From the Economist: Basically flawed

[Lafayette]

What the heck are you talking about? Who called them "decadent"?

Quoting you:

Throwing money at degenerates will only subsidize their "urge for murder and mayhem"

Degenerate = having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.

They are human beings with all the necessary faculties who dysfunction in terms of personal behaviour. For which, they are paying a penalty. But they have not lost any physical or mental qualities, even if their sense of morals has been twisted.

They knew full well that they are contravening the law and did so willingly - and we should be asking why they did so. It's the only way we will solve the problem of a dysfunctional system of justice in America where recidivism is rampant.

See excerpt this report, Justice Department Report Reveals The Biggest Failure Of America's Prisons:

The report from the department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) details recidivism rates of 404,638 state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005.

More than a third of released prisoners were arrested again within six months of their release. That number rose to 56.7% by the end of the first year, 67.8% within three years, and 76.6% within five years.

_________________________

 

[countryboy]

Quoting you:

Degenerate = having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.

They are human beings with all the necessary faculties who dysfunction in terms of personal behaviour. For which, they are paying a penalty. But they have not lost any physical or mental qualities, even if their sense of morals has been twisted.

They knew full well that they are contravening the law and did so willingly - and we should be asking why they did so. It's the only way we will solve the problem of a dysfunctional system of justice in America where recidivism is rampant.

See excerpt this report, Justice Department Report Reveals The Biggest Failure Of America's Prisons:




_________________________

Ummm, I said "degenerate", not "decadent". Lol.

 

[Lafayette]

What the heck are you talking about? Who called them "decadent"?

Decadent or degenerate are the same.

Buy yourself a dictionary ...
______________________

 

[Lafayette]

THE GAME RULES HAVE CHANGED

it would lower crime rates it wouldnt "solve crime", you would still have serial killers and rapists, but there wouldn't be anymore 16 year olds selling crack, and becoming prostitutes, or faking credit cards etc etc etc

Perhaps, but lowering the crime rate would be a major improvement over the present.

Also, if they had at the very least, a Basic Income, they could cope rather than steal. Yes, some would keep stealing because that is their habit - as shown by recidivism rate.

There is also the fact that for the past two generations, we've gone soft as a nation. That will have to change, not only in the US but in Europe. The kids I teach are really quite naive. (They are French and marching to stop a change in a Labor Law that has caused unprecedented high unemployment because of its rigidity.)

But, that is going to change over the next five years. The US is no longer going to have a free-ride, and the slovenly manner in which too much has gone to too few will also have to be altered. The Income Disparity is OTT. (And Trump will not lift a finger to change it. Hillary will be obliged to do so, because that is what they expected of Obama.)

That and the fact that the easy-muney wont be so easy anymore. The lower-classes who suffered most already have been through the worst. Most of the middle-class weathered the Great Recession Storm on a fairly even keel - they may have reduced drastically Consumption but for the most part they kept working to pay the rent/mortgage.

What we have at hand is the advent of an irreversible shift from the Industrial Age into the Information Age, where even middle-class jobs will be affected. (That same shift occurred in the US 150 years ago, when the world went from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age.)

MY POINT

We, as a nation, would be fools to take that evolution lightly. We must make Tertiary Education free or nearly-free to allow both the high-schoolers coming in and those already in the work-force to obtain the advanced-skills they need for their families to maintain a standard-of-living to which they have become accustomed.

The game rules have changed ...
______________________________

 

[Lafayette]

Do those other nations, mentioned in your post, have a guaranteed income system in place? If not then we should be asking why a guaranteed income would be suggested as a possible solution to crime.

Very brave of you to want other countries to "try first". Whilst in ours, one the richest on the planet, we have had half-a-century of 50 million people below the poverty threshold since 1965..

You obviously haven't the faintest idea of what living there is like. It is hellish for a great many. For some others its food-stamps for the marshmallows the kids eat, and dollars for beer and smokes ...

PS: And we've got the money - it's parked in the DoD protecting the world from the outside whilst the rot is happening on the inside.
_________________________

 

[countryboy]

Decadent or degenerate are the same.

Buy yourself a dictionary ...
______________________

Not even close.

 

[dimensionallava]

MY POINT

We, as a nation, would be fools to take that evolution lightly. We must make Tertiary Education free or nearly-free to allow both the high-schoolers coming in and those already in the work-force to obtain the advanced-skills they need for their families to maintain a standard-of-living to which they have become accustomed.

The game rules have changed ...
______________________________

free education for all, would be a great thing, but its still appealing to the rugged individualist fallacy. A Guaranteed income should come first, because what if a person is already educated, and cannot find work? what if (dare say) they dont want too work?

Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that “rugged individualism” which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as “education.” That corrupt and perverse “individualism” is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is “the devil take the hindmost.”

This “rugged individualism” has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. “Rugged individualism” has meant all the “individualism” for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking “supermen.” America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as “unAmerican” and evil in the name of that same individualism.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1940/individual.htm

 

[Lafayette]

MONEYED DYNASTIES

free education for all, would be a great thing, but ... A Guaranteed income should come first, because what if a person is already educated, and cannot find work? what if (dare say) they dont want too work?

I am not sure that it's an either-or proposition. However we get these achievements, then they will do a world of good*. I would prefer to see them happen simultaneously along with upper-income tax-change. We must change the effingly unfair low upper-income taxation on the simply-rich and particularly the super-rich.

Remember the basics of Income Distribution in the US, as indicated here (the top 20Percenters need particularly higher and confiscatory taxation above a certain limit):


We, the sheeple, have a right to that money derived from our hard-work (and the financial manipulation of money markets). Both habe been a rip-off of gigantic proportions initially organized and implemented by "Reckless Ronnie and his Replicants" 30 years ago. Any income above a 10 megabucks per year should be confiscated totally.

Nobody needs it and it harks back to the 18th century Monarchies, one of which we fought for our independence as a nation. We are financing Moneyed Dynasties that will perpetuate themselves far into the future!

It is time it was stopped dead ...

PS: And excuse this comment - I don't think either will happen stateside in my lifetime. The American people are not sufficiently "sophisticated" in the necessity of a Social Democracy (based upon dear-ole "Capitalism"). We keep thinking a market-economy is like a sports-game. There are winners and losers and it was meant to be that way, just try to be in the former and avoid the latter. That attitude is "No-Can-Win-Nada" ...

PS2: Were we to have a truly progressive taxation the diagram you see above would be projected from left-to-right and the fifth component would equal that of the fourth component - meaning all that "leftover income" shown would be taxed away.
_______________________________

 

[Lafayette]

Not even close.

M... r... a...

 

[Lafayette]

The idea put forth in the OP is that we (in the US?) should try a guaranteed income (at huge expense) to see if it lowers our incarceration rate to the level of other nations (cited in that post) that lack a guaranteed income.

Yes, you got that part right.

Either that or we keep pissing around in a debate that avoids the Principle Issue: What do we do about the 50 million Americans living perpetually below the Poverty Threshold (since 1965, that's half-a-century)? Nothing?



Until miraculously it appears to us in a Collective Dream that a Basic Income is the solution?

You would therefore have our Nation's Poor (the size of the combined populations of the states of California and Illinois) incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold whilst "we seek a solution"?

Which is political mumbo-jumbo that means "do nothing", because that is precisely what has been happening for half-a-century ...
___________________________________________

 

[dimensionallava]

I am not sure that it's an either-or proposition. However we get these achievements, then they will do a world of good*. I would prefer to see them happen simultaneously along with upper-income tax-change. We must change the effingly unfair low upper-income taxation on the simply-rich and particularly the super-rich.

it doesnt have to be "either or" but they do have to be complementary, but if your still using education as a means of establishing a hierarchy then it can be a bad thing, also the main argument heard against free education, is usually how will they "pay for free education", and if the main costs associated with a free educational system are personnel, then this can be mostly taken care of by a guaranteed minimum income (or GMI), this also eliminates the usage of teachers unions as a scapegoat (which im sure as teacher, you have heard used atleast once before )

We, the sheeple, have a right to that money derived from our hard-work (and the financial manipulation of money markets). Both habe been a rip-off of gigantic proportions initially organized and implemented by "Reckless Ronnie and his Replicants" 30 years ago. Any income above a 10 megabucks per year should be confiscated totally.

that would be called a maximum wage law, which is an interesting idea, but much harder to implement than free education, and a GMI. As there are already legal precedents for the concepts behind those would-be laws. As oppose to a maximum wage which has never been established anywhere, it was attempted briefly in the soviet union among communist party members, but it was eventually abandoned as it was almost impossible to enforce

Nobody needs it and it harks back to the 18th century Monarchies, one of which we fought for our independence as a nation. We are financing Moneyed Dynasties that will perpetuate themselves far into the future!

reggressiveness can never lead to absolute feudalism, but either way.....who is this "we"? do you mean me and you? I dont remember fighting for anyones independence......much less a whole country's......when exactly did we fight for this independence? was it on a saturday?:2razz:

PS2: Were we to have a truly progressive taxation the diagram you see above would be projected from left-to-right and the fifth component would equal that of the fourth component - meaning all that "leftover income" shown would be taxed away.
_______________________________

what we should do is abolish money

 

[Ahlevah]

What is absurd is calling anyone the 50 million Americans below the Poverty Threshold that has been incarcerated for a crime as being "decadent"..

