Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Welfare

Rate this topic


aleph_0

Recommended Posts

Interesting thing is that as the amount of wealth remains the same, the amount of money comming into the system is stable - the cost of running it - increases drastically with every year of its existance.

I should have added remains relatively the same, short term, IF you allow for some free economic activity - meanwhile the cost skyrockets. The amount of wealth produced by collectivist systems decreases while the cost of running them increases. So the burden of their existance placed on the free-wing of the economy increases in time.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Being aware of the kind of principles welfare states are based on - I know that the degree of disaster will only increase.

I can't say that I'm convinced. I need a more rigorous proof.

You have defined sustainability as "its existance able to be perpetuated by its own means". Welfare states are not self-sustainable as evidenced by every case in which they have been tried.

Except, perhaps, Scandinavian welfare states.

Maybe a significant reason why other welfare states failed was corruption, disorganization, poor systems of self-correction, or inadequate technology. I don't know, but perhaps the Scandinavian systems overcame the problems that caused the downfall of other welfare states. I need proof to know one way or the other, because I am not convinced of the argument,

If X is a welfare state, X will fail.

Scandinavian welfare states are welfare states.

Hence, Scandinavian welfare states will fail.

Any system which results in lowering of productivity is doomed to fail.

Again, before I would feel confident stating such a thing, I would need a more rigorous proof.

What does it help you to know that the political-economic system of socialism can be sustained for X number of years before it collapses when it is supported by X% of free market economy when you also know that every second if such system violates human rights? Do you believe that rights can be violated if "for a good cause" (which you seem to think "universal" health care is)?

Again, people here seem to think that I want a socialist system because I am not so dogmatically convinced of socialism's immanent doom that I pronounce its immanent doom irrespective of any evidence. I do not believe that rights should be violated "for a good cause", nor do I believe that universal health care is a good cause.

As I have explained before, the impetus for the question is to see whether one might make an ancillary argument against socialism besides the moral one. I find that such things are helpful when dealing with somebody who is doggedly entrenched in socialist beliefs, as a matter of rhetoric.

Moreover, the information that one might gather in such an investigation could prove incidentally useful to understanding good management and, in particular, good federal and municipal management.

Interesting thing is that as the amount of wealth remains the same, the amount of money comming into the system is stable - the cost of running it - increases drastically with every year of its existance.

For which system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(~Sophia~ @ Jun 18 2007, 02:28 PM) post_snapback.gifBeing aware of the kind of principles welfare states are based on - I know that the degree of disaster will only increase.

I can't say that I'm convinced. I need a more rigorous proof.

There are various books on the topic - you can easily find them plus you also now have the advantage of historical facts.

Except, perhaps, Scandinavian welfare states.

What makes you say 'perhaps except' if the system is based on the same principles?

Maybe a significant reason why other welfare states failed was corruption, disorganization, poor systems of self-correction, or inadequate technology.

Are you one of those who thinks that socialism failed only because it has never been implemented 'correctly' and otherwise the theory itself is economically/politically sound?

I don't know, but perhaps the Scandinavian systems overcame the problems that caused the downfall of other welfare states.

It is not possible to overcome them (such as problems of not having proper incentives and market prices) - you can only delay the collapse by having strong, outside, finanial support. One of the crucial missing elements is the lack of motivation, lack of necessity to act on information. A capitalist firm responds to changing prices/inventories/productivity ect because failure to do so will cause it to lose profits. There is no such incentive in a system which does not run based on profit. Socialist bureaucrats know that doing something is more likely to get them in trouble than doing nothing, well, unless doing nothing results in absolute disaster. People are also much less productive when they are not properly rewarded financially.

Again, people here seem to think that I want a socialist system because I am not so dogmatically convinced of socialism's immanent doom that I pronounce its immanent doom irrespective of any evidence.

I have alread addressed this. There are plenty of evidence when it comes to both written analysis and factual evidence. (some of the sources have been pointed out to you)

I do not believe that rights should be violated "for a good cause", nor do I believe that universal health care is a good cause.

Your other statements and even the questions you are asking do not support this.

As I have explained before, the impetus for the question is to see whether one might make an ancillary argument against socialism besides the moral one. I find that such things are helpful when dealing with somebody who is doggedly entrenched in socialist beliefs, as a matter of rhetoric.

Ok, I understand that. Look into what is required for economic prosperity and then compare those requirements with the rules of socialism.

For which system?

collective

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al, Sophia seems to be doing a good job of dealing with your resistance. What I am curious about is exactly what would constitute proof to you? This is not a deductive problem, it is an inductive problem so there isn't a syllogism out there that will do it.

However some of the key things I could think of would be:

a. a discussion of the mechanism by which the free market prospers.

b. an analysis of what key elements of a free market socialism undermines

c. an empirical survey of socialist experiments showing how these elements in fact caused the downfall of the markets

d. maybe a discussion of exceptions and how they are propped up by factors external to the key elements

Based upon your brand of skepticism, one could just as easily argue that Saudi Arabia is an example of how command and control economies prosper magnificently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are various books on the topic - you can easily find them plus you also now have the advantage of historical facts.

Those books are what I'm looking for.

What makes you say 'perhaps except' if the system is based on the same principles?

The important question is: Are they based on the same relevant principles? For instance, you might have a capitalist government that fails, but does not fail because it is capitalist--maybe there was too much corruption due to insufficient institutional checks and balances. The Constitution is really a work of art in how well it was crafted, not only in the rights that it granted through the Bill of Rights, but also through its institutions of checks, balances, limitations and diffusion of power, and all the things that keep our government from becoming tyrannical. Maybe if socialist countries took advantage of these, or maybe if they took advantage of new technologies, or maybe if they introduced accountability and carrot-and-stick policies (though the later might mean making the programs less universal), they could be sustainable.

Are you one of those who thinks that socialism failed only because it has never been implemented 'correctly' and otherwise the theory itself is economically/politically sound?

I'm one of those who doesn't claim to have evidence either way, and that's what I'm asking for.

One of the crucial missing elements is the lack of motivation, lack of necessity to act on information.

That could be, but what about a "watered down" system where people are pressured to get a job and, after some particular time or series of failures, people are eliminated from the welfare programs? What about programs that offer government jobs (cleaning trash, or working in a mail room), provides opportunities for advancement dependent upon good work, delivers job skills so that these people can enter the job market, and yet punishes them if they perform poorly? I don't claim to know that such a system is doomed to failure.

I have alread addressed this. There are plenty of evidence when it comes to both written analysis and factual evidence. (some of the sources have been pointed out to you)

I haven't seen it. All I've seen is evidence that many socialist systems have failed, and that socialism was a large cause of the failure--but no evidence that it was the only cause.

Your other statements and even the questions you are asking do not support this.

Nor do they indicate it. I have been neutral on the desirability of such a socialist program, except of course that I have acknowledged that the moral argument against them is a successful argument. In any case, my neutrality does not justify assuming that I am positively in favor of socialism.

Ok, I understand that. Look into what is required for economic prosperity and then compare those requirements with the rules of socialism.

But again, the question is not economic prosperity--it is sustainability and effectiveness. I don't doubt that a capitalist system will always be more productive than a socialist system, all (or most) other things being equal.

The question is, can you maintain a system where people produce enough that they could support a civil service which provides universal welfare, health care, shelter, etc.? If not, can it support and sustain a non-universal civil service? For instance, say the economy of a country is growing, and there is no health care. Then they introduce this non-universal welfare, and the economy grows less quickly but continues to grow, and the welfare does not expand and, well, end of story.

In a way, I think it must be possible--look at America! We've had a semi-welfare state for decades and we've not crashed. In fact, we're still a fairly competitive nation in the world. We could be doing a lot better, but we could be doing a lot worse, and if we do something to fix up our problems with Social Security and Health-care (which, admittedly, would mean ending or privatizing some civil services) our national economy could really be bounding, even with the handful of other welfare programs we have going.

The only problem with a system like this is that it requires dynamic and trust-worthy leaders, who might not always be available.

Al, Sophia seems to be doing a good job of dealing with your resistance. What I am curious about is exactly what would constitute proof to you? This is not a deductive problem, it is an inductive problem so there isn't a syllogism out there that will do it.

However some of the key things I could think of would be:

a. a discussion of the mechanism by which the free market prospers.

b. an analysis of what key elements of a free market socialism undermines

c. an empirical survey of socialist experiments showing how these elements in fact caused the downfall of the markets

d. maybe a discussion of exceptions and how they are propped up by factors external to the key elements

Based upon your brand of skepticism, one could just as easily argue that Saudi Arabia is an example of how command and control economies prosper magnificently.

Very fair question and answer. I agree to all of it.

I think a very reasonable standard of proof would be something like the following:

We have seen that economic policy x, y, and z in conditions a, b,and c, produce x', y', and z' results. Given a, b, and c about Sweden, policies x, y, and z will produce x', y', and z'. Results x', y', and z', in Sweden's context, would result in such-and-such.

Or, for a lower bar to clear, if you can just show significant problems with the current Scandinavian welfare system and some basic evidence that private businesses could and would pick up the tab with greater success, I would consider the matter closed.

To make things more concrete, take for example if you can show that a certain level of taxation, or a certain kind of taxation, reduces investments, and can show that any possible mitigating circumstances are not taking place in Sweden, and that future projected returns on current investments are low, then you will show that the lack of new investments will result in a substantial economic failure, the burden of which must be shouldered by the current infrastructure and technologies. If you can then show that current infrastructure and technologies are not, most likely will not, and (for a cherry on top) cannot meet such a demand, then you will show some level of future economic collapse.

An analysis like this isn't going to be easy. It's going to have to account for a lot of inter-woven factors and consider many possibilities (Perhaps, by closing some other functions the government now operations, it would be able to support the health care system. Perhaps by introducing public-private competition the inefficient systems can be overhauled. Perhaps creating an organization to investigate corruption and inefficiency could clean house.). It would take years of research and serious thought. Unless, of course, we have evidence that the current system is a current failure. That would be fine enough for me, though it would be an added bonus to see some serious investigation into the precise causes of the failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those books are what I'm looking for.

