|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 14, 2014 13:32:13 GMT
Yes, we have only a single source of (public) water. But anyone who wishes to have private water is always free to dig a well. And there are lots of different gasoline stations around here. Gasoline sold at the lesser-known distributors (e.g. Murphy Express) sells for less than the same grade of gasoline from a major distributor (e.g. BP or Exxon). And gasoline sold at Kroger--which is actually Shell gasoline; Kroger simply contracts with Shell Oil, to sell its gasoline--may be less expensive still, if one has accumulated the requisite amount of points. Your assertion that, "[H]istorically the rights of the person are not protected in a free market," seems like just another example of your anti-free-market bias. And I do not refer to some (amorphous) concept known as "the 'Rights of the Common'"--irrespective of anything once asserted by John Locke--when determining what is or is not some sort of "violation." Rather, I refer to the US Constitution; the various state constitutions, as applicable; and then to statutory law. Nothing else. If some people--based upon their individual talents and/or skills--were to generate an income far in excess of anything they might need for their "survival and comfort"--in other words, if they were (truly) "filthy rich," as the vernacular has it--would you really not wish to tax them at a very high rate, and then redistribute at least some of the excess?
Three points on water. First of all not all land comes with "water (or mineral) rights" especially in many cities. Next is that ground water doesn't exist under all parcels of land. Finally the "renter" has no land at all where they can dig for water.
Gasoline - you may be unaware of this but virturally all of the gasoline for all of the gas stations in an area come from the same refinery. The refinerry merely adds chemical additives when the trucks are being loaded to distribute the gasoline for some specific brands. The wholesale price of the pure gasoline is "fixed" by the refinery while there is a surcharged for the chemical additives such as Shell might require (causing Shell gasoline to cost a few cents more). We can also note that the price of oil is based upon price fixing at the international level but I won't go into that here.
Unrestricted the word "free" when used in "free market" includes being "free to screw" anyone whenever possible. We talk about "ethical business practices" because of the fact that there are "unethical business practices" that are not uncommon without regulations to protect the consumer. Apparently you would argue that there should be no consumer protection laws at all because the "free market" is so wonderful that enterprises won't screw the consumer.
I would point out that the US Constitution contains the 9th Amendment that protects our unenumerated Rights and that includes the unenumerated Right of Property established by the arguments made in 1690 by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V. Apparently you embrace statutory laws that violate the "unenumerated" natural (inalienable) Rights of property in violation of the 9th Amendment. You can't have it both ways you know. Either you support the "rights of the common (i.e. all people) and the rights of the individual" when it comes to property or you don't support compliance with the US Constitution because you oppose enforcement of the 9th Amendment.
Of course you're welcome to provide counter-arguments to Locke's arguments for the natural (inalienable) Right of property if you choose but that means arguing that there is a logical fallacy in his argument. Since 1690 I'm unaware of anyone being able to make that argument but you're certainly welcome to try. If the "natural (inalienable) right of property" is not established as Locke proposed then how is it established because the 9th Amendment protects the "natural (inalienable) Right of property" and not the statutory title to property. A statutory law that violates the "natural (inalienable) Right of property" is unconstitutional based upon the 9th Amendment.
You've read my federal tax proposal and it imposes a single tax rate above the exemption level. I've never made any proposal to ever tax "wealth" at all but instead only incomes and I apply the identical rules for everyone so there is no unfair tax treatment of anyone under my tax code proposal.
My argument would be that if the wealth created, which all originates from the land and natural resources, is properly distributed to begin with then there is no need for redistribution because we produce more wealth than is necessary. My argument would actually be against re-distribution based upon making it unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 14, 2014 23:51:37 GMT
Yes, we have only a single source of (public) water. But anyone who wishes to have private water is always free to dig a well. And there are lots of different gasoline stations around here. Gasoline sold at the lesser-known distributors (e.g. Murphy Express) sells for less than the same grade of gasoline from a major distributor (e.g. BP or Exxon). And gasoline sold at Kroger--which is actually Shell gasoline; Kroger simply contracts with Shell Oil, to sell its gasoline--may be less expensive still, if one has accumulated the requisite amount of points. Your assertion that, "[H]istorically the rights of the person are not protected in a free market," seems like just another example of your anti-free-market bias. And I do not refer to some (amorphous) concept known as "the 'Rights of the Common'"--irrespective of anything once asserted by John Locke--when determining what is or is not some sort of "violation." Rather, I refer to the US Constitution; the various state constitutions, as applicable; and then to statutory law. Nothing else. If some people--based upon their individual talents and/or skills--were to generate an income far in excess of anything they might need for their "survival and comfort"--in other words, if they were (truly) "filthy rich," as the vernacular has it--would you really not wish to tax them at a very high rate, and then redistribute at least some of the excess?
Three points on water. First of all not all land comes with "water (or mineral) rights" especially in many cities. Next is that ground water doesn't exist under all parcels of land. Finally the "renter" has no land at all where they can dig for water.
Gasoline - you may be unaware of this but virturally all of the gasoline for all of the gas stations in an area come from the same refinery. The refinerry merely adds chemical additives when the trucks are being loaded to distribute the gasoline for some specific brands. The wholesale price of the pure gasoline is "fixed" by the refinery while there is a surcharged for the chemical additives such as Shell might require (causing Shell gasoline to cost a few cents more). We can also note that the price of oil is based upon price fixing at the international level but I won't go into that here.
Unrestricted the word "free" when used in "free market" includes being "free to screw" anyone whenever possible. We talk about "ethical business practices" because of the fact that there are "unethical business practices" that are not uncommon without regulations to protect the consumer. Apparently you would argue that there should be no consumer protection laws at all because the "free market" is so wonderful that enterprises won't screw the consumer.
I would point out that the US Constitution contains the 9th Amendment that protects our unenumerated Rights and that includes the unenumerated Right of Property established by the arguments made in 1690 by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V. Apparently you embrace statutory laws that violate the "unenumerated" natural (inalienable) Rights of property in violation of the 9th Amendment. You can't have it both ways you know. Either you support the "rights of the common (i.e. all people) and the rights of the individual" when it comes to property or you don't support compliance with the US Constitution because you oppose enforcement of the 9th Amendment.
Of course you're welcome to provide counter-arguments to Locke's arguments for the natural (inalienable) Right of property if you choose but that means arguing that there is a logical fallacy in his argument. Since 1690 I'm unaware of anyone being able to make that argument but you're certainly welcome to try. If the "natural (inalienable) right of property" is not established as Locke proposed then how is it established because the 9th Amendment protects the "natural (inalienable) Right of property" and not the statutory title to property. A statutory law that violates the "natural (inalienable) Right of property" is unconstitutional based upon the 9th Amendment.
