Pangloss

People just have to learn how to do something that pays better. As I showed in a previous thread, the Wall Street Journal found that if every unemployed American were trained for available work the unemployment rate would only be 6.6%, not the 9.5% we're seeing right now. And those are highly skilled jobs that pay well, not minimum wage. And stop the majority of illegal immigration. I wouldn't mind paying more for my lawn care or housecleaning at all. It's not complicated. Demagogues just make it seem that way.

Sure, but just because it took us a thousand years or two doesn't mean it has to take everyone else that long. One of the great things about the modern world is that we're able to communicate and educate a lot faster than we used to. Those capabilities aren't limited to western soil, they can be carried overseas. And of course they are.

Just as a side note, I wonder if we should have a similar thread about the economic crisis. We've spent about the same amount of money as the above, with a pretty similar outcome. Perhaps when the economic "improves" a bit more President Obama can unfurl a "Mission Accomplished" banner for us. :-/ Anyway this is the only thing I really had a problem with in your post: I disagree. I think people can go straight from tribal warfare to popular democracy. And I suggest any evidence to the contrary is nothing more than a pessimistic straw man. That's the great thing about the human spirit -- just because something's never been done before doesn't mean it can't be done. And frankly I get tired of hearing about how war never works from the same group of folks who tell us that we have to do something about this injustice or that. What is it they want us to do, yell at them louder? I can't wait for us to leave Afghanistan so we can hear Oprah start screaming about the plight of Afghan women again. The reason Americans are sick of being given crud about our foreign policy blunders is because we're tired of being damned if we do and damned if we do nothing. As an American, we're like henpecked men in bad marriages, screaming at the world, "JUST TELL US WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO!" Not that the rest of the world doesn't have a valid beef with America from time to time, I'm just saying.

I keep seeing Facebook friends from different parts of the world reporting that they have the flu. Not that I'm suggesting anything apocalyptic -- it just got me wondering if scientists have ever tried using Facebook data to track the spread of a flu outbreak. The appeal here is pretty obvious -- hundreds of millions of users communicating over a vast network in a centralized manner. But the problems seem pretty robust too -- people's public wall posts don't really constitute good medical data (the user could have anything, or nothing at all). You'd have to sit down and figure out what kind of wall post text constituted a "hit", but here I think information science could come in useful, providing some parsing algorithms. I wonder if you could use it for a "rough read". And of course you could track it against the general population to see how accurate it turned out to be. What do you all think?

Well in the US there's a law that says it's a crime to use marriage to circumvent immigration law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience It sounds like the UK has a similar statute. Makes sense, really.

The above two posts suggest (or at least support the concept) that a more "socialistic" approach, e.g. stronger safety nets and government-run infrastructure, would lead to a less dramatic shift when the economy turns. I think that's a reasonable suggestion, and perfectly consistent with the idea of a managed economy that bridges the gap between socialism and capitalism. It's not about human suffering, or freedoms spoken of in absolute terms. It's much more practical than that. Personally I've never really had a problem with moving that line back and forth as needed. I'm sure there are people in the Netherlands who would like to push the line to the left or to the right, but it sounds like they make their decision on a fairly apolitical basis -- measuring the benefits against the costs. It should be made on a practical basis, not a political one -- ideology should not be a factor, except to the extent that it seems reasonably clear that a more prosperous society can afford larger safety nets and smoother transitions between economic "bumps", so long as that economy is well-managed. I'm not sure my country is capable of acting in such a level-headed manner at the moment. Everything has to be so extreme.

The whole premise of the case is interesting. It suggests that the church is responsible for validating a legal contract in England. In the US you actually have to get a "marriage license" from the government -- the religious ceremony is purely for show. Or am I just missing something here?

The political divide in this country has made it impossible to celebrate an actual victory. It also makes it almost impossible to actually achieve one, regardless of whether it can be celebrated or not. I can't help but think what Douglas MacArthur or Dwight Eisenhower would have thought of all the politics that surrounded the surge. "Hey America, is it okay if we invade Guadalcanal now? Okay, now we're ready for Iwo Jima, is that okay? How about Italy, can we poll you on that now, please?" But I think the most eye-opening take-away here is that in 2007 everyone and their mother was utterly convinced that the endeavor was utterly hopeless and poised on the brink of absolute defeat. It most certainly didn't end up THAT way, even if the actual level of success is unclear (and may remain so for years). I am heartened to see both Democrats and Republicans honoring the troops, both our own and those of our friends overseas, who ignored the politics and got the job done. I don't think we should have gone to Iraq, and the surge doesn't make up for that, but I shudder to think where we'd be right now if they hadn't pulled that rabbit out of a very tattered hat.

That's what I was wondering, thank you (sorry I wasn't more clear). So this money is permanent, yes? The receiver doesn't have to, for example, show that they are looking for a better job, or improving their education, or anything like that? It sounds like the government is (and by proxy, the people are) subsidizing low-end labor. Like saying "we need trash collectors and fast-food servers, so we'll subsidize them from tax income". And I guess there are people who are willing to settle for that kind of life, and the dole makes that a little more acceptable, so it becomes more or less permanent. That may well work for the Dutch -- I've read that quality of life there is very high in general. That was the situation in American in 1996, but that low-end workers had such a low quality of life that it was considered repugnant enough that change was desired. So change was achieved through ending the welfare program, which directly lead to the 96% employment, realized within just a few years. How's unemployment in the Netherlands these days? I'm guessing it must be pretty low if folks are happy with the system.

