Possibly. Frankly, ALL political systems are eventually transient.eumaas wrote:Oh, yeah. When I see Bushies chanting a name, I fear for our safety and liberty. When I see Obamaniacs chanting, I fear for our wisdom. There's a marked difference.Wolter wrote:I understand completely. if it's any consolation, the Republicans looked a lot more like Nuremberg than Grant Park did. There is still a sense of joy and spontaneity in the Obamaniacs. The other side is just bloodthirsty and paranoid.I agree with this. But I wonder if the underlined portion is reliant on a non-socdem context as I've pondered above.Remember, when I talk of stability, it's in the game theory sense where a system falls into a niche where it balances the competing factors that move it to new places on the left/right & liberarian/authoritarian axes.* And it's also taking minor tinkering into account to keep it alive and kicking past it's due date if left alone. Social Democracy seems to be quite stable as long as massive economic or military crises do not occur - as long as the various plates are kept spinning.
Yes we can !!!
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: Yes we can !!!
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115989
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Yes we can !!!
So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.eumaas wrote:Stability vis-a-vis other systems. I agree that people can make things work for a time (which is why the USSR lasted as long as it did, although I'll note part of that was the black market economy), but at the same time there are tensions in societies that produce systemic change or even collapse. This is more an economic argument than anything. I'll have to put a disclaimer here that I'm about to make some extreme simplifications here since this isn't a specialist board. OK so as I said, these services need to be paid for. But people behave in relatively predictable ways--if you create disincentives to investment, they're less likely to invest. That in turn means less growth and less overall economic activity which makes it harder to pay for those services and in turn makes the burden of paying for those services harder to bear, and it sort of amplifies from there. Eventually you will end up with rather major pressures to roll back the services and deregulate the market. Like I said, this is just a simple example and just one component of it. The economic sustainability just seems questionable to me since it will tend towards stagnation.Dr. Medulla wrote:I'm curious about your notion of stability—or at least what you mean by it. Human beings, being adaptable fucks, can make any system stable if there's a critical mass that is satisfied with the system. So it gets down to expectations of what your life should amount to and whether the economic, political, and social systems are delivering it to enough people. So questions of stability are dependent on the expectations of the citizenry not the actual system employed, no?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Yes we can !!!
This is continuing. She replied:eumaas wrote:from facebook, a republican friend's status:
"[name withheld] concedes that work must now be done to protect America from the highest leaders no matter what the cost."
"Gene, all I can say is, you'll see."
So I said:
"That doesn't really answer the question--are you implying violence? Secession? I'm game for secession as I dislike the state anyway, but I would caution against overreaction."
She: "Reactionaries created this country and reactionaries will save this country."
I: "Reactionaries? I would agree that Hamilton and his ilk were, as they were a bunch of mercantilists fond of centralism. But Jefferson was an enlightment radical--very much a classical liberal (read:libertarian), though an agrarian one."
She: "Look up words before you use them, please."
I: "That's a rather insulting tone to take, [name]. Which word do you object to? I don't think you can say that reactionaries *created* this nation--by definition it's untrue since it was a revolution against the established interests (feudalism, mercantilism) in favor of classical liberalism (natural rights, free markets, republican gov't). Now a reactionary relative to the contemporary climate would probably be someone embracing classical liberalism (the march of history and all that), but it's flatly false to state that reactionaries relative to the establishment in the 18th century founded this nation. While your second half of your statement may be correct, the first half is incorrect by definition."
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
Re: Yes we can !!!
You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115989
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Yes we can !!!
But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.eumaas wrote:You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Yes we can !!!
The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?Dr. Medulla wrote:But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.eumaas wrote:You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115989
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Yes we can !!!
Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.eumaas wrote:The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?Dr. Medulla wrote:But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.eumaas wrote:You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: Yes we can !!!
eumaas wrote:This is continuing. She replied:eumaas wrote:from facebook, a republican friend's status:
"[name withheld] concedes that work must now be done to protect America from the highest leaders no matter what the cost."
"Gene, all I can say is, you'll see."
So I said:
"That doesn't really answer the question--are you implying violence? Secession? I'm game for secession as I dislike the state anyway, but I would caution against overreaction."
She: "Reactionaries created this country and reactionaries will save this country."