You've read my federal tax proposal and it imposes a single tax rate above the exemption level. I've never made any proposal to ever tax "wealth" at all but instead only incomes and I apply the identical rules for everyone so there is no unfair tax treatment of anyone under my tax code proposal.
My argument would be that if the wealth created, which all originates from the land and natural resources, is properly distributed to begin with then there is no need for redistribution because we produce more wealth than is necessary. My argument would actually be against re-distribution based upon making it unnecessary.
Why should I really care just where all the gasoline in my town originates? The fact remains that different filling stations charge different prices; and that is all that matters to me. I would not go quite so far as to assert that there should be "no consumer protection laws at all"--that is certainly a caricature of my views--but I would not wish to see the sort of massive regulation that the left prefers. I believe that those in charge of most enterprises will do whatever they can to maximize their profits. If that could be accomplished simply by "screw[ing] the consumer," most would probably do precisely that. But wherever monopolies do not exist, it is doubtful that they would be prone to doing so. For instance, Kroger could (theoretically, at least) charge $5 for a loaf of bread; but then just about everyone would begin shopping at Publix, or Food Lion, or Walmart. (Those are the supermarkets where I reside.) So it would not be in anyone's best interest to raise prices so astronomically. I really do not need to "provide counter-arguments to [John] Locke's argument for "the natural (inalienable) Right of property." The "statutory" right to property has never yet been ruled unconstitutional. I think that pretty well vitiates any need for my providing an "argument" in favor of it. And how, exactly, would you ensure that "wealth...is properly distributed to begin with"? (By the way, that strikes me as little more than a genuflection in the direction of egalitarianism and "social justice"; for which I do not have a very high regard.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 15, 2014 11:12:28 GMT
Why should I really care just where all the gasoline in my town originates? The fact remains that different filling stations charge different prices; and that is all that matters to me. I would not go quite so far as to assert that there should be "no consumer protection laws at all"--that is certainly a caricature of my views--but I would not wish to see the sort of massive regulation that the left prefers. I believe that those in charge of most enterprises will do whatever they can to maximize their profits. If that could be accomplished simply by "screw[ing] the consumer," most would probably do precisely that. But wherever monopolies do not exist, it is doubtful that they would be prone to doing so. For instance, Kroger could (theoretically, at least) charge $5 for a loaf of bread; but then just about everyone would begin shopping at Publix, or Food Lion, or Walmart. (Those are the supermarkets where I reside.) So it would not be in anyone's best interest to raise prices so astronomically. I really do not need to "provide counter-arguments to [John] Locke's argument for "the natural (inalienable) Right of property." The "statutory" right to property has never yet been ruled unconstitutional. I think that pretty well vitiates any need for my providing an "argument" in favor of it. And how, exactly, would you ensure that "wealth...is properly distributed to begin with"? (By the way, that strikes me as little more than a genuflection in the direction of egalitarianism and "social justice"; for which I do not have a very high regard.)
How strange. Because there is a few cents different in the price of gasoline at the pump between gas stations you don't care about the fact that a barrel of crude oil is over twice what it costs to produce because of international price fixing in the oil industry. The "cents" matter to you while the "dollars" don't.
I don't advocate "policies of the left" but instead advocate policies that protect our natural (inalienable) rights. Once agian I'm overwhelmingly in favor of a "free market" ecomony but only when the "rights of the person" are protected. Apparently, from your statements, you don't believe in protecting the "rights of the person" with regulations because you argue against it.
If I knew how to ensure that wealth is properly distributed to begin with I would certainly share that but obviously I don't. It's the "$64 question" but it is a question that needs to be answered if we want to eliminate the welfare state that requires the redistribution of wealth. I don't like the current welfare state so of course I'm looking to answer the "$64 question" that will all but eliminate it.
The fact that poverty is increasing while the wealth being created is going to a smaller and smaller percentage of the people is very troubling to me because I cannot embrace an economic system based upon the exploitation of the many by the few. An economy has the benefit society in general and not be designed to only benefit a few at the expense of the rest of society.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 16, 2014 0:28:57 GMT
Why should I really care just where all the gasoline in my town originates? The fact remains that different filling stations charge different prices; and that is all that matters to me. I would not go quite so far as to assert that there should be "no consumer protection laws at all"--that is certainly a caricature of my views--but I would not wish to see the sort of massive regulation that the left prefers. I believe that those in charge of most enterprises will do whatever they can to maximize their profits. If that could be accomplished simply by "screw[ing] the consumer," most would probably do precisely that. But wherever monopolies do not exist, it is doubtful that they would be prone to doing so. For instance, Kroger could (theoretically, at least) charge $5 for a loaf of bread; but then just about everyone would begin shopping at Publix, or Food Lion, or Walmart. (Those are the supermarkets where I reside.) So it would not be in anyone's best interest to raise prices so astronomically. I really do not need to "provide counter-arguments to [John] Locke's argument for "the natural (inalienable) Right of property." The "statutory" right to property has never yet been ruled unconstitutional. I think that pretty well vitiates any need for my providing an "argument" in favor of it. And how, exactly, would you ensure that "wealth...is properly distributed to begin with"? (By the way, that strikes me as little more than a genuflection in the direction of egalitarianism and "social justice"; for which I do not have a very high regard.)
How strange. Because there is a few cents different in the price of gasoline at the pump between gas stations you don't care about the fact that a barrel of crude oil is over twice what it costs to produce because of international price fixing in the oil industry. The "cents" matter to you while the "dollars" don't.
I don't advocate "policies of the left" but instead advocate policies that protect our natural (inalienable) rights. Once agian I'm overwhelmingly in favor of a "free market" ecomony but only when the "rights of the person" are protected. Apparently, from your statements, you don't believe in protecting the "rights of the person" with regulations because you argue against it.
If I knew how to ensure that wealth is properly distributed to begin with I would certainly share that but obviously I don't. It's the "$64 question" but it is a question that needs to be answered if we want to eliminate the welfare state that requires the redistribution of wealth. I don't like the current welfare state so of course I'm looking to answer the "$64 question" that will all but eliminate it.
The fact that poverty is increasing while the wealth being created is going to a smaller and smaller percentage of the people is very troubling to me because I cannot embrace an economic system based upon the exploitation of the many by the few. An economy has the benefit society in general and not be designed to only benefit a few at the expense of the rest of society.