Wow.

(in fact much of President Obama's election campaign revolved around convince voters that he was NOT a socialist) It's a valid point, and nicely reasoned. I resisted it when I first read it, but in so far as it goes I think it's a perfectly reasonable argument. However, I have to point out that by defending the current system you're also defending its hybrid nature which combine both socialist and free-market ideals. Which I believe is absolutely correct. As a radical centrist, I believe that we don't want pure capitalism any more than we want pure socialism. We seek careful and thoughtful balance at each juncture. We should listen to those who seek pure socialism just as we listen to those who seek pure capitalism, and in the end ignore their extremism and select the most sensible course, whatever it may be. That means sometimes selecting a course of action that appears to be pretty socialistic, or pretty capitalistic, and relying on our good sense not to run too far in that direction. My two bits, anyway. Certainly that's not how most Americans view things. Most tend to be afraid of one or the other without a whole lot of reason involved.

Yup, I agree, based on the NationMaster source (which I played around with a bit earlier but couldn't get it to produce that particular chart). In fact that chart shows Russia, Germany, Ukraine, France and Saudi Arabia adding up together to more than the US.

While I appreciate the thought, I think a clear statement that when you look at some data from a different angle they produce a different impression is a reasonable thing to do. But I think you made a valid point in requiring support for the argument. I don't think he was really addressing my point at all, he just wanted to tackle that phrase about "all other countries combined", and in doing so he caused me to question it too, so that seems like a good thing. Now I'd like to see some data. I mean, as long as he's not calling me "ignorant". Cuz we all know iNow would never do that.

Nice post from ParanoiA in #9 above. Mr Skeptic: If there's a difference in terminology that's cool, I don't wish to put words in anyone's mouth. In answer to your question, I'll hold off and answer Marat directly, since I see he's already replied. CaptainPanic: Okay, and another interesting post. But what I was wondering was if you could give some examples of wealth redistribution policies in your country that clearly have a foundation in the ideological concept of reducing poverty. Socialized health care, for example, would not be an example of this because the argument there is not reducing poverty or redistributing wealth to the poor; it's either healing people because they're sick (regardless of income level), or perhaps for some it's seen as a pragmatic action to preserve the work pool. What policies do you have that exist on the basis of taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, for use however they see fit? Marat: You're certainly welcome (and accurate) to observe that that's its effect, but its stated purpose is not socialistic at all. And that being the case, it makes sense that we be quite vigilant about what programs are initiated, what their goals are, and what, exactly, they will accomplish. Since there's no standing legal precedent for socialist income redistribution, such would represent a critical change in the country's nature, and is therefore validly questioned. You should also understand that the mainstream political left predominantly rejects socialism just as does the right. President Obama is a vocal public supporter of our regulated capitalist form, and it was President Bill Clinton who famously said in 1996, when he signed the Welfare Reform Act, that we were going to "end welfare as we know it". (And he was right, and that legislation is generally viewed as having ended our national foray into ideological redistribution, thus removing the precedent you're seeking.) I also think Americans have a fundamental problem with the idea of soft-selling socialism (i.e. your argument that they shouldn't be concerned because we're already doing X or Y, which comes across to Main Street America as "just sit back and relax while we give it to you up the derriere"). I think that's what television and movies have been doing for most of the last century, and I think it helps to explain the rise of Fox News Channel and Conservative Talk Radio -- people are tired of being back-stepped towards socialism. It's not what we're about, and they believe we have good reasons for not being that way. And frankly there's no irrefutable argument that they're wrong. There were two things I never thought I'd see the end of when I was growing up: The Cold War, and the Welfare State. Both were demolished within half a decade. Sadly, aside from 9/11, this country has never seemed to agree on anything since.

Well let's expand the scale a bit: The United States is considerably smaller than the whole European Union (about 3/5ths the size)(source), but the US allows more legal immigration than every other country in the world combined (not just the EU)(source). That doesn't seem to support what you're saying. It sounds like an interesting argument, though. Perhaps you could expand on it a bit? I admit math is not my forte. ----------- Pondering this some more, I wonder how reliable that "all other countries combined" thing is. I don't see a lot of support for it from any sources, just news stories passing along a common phrase. The only DATA I see for immigration are figures of 1-2 million/yr with data ending in 2006. If that's the case then that would suggest that we bring in something like 0.5-0.7%/yr legally. I question whether that figure jives with statistics like the total number of immigrants living in the US and our annual growth rate offset by the number of births. But if we do go with that figure it's not hard to see how we might not compare favorably with some nations. But what are their numbers? Do China or India allow more than 55-65 million immigrants each year (0.5% of 1.1/1.3 bil)? I'm thinking probably not, but what if we compared with countries that are smaller in size? Unfortunately data seems scarce, but perhaps someone has a useful source here. Brazil, for example, is a prosperous South American nation and would seem a likely candidate for pressing immigration. But I don't have any data on Brazilian immigration. But if I can't get that kind of data, I have to question where that "all other countries combined" phrase originates. I did find one statistic that I thought was interesting. Immigration population as a percentage of the total number of immigrants in the world. The United States has roughly 5% of the world's population (if we go with the easy math of 300 million versus 6 billion). But according to this page, it has 20% of the world's immigrants. That certainly seems impressive enough. Not that any of this has anything to do with the point I made in post #28, of course.

