Humunah, humunah, humunah

[Tunnelcat]

This winner coming from the DNC chair, Wasserman-Schultz, last week on Hardball. The question: "What's the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist"?

http://www.examiner.com/article/wasserm ... a-democrat

Then today on the morning news shows, days after her Hardball interview when she should have plenty of time to research an answer at least, she bobbles and fails yet again and launches into a redirection and non-answer. It just looked bad for her. It's not looking good for the Dems if she's steering the tiller and can't even bother to do a little research before going in front of the cameras and being given a simple question by reporters and news personalities then royally dropping the ball, TWICE no less.

Maybe she should have done a little research before coming off like a fool. And no, not all democrats are socialists like the writer in the link intones. Even he doesn't understand. One's a political ideology, the other is an economic system. Not all democrats are socialists by definition.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscel ... democracy/

[woodchip]

Wasserman is a blond bubblehead

[Tunnelcat]

Hell, she looked like it today. I'm embarrassed for the Democratic Party.

[Spidey]

The error in that “difference between” link should be obvious to anyone as the nose on their face.

The link notes that one is a political system and the other is an economic system, but in fact socialism is both an economic system “and” a political system, this is borne out by the fact that socialism is an economic system based on and in accordance with political idealism, and really can't function without it.

Democracy has very little value in socialism, because in theory everything that happens is already worked out in advance according to pre-established concepts, but this part of my post is open to debate.

[callmeslick]

my general opinion in dealings with Democrat leadership(quite limited) is that Debbie is NOT the brightest available. She is personable, hard working and relentless, but not that smart. So, I sort of agree with Woody, albeit less harshly.

[Tunnelcat]

Democracy has very little value in socialism, because in theory everything that happens is already worked out in advance according to pre-established concepts, but this part of my post is open to debate.

Then who is responsible for making up those pre-established concepts in a socialistic society? An elite few leaders, or the people themselves? Isn't socialism a society run and ruled by the people, in which the government is made up of those people? If it's the people themselves, isn't there a kind of a democratic process that involves people coming together as a group making decisions in order to establish a set of concepts and rules for everyone to live and be governed by? On the flip side, why is it better, or more democratic, if the marketplace runs things, like in a capitalist society? Many times, the marketplace can be cold and cruel, against the common good of the people in favor of profit and success for the few who either manipulated things in their favor, or were lucky at it.

[Spidey]

Name one socialist country that was ever run by the people…Russia? China? N. Korea? Cuba? Run by the people…lol, that’s a good one.

Pre-established means just that…pre-established.

“On the flip side, why is it better, or more democratic, if the marketplace runs things, like in a capitalist society?”

We don’t have a “capitalist society” we have a “capitalist economy” or closer to fact a free market system that includes capitalism. The marketplace does not run things in a democratic society, it’s the other way around.

Socialism works best with a benevolent dictatorship, where all is needed is to maintain law and keep people doing the good socialist things. If you let the people run things…sooner or later they will want things socialism can’t provide.

Run by the people…sure…

[Tunnelcat]

Name one socialist country that was ever run by the people…Russia? China? N. Korea? Cuba? Run by the people…lol, that’s a good one.

Pre-established means just that…pre-established.

“On the flip side, why is it better, or more democratic, if the marketplace runs things, like in a capitalist society?”

We don’t have a “capitalist society” we have a “capitalist economy” or closer to fact a free market system that includes capitalism. The marketplace does not run things in a democratic society, it’s the other way around.

Socialism works best with a benevolent dictatorship, where all is needed is to maintain law and keep people doing the good socialist things. If you let the people run things…sooner or later they will want things socialism can’t provide.

Run by the people…sure…

Those countries you named are communist, not socialist. Communists want a pure classless society with total control over all aspects of the markets and people's lives in order to have a classless society. Socialists believe capitalism will benefit everyone in society, as long as it's controlled by a central planning system and which seeks to prevent economic inequality. It's the central control that bothers capitalists, because they want no controls. To be fair, we've seen how botched up our own government is at keeping even a small bit of regulatory control over our exuberant and greedy market based system that wants no controls or oversight whatsoever in it's actions. Resistance is futile.