That reference to "price fixing in the oil industry" is really just another way of saying that OPEC is a cartel; and can therefore charge whatever prices the market will bear. But since OPEC countries are not subject to American laws (anymore than the US is subject to their laws), there is really not much we can do about it. Frankly, I do not feel "exploit[ed]." And I certainly am not a part of "the few" who are wealthy, by American standards. Neither am I poverty stricken. But I am middle class. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 16, 2014 12:11:02 GMT
That reference to "price fixing in the oil industry" is really just another way of saying that OPEC is a cartel; and can therefore charge whatever prices the market will bear. But since OPEC countries are not subject to American laws (anymore than the US is subject to their laws), there is really not much we can do about it. Frankly, I do not feel "exploit[ed]." And I certainly am not a part of "the few" who are wealthy, by American standards. Neither am I poverty stricken. But I am middle class.
Yes, OPEC is a cartel and it only provides about 1/3rd of the world's oil supply but it is enough control where OPEC can actually affect the price of crude oil by opening or closing the valves of their oil production. That is far more than simply "charging what the market will bear" but instead it is the ability to fix the price of the oil on the market. Yes, it's "international price fixing" that US producers are able to take advantage of by first shipping US oil out of the United States and then re-importing it at the much higher "fixed price" established by OPEC. It's a way to circumvent US price-fixing laws by taking the oil outside of US jurisdiciton. If it was done internally to the United States it would be illegal.
While not advocating this it is possible for the US to do something about it. Prohibit the export of US produced oil. We use more oil than we produce so why are we exporting oil to begin with? We know that the export of US oil is exclusively for the purpose of avoiding anti-price fixing (consumer protection) laws for profit so why do we allow it?
There are millions of middle class Americans but doesn't it concern you that the percentage of those that are middle class is declining and the number of those living in or near poverty is increasing which is causing an ever increasing necessity for a welfare state? There are two simply straightforward formulas that you need to understand.
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance 2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
Which why would you rather see the US ecomony go?
As it stands currently we're looking at formula #1 as poverty is increasing in the United States.
As you well know from my proposal on privatization of Social Security I'm trying to achieve #2 by reducing poverty but my proposition on Social Security, even if adopted, isn't enough to turn the economy around if for no other reason that it takes about 45 years before it really makes any significant difference at all. My Social Security proposal only addresses retirement income and generational wealth but does nothing for poverty during the working careers of the person.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 16, 2014 20:57:13 GMT
That reference to "price fixing in the oil industry" is really just another way of saying that OPEC is a cartel; and can therefore charge whatever prices the market will bear. But since OPEC countries are not subject to American laws (anymore than the US is subject to their laws), there is really not much we can do about it. Frankly, I do not feel "exploit[ed]." And I certainly am not a part of "the few" who are wealthy, by American standards. Neither am I poverty stricken. But I am middle class.
Yes, OPEC is a cartel and it only provides about 1/3rd of the world's oil supply but it is enough control where OPEC can actually affect the price of crude oil by opening or closing the valves of their oil production. That is far more than simply "charging what the market will bear" but instead it is the ability to fix the price of the oil on the market. Yes, it's "international price fixing" that US producers are able to take advantage of by first shipping US oil out of the United States and then re-importing it at the much higher "fixed price" established by OPEC. It's a way to circumvent US price-fixing laws by taking the oil outside of US jurisdiciton. If it was done internally to the United States it would be illegal.
While not advocating this it is possible for the US to do something about it. Prohibit the export of US produced oil. We use more oil than we produce so why are we exporting oil to begin with? We know that the export of US oil is exclusively for the purpose of avoiding anti-price fixing (consumer protection) laws for profit so why do we allow it?
There are millions of middle class Americans but doesn't it concern you that the percentage of those that are middle class is declining and the number of those living in or near poverty is increasing which is causing an ever increasing necessity for a welfare state? There are two simply straightforward formulas that you need to understand.
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance 2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
Which why would you rather see the US ecomony go?
As it stands currently we're looking at formula #1 as poverty is increasing in the United States.
As you well know from my proposal on privatization of Social Security I'm trying to achieve #2 by reducing poverty but my proposition on Social Security, even if adopted, isn't enough to turn the economy around if for no other reason that it takes about 45 years before it really makes any significant difference at all. My Social Security proposal only addresses retirement income and generational wealth but does nothing for poverty during the working careers of the person.
You claim that you are "not advocating" any prohibition of American oil producers' "shipping oil out of the United States" onto the world market, yet then inquire, plaintively, "[W]hy do we allow it?" So which is it? Do you really advocate our prohibiting this, or not? It is probably misleading to assert that OPEC accounts for only "about 1/3 of the world's oil supply." Whereas that may be technically correct--if you are looking at, say, proven reserves--it is probably not an accurate portrayal of the percentage of the crude oil that is actually on the world market today: www.eia.gov/finance/markets/supply-opec.cfm
And I do not believe that a temporary downturn in the economy translates into a forever-diminishing middle class. Nor do I believe that any sort of economy "necessit[ates]" an expansion (or even creation) of the welfare state. As I have mentioned previously, financial assistance should be the province of private charities and individual acts of benevolence. Oh, and most churches also designate a portion of their funds for charity. An addendum : I just today learned, on the news, that poverty in the US actually decreased in 2013--presumably, the latest year for which the relevant statistics are available--for the first time since 2006. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 17, 2014 10:40:08 GMT
Yes, OPEC is a cartel and it only provides about 1/3rd of the world's oil supply but it is enough control where OPEC can actually affect the price of crude oil by opening or closing the valves of their oil production. That is far more than simply "charging what the market will bear" but instead it is the ability to fix the price of the oil on the market. Yes, it's "international price fixing" that US producers are able to take advantage of by first shipping US oil out of the United States and then re-importing it at the much higher "fixed price" established by OPEC. It's a way to circumvent US price-fixing laws by taking the oil outside of US jurisdiciton. If it was done internally to the United States it would be illegal.
While not advocating this it is possible for the US to do something about it. Prohibit the export of US produced oil. We use more oil than we produce so why are we exporting oil to begin with? We know that the export of US oil is exclusively for the purpose of avoiding anti-price fixing (consumer protection) laws for profit so why do we allow it?
There are millions of middle class Americans but doesn't it concern you that the percentage of those that are middle class is declining and the number of those living in or near poverty is increasing which is causing an ever increasing necessity for a welfare state? There are two simply straightforward formulas that you need to understand.
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance 2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
Which why would you rather see the US ecomony go?
As it stands currently we're looking at formula #1 as poverty is increasing in the United States.