I: "Reactionaries? I would agree that Hamilton and his ilk were, as they were a bunch of mercantilists fond of centralism. But Jefferson was an enlightment radical--very much a classical liberal (read:libertarian), though an agrarian one."
She: "Look up words before you use them, please."
I: "That's a rather insulting tone to take, [name]. Which word do you object to? I don't think you can say that reactionaries *created* this nation--by definition it's untrue since it was a revolution against the established interests (feudalism, mercantilism) in favor of classical liberalism (natural rights, free markets, republican gov't). Now a reactionary relative to the contemporary climate would probably be someone embracing classical liberalism (the march of history and all that), but it's flatly false to state that reactionaries relative to the establishment in the 18th century founded this nation. While your second half of your statement may be correct, the first half is incorrect by definition."
I know she's your friend, but that is a massively cunty thing to say.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
- tepista
- Foul-Mouthed Werewolf
- Posts: 37871
- Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 11:25am
- Location: Livin on a fault line, Waiting on the big one
Re: Yes we can !!!
I'm pissed and surprised too.JennyB wrote:I am so upset about that. I really don't get it...who are we to deny gay men the joy of registering for wedding gifts? Seriously though, it's sickening.matedog wrote:I'm proud of my home state of Virginia going to Obama.
I'm not so proud of my current state of California passing a proposition banning gay marriage.
We reach the parts other combos cannot reach
We beach the beachheads other armies cannot beach
We speak the tongues other mouths cannot speak
We beach the beachheads other armies cannot beach
We speak the tongues other mouths cannot speak
Re: Yes we can !!!
Yeah, that was my reaction.Wolter wrote:eumaas wrote:This is continuing. She replied:eumaas wrote:from facebook, a republican friend's status:
"[name withheld] concedes that work must now be done to protect America from the highest leaders no matter what the cost."
"Gene, all I can say is, you'll see."
So I said:
"That doesn't really answer the question--are you implying violence? Secession? I'm game for secession as I dislike the state anyway, but I would caution against overreaction."
She: "Reactionaries created this country and reactionaries will save this country."
I: "Reactionaries? I would agree that Hamilton and his ilk were, as they were a bunch of mercantilists fond of centralism. But Jefferson was an enlightment radical--very much a classical liberal (read:libertarian), though an agrarian one."
She: "Look up words before you use them, please."
I: "That's a rather insulting tone to take, [name]. Which word do you object to? I don't think you can say that reactionaries *created* this nation--by definition it's untrue since it was a revolution against the established interests (feudalism, mercantilism) in favor of classical liberalism (natural rights, free markets, republican gov't). Now a reactionary relative to the contemporary climate would probably be someone embracing classical liberalism (the march of history and all that), but it's flatly false to state that reactionaries relative to the establishment in the 18th century founded this nation. While your second half of your statement may be correct, the first half is incorrect by definition."
I know she's your friend, but that is a massively cunty thing to say.
Especially considering a couple hundred years of scholarship are on my side.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
Re: Yes we can !!!
I'm not sure an economy is capable of building that kind of surplus.Dr. Medulla wrote:Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.eumaas wrote:The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?Dr. Medulla wrote:But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.eumaas wrote:You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.Dr. Medulla wrote:So this assumes that economic growth (as opposed to stagnation) is tied to the satisfaction of citizens thru publicly funded services? Why is that necessarily so? How much growth should people expect in order to be happy? I'm not looking for a specific quantifiable answer here, just that it comes back to, I think, human expectations.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: Yes we can !!!
Remember that the reactionary elements always try to win by redefining the terms to suit their own asinine agenda.eumaas wrote:Yeah, that was my reaction.Wolter wrote:eumaas wrote:This is continuing. She replied:eumaas wrote:from facebook, a republican friend's status:
"[name withheld] concedes that work must now be done to protect America from the highest leaders no matter what the cost."
"Gene, all I can say is, you'll see."
So I said:
"That doesn't really answer the question--are you implying violence? Secession? I'm game for secession as I dislike the state anyway, but I would caution against overreaction."
She: "Reactionaries created this country and reactionaries will save this country."
I: "Reactionaries? I would agree that Hamilton and his ilk were, as they were a bunch of mercantilists fond of centralism. But Jefferson was an enlightment radical--very much a classical liberal (read:libertarian), though an agrarian one."
She: "Look up words before you use them, please."