As for our situation, I believe our system is now run by the marketplace and it's elites, not democratically by most of the people in our society, as most people still believe. Slick's other post pretty much showed we're nothing but a bunch of stupid cows to the elites whenever we vote, no matter which party we vote for.

[Spidey]

Well, I’m not going to argue whether Russia was a communist or a socialist country, they called themselves “socialist” CCCP (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) which was ruled by a one party system that was communist.

So I will give you that just for the hell of it, but the question still remains…name a socialist country that is/was ruled by the people.

[Top Gun]

Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark seem to be doing a damn fine job integrating socialism with democracy, and if we broaden things a bit more even Canada can apply. Also note how all the aforementioned countries wind up ranking higher on pretty much every standard of living than the US does.

[woodchip]

Are those countries having their leader promote racism, blame the rich for their fiscal problems or have millions of illegals crossing their borders?

[Spidey]

Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark seem to be doing a damn fine job integrating socialism with democracy, and if we broaden things a bit more even Canada can apply. Also note how all the aforementioned countries wind up ranking higher on pretty much every standard of living than the US does.

Not one of those countries is a socialist country, and every single one has a free market economy, which is in fact the only reason they have the wealth to give such generous social programs in the first place…in fact from what I understand some of those countries actually have less regulation on the market than we do.

So can we talk about real socialist countries?

[woodchip]

Like Venezuela? Now there's a good example.

[callmeslick]

Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark seem to be doing a damn fine job integrating socialism with democracy, and if we broaden things a bit more even Canada can apply. Also note how all the aforementioned countries wind up ranking higher on pretty much every standard of living than the US does.

Not one of those countries is a socialist country, and every single one has a free market economy, which is in fact the only reason they have the wealth to give such generous social programs in the first place…in fact from what I understand some of those countries actually have less regulation on the market than we do.

So can we talk about real socialist countries?

that is the strain of socialism called Democratic Socialism, and YES they are to some degree socialist. So is the US, to a lesser degree.

[Spidey]

Well I think socialism is getting the credit for something that capitalism is providing, and basically socialism is getting more credit than it deserves.

Let those countries try some textbook socialism, and get back to me in 20 years or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Perhaps the proper term you are looking for is social democracy.

[callmeslick]

Well I think socialism is getting the credit for something that capitalism is providing, and basically socialism is getting more credit than it deserves.

that's a valid way of looking at it, I suppose. I view it more as a natural cobbling together of theories into a workable approach in the real world. And, when you think about it, isn't that what progress in politics and government is supposed to be doing?

[Lothar]

Well I think socialism is getting the credit for something that capitalism is providing, and basically socialism is getting more credit than it deserves.

that's a valid way of looking at it, I suppose. I view it more as a natural cobbling together of theories into a workable approach in the real world. And, when you think about it, isn't that what progress in politics and government is supposed to be doing?

Exactly.

We can actually learn from the mistakes of other systems, and take the good-but-poorly-implemented ideas and convert them into workable ideas in other systems. "Rule of law" was a terribly oppressive system when the laws were explicitly written to favor the upper class (ever read the Code of Hammurabi? The penalty for harming a rich person is much higher than for harming a poor person.) Yet "rule of law" is something most of us would say is a good thing -- it's just a matter of having the right types of laws.

Likewise, "socialism" has been terrible in practice in many places -- but it may be possible to have the right type of socialist programs, in a way that actually encourages productivity and enhances quality of life. Can we learn both from what Venezuela does wrong and what Norway does right?

FWIW my favorite potential solution is the unconditional Basic Income (which replaces most kinds of welfare/government assistance, social security, minimum wage, and most middle-class tax breaks.) The idea is supported by such diverse Nobel laureates as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Paul Krugman, and James Meade. Basically, since we as a society have decided that we aren't willing to let people starve in the streets, let's replace all these complex programs that are designed to keep people from starving and the other complex programs that are designed to manage the fallout of the poor implementation of those programs (ie, the "earned income tax credit" is designed to mitigate the "falling off the cliff" phenomenon of making a little bit too much and therefore losing EBT or Medicare or whatever) with a straightforward program that gives every adult a livable-but-not-comfortable amount of money. Then let people work for whatever amount they want on top of that, with a mildly progressive tax. (And deal with difficult cases on a more individual basis, through carefully-targeted programs and charity.)