As you well know from my proposal on privatization of Social Security I'm trying to achieve #2 by reducing poverty but my proposition on Social Security, even if adopted, isn't enough to turn the economy around if for no other reason that it takes about 45 years before it really makes any significant difference at all. My Social Security proposal only addresses retirement income and generational wealth but does nothing for poverty during the working careers of the person.
You claim that you are "not advocating" any prohibition of American oil producers' "shipping oil out of the United States" onto the world market, yet then inquire, plaintively, "[W]hy do we allow it?" So which is it? Do you really advocate our prohibiting this, or not? It is probably misleading to assert that OPEC accounts for only "about 1/3 of the world's oil supply." Whereas that may be technically correct--if you are looking at, say, proven reserves--it is probably not an accurate portrayal of the percentage of the crude oil that is actually on the world market today: www.eia.gov/finance/markets/supply-opec.cfm
And I do not believe that a temporary downturn in the economy translates into a forever-diminishing middle class. Nor do I believe that any sort of economy "necessit[ates]" an expansion (or even creation) of the welfare state. As I have mentioned previously, financial assistance should be the province of private charities and individual acts of benevolence. Oh, and most churches also designate a portion of their funds for charity. An addendum : I just today learned, on the news, that poverty in the US actually decreased in 2013--presumably, the latest year for which the relevant statistics are available--for the first time since 2006.
You are aware of the fact that the US basically produces the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia I suppose and we're the world's second largest producer.
www.thecountriesof.com/top-10-oil-producing-countries-in-the-world-2013-2014/
As a proponent of laizze faire capitalism that would represent a "free market that protects the Rights of the Person" I'm reluctant to impose regulations that restrict the free flow off goods but I tend to believe we need to do something about the international price fixing in the oil trade. The oil reserves of the United States belong to the American People and while those that actually "bring it to market" deserve to earn a profit that doesn't mean they should be allowed to circumvent American consumer protection laws in doing so.
What would you recommend we do about this nefarious practice by the oil traders?
I've provided more than one analysis that shows the decline in middle income jobs is not a temporary downturn in the economy as it's been going on for over a decade. The real wages of workers have been declining since 2000 and the (worldwide and US) loss of manufacturing jobs goes back to at least 1970. I'm sure I could find a similar decrease in the number of jobs in the agricultural industry as well because AI and technology has also been significant in reducing those jobs as well.
You attempt to evade the problem related to the following.
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
It doesn't matter if the welfare assistance is provided for by government or the private sector because the necessity for the welfare assistance still increases with an increase in poverty. The problem you must address is that private welfare assistance doesn't come anywhere close to providing for the need.
By analogy it's like a boat with a hole in it and either we bail the water out of the boat or the boat sinks. Public welfare assistance is a "bilge pump" while private assistance is a "tin cup" and the tin cup isn't big enough to keep the boat from sinking (and the hole in the boat is getting bigger).
Can you provide a link to the story you read on poverty decreasing? While it is possible to see a temporary blip in poverty level we need to see what is being addressed. Is it just the number related to how many are collecting welfare assistance or does it reflect an actual increase in the percentage of those earning between .75% and 1.25% of average income? Did in account for inflation? Is it referring to a trend or a short term anomaly? I'd like to see what the article really had to say because we know that the "devil is in the details" in many cased
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 17, 2014 10:59:54 GMT
Found the news story on the decline in the percentage (not number of people) living below the poverty line.
www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/09/16/poverty-rate-declines-slightly-census-bureau-reports/XKQNdGBC2cXXi7uycG1JgM/story.html
The story doesn't represent any increase in the number of middle income households and as it notes there was no significant change in the number of poor people or the income level of the typical American household. The "official poverty level" is well below what is considered to be middle income and only represents the very poorest of Americans.
According to the US Census Bureau there were 36.5 million officially living in poverty in 2006 while according to the news story there are 45.3 million living in poverty today. That's roughly a 25% increase in the number of Americans living in official poverty since 2006 and doesn't include the number living above the official poverty level but below middle income level (i.e. below 75% of average household income) that has increased even more.
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2006/pov06fig03.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 17, 2014 23:38:52 GMT
You claim that you are "not advocating" any prohibition of American oil producers' "shipping oil out of the United States" onto the world market, yet then inquire, plaintively, "[W]hy do we allow it?" So which is it? Do you really advocate our prohibiting this, or not? It is probably misleading to assert that OPEC accounts for only "about 1/3 of the world's oil supply." Whereas that may be technically correct--if you are looking at, say, proven reserves--it is probably not an accurate portrayal of the percentage of the crude oil that is actually on the world market today: www.eia.gov/finance/markets/supply-opec.cfm
And I do not believe that a temporary downturn in the economy translates into a forever-diminishing middle class. Nor do I believe that any sort of economy "necessit[ates]" an expansion (or even creation) of the welfare state. As I have mentioned previously, financial assistance should be the province of private charities and individual acts of benevolence. Oh, and most churches also designate a portion of their funds for charity. An addendum : I just today learned, on the news, that poverty in the US actually decreased in 2013--presumably, the latest year for which the relevant statistics are available--for the first time since 2006.
You are aware of the fact that the US basically produces the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia I suppose and we're the world's second largest producer.
www.thecountriesof.com/top-10-oil-producing-countries-in-the-world-2013-2014/
As a proponent of laizze faire capitalism that would represent a "free market that protects the Rights of the Person" I'm reluctant to impose regulations that restrict the free flow off goods but I tend to believe we need to do something about the international price fixing in the oil trade. The oil reserves of the United States belong to the American People and while those that actually "bring it to market" deserve to earn a profit that doesn't mean they should be allowed to circumvent American consumer protection laws in doing so.
What would you recommend we do about this nefarious practice by the oil traders?
I've provided more than one analysis that shows the decline in middle income jobs is not a temporary downturn in the economy as it's been going on for over a decade. The real wages of workers have been declining since 2000 and the (worldwide and US) loss of manufacturing jobs goes back to at least 1970. I'm sure I could find a similar decrease in the number of jobs in the agricultural industry as well because AI and technology has also been significant in reducing those jobs as well.
You attempt to evade the problem related to the following.
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
It doesn't matter if the welfare assistance is provided for by government or the private sector because the necessity for the welfare assistance still increases with an increase in poverty. The problem you must address is that private welfare assistance doesn't come anywhere close to providing for the need.
By analogy it's like a boat with a hole in it and either we bail the water out of the boat or the boat sinks. Public welfare assistance is a "bilge pump" while private assistance is a "tin cup" and the tin cup isn't big enough to keep the boat from sinking (and the hole in the boat is getting bigger).
Can you provide a link to the story you read on poverty decreasing? While it is possible to see a temporary blip in poverty level we need to see what is being addressed. Is it just the number related to how many are collecting welfare assistance or does it reflect an actual increase in the percentage of those earning between .75% and 1.25% of average income? Did in account for inflation? Is it referring to a trend or a short term anomaly? I'd like to see what the article really had to say because we know that the "devil is in the details" in many cased
First, here is a link to the story concerning the decrease in poverty in the US, from 15 percent to 14.5 percent: www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/16/census-report-us-poverty-rate-dips-to-145-percent-for-first-time-in-7-years/ I would not "recommend" that the US government shoud do anything with regard to the practice of oil traders to place their product on the world market. The way to arrest the decline in "real wages" (i.e .income in constant dollars) is to stop inflation. And the Fed has not been very good at this--to say the least. In fact, it really seems more concerned about the possibility of deflation (as the US experienced during the Great Depression) than it is about the reality of inflation (which it appears to be entirely congenial to, just as long as it is not too much--at least, not the "core" inflation, which excludes such frequently purchased items as groceries and gasoline). |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 18, 2014 9:47:20 GMT
You are aware of the fact that the US basically produces the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia I suppose and we're the world's second largest producer.
www.thecountriesof.com/top-10-oil-producing-countries-in-the-world-2013-2014/
As a proponent of laizze faire capitalism that would represent a "free market that protects the Rights of the Person" I'm reluctant to impose regulations that restrict the free flow off goods but I tend to believe we need to do something about the international price fixing in the oil trade. The oil reserves of the United States belong to the American People and while those that actually "bring it to market" deserve to earn a profit that doesn't mean they should be allowed to circumvent American consumer protection laws in doing so.
What would you recommend we do about this nefarious practice by the oil traders?
I've provided more than one analysis that shows the decline in middle income jobs is not a temporary downturn in the economy as it's been going on for over a decade. The real wages of workers have been declining since 2000 and the (worldwide and US) loss of manufacturing jobs goes back to at least 1970. I'm sure I could find a similar decrease in the number of jobs in the agricultural industry as well because AI and technology has also been significant in reducing those jobs as well.
You attempt to evade the problem related to the following.
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
It doesn't matter if the welfare assistance is provided for by government or the private sector because the necessity for the welfare assistance still increases with an increase in poverty. The problem you must address is that private welfare assistance doesn't come anywhere close to providing for the need.
By analogy it's like a boat with a hole in it and either we bail the water out of the boat or the boat sinks. Public welfare assistance is a "bilge pump" while private assistance is a "tin cup" and the tin cup isn't big enough to keep the boat from sinking (and the hole in the boat is getting bigger).
Can you provide a link to the story you read on poverty decreasing? While it is possible to see a temporary blip in poverty level we need to see what is being addressed. Is it just the number related to how many are collecting welfare assistance or does it reflect an actual increase in the percentage of those earning between .75% and 1.25% of average income? Did in account for inflation? Is it referring to a trend or a short term anomaly? I'd like to see what the article really had to say because we know that the "devil is in the details" in many cased
First, here is a link to the story concerning the decrease in poverty in the US, from 15 percent to 14.5 percent: www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/16/census-report-us-poverty-rate-dips-to-145-percent-for-first-time-in-7-years/ I would not "recommend" that the US government shoud do anything with regard to the practice of oil traders to place their product on the world market. The way to arrest the decline in "real wages" (i.e .income in constant dollars) is to stop inflation. And the Fed has not been very good at this--to say the least. In fact, it really seems more concerned about the possibility of deflation (as the US experienced during the Great Depression) than it is about the reality of inflation (which it appears to be entirely congenial to, just as long as it is not too much--at least, not the "core" inflation, which excludes such frequently purchased items as groceries and gasoline).
Apparently you missed my subsequent post where I'd found this news story being reported by the Boston Globe that provided a lot more information than Fox News. It appears, whether intentionally or not, Fox News left out quite a bit in reporting the facts that could lead a person to draw the wrong conclusions. Here's my previous post:
*****************
Found the news story on the decline in the percentage (not number of people) living below the poverty line.
www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/09/16/poverty-rate-declines-slightly-census-bureau-reports/XKQNdGBC2cXXi7uycG1JgM/story.html
The story doesn't represent any increase in the number of middle income households and as it notes there was no significant change in the number of poor people or the income level of the typical American household. The "official poverty level" is well below what is considered to be middle income and only represents the very poorest of Americans.
According to the US Census Bureau there were 36.5 million officially living in poverty in 2006 while according to the news story there are 45.3 million living in poverty today. That's roughly a 25% increase in the number of Americans living in official poverty since 2006 and doesn't include the number living above the official poverty level but below middle income level (i.e. below 75% of average household income) that has increased even more.
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2006/pov06fig03.pdf
*******************
You're still ignoring:
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
Are you aware of the fact that price fixing is a federal criminal act? Apparently you don't believe anything should be done about oil traders that have managed to find a way to commit criminal offenses based upon a loophole related to jurisdiction of the law. This is sort of like saying it's okay to murder someone as long as you do it outside of the territorial waters of the United States because it's "outside of US jurisdiction" and the US cannot prosecute offenses outside of it's lawful jurisdiction.
Why do you support criminal behavior by the oil traders?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 19, 2014 0:10:07 GMT
First, here is a link to the story concerning the decrease in poverty in the US, from 15 percent to 14.5 percent: www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/16/census-report-us-poverty-rate-dips-to-145-percent-for-first-time-in-7-years/ I would not "recommend" that the US government shoud do anything with regard to the practice of oil traders to place their product on the world market. The way to arrest the decline in "real wages" (i.e .income in constant dollars) is to stop inflation. And the Fed has not been very good at this--to say the least. In fact, it really seems more concerned about the possibility of deflation (as the US experienced during the Great Depression) than it is about the reality of inflation (which it appears to be entirely congenial to, just as long as it is not too much--at least, not the "core" inflation, which excludes such frequently purchased items as groceries and gasoline).
Apparently you missed my subsequent post where I'd found this news story being reported by the Boston Globe that provided a lot more information than Fox News. It appears, whether intentionally or not, Fox News left out quite a bit in reporting the facts that could lead a person to draw the wrong conclusions. Here's my previous post:
*****************
Found the news story on the decline in the percentage (not number of people) living below the poverty line.
www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/09/16/poverty-rate-declines-slightly-census-bureau-reports/XKQNdGBC2cXXi7uycG1JgM/story.html
The story doesn't represent any increase in the number of middle income households and as it notes there was no significant change in the number of poor people or the income level of the typical American household. The "official poverty level" is well below what is considered to be middle income and only represents the very poorest of Americans.
According to the US Census Bureau there were 36.5 million officially living in poverty in 2006 while according to the news story there are 45.3 million living in poverty today. That's roughly a 25% increase in the number of Americans living in official poverty since 2006 and doesn't include the number living above the official poverty level but below middle income level (i.e. below 75% of average household income) that has increased even more.
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2006/pov06fig03.pdf
*******************
You're still ignoring:
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
Are you aware of the fact that price fixing is a federal criminal act? Apparently you don't believe anything should be done about oil traders that have managed to find a way to commit criminal offenses based upon a loophole related to jurisdiction of the law. This is sort of like saying it's okay to murder someone as long as you do it outside of the territorial waters of the United States because it's "outside of US jurisdiction" and the US cannot prosecute offenses outside of it's lawful jurisdiction.
Why do you support criminal behavior by the oil traders?
Taking your last point first: The oil traders to whom you refer are acting legally. If they were not, they surely would be prosecuted. To compare an entirely legal act to murder, and pretend that its legality is just a technicality--the result of some "loophole"--is highly didingenuous, it seems to me. And since the size of "the typical American household" may vary significantly from decade to decade, "poverty" based upon this can be very misleading. I would much prefer to look at poverty based upon individual numbers. And even then, I would prefer that it should include all government assistance--e.g. food stamps (a.k.a. EBT cards, or "SNAP"), public housing, TANF (formerly AFDC), etc. No, I am not "ignoring" anything. I have said it before, but I will say it again: Poverty--at any level--simply does NOT "necessitate" government intervention. End of story. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 19, 2014 12:19:22 GMT
Apparently you missed my subsequent post where I'd found this news story being reported by the Boston Globe that provided a lot more information than Fox News. It appears, whether intentionally or not, Fox News left out quite a bit in reporting the facts that could lead a person to draw the wrong conclusions. Here's my previous post:
*****************
Found the news story on the decline in the percentage (not number of people) living below the poverty line.
www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/09/16/poverty-rate-declines-slightly-census-bureau-reports/XKQNdGBC2cXXi7uycG1JgM/story.html
The story doesn't represent any increase in the number of middle income households and as it notes there was no significant change in the number of poor people or the income level of the typical American household. The "official poverty level" is well below what is considered to be middle income and only represents the very poorest of Americans.
According to the US Census Bureau there were 36.5 million officially living in poverty in 2006 while according to the news story there are 45.3 million living in poverty today. That's roughly a 25% increase in the number of Americans living in official poverty since 2006 and doesn't include the number living above the official poverty level but below middle income level (i.e. below 75% of average household income) that has increased even more.
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2006/pov06fig03.pdf
*******************
You're still ignoring:
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
Are you aware of the fact that price fixing is a federal criminal act? Apparently you don't believe anything should be done about oil traders that have managed to find a way to commit criminal offenses based upon a loophole related to jurisdiction of the law. This is sort of like saying it's okay to murder someone as long as you do it outside of the territorial waters of the United States because it's "outside of US jurisdiction" and the US cannot prosecute offenses outside of it's lawful jurisdiction.
Why do you support criminal behavior by the oil traders?
Taking your last point first: The oil traders to whom you refer are acting legally. If they were not, they surely would be prosecuted. To compare an entirely legal act to murder, and pretend that its legality is just a technicality--the result of some "loophole"--is highly didingenuous, it seems to me. And since the size of "the typical American household" may vary significantly from decade to decade, "poverty" based upon this can be very misleading. I would much prefer to look at poverty based upon individual numbers. And even then, I would prefer that it should include all government assistance--e.g. food stamps (a.k.a. EBT cards, or "SNAP"), public housing, TANF (formerly AFDC), etc. No, I am not "ignoring" anything. I have said it before, but I will say it again: Poverty--at any level--simply does NOT "necessitate" government intervention. End of story.
Using a monoply power to fix prices to achieve a greater profit is a form of theft which is why it's a criminal offense in the United States. The fact that the oil traders are managing to avoid prosecution due to an issue of jurisdiction does not change the fact that they are stealing (committing an act of theft) by price fixing oil.
By analogy you're stating that a murder committed on the high seas outside of the territorial waters of any nation is acceptable because no nation would have jurisdiction to prosecute the act. Murder is murder and theft is theft regardless of jurisdictional authority by any or all nations. Your advocacy is for THEFT based upon a lack of legal jurisdiction.
My proposition, which is very accurate, does not contain the word "government" in it. Try reading it again:
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
The financial burden imposed upon society by poverty is unchanged regardless of whether that financial burden is provided for by the private or public sector. As a civilized society the financial burden must be provided for and you can't claim or show that the private sector will provide for the current financial burden much less an ever increasing financial burden being imposed by the ever increasing level of poverty. While the typical family sizes can vary by decade we find it is predominately related to the number of single person and the number of very large families and not to the median household size that hasn't changed significantly in decades remaining around 2.5 people per household.
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html
You wanted individual statistics so I will provide you with one from the US Census Bureau. In 2000 the median individual income (in 2013 dollars) was $30,228 in 2000 and by 2013 it had declined to $28,829. That's roughly a 5% decline in the median individual income during a relatively short time span and it is highly significant. All financial indicators reflect that the median income still going down according to all experts. Using the commonly accepted criteria that middle income related to those earning between 75% to 125% of median income are "middle income earners" then anyone today earning less than about $21,600 is a low income earner.
As the full story revealed, but not covered by the Fox News story, while those living in official poverty has decreased slightly the generally statistics related to income have not changed significantly except we know that the median income per individual is declining over time.
You keep looking for an "out" but the fact remains that poverty is increasing in the United States and.....
Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
You have not made any proposal that would provide the funding necessary to meet the ever increasing finacial burden that the increasing poverty is creating or any proposal that would reverse the trend of ever increasing poverty in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 20, 2014 0:00:25 GMT
Taking your last point first: The oil traders to whom you refer are acting legally. If they were not, they surely would be prosecuted. To compare an entirely legal act to murder, and pretend that its legality is just a technicality--the result of some "loophole"--is highly didingenuous, it seems to me. And since the size of "the typical American household" may vary significantly from decade to decade, "poverty" based upon this can be very misleading. I would much prefer to look at poverty based upon individual numbers. And even then, I would prefer that it should include all government assistance--e.g. food stamps (a.k.a. EBT cards, or "SNAP"), public housing, TANF (formerly AFDC), etc. No, I am not "ignoring" anything. I have said it before, but I will say it again: Poverty--at any level--simply does NOT "necessitate" government intervention. End of story.
Using a monoply power to fix prices to achieve a greater profit is a form of theft which is why it's a criminal offense in the United States. The fact that the oil traders are managing to avoid prosecution due to an issue of jurisdiction does not change the fact that they are stealing (committing an act of theft) by price fixing oil.
By analogy you're stating that a murder committed on the high seas outside of the territorial waters of any nation is acceptable because no nation would have jurisdiction to prosecute the act. Murder is murder and theft is theft regardless of jurisdictional authority by any or all nations. Your advocacy is for THEFT based upon a lack of legal jurisdiction.
My proposition, which is very accurate, does not contain the word "government" in it. Try reading it again:
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
The financial burden imposed upon society by poverty is unchanged regardless of whether that financial burden is provided for by the private or public sector. As a civilized society the financial burden must be provided for and you can't claim or show that the private sector will provide for the current financial burden much less an ever increasing financial burden being imposed by the ever increasing level of poverty. While the typical family sizes can vary by decade we find it is predominately related to the number of single person and the number of very large families and not to the median household size that hasn't changed significantly in decades remaining around 2.5 people per household.
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html
You wanted individual statistics so I will provide you with one from the US Census Bureau. In 2000 the median individual income (in 2013 dollars) was $30,228 in 2000 and by 2013 it had declined to $28,829. That's roughly a 5% decline in the median individual income during a relatively short time span and it is highly significant. All financial indicators reflect that the median income still going down according to all experts. Using the commonly accepted criteria that middle income related to those earning between 75% to 125% of median income are "middle income earners" then anyone today earning less than about $21,600 is a low income earner.
As the full story revealed, but not covered by the Fox News story, while those living in official poverty has decreased slightly the generally statistics related to income have not changed significantly except we know that the median income per individual is declining over time.
You keep looking for an "out" but the fact remains that poverty is increasing in the United States and.....
Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
You have not made any proposal that would provide the funding necessary to meet the ever increasing finacial burden that the increasing poverty is creating or any proposal that would reverse the trend of ever increasing poverty in the United States.
As I have noted previously, individual giving--either to private charities, to specific (needy) individuals, or to one's house of worship (which probably spends some of its funds on charity)--is really not a societal "burden." Rather, it is a joy for those givers. (The ancient aphorism--"It is more blessed to give than to receive"--may be reworded just a bit: It is more joyful to give than to receive.) I have read (more than once) that the typical American household is much smaller now than it was just 20 years ago. What evidence do you have (I would prefer a neutral source) that it "hasn't changed significantly in decades"? The $1,399 reduction in average income that you have bemoaned, between 2000 and 2013, "in 2013 dollars," blithely ignores the major economic downturn of 2008 (which some have dubbed "The Great Recession"), and the fact that this has been a very slow recovery; slower than any other post-WWII recovery. And it further ignores the fact the real problem here is inflation--the fact that 2000 dollars are not identical to 2013 dollars, in their purchasing power--and this is really the core of the problem. An America entirely devoid of inflation--which the Fed does not seem to desire--would not have suffered from an annual reduction of $1,399 in constant dollars between 2000 and 2013. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 20, 2014 13:25:43 GMT
Using a monoply power to fix prices to achieve a greater profit is a form of theft which is why it's a criminal offense in the United States. The fact that the oil traders are managing to avoid prosecution due to an issue of jurisdiction does not change the fact that they are stealing (committing an act of theft) by price fixing oil.
By analogy you're stating that a murder committed on the high seas outside of the territorial waters of any nation is acceptable because no nation would have jurisdiction to prosecute the act. Murder is murder and theft is theft regardless of jurisdictional authority by any or all nations. Your advocacy is for THEFT based upon a lack of legal jurisdiction.
My proposition, which is very accurate, does not contain the word "government" in it. Try reading it again:
1) Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
2) Decreasing povery = decreasing necessity for welfare asssistance
The financial burden imposed upon society by poverty is unchanged regardless of whether that financial burden is provided for by the private or public sector. As a civilized society the financial burden must be provided for and you can't claim or show that the private sector will provide for the current financial burden much less an ever increasing financial burden being imposed by the ever increasing level of poverty. While the typical family sizes can vary by decade we find it is predominately related to the number of single person and the number of very large families and not to the median household size that hasn't changed significantly in decades remaining around 2.5 people per household.
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884238.html
You wanted individual statistics so I will provide you with one from the US Census Bureau. In 2000 the median individual income (in 2013 dollars) was $30,228 in 2000 and by 2013 it had declined to $28,829. That's roughly a 5% decline in the median individual income during a relatively short time span and it is highly significant. All financial indicators reflect that the median income still going down according to all experts. Using the commonly accepted criteria that middle income related to those earning between 75% to 125% of median income are "middle income earners" then anyone today earning less than about $21,600 is a low income earner.
As the full story revealed, but not covered by the Fox News story, while those living in official poverty has decreased slightly the generally statistics related to income have not changed significantly except we know that the median income per individual is declining over time.
You keep looking for an "out" but the fact remains that poverty is increasing in the United States and.....
Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance
You have not made any proposal that would provide the funding necessary to meet the ever increasing finacial burden that the increasing poverty is creating or any proposal that would reverse the trend of ever increasing poverty in the United States.
As I have noted previously, individual giving--either to private charities, to specific (needy) individuals, or to one's house of worship (which probably spends some of its funds on charity)--is really not a societal "burden." Rather, it is a joy for those givers. (The ancient aphorism--"It is more blessed to give than to receive"--may be reworded just a bit: It is more joyful to give than to receive.) I have read (more than once) that the typical American household is much smaller now than it was just 20 years ago. What evidence do you have (I would prefer a neutral source) that it "hasn't changed significantly in decades"? The $1,399 reduction in average income that you have bemoaned, between 2000 and 2013, "in 2013 dollars," blithely ignores the major economic downturn of 2008 (which some have dubbed "The Great Recession"), and the fact that this has been a very slow recovery; slower than any other post-WWII recovery. And it further ignores the fact the real problem here is inflation--the fact that 2000 dollars are not identical to 2013 dollars, in their purchasing power--and this is really the core of the problem. An America entirely devoid of inflation--which the Fed does not seem to desire--would not have suffered from an annual reduction of $1,399 in constant dollars between 2000 and 2013.
