Two Moralities

[arbat]

Paul Krugman decided that he had acquired just the reputation one needs to write a post on moralities. Here is a quote:One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state - a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net - morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw

Comments

[larvatus]

What part of the difference between a social safety net and sporadically available benefits from voluntary charities don’t you understand?

[arbat]

I am not sure how to interpret some words that you used

[larvatus]

By a safety net, I mean social security as conceived and executed by Otto von Bismarck, whose departures from political liberalism you may assume to be equaled or exceeded by your humble correspondent, in scope and extent, if not in valence. I construe all social benefits as sporadic, which are not subject to enforcement by the state.

[arbat]

So, you do mean that Ponzi scheme that is just now crashing all over the world? Cool.

"I construe all social benefits as sporadic, which are not subject to enforcement by the state."

In this case the word "sporadic" has no meaning other than "government-provided" and your claim is reduced to "hey, do you not see the differnce between govern-provided and private charities".

Sure. An answer is - same difference as between voluntary sex and rape.

[larvatus]

I trust in the system to go the distance, having endured for 130 years.

As for your ongoing rape, please accept my condolences.

[arbat]

Yep, endurance, - this is the main feature of Ponzi schemes. They are well-renowned for it.

By the way, did I understand you right that you believe that Bismark's social security runs uninterrupted since inception?

[larvatus]

Sorry, I like to stick to the subject. Are you ready to acknowledge the difference between a social safety net and sporadically available benefits from voluntary charities?

[arbat]

Sure. Under your definition, "safety net" is a fraudulent promise from the government based on the standard Ponzi scheme, that is currently going bankrupt in most countries, - depending on how steep is the curve. Fraud is twofold: first, it is as I mentioned, a Ponzi scheme. Second, the promise is given in the name of yet unborn "next generations" that have no legal obligation to stick to it. So, they will abandon it. With private Ponzies there is a chance that the government will help recover at least something. With your "safety net" there is nobody to help with the recovery, - since it will be the government that is going to say "oooops, no more money

[larvatus]

The promise of social security is vested in a political process that enables each citizen to elect representatives authorized to vote on the tax policies and the ensuing entitlements. No such opportunity is available to contributors to private charities meant to benefit arbitrarily designated individuals and classes. If Charles Ponzi had the authority to levy taxes and print money, your slander of U.S. Social Security might have made some sense. Since he didn’t, it doesn’t. As for its enduring nature, I shall have no complaints as long as my widowed mother continues to collect her death benefits.

[arbat]

"The promise of social security is vested in a political process that enables each citizen"

Or, in plain English, - if the next generation votes to close the shop, - they close the shop.

Now, can you explain to me, - if the next generations sees that they are about to inherit a scheme that is waaaaay in debt, nearly bankrupt and impossible to save... why exactly would they want to participate?

Because of the "promise" that next generation will be even greater fools?

This is exactly how all financial bubbles work, - and they have only one end. At some point, some "next generation" say... "thanks, but we are not going to participate". Music stops, - and those who were stupid enough to buy in the latest, - are left without chairs.

"No such opportunity is available to contributors to private charities"

He-he-he. Yep. This is why private charities sometimes exists for centuries on end.

"If Charles Ponzi had the authority to levy taxes and print money"Ability to FORCE participation in the Ponzi scheme only prolongs the agony, - but

[larvatus]

Start with the observation that people buy insurance in droves despite understanding that insuring themselves would cost them way less. One notable feature of social security is its historical persistence and expansion giving the lie to libertarian mouthpieces ranging from randroid halfwits to nozickian eggheads. When push comes to shove, not even the most stalwart proponents of the minimal state are willing to give the boot to their nanas. “I don’t respect the law; I have total irreverence for anything concerned with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper, and old men and women warmer in the winter, and happier in the summer.” © 1960 Brendan Behan

On the history of Bismarck’s legacy, see Gaston Rimlinger’s article referenced above.

[arbat]

"Start with the observation that people buy insurance in droves despite understanding that insuring themselves would cost them way less."

"Insuring themselves" - this is nonsense. Insurance, by definition, requires more than 1 participant. Much more.

"One notable feature of social security is its historical persistence and expansion"

Well, indubitably, you were saying the same about investing in dotcoms in 1999, and about investing in real estate in 2006, and about... (well, get yourself a book on bubbles and continue).

Now, let's get back to Bismark and his social security. Whatever happened to that notable enterprise? Your claim about 130 years of endurance was based on it. I imagine, it is still persistently expanding?

Tell me. Do not refer me to some other articles, - just confirm that, yes, Bismark's security is still up and running.

[larvatus]

"Insuring themselves" - this is nonsense. Insurance, by definition, requires more than 1 participant. Much more.

Please look here.

Tell me. Do not refer me to some other articles, - just confirm that, yes, Bismark's security is still up and running.

Please consult this exchange, and a German illustration therefor.

[arbat]

Well, the first link, - sorry, buddy, you just did not understand what it is about. This is not "people insuring themselves". This is "companies who decide to run their own insurance plans for their employees".

Now, in view of this, your statement, - "people buy insurance in droves despite understanding that insuring themselves..." - is sort of meaningless. Some companies decide that it is cheaper to run their own insurance. Some decide it is better to buy ready product. Just like with anything else. Your company needs cars? It can build them, or it can buy them. You company needs cafeteria? It can get its own, or it can contract some catering company. You company needs payroll, legal, tax services, - some companies have their own departments, some buy services from specialized firms

[larvatus]

You persist in misunderstanding the concept of self-insurance, which nowise depends on group participation. You also fail to distinguish civil dialogue from judicial cross-examination. I am not a witness required to submit to your high-handed demands. I have provided an answer to your historical inquiry by citing a scholarly publication. No rule of “honesty” requires me to digest it for your consumption.

[arbat]

You did not answer my question. My question was quite simple. Can you confirm that Bismarck's Social Security has been running continuously for 130 years.

Civil dialogue, - the way I understand the term, means that you either (a) say "yes, it has been", - and produce testimony to that matter. Or you (b) admit that you made a mistake and claimed an evidence of "130 endurance" where there was none.

"No rule of “honesty” requires me to digest it for your consumption."

Oh, yes, there is. If you ask me to spend time reading an article, - honesty does require that you confirm first that this article does contain the validation of your statement.

If it does not, - it means that you just want me to waste my time reading a totally irrelevant piece of text. And that would mean - you are trolling.