[callmeslick]

amazing, isn't it, Lothar, that some of the same folks who'll spout about 'American Exceptionalism' don't feel we are exceptional enough to cobble together a unique and beneficial social/economic/governmental system?
On to your idea, which you brought up before. I have a few questions for you: What is your estimate of an acceptable 'base' income for all to receive? Would this go to all adults, individually, irrespective of marital status, children, etc? Would this amount be expected to suffice for all services, or would there be a social safety net of food, housing other assistance? How would you account for the rather large regional/local differences in cost of living?

[Lothar]

some of the same folks who'll spout about 'American Exceptionalism' don't feel we are exceptional enough to cobble together a unique and beneficial social/economic/governmental system?

I think sometimes the error is that they think we'll cobble together the best system by going our own unique way, without actually learning from the valuable things other countries are doing.

What is your estimate of an acceptable 'base' income for all to receive? Would this go to all adults, individually, irrespective of marital status, children, etc? Would this amount be expected to suffice for all services, or would there be a social safety net of food, housing other assistance? How would you account for the rather large regional/local differences in cost of living?

(2) yes, to all adults individually. The idea behind this is that it removes "how will this affect my benefits?" from consideration of living arrangements. No more penalty for trying to be efficient.

(3) the amount would be expected to suffice for very basic living expenses -- food, housing, medical care -- but there could still be a secondary safety net. The secondary net could be considerably smaller and much better targeted (particularly toward children, the elderly, the disabled, and those with special needs.)

(4) part of the point of this system is that it would allow people to escape the trap of "I have to stay here because I have a job, but it's too expensive to live here". Instead of adjusting for cost-of-living, people can make decisions about where to live given uniform benefits. (If $X benefits + $Y from work isn't enough to live in NYC, maybe $X benefits + $Z from a different job would be plenty to live in Iowa.)

(1) As a very rough first cut, something around $1000-1500/month. This is high enough to be reasonably livable for a single person in shared housing, while also being low enough that there's plenty of incentive to work. As an added benefit, because there's no "cliff" or reduction of benefits, it reduces the penalties many poor people currently face when trying to work part-time. (Also keep in mind this is a very off-the-cuff answer; I would expect any actual implementation to involve, like, careful mathing nsht.)

It's interesting to note that, in one of the early experiments (MINCOME in Manitoba), they found that certain groups of people worked substantially less -- teenagers (whose graduation rates improved!), and mothers of newborns.

[callmeslick]

followups(I need to know as precisely as I can before offering any intelligent critique):
1. so this minimum would go to EVERY citizen, from birth on(you cite the lack of need for teenagers to work in the Manitoba trial)?
2. doesn't the mobility matter(it's cheaper in, say, rural Virginia, than in NYC) push the populace away from the employment centers?
3.you are suggesting shared living as the baseline cost basis.....doesn't this negate large parts of the US where housing isn't set up for
such living arrangements?


I have some real reservations, so after your answers to these, I should be able to flesh them out. Interesting concept and first-rate example of actually thinking through issues.

[Lothar]

1. The minimum would go to every adult (18+). The Manitoba trial found that some teenagers stopped working or reduced hours because they'd specifically had to step up to support their families, and the MINCOME meant their sick/injured/disabled parents no longer needed the teens' help.

2. there's a constant push-and-pull between different areas of the country. I wouldn't say this specifically pushes people away from "employment centers", so much as it slightly reduces the pull of "this is where I was able to find a job and therefore this is where I must stay". It reduces the risk of moving to a smaller, lower CoL area, and could potentially revitalize some small-town economies. But the big city still has plenty of draw.

3. most adults live in "shared living" situations of one sort or another. Especially most adults on welfare / section 8 / etc, which this is replacing. (Keep in mind the expectation that most people would have ordinary jobs and earn more, possibly a LOT more, than the basic amount -- shared living would be the ordinary expectation for those making the basic and no more.) I'm not aware of any specific areas of the country where that wouldn't be reasonable/possible, but feel free to enlighten me.