What is that you are looking for then? Do you have a good understanding of what factors result in economic prosperity?

The important question is: Are they based on the same relevant principles? For instance, you might have a capitalist government that fails, but does not fail because it is capitalist--maybe there was too much corruption due to insufficient institutional checks and balances.

Except that now socialism has been tried in many different countries, with different original structures/laws, different cultures and all cases resulted the same negative effect. At the same time it has been observed that capitalism brings prosperity in every country regardless of those original conditions.

Those two political-economic theories, at their very heart, assume different nature of man. Capitalism assumes man the way he actually is - selfish. Socialism assumes man as self-less - it is based on the philosophy of altruism. Since, everything else (starting from understanding of proper incentives for a man to be motivated to be as productive as it is possible for him to be) builds up on those assumptions, and since one of them is in contradiction to reality - it can't succeed regardless of any other circumstances.

It is like trying to build a machine based on flawed assumptions about the laws of physics.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could be doing a lot better, but we could be doing a lot worse, and if we do something to fix up our problems with Social Security and Health-care (which, admittedly, would mean ending or privatizing some civil services) our national economy could really be bounding, even with the handful of other welfare programs we have going.

[...]

(Perhaps, by closing some other functions the government now operations, it would be able to support the health care system. Perhaps by introducing public-private competition the inefficient systems can be overhauled. Perhaps creating an organization to investigate corruption and inefficiency could clean house.).

sniff, sniff- this smells more like reform and not the sweet smell of abolition.

[esp. when you scent a sentence with the word - fix -]

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be, but what about a "watered down" system where people are pressured to get a job and, after some particular time or series of failures, people are eliminated from the welfare programs?

First, "watered down" violation of human rights is still a violation of human rights.

Did you happen to read my recent post about aid to Africa and the fact that those countries which received the most aid are in the worst economic shape? Welfare programs remove the motivation for people to take responsibilty for their lives, to try harder.

If millions of illegal immigrants who often do not speak much English can get a job in America - there is no excuse for American citizens to not be able to do the same.

The same principles apply to any other welfare program. Such programs assume citizens as children who can not take care of themselves and many people start acting as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor do they indicate it. I have been neutral on the desirability of such a socialist program, except of course that I have acknowledged that the moral argument against them is a successful argument. In any case, my neutrality does not justify assuming that I am positively in favor of socialism.

Neutrality considering that those involve rights violations?

This statement " I do believe that socialism is immoral but I am neutral on the desireability of socialist programs" is a contradiction.

But again, the question is not economic prosperity--it is sustainability and effectiveness.

But there is no effectiveness without prosperity.

The question is, can you maintain a system where people produce enough that they could support a civil service which provides universal welfare, health care, shelter, etc.?

To me this question is equal to asking: can you successfuly enslave people?

The next question would be: Why you think those things ought to be provided for one person by another (or a group)? There is no right to the things which you listed such as health care, or shelter, or food.

For instance, say the economy of a country is growing, and there is no health care. Then they introduce this non-universal welfare, and the economy grows less quickly but continues to grow, and the welfare does not expand and, well, end of story.

This is pure altruism. Economy is not some abstract entity out there - it is composed of individual people. It is individual people who pay for such programs.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a site with quite a few papers discussing Scandanavian economies. For instance, here's one that's relevant to growth in Sweden.

My guess at the answer to the original question is this: if an economy is mixed rather than totalitarian, that means that people are allowed to be productive to some extent. How bad things get depends on the extent of control.

Assuming that a large enough amount of productivity and achievement is allowed, and assuming that the productive citizens do not emigrate away, and assuming that not too many citizens become bums, and assuming that the average citizen is willing to put up with being relatively poorer than people in more capitalistic countries, such a system could produce more than it consumes, and thus be sustainable.

In reality, from time to time, citizens get upset with the status quo. What happens then? In Zimbabwe-type situations, the government simply clamps down further, and things go from bad to worse. In cases like Sweden, the government might remove the Wealth tax or Estate duty and lower services, then -- when the economy shows some life -- try to reimpose some other tax, and go on this way...in a pretty endless cycle of catch and release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a site with quite a few papers discussing Scandanavian economies. For instance, here's one that's relevant to growth in Sweden.

My guess at the answer to the original question is this: if an economy is mixed rather than totalitarian, that means that people are allowed to be productive to some extent. How bad things get depends on the extent of control.

Assuming that a large enough amount of productivity and achievement is allowed, and assuming that the productive citizens do not emigrate away, and assuming that not too many citizens become bums, and assuming that the average citizen is willing to put up with being relatively poorer than people in more capitalistic countries, such a system could produce more than it consumes, and thus be sustainable.

In reality, from time to time, citizens get upset with the status quo. What happens then? In Zimbabwe-type situations, the government simply clamps down further, and things go from bad to worse. In cases like Sweden, the government might remove the Wealth tax or Estate duty and lower services, then -- when the economy shows some life -- try to reimpose some other tax, and go on this way...in a pretty endless cycle of catch and release.

You are COMPLETELY right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...