[blacksport]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Who decides what is "useful"?

You hit the nail on the head. Imagine people like Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, who has not created anything useful in their entire lives, getting to decide what is useful in other people's lives.

Instead we should let each person decide what is good for his/her life, and let them pay for it. Whether he succeeds or fails it only affects him not the entire society.

[vrprabhu]

Originally Posted by blacksport

..... Pension is just an insurance scheme, where you pay your premium and you get paid from the kitty for the rest of your life....

Err, it isn't. It is an annuity. There are various models of annuity.

However, since the discussion is on economics and socialism, let us talk only about what a citizen will get in the form of support from Government - without having to contribute for it (i.e. funding for pension will be taken care of by the Government, the money being raised through other sources = taxation).

Originally Posted by blacksport

..... Instead we should let each person decide what is good for his/her life, and let them pay for it. Whether he succeeds or fails it only affects him not the entire society....

Let us consider the case of a poor farmer - there are plenty of them who can barely make their ends meet. And, the middleman makes most out of whatever the farmer produces. Shouldn't the farmer be assured of some kind of monetary support in his sunset days, especially when he doesn't have the resources to build a kitty?

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

.... And that is why UBI like solutions are better. Every citizen over 60 should get a basic and equal pension, whether they had a job earlier should not matter....

While the first point seems fine, the second one doesn't. Guess the economic conditions of an individual should decide whether he receives Govt. support or not.

Let me explain - take the concession given to senior citizen in trains. A sleeper class ticket concession is OK. But should it be extended to AC also? If a person can afford to travel in I / II / III AC, then hopefully he or she is in a position to forego the concession? Guess there should be an option for people to opt for such benefits - and to ensure that such benefits are really availed only by the needy.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

All old people should live in dignity, not just the ones who (or their spouses) had a governemnt job. That is why in the very next line I said a basic and equal pension has to be given for everyone over 60 (or whatever age it can be decided).

Yes, I am not saying only government employees should received pension. Everybody should get pension at their old age. I am not a government employee either.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Things like free medical coverage or college education leads to needless implementation problems. For example, should an alcoholic smoker be given free medical treatment for diseases caused by his/her choices? How long should medical treatment continue for terminal/vegetative cases?

The following countries provide universal healthcare: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates & United Kingdom.

So we can find out what they do, for the cases you mention.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Should college education be free for a course which is not considered "useful" for the society? Who decides what is "useful"?

You are again using the capitalistic lens. Is my autistic son useful to the society? Why am I spending so much money on him?

Again, when we say college, why should it be the traditional ones? I have been learning lots of advanced math for my work, from Youtube. Sure, I don't get any degree for it, but I don't need degree for my work. But the government can formalise and recognise open universities where learning can be done from anywhere over Internet. Now everyone has access to smartphone and 4G. I have employees who are doing distant MBA and MS from reputed universities from UK and USA respectively, all while living/working in a small village. And my company is paying the fee, so I am walking the talk, when I say make college education free.

Originally Posted by blacksport

You hit the nail on the head. Imagine people like Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, who has not created anything useful in their entire lives, getting to decide what is useful in other people's lives.

You just named two very popular politicians as having done nothing. Ok, AOC is new, but Bernie? He was polled to be the most popular politician across all parties in USA. Because he did nothing useful?

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by Samurai

The following countries provide universal healthcare: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates & United Kingdom.

So we can find out what they do, for the cases you mention.

And I am sure same questions are being asked, especially combining with Immigration. There are studies to show people's support for welfare state reduces with rising immigration. This rise of the anti-migrant right in many western European countries points to this.

You are again using the capitalistic lens. Is my autistic son useful to the society? Why am I spending so much money on him?

I intentionally put "useful" in quotes. When you have socialized medicine, and socialized education there are others (government bureaucrats) who will make these decision on who should get medical benefits and for how long. And for sure, there will be people who will question the "usefulness" of any individual to the society.

Again, when we say college, why should it be the traditional ones?...... And my company is paying the fee, so I am walking the talk, when I say make college education free.

Kudos to you (Can I get a job? ). And that is how it should be. An employer should be able to decide what benefits his/her gets. Imagine if the government just increases the taxes from you, decides on their own which are the free colleges, what courses can be given free and for how long, and which are the students eligible. You are left with no money to fund your employees/family education and then I would like to see your support for a government funded welfare state.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

And I am sure same questions are being asked, especially combining with Immigration. There are studies to show people's support for welfare state reduces with rising immigration.