[callmeslick]

will get back in a short while with the other details, but to #3---some rural areas have single homes and very little by way of smaller rental properties suitable for multiple roommate situation at an affordable rate.


otherwise, interesting stuff, and, as I say, I'll post my overall critique before I head north to Saratoga tomorrow evening.

[Lothar]

some rural areas have single homes and very little by way of smaller rental properties suitable for multiple roommate situation at an affordable rate.

What do people in those areas who are on welfare do right now?

[Spidey]

Sorry, but I have to reject the idea of any kind of minimum income, prebate (fair tax) right from the start on principle alone. (and it’s not like I haven’t thought about it, because this idea has been offered before)

Just my opinion tho...

Then…I could go into the many technical reasons why I believe it won’t work, but there is no point because of the principle thing.

[callmeslick]

some rural areas have single homes and very little by way of smaller rental properties suitable for multiple roommate situation at an affordable rate.

What do people in those areas who are on welfare do right now?

well, in most cases, there is less housing welfare, and more living with family, in my experience. Most of the assistance is toward food, medical care and spending cash.

OK, rather than make it two separate posts, here's my assessment, and I thank you for fleshing out details and patiently answering my questions.
Most of those answers alleviated concerns about marriage penalties or bonuses, the cost of children(you claim there will be support above and beyond for children in poverty, or the elderly and sick).

I think your idea could work, long-term, if it was coupled with cradle to grave Medicare at a minimal level(as Medicare currently provides). That would remove the last major barrier to mobility and freedom to find the most liveable option. My major remaining issue, and it is a big one, is the sheer cost.
At 15,000 per year, and 200 million adults, the supplemental base income would be around 3 trillion dollars, with the Medicare program, add in another 1.8 trillion by current estimates. So, you are spending 4.8 Trillion dollars. Add in defense spending and debt service and you have a federal budget that approaches $6 trillion. Who pays that bill, and how? I can see the whole mess falling apart since the disincentive would come from exhorbitant taxation on the incomes of those who choose to work.

[Lothar]

in most cases, there is less housing welfare, and more living with family, in my experience

I don't see any reason that would change.

coupled with cradle to grave Medicare at a minimal level

I'm actually thinking of Medicare/basic insurance as something people can pay for out of their Basic Income (or additional supplemental income), rather than as a separate benefit.

... 200 million adults, the supplemental base income would be around 3 trillion dollars

Yes -- but a lot of that is relabeling. Right now it's accounted for as "tax credits" -- the median-income households in the US got around $10,400 in "federal transfers" in 2009, largely from the EITC. Add in child tax credits, mortgage interest deductions, etc. that aren't counted as part of the federal budget right now, and you close the gap considerably.

I don't think you'd actually have to raise taxes to exorbitant levels on anyone to make this work, though perhaps you'd have to select a different dollar amount than the high end of the range I gave off-the-cuff. It's just a matter of figuring out the right balance point to keep a progressive-but-not-too-steep tax system that generates adequate revenue to fund whatever level of basic income is decided on. (You can dig more into basic income theory at http://www.basicincome.org/ )

[callmeslick]

I'm actually thinking of Medicare/basic insurance as something people can pay for out of their Basic Income (or additional supplemental income), rather than as a separate benefit.

wait, that would cost about 500 per month, without subsidies. Out of the 1500 you are giving them, that leaves a grand for food, transportation and housing? You save some money, but at what societal cost or worse, what becomes of the healthcare system in the nation?

... 200 million adults, the supplemental base income would be around 3 trillion dollars

Yes -- but a lot of that is relabeling. Right now it's accounted for as "tax credits" -- the median-income households in the US got around $10,400 in "federal transfers" in 2009, largely from the EITC. Add in child tax credits, mortgage interest deductions, etc. that aren't counted as part of the federal budget right now, and you close the gap considerably.