I: "That's a rather insulting tone to take, [name]. Which word do you object to? I don't think you can say that reactionaries *created* this nation--by definition it's untrue since it was a revolution against the established interests (feudalism, mercantilism) in favor of classical liberalism (natural rights, free markets, republican gov't). Now a reactionary relative to the contemporary climate would probably be someone embracing classical liberalism (the march of history and all that), but it's flatly false to state that reactionaries relative to the establishment in the 18th century founded this nation. While your second half of your statement may be correct, the first half is incorrect by definition."
I know she's your friend, but that is a massively cunty thing to say.
Especially considering a couple hundred years of scholarship are on my side.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115989
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Yes we can !!!
If the problem of reduced services is due to periodic downturns in the economy, governments and citizens aren't capable of preparing for such events through savings, thereby allowing services to continue?eumaas wrote:I'm not sure an economy is capable of building that kind of surplus.Dr. Medulla wrote:Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.eumaas wrote:The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?Dr. Medulla wrote:But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.eumaas wrote: You need growth and economic activity or you can't pay for the services.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: Yes we can !!!
As far as citizens' saving, that's disincentivized by high taxation. As far as gov't saving, you run into a problem. Let's say for every $10, the gov't takes $5, and that's exactly sufficient to fund the services. Well, that high a rate of taxation is a disincentive to investment and so growth is going to slow, which means the pot from which the gov't draws its taxes will shrink. So the gov't decides to take an extra $.50 to save. By taking that $.50 per every $10, that's $.50 per $10 less to invest, save, or consume by the taxpayer. That means you're actually disincentivizing even more. You're basically trying to solve the problem of high taxation by taxing even more.Dr. Medulla wrote:If the problem of reduced services is due to periodic downturns in the economy, governments and citizens aren't capable of preparing for such events through savings, thereby allowing services to continue?eumaas wrote:I'm not sure an economy is capable of building that kind of surplus.Dr. Medulla wrote:Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.eumaas wrote:The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?Dr. Medulla wrote: But, again, what are the expectations for the services? How much? Do we expect them all the time and at the same level? Older civilizations understood that human activities, like nature, ran in cycles (Strauss & Howe actually go into this in The Fourth Turning) and took steps in the up times to prepare for the inevitable down times, knowing that things would get better again. If people think more cyclically rather than linearly and in the short-term, much of the expectations can be managed more sensibly.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115989
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Yes we can !!!
I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of economics is rudimentary, but the scenario you describe makes it seem that no state could ever provide any services because any money taken from the citizens weakens investment and, by implication, the economy. That public investments are a black hole. Which seems a lot like the stuff we've grown up with. Your scenario also seems like it doesn't take into account that during boom times ("summer") the govt would take in more thru taxation at the same rate than in, say, spring or fall. If, in fact, more is held in savings for use in the winter, why wouldn't it be possible to lower the tax rate in those times and draw from the savings?eumaas wrote:As far as citizens' saving, that's disincentivized by high taxation. As far as gov't saving, you run into a problem. Let's say for every $10, the gov't takes $5, and that's exactly sufficient to fund the services. Well, that high a rate of taxation is a disincentive to investment and so growth is going to slow, which means the pot from which the gov't draws its taxes will shrink. So the gov't decides to take an extra $.50 to save. By taking that $.50 per every $10, that's $.50 per $10 less to invest, save, or consume by the taxpayer. That means you're actually disincentivizing even more. You're basically trying to solve the problem of high taxation by taxing even more.Dr. Medulla wrote:If the problem of reduced services is due to periodic downturns in the economy, governments and citizens aren't capable of preparing for such events through savings, thereby allowing services to continue?eumaas wrote:I'm not sure an economy is capable of building that kind of surplus.Dr. Medulla wrote:Or be smart enough to stockpile during summer and fall (so to speak) for the inevitable winter, instead of acting like the boom times will never end and then starving during the downturns. There's Chinese myth or story of an emperor who commissioned to have a statue built in the centre of the capital, with words that would always be true. After some time, the statue was erected with the legend, "This, too, shall pass." Good times aren't forever nor are bad times, but if you keep these things in mind you can utilize the former to better ride out the latter.eumaas wrote: The essence of socdem is cradle to grave security isn't it? And if you have to periodically do without it, how's that any different from the US model?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft