re: blog from Everwas #86

What should I be voting for?

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby MadCat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:14 am

I'm curious what you'd define "everything Mike likes" as, in an economic sense. Or do you mean that people like in general, and not Mike's specific preferences?
I want my job description to be: "gets paid to draw sexy ladies." :D
User avatar
MadCat
=^-^=
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:13 am
Location: Bew Bogling Street, Everwas

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby David Yun on Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:56 am

I mean stuff we ALL like. Let's take World of Warcraft; a product like that would be EXTREMELY unlikely to arise from a socialist economic framework.

Just to properly frame this new tangent, I'm thinking of "socialist" as a system in which taxation is upward of 70%, and capital is ridiculously difficult to assemble.
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby MadCat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:18 am

Ahh, ok. See, that really doesn't say "socialism" to me. (In the sense of the actual concept, not the badly mangled way it was implemented in history. So many different regimes have called themselves 'socialist' when they were really more fascist or dictatorial and taking all the capital for themselves. Overall I think the term is difficult to define and everyone has a particular idea of what they think it means. From the Wikipedia article it seems like everyone's come up with a different brand of socialism and is calling it something different; democratic socialis, scientific socialism, utopian socialism, etc... it's kind of confusing. >_< ) But I definitely think you had a great idea there, of setting up the definition you were proceeding under so I could understand.

I really don't like pure socialism or pure capitalism, judging from what I've heard about them. I'd like to see some sort of middle ground between the two, using the positive qualities of each. But I don't know enough about either one to really formulate economic ideas based on them. :P

But yes, if we take as given a "socialist" system is one that has 70% taxation and limited access to capital, then I agree, so much of the fun stuff we currently enjoy would not be available. And that would suck. :(

Though from what I've heard, countries in Scandinavia (I think one of them was Norway?) that have about a 50% taxation rate have some of the happiest people in the world. Their infrastructure is great, everyone has health care, the prison system is the best in the world, etc etc.. I think a lot of how well it works is how well it's implemented and if people are smart about it.
I want my job description to be: "gets paid to draw sexy ladies." :D
User avatar
MadCat
=^-^=
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:13 am
Location: Bew Bogling Street, Everwas

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby MadCat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:10 am

I decided to remove the rant from the comic page, in favor of leaving that area about the comic. Instead, I'm posting it in the forum thread it created.

Original Rant:

You know what's bugging me lately? The Republican Party. They're leaving Americans to suffer just so they can look good and say "We're right and you're wrong." They're blocking all attempts to actually help the people who need it, trying to force any work toward possible aid for the people to a halt just so they can say "We're better than those nasty Democrats; they failed, bleah."
Meanwhile, people are SUFFERING. They need HELP. Hell, *I* need help. >_< Trying to make things worse, trying to keep others from extending a helping hand to those in need, is about the worst thing I can think of for someone to be doing in these tough times. You've got your money and your fancy houses and your cars, you greedy bastards. Let the poor who are wondering how they're going to feed their families or pay their rent get a break, for crying out loud! They're human beings and they are suffering!
Help them, dammit!

Edit: I think this blog post is a bit too simplistic and 'grr Republicans grr' but it was just a rant. It gets discussed a bit in the <a href="http://www.direman.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1104">Dire Forums</a> if you want to check it out!
User avatar
MadCat
=^-^=
 
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:13 am
Location: Bew Bogling Street, Everwas

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby David Yun on Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:33 pm

The successful socialist states range upward from 50%; Denmark sits at 65%.

Even 50% is a HUGE chunk. Imagine seeing half your paycheck disappear in exchange for health care that takes months to get you needed care. And that also depresses entrepreneurial capital so jobs are tougher to find in the first place. It only works there because we're talking about nations that have maybe half the population of Los Angeles spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles. We need a more vigorous system in place; the same model simply wouldn't work here.

Note also that none of those states produce "anything we like". Heck, we wouldn't even be having this conversation (no internet) if the U.S. were a socialist state. Wait, scratch that - I doubt we'd have personal computers in our homes. Frack - we would've been conquered ages ago.

Now, this has no correlation to happiness indexes - I have no doubt that they're actually much happier without all the "things that we like". No commutes, no malls, no telemarketers, no pollution, no noise...

But as for me? I'll pay the necessary price for culture, commerce, and industry.
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby Mike on Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:59 pm

I'm okay with 50% of my paycheck going, since, emergency care doesn't take months (and, like we've talked about before, waiting a few months is better than not getting anything at all), and housing prices would be way lower too.

I can see why people are super pro-capitalism, but me, personally, I don't see a problem with giving up some luxury so *everybody* can have a decent quality of life.