I don't think you'd actually have to raise taxes to exorbitant levels on anyone to make this work, though perhaps you'd have to select a different dollar amount than the high end of the range I gave off-the-cuff. It's just a matter of figuring out the right balance point to keep a progressive-but-not-too-steep tax system that generates adequate revenue to fund whatever level of basic income is decided on. (You can dig more into basic income theory at http://www.basicincome.org/ )

I think you will find the taxation onerous, and even if you do not, I guarantee the voters would.

[Lothar]

I'm actually thinking of Medicare/basic insurance as something people can pay for out of their Basic Income (or additional supplemental income), rather than as a separate benefit.

wait, that would cost about 500 per month, without subsidies. Out of the 1500 you are giving them, that leaves a grand for food, transportation and housing?

Reasonably possible. Or maybe we could also get health care costs under control.

... 200 million adults, the supplemental base income would be around 3 trillion dollars

Yes -- but a lot of that is relabeling....

I don't think you'd actually have to raise taxes to exorbitant levels on anyone to make this work

I think you will find the taxation onerous, and even if you do not, I guarantee the voters would.

Again, I think you're thinking of it as onerous because (1) you're using the high-end numbers I gave off-the-cuff instead of treating them like an off-the-cuff number that shouldn't actually be used for budget calculations (ie, ignoring my "mathing nsht" disclaimer), and (2) you're not properly perceiving what it'd be replacing. A lot of middle-class families would basically swap $12,000 in deductions/credits/whatever for a $12,000 cash payment, or something of the sort.

[callmeslick]

Right now, over half of all households pay NO taxes, so I get the 'tradeoff' point, but the total cost of even $1500 per month, which I feel is FAR too little to be liveable, even for a year or so of unemployment or other hardship, is more than DOUBLE the current federal outlay, without adding in Defense, debt and other core government functions. You have to find that money someplace. It's going to come from the working part of the populace, and yes, you can make it quite a progressive scale taxation,but there is where politics rears its ugly head. No way you could sell that to the voters. No way.

[Lothar]

the total cost of even $1500 per month, which I feel is FAR too little to be liveable

I raised my family on a gross salary of $21,000 (including health care) during the 2013-2014 school year, and I was making mortgage payments on a 5-bedroom house. There's a young dad living in my basement who takes care of his wife and kid on less than $1300/month take-home. My little sister, also living in my basement, is going to college on about $1000/month take-home. A single adult who can't figure out how to get by on $1500/month isn't trying very hard, or isn't willing to live in somebody's basement. $1000/month is actually pretty realistic (even with health care if you go with a legitimately low-cost solution like CHM gold.)

Remember, the Basic Income is not meant to give you a life of luxury while you do nothing. It's meant to replace (some of) the safety net at the bottom, and to simplify the tax code in the middle. If you're living on ONLY the basic income, you're probably going to have roommates and need to learn to love beans and rice, just like someone currently on welfare.

One of the strongest points of this system: if you're not working, it's almost always (aside from ridiculous childcare situations) a financial positive to start working, even limited hours. If you're one of those for whom $1500/month is FAR too little to be liveable, go get a job and supplement the BI with some actual earnings. 20 hours per week at my neighborhood Wal*Mart will give you an extra $600/month in your pocket.

more than DOUBLE the current federal outlay

Again, accounting. A lot of the "outlay" in the BI is money that gets bounced through the federal government right now but isn't counted as outlay -- money that goes in and then out as a tax credit, for example. The median family gets over $10,000/year right now in credits, many of which aren't counted as part of the federal budget.

Current "entitlement" spending -- social security, medicare, food stamps, unemployment, housing, etc. -- is currently in the neighborhood of $2-2.5 trillion. That right there is around $8000-10,000 per adult in the US. So if we just swapped all of that spending for the Basic Income, with no other changes, we'd already be halfway to my high-end number, and 3/4 of the way to my low-end number. Change the accounting on EITC, CTC, and other basic tax credits to simply make them part of the BI, and you're pretty close to there. You don't need to raise taxes to a ridiculously unbearable level; most of the funding is already in place, by different names like EITC and EBT and Section 8.

