. He was, needless to say, much chagrined.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
If people had actual assets put aside over the years to pay for their retirement (whether in a completely private system, government regulated system, etc.) the system would work fine. The system would not require any inputs at all, as the assets necessary to support the elderly would already exist. The labor market would adjust itself accordingly (ie people who worked in gerentology would be in demand and have secure livelihoods, which would attract more people to the field)

You're making a lot of questionable assumptions. You assume that people can save assets for their retirement while they are working and that thiese assets will not suddenly disappear.

Yet, economic history shows this is unlikely. Before social security, people struggled to make ends meet. Many people never had a chance to save money.

Edit: and what Japher said.

In today's world, people's retirement savings have been savaged by stock crashes, or in the recent past, by massive inflation.

As for demand for eldery care workers, just because there are many old people does not mean people will enter the field. If the elderly have limited savings then they can't pay high wages so the supply of workers may remain low despite the high demand.