We're all in this shit together anyways, so fuck it.
Semper Iratus, Motherfucker.
User avatar
Mike
S3 Forum Gladiator
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby David Yun on Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:10 pm

The definition of "emergency" differs in those nations. You could literally wait months for certain surgical procedures. And could you afford to pay your bills at a 50% taxation rate? Not including local, state, sales, and property taxes? Again, assuming you even have a job.

And the more I think about it, we're not talking luxuries. So much of what we take for granted as necessities would never have come about without capitalism. I realize this is going to sound jingoistic, but it doesn't make it any less true. A socialist state wouldn't have been able to produce our military, and those Scandinavian nations would be the smallest effin' provinces in the Soviet empire. Obviously, we've made egregious errors in the application of force, but I'm glad we ARE a force.

And I suppose the internet, computers, cars, the freeways to drive them on...all that and more are technically luxuries, but would you be willing to do without them?

I guess my point is, if you want a simpler lifestyle, you could emigrate to Sweden or Australia. But to expect what works there for an entity as massively complex and robust as the United States is fairly naive. The hardships of this current recession would be the UPSIDE.
"I want me some glory hole." --Jerry Jones
User avatar
David Yun
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Diremanistan

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby Yino on Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:09 pm

you jingoistic bastard ;)

I know I'm a foreign point of view, but I think I can help with a few points for you conversation. My country has a 17% taxation rate so we still have enough for some "luxuries", there's a public health system coexisting with private entities. There are hospitals that a have quite a long queue for getting atention, but for a few years that hasn't been the rule.
I can't really tell if those high tax rates you speak about should be opposite to innovation as this country's tax rate is not big enough as in the examples you mention. But for what I recall it shouldn't as every possible private competitor faces the same taxes.
<insert signature>
User avatar
Yino
 
Posts: 1133
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:08 pm
Location: Somewhere in Chile

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby Mike on Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:27 pm

Yeah, I just like going extreme! I'm not big on full blown socialism, but I damn well do think we need health care for everybody. Now, that doesn't mean people can't go out and get private insurance/etc, if they want things done faster, but it means we all have basic coverage.

I like England's method. No taxes on normal run of the mill crap. Oh, you want an XBox? 20%, bitch. Luxury taxes are something I always thought were a good idea. Yeah, I'd have less stuff, so be it. That kinda crap generates a lot of revenue that can be used. Nobody loses anything from their paychecks... and really... if people want to go nuts over "omg I can't buy an uber T.V. without paying tax"... Whatever.

And as for "emergency:"

Hey, I broke my leg, help. Bam. I get that it takes longer to get non-life threatening/urgent things done, but again I say, better late than never. Esp. if the people with means can satisfy themselves by going private.

EDIT: And yeah, I, personally, am willing to pay a higher price so that I, and other citizens, can get help if it's needed. Even if that means giving some stuff up. Living in fear of the day I get into an accident of one form or another, or I get super sick, doesn't sit well with me. And I don't like the idea that fellow citizens have the same problem.

Health shouldn't be a fucking buisness. Yeah, there's money to be made... but THAT being the prime directive can fuckin' blow me.
Semper Iratus, Motherfucker.
User avatar
Mike
S3 Forum Gladiator
 
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: re: blog from Everwas #86

Postby Cyranda on Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:18 pm

A socialist state wouldn't have been able to produce our military, and those Scandinavian nations would be the smallest effin' provinces in the Soviet empire. Obviously, we've made egregious errors in the application of force, but I'm glad we ARE a force.

Why wouldn't they have? What evidence do you have to support that? What necessities wouldn't we have without capitalism, and how could you prove that they wouldn't exist without capitalism?

I think it's a bit unfair to assume that something would only have come about under capitalism (or even anything about the time it could have taken, etc.) simply because that's the system that some of them came up under (or for almost any other reason. Capitalism, as a system, is not what makes innovation possible).

Also, the tax rate problems in relation to what can be purchased is a myth. "Can you afford to pay your bills under a 50% tax rate?" Of course you can, as evidenced by many countries in Europe that do. Taxes aren't just something that get taken and not returned. I think you would be hard pressed to support a claim that people in some place with high taxes, like Norway, "can't afford things." Other places might have high taxes and not be able to afford things, but that may have little to do with the tax.

But to expect what works there for an entity as massively complex and robust as the United States is fairly naive.

That seems to be a conceit about the United States that I'm not sure is justified.
User avatar
Cyranda
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Learn about Advertising | Learn about Contributing | Learn about Us

Website is © 2005-2008 Direman Press. All content is © their respective creators. All rights reserved.
cron