There are almost certainly significant kinks that would need to be worked out, and a long phase-in period would be fairly necessary. But it comes with potentially very large benefits to society. I don't expect the US to take the lead on this, given the size of the nation and our general aversion to "socialism" and preference for overly complex, inefficient solutions like Obamacare. But in a couple decades there will have been enough small-scale experiments to see if the system is workable, and maybe the US can be a part of the second wave of Basic Income.

[Krom]

Agreed, $1000/mo is plenty realistic assuming you aren't doing something dumb like trying to buy a house or a $30,000 car on it.

[Tunnelcat]

You can rent a dingy old one or two bedroom apartment in Corvallis for that. And I mean a "dump" that's been trashed by students and unmaintained or cleaned well for years. Anything bigger or newer, or even a house, forget it. Plus, you wouldn't have anything left over for living expenses.

https://www.rentrange.com/rental-rates/OR/Corvallis

[Lothar]

... or 3 people can split a 3br for about $400 each ( http://www.forrent.com/apartment-commun ... 006941.php ). That was literally the top hit for Corvallis, OR on that website -- and if you relax the criteria a bit you can get down to $825 for a 3br in Albany, which is $275 per person. Again, that would be 3 people on the basic income, not doing any sort of work to supplement it in the slightest!

It's so weird having this type of conversation with people who don't seem to think in terms of splitting residences. Looking for a 3br apartment to split between a married couple and 2 other friends is commonplace -- I was talking to one of my sisters about doing that yesterday. Why does this concept seem so alien to some of you?

[callmeslick]

some of us were raised with the concept of living on one's own, and furthermore, that is the current trend in the US, away from cohabitation. Still, you are talking about a minimal subsistance, so I can accept your logic, but not your numbers. In NYC a two bedroom walkup in a so-so neighborhood will cost you around $1800 per month, and they expect you to show up with 6 months up front in most cases.

[woodchip]

Dunno, three of us shared a trailer park trailer when we were in college. Seems to me if you want to live on the dole, you'll have to give up a few things.

[Lothar]

some of us were raised with the concept of living on one's own

I was certainly raised with the expectation that once I had a decent job, I could afford to live on my own or with my wife. But I wasn't raised with the expectation that I could sit on my ass doing nothing and afford my own apartment in NYC.

I can accept your logic, but not your numbers. In NYC a two bedroom walkup in a so-so neighborhood will cost you around $1800 per month

Maybe you need to live in Newark, then. The "bare subsistence" level of basic income isn't meant to let you live absolutely anywhere you want. It's meant to keep you from starving in the streets.

[callmeslick]

some of us were raised with the concept of living on one's own

I was certainly raised with the expectation that once I had a decent job, I could afford to live on my own or with my wife. But I wasn't raised with the expectation that I could sit on my ass doing nothing and afford my own apartment in NYC.

I can accept your logic, but not your numbers. In NYC a two bedroom walkup in a so-so neighborhood will cost you around $1800 per month

Maybe you need to live in Newark, then. The "bare subsistence" level of basic income isn't meant to let you live absolutely anywhere you want. It's meant to keep you from starving in the streets.

well you may be eating, but you will be doing so on the streets in a lot of major cities under your plan. Right now the reason folks have roofs over their heads is that housing is subsidized. I have to presume that goes away under your plan and that the free market comes into play, along with the usual avoidance of rental to low-income potentially risky tenants.

[Krom]

"But they won't be able to own a mansion in Beverly Hills!"

So what?

[callmeslick]

at any rate, differences and reservations aside, the outside the box thinking here is to be applauded. One can only hope that some think tank is working through similar options, ideas and scenarios. Something, at the very least, counter to the hateful Ayn Rand BS which has been pushed by one or two so-called 'think tanks'.......basing your real world solutions on works of fiction is dicey, and perhaps, if one has to work that way, Dickens would be a better start than Rand.

[Lothar]

well you may be eating, but you will be doing so on the streets in a lot of major cities under your plan

This is an interesting response to my having found affordable shared housing within a reasonable radius of each of the areas mentioned.

No, you won't be living on the streets in NY, you'll be living in a low-end apartment in Newark with roommates.