Make it free for citizens. A nation can always choose when to grant citizenship to immigrants.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

I intentionally put "useful" in quotes. When you have socialized medicine, and socialized education there are others (government bureaucrats) who will make these decision on who should get medical benefits and for how long. And for sure, there will be people who will question the "usefulness" of any individual to the society.

See, you are assuming that capitalistic pre-conditions will remain, when healthcare becomes free.

Why is healthcare so expensive in USA? Because of the cost of medical education and malpractice insurance and big pharma. All capitalistic conditions.

If medical education was free, and medicines were free, two of those reasons go away. And in countries that give universal healthcare, liability is limited by state. So healthcare becomes inexpensive, the government doesn't have to pick and choose whom to treat. I know it is hard to look at it from an entirely new set of conditions, but that is how change starts.

Bernie Sanders announced his 2020 bid this week, and he said the following:

“Three years ago, during our 2016 campaign, when we brought forth our progressive agenda we were told that our ideas were ‘radical’ and ‘extreme’. Well, three years have come and gone. And, as result of millions of Americans standing up and fighting back, all of these policies and more are now supported by a majority of Americans.”

See... now at least 1/3 of democratic contenders in the 2020 race are using his radical ideas from 2016 race. Mainly because polls show majority of Americans are for it.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Kudos to you (Can I get a job? ). And that is how it should be.

I only hire freshers. And they have to spend 5 and 8 years in the company to qualify for free MS and MBA respectively.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

An employer should be able to decide what benefits his/her gets. Imagine if the government just increases the taxes from you, decides on their own which are the free colleges, what courses can be given free and for how long, and which are the students eligible. You are left with no money to fund your employees/family education and then I would like to see your support for a government funded welfare state.

Again, you are thinking capitalistic pre-conditions. If government provided free education and free healthcare, I don't have to pay high salaries. So I would happily pay more tax.

Amazon doesn't pay any tax despite making huge profits, and still is notorious for exploiting employees and underpaying them. How does that compute?

Only few months ago, amazon raised the minimum wage to $15/hour thanks to intense pressure from Bernie Sanders [the guy who does nothing ], when he introduced a legislation called Bezos Act to tax corporations for every dollar that their low-wage workers receive in government health-care benefits or food stamps.

Companies are not accountable to the citizens or employees, you can't depends on the whim of CEOs. Democratic governments on the other hand are accountable to the citizens.

[vrprabhu]

Originally Posted by Samurai

.... If government provided free education and free healthcare, I don't have to pay high salaries. So I would happily pay more tax.

Companies are not accountable to the citizens or employees, you can't depend on the whim of CEOs. Democratic governments on the other hand are accountable to the citizens.

Very nicely put. I fully support your view - I pay close to 1/3rd of my earnings through income taxes and combined with GST & other levies (municipal taxes etc.) the total taxes which goes to governments kitty from my pocket will be touching a million bucks (out my annual earning of about 2.5 million). I really don't mind paying these taxes - only wished that the benefit reached the needy.

As regards the corporates, as you have rightly pointed out, the decisions are left in the hands of a few (Board) and how much accountability the shareholders are able to enforce is questionable.

Talking about democratic governments, money power seems to play a larger role than performance and development....

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Companies are not accountable to the citizens or employees, you can't depends on the whim of CEOs. Democratic governments on the other hand are accountable to the citizens.

This is something that most of us 'educated-class' fail to grasp, because we don't really take part in our democratic setup.

Sure, it's become a fad to vote and post a selfie online with the ink mark the past few years, but we don't engage with our democratic setup, know who our local body reps are, or participate in the political process really.

Add to this generations of distrust of the government (which admittedly is not misplaced at all), and an aspiration to be like one of these 'visionary business leaders' (Jobs, Cook, Bezos, Vijay Mallya (not a joke, he was a role model for several before), et. al), and we all end up thinking in absolute terms like 'govt. vs. private', 'capitalism vs. communism/socialism' (which, no matter how many times people point out are different, are lumped in the same category).

Even though it's been proved several times over that several of these corporate titans have abused power as badly as any government functionary and have caused enough damage.

The difference is that you can vote a government out of power, do you really think anyone can remove an Ambani from a Reliance, no matter what he does there?!

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by Samurai

See, you are assuming that capitalistic pre-conditions will remain, when healthcare becomes free.

If medical education was free, and medicines were free, two of those reasons go away. And in countries that give universal healthcare, liability is limited by state. So healthcare becomes inexpensive, the government doesn't have to pick and choose whom to treat. I know it is hard to look at it from an entirely new set of conditions, but that is how change starts.

Government does not have limitless money nor they can generate it endlessly just by increasing taxes on the rich. Someday it will hit a limit, and then the resentment would start. I can give more controversial examples but then it will introduce a political/religious angles and don't want the discussion to go into those areas .