The financial burden to society is the cost of poverty and the fact that some individuals choose to voluntarily contribute to fund this financial burden does not change the actual burden. If we have a necessity for $1 trillion/year based upon poverty then that $1 trillion is the burden to society regardless of whether it's funded or not. Not funding the financial obligation merely results in more people going hungry, more people being homeless, more people dying from a lack of medical treatment, etc. which is inexcusable in a modern civilization and society. I refuse to allow people to starve, be forced to live on the streets, die from a lack of medical services, or suffer from the many other effects of poverty. Do you support allowing any of that happening?
You point to the changing demographics of the household and they have changed. For example I've heard that, for the first time in our history, the number of single adults over 16 years old has just broken the 50% level. This also means the problem of poverty is worse than before because two people can live for less than twice the cost of one person.
By way of example, based upon the 2013 "offical poverty" level (which reflects the very bottom of low income earners) a single person needs to earn more than $11,490/yr while two people only need to earn $15,510. Basically if the individual only earns $11,491/yr then the second person is only required to earn $4,020/yr to keep the "household" out of "official poverty" under the law. As two individual both have to earn $11,491/yr to be above the official poverty level. As the demographics change, based upon current trends, the problem of poverty becomes worse, not better.
So yes, the demographic changes are increasing the financial burden on society imposed by poverty.
The economy, based upon GDP, has recovered from the "Great Recession" of 2008. The GDP is 16% greater today than it was in 2008 but (as of 2012) 95% of all that increase in wealth has gone to the top 1%. The recession is over, the economy is doing fairly well, but the workers are not sharing in the increase in wealth based upon the economic growth and the number living below "midde income" levels and in poverty is increasing.
www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp
news.yahoo.com/charts-rich-won-great-recession-130300311.html
Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance Final note: Inflation is accounted for and wages are lower today in both "dollars" and "dollars adjusted for inflation" than they were in 2007 before the recession. The loss of purchasing power based upon inflation are accounted for so "inflation" has been removed from the equation. The loss of income would have occured with or without inflation.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 20, 2014 21:31:24 GMT
As I have noted previously, individual giving--either to private charities, to specific (needy) individuals, or to one's house of worship (which probably spends some of its funds on charity)--is really not a societal "burden." Rather, it is a joy for those givers. (The ancient aphorism--"It is more blessed to give than to receive"--may be reworded just a bit: It is more joyful to give than to receive.) I have read (more than once) that the typical American household is much smaller now than it was just 20 years ago. What evidence do you have (I would prefer a neutral source) that it "hasn't changed significantly in decades"? The $1,399 reduction in average income that you have bemoaned, between 2000 and 2013, "in 2013 dollars," blithely ignores the major economic downturn of 2008 (which some have dubbed "The Great Recession"), and the fact that this has been a very slow recovery; slower than any other post-WWII recovery. And it further ignores the fact the real problem here is inflation--the fact that 2000 dollars are not identical to 2013 dollars, in their purchasing power--and this is really the core of the problem. An America entirely devoid of inflation--which the Fed does not seem to desire--would not have suffered from an annual reduction of $1,399 in constant dollars between 2000 and 2013.
The financial burden to society is the cost of poverty and the fact that some individuals choose to voluntarily contribute to fund this financial burden does not change the actual burden. If we have a necessity for $1 trillion/year based upon poverty then that $1 trillion is the burden to society regardless of whether it's funded or not. Not funding the financial obligation merely results in more people going hungry, more people being homeless, more people dying from a lack of medical treatment, etc. which is inexcusable in a modern civilization and society. I refuse to allow people to starve, be forced to live on the streets, die from a lack of medical services, or suffer from the many other effects of poverty. Do you support allowing any of that happening?
You point to the changing demographics of the household and they have changed. For example I've heard that, for the first time in our history, the number of single adults over 16 years old has just broken the 50% level. This also means the problem of poverty is worse than before because two people can live for less than twice the cost of one person.
By way of example, based upon the 2013 "offical poverty" level (which reflects the very bottom of low income earners) a single person needs to earn more than $11,490/yr while two people only need to earn $15,510. Basically if the individual only earns $11,491/yr then the second person is only required to earn $4,020/yr to keep the "household" out of "official poverty" under the law. As two individual both have to earn $11,491/yr to be above the official poverty level. As the demographics change, based upon current trends, the problem of poverty becomes worse, not better.
So yes, the demographic changes are increasing the financial burden on society imposed by poverty.
The economy, based upon GDP, has recovered from the "Great Recession" of 2008. The GDP is 16% greater today than it was in 2008 but (as of 2012) 95% of all that increase in wealth has gone to the top 1%. The recession is over, the economy is doing fairly well, but the workers are not sharing in the increase in wealth based upon the economic growth and the number living below "midde income" levels and in poverty is increasing.
www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp
news.yahoo.com/charts-rich-won-great-recession-130300311.html
Increasing poverty = increasing necessity for welfare assistance Final note: Inflation is accounted for and wages are lower today in both "dollars" and "dollars adjusted for inflation" than they were in 2007 before the recession. The loss of purchasing power based upon inflation are accounted for so "inflation" has been removed from the equation. The loss of income would have occured with or without inflation.
Whereas it is certainly possible that this reduction in average income is not entirely tied to the ravages of inflation, I would imagine that a rather large portion of it is. Your assertion that voluntary contributions to charity do not change "the actual [financial] burden" simply sidesteps my major point, viz.: Those who contribute to charity do not usually feel "burden[ed]" by the need to make those contributions. In fact, most of us feel a rather warm, glowing feeling upon being able to help others. Since it would be superfluous for both individuals in a two-person household to pay the rent (or mortgage), pay the cable (or satellite) bill, pay for electricity, pay for natural gas, pay for water, pay for a landline phone...and on and on...it makes perfect sense that the official poverty level for a household of two is far less than double the amount of the official poverty level for a household of one. Oh, and I certainly do not believe that the only alternative to your littany of horrors (people "living on the streets," "starv[ing]," and "d[ying] from a lack of medical services") is The Welfare State (which you have described--ever so benignly--as the very apotheosis of "a modern civilization and society"). To claim that the American economy "has recovered from the 'Great Recession' of 2008" (after six full years!) is to overlook the fact that it has been a very shallow recovery. And a largely jobless recovery (principally due, I believe, to employers' reluctance to hire many individuals--especially low-skill individuals--in such a high-regulation environment as we have today). And no, "the economy" is really not doing "fairly well." Wall Street is doing quite well--currently, at least; a cyclical correction is probably just around the corner--but Main Street, well, not so much... |
|