That was interesting, yes, and thanks for the reply. But what is the underlying philosophical/legal basis for taxation in the Netherlands? The amount of tax you pay doesn't tell me this. Maybe if you could expand on this a bit: In particular the bolded part?

I wonder how many people actually read the last sentence of your interesting post! Anyway, I'm going to pass right over an explanation of the individual and multiplicative nature of wealth creation and simply ask you two questions: 1) We don't have "wealth redistribution" policies in my country (the United States) -- any policy that results in money given to people is for a specific, usually temporary reason, such as unemployment compensation, not the general redistribution of money. The foundation of monetary intervention at the individual level is a whole different concept entirely, called the "safety net". Well a safety net is not "wealth redistribution" -- it's a completely different animal. So wealth redistribution is neither the foundation nor the justification for taxation. Now, mind you, many politicians (such as President Obama, who will, this year, spend $1.3 trillion more than his government will take in -- a deficit greater than the annual revenue of all but three nations on this planet), may indeed have "wealth redistribution" as their ideological goal. But they don't state it directly because it would be political suicide. So my question is: Do they have actual wealth redistribution policies in your country, Marat? I'm curious where that may be, and what those policies are. I'm always fascinated by the politics of other nations, and would love to learn more. 2) How much "wealth redistribution" do you feel is morally justified by your argument? 10%? 20%? You're making a moral argument, and you say that it's "some of it", so clearly you think that there is a certain level at which the amount exceeds the justification you've given. What amount would that be? Can you ballpark it for us? Thanks.

Returning to politics, I think it's interesting that these "ignorance" surveys so often focus on liberal or anti-conservative talking points. I wonder why they don't ask what the percentage is of Americans who know what the 2nd Amendment says, or that America admits more legal immigrants every year than every other nation on the planet combined.

I agree, not having information is one thing; not seeking it is another. But calling someone a fool is not conducive to a good conversation. Let's bear that in mind, please.

Wow! Champion bump of the decade, right there. Moved from Politics to Lounge.

I wonder sometimes if the problem is that we're constantly demanding growth and "progress" from people who have busy lives. People get tired of being regularly harangued to recognize this problem or that. Two of the most over-used words in the English language are "raising awareness". It's like somebody's regularly grabbing a bottle of old milk from the fridge and shoving it under America's nose, screaming "SMELL THIS OR YOU'RE A RACIST!!!!" Yeah there's some old milk in the fridge, and perhaps we should really throw it out, but it's not really hurting anything just sitting there, and sooner or later the screaming is just going to become counter-productive. Of course, if that's the case it doesn't exonerate either side. The right is just as guilty of drumming up public reaction as the left, and it seems like main-street America has chosen to replace the soft-sell liberalism of the mainstream media with the hard-sell, reactionary, 24-hour conservatism of Fox News, which has just ratcheted up the noise another notch. People think they're angry at this or that "liberal" thing, but they're really just angry about being made to be angry. On the other hand, perhaps those decades of soft-sell, have-a-piece-of-candy-and-accept-your-evilness liberalism set the table and helped put us where we're at today. FNC just woke the sleeping giant, even if they also flogged it a bit and showed it where to feed.

See there you go again, drawing conclusions based on facts not in evidence. There's nothing comparative in that article that would tell me how he rates against other building owners with tenants. And this is significant: So there are two sides to the story, not one, and yet you drew a conclusion -- that he doesn't practice his religion and charity uniformly. The rest of the article only tells us about other people that the Imam did business with, which is pure guilt by association. I'm sitting here wondering if I should even bother looking at your other three links. Won't this just be more of the same? And that's my point -- people are drawing conclusions based on hyperbole and agenda.

I think that's a lot to read into a couple of sentences. If you know Malaysian culture well enough to know precisely how that paragraph will be read in that environment, and if the rest of his speech didn't qualify his remarks, fine. But otherwise I think that's a good example of what's been part of the problem here -- taking Imam Rauf's words out of context and extrapolating them into a critical conclusion. (Though I applaud you for not reaching as far-gone a conclusion as many on the right have been reaching.)

It's possible. I think the reason people find that hard to believe is that it's hard to picture President Obama ordering such an act. And if it were some sort of conservative rogue agent within the CIA who did it to hurt Obama, then they'd probably want us to know that the CIA did it. Which leaves only the possibility of a conservative rogue agent who (A) disagrees with Obama's decision not to order this sort of action, but (B) doesn't hate Obama enough to get him into this kind of trouble!

It's a valid point. While I think most Americans favor free speech with regard to Holocaust denialists, the water gets a lot muddier when you bring up something like flag burning.