Maybe I am not able to visualize the ideal world you visualize; so lets leave it at that. Don't want to prolong this discussion.

If government provided free education and free healthcare, I don't have to pay high salaries.

You are assuming everyone is interested only in Free education or healthcare. All people are not same nor are their needs only limited to education or healthcare.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Government does not have limitless money nor they can generate it endlessly just by increasing taxes on the rich. Someday it will hit a limit, and then the resentment would start.

Unlike the perfect society we have now with capitalism?

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Maybe I am not able to visualize the ideal world you visualize; so lets leave it at that. Don't want to prolong this discussion.

There are many countries in the world right now where they can't visualize democracy, because they are used to dictators, monarchs and feudalism. Similarly, we are mainly ruled by capitalistic thinking right now. We try to see every social policy from the lens of capitalism and then discard it as dumb. It took me few years of studying and reflection to break out that vicious cycle.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

You are assuming everyone is interested only in Free education or healthcare. All people are not same nor are their needs only limited to education or healthcare.

Consider maslow's hierarchy of needs. The first level is food, water, air, shelter and health. So you can't say health is not a priority. And you can't get food/shelter without a job, and most jobs needs education these days. That is why I say education/healthcare should be free for all citizens. If there are people who don't care about health and education, they are really outliers.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Consider maslow's hierarchy of needs. The first level is food, water, air, shelter and health. So you can't say health is not a priority. And you can't get food/shelter without a job, and most jobs needs education these days. That is why I say education/healthcare should be free for all citizens. If there are people who don't care about health and education, they are really outliers.

The limited context of that comment was about your potential and current employees, not general populace. A 25 something in good health, and who does all her further education via Youtube or online courses, would be more interested in higher salary that you can offer, than health/education benefits.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

The limited context of that comment was about your potential and current employees, not general populace. A 25 something in good health, and who does all her further education via Youtube or online courses, would be more interested in higher salary that you can offer, than health/education benefits.

Applicable to my employees too. The fresh engineers when they join, do qualify for ESI, the government provided healthcare for their family. Guess what, every one of them apply for ESI benefits to cover their parents. It is after all free. I sign those applications, so I know they use it. Of course, they lose it in their second year when their salary crosses the ESI salary threshold.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Let us state some facts about human beings first:
1) Human beings are emotional creatures
2) Emotional creatures give out emotional responses and outbreaks when they find something "unfair"

You mix something with economics, you get something that is different from economics.

I want an apple; I give you money; you give me an apple - that's economics.

I want an apple; I don't have money; you pity on me; you give me an apple - that's charity.

I want an apple; I don't have money; I forcibly take it away from you - that's thievery.

I want an apple; I don't have money; Govt forcibly take it away from you and gives it to me - institutionalized thievery.

I want an apple; I don't have money; I say that I have a right to that apple you have; I ask govt to forcibly take it away from you and give it to me - that's socialism.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by blacksport

I want an apple; I don't have money; I say that I have a right to that apple you have; I ask govt to forcibly take it away from you and give it to me - that's socialism.

Yup, because it is the human thing to do. We take care of our non-earning children and parents, without cribbing about it.

[ani_meher]

Originally Posted by blacksport

You mix something with economics, you get something that is different from economics.

I want an apple; I give you money; you give me an apple - that's economics.

I want an apple; I don't have money; you pity on me; you give me an apple - that's charity.

I want an apple; I don't have money; I forcibly take it away from you - that's thievery.

I want an apple; I don't have money; Govt forcibly take it away from you and gives it to me - institutionalized thievery.

I want an apple; I don't have money; I say that I have a right to that apple you have; I ask govt to forcibly take it away from you and give it to me - that's socialism.

I want an apple, and ready to pay a fair price. But all the sellers in the market collude and sell at 10 times the cost. - (Crony) Capitalism?

When capitalism goes awry and becomes property of a handful, other 'isms' start to rise their heads.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Yup, because it is the human thing to do. We take care of our non-earning children and parents, without cribbing about it.

Taking care of parents and children is by choice. You choose whether to give and whom to give to. That is not same as laying claim on money somebody else worked for.

Originally Posted by ani_meher

When capitalism goes awry and becomes property of a handful, other 'isms' start to rise their heads.

Capitalism has its ills, but socialism is not a solution. The only places where socialism is still thriving is where capitalism created wealth first, and socialists are busy eating away the wealth like termites. Other places like Venezuela have a huge starving population. In some Nordic countries, socialists piggyback on capitalism, but it will not be long before the ones that create wealth will get fed up with the freeloaders and start revolting.