You must not have a high opinion of the "50 million Americans below the Poverty Threshold" if you want to pay them so they don't commit murder. In any case, the ones you'd presumably persuade to change their ways by tossing them some coin certainly are beyond degenerate. A better solution for their ilk would be a firing squad.

 

[Lafayette]

You must not have a high opinion of the "50 million Americans below the Poverty Threshold" if you want to pay them so they don't commit murder. In any case, the ones you'd presumably persuade to change their ways by tossing them some coin certainly are beyond degenerate. A better solution for their ilk would be a firing squad.

You disrespect for the basic human-right (to life) is noted.

Not bad for a West-Bank resident living illegally on Palestinian land! Say it isn't so; and if it isn't so, that's where you belong with all the other Israeli Right-wing nutters ...
____________________

 

[Lafayette]

it doesnt have to be "either or" but they do have to be complementary, but if your still using education as a means of establishing a hierarchy then it can be a bad thing, also the main argument heard against free education, is usually how will they "pay for free education", and if the main costs associated with a free educational system are personnel, then this can be mostly taken care of by a guaranteed minimum income (or GMI), this also eliminates the usage of teachers unions as a scapegoat (which im sure as teacher, you have heard used atleast once before

I think the two must be clearly divorced - education from minimum income. The minimum-income can be set at some level below the average household-income (of $52K a year) - like 3 or 4K a year. But Tertiary Education is very different.

As done in the EU, it is simply the cost of a Tuition Fee (somewhere above or below $1K in most of the EU countries - and certainly in France of which I am sure). Of course, the student must go to a state-run school, but neither is that a problem. There are damn few Harvards or Oxfords (private postsecondary schools) in most of the EU. But that does not make those that are run by government subsidy are not fine institutions of learning either, because they are. There are two "world-class" engineering schools in France, but no body talks/writes (in English) about them.

The real problem is far-too-expensive Tertiary Education costs is the US; which could be considerably lower (as in Europe) were the fees more affordable. As they should be in state institutions of higher learning open to all citizens of the US ...

A reminder:

_____________________________

 

[dimensionallava]

I think the two must be clearly divorced - education from minimum income. The minimum-income can be set at some level below the average household-income (of $52K a year) - like 3 or 4K a year. But Tertiary Education is very different.

As done in the EU, it is simply the cost of a Tuition Fee (somewhere above or below $1K in most of the EU countries - and certainly in France of which I am sure). Of course, the student must go to a state-run school, but neither is that a problem. There are damn few Harvards or Oxfords (private postsecondary schools) in most of the EU. But that does not make those that are run by government subsidy are not fine institutions of learning either, because they are. There are two "world-class" engineering schools in France, but no body talks/writes (in English) about them.

The real problem is far-too-expensive Tertiary Education costs is the US; which could be considerably lower (as in Europe) were the fees more affordable. As they should be in state institutions of higher learning open to all citizens of the US ...

A reminder:
View attachment 67202562
_____________________________

I think were both in agreement that their should be free school and a GMI but the problem is your assuming everyone wants to take advantage of a free educational system to begin with, but not everyone likes school and not everyone wants to go to school, and right now the educational system is packed with students who simply want to have a job. If they had a guaranteed income they would not be in school. This overcrowding causes problems not only with the funding and overcrowded class sizes, but it causes disruptions in what classes are taught and at what level, also behavioral disruption from children who dont take their education seriously, because they simply dont want to be there.

 

[Lafayette]

THE PURGATORY BELOW THE POVERTY THRESHOLD

... but not everyone likes school and not everyone wants to go to school, and right now the educational system is packed with students who simply want to have a job

You know, you may be right. I am talking about doing the "right thing", which is rarely about "what people want".

For the most part, people want the "easy way out". Just a job, thank you very much.

But that job today (if one has no real skills) is below minimum wage, will probably disappear tomorrow (as just about everything manual is automated out of existence). For the future, you need continual skills-training - and more than likely said training for all your life as the needs for skills evolves along with the market-economy in which we live and thrive.

It will depend, no doubt, about what the market-economy wants (consumers like you an me). But, if the past is indicative of the future - than whatever we want, we want it now. But even with the likes of Amazon, the evolution in commercial sales has only scratched the surface - and it has already caused the demise of multiple once well-known retailers.

Who ever imagined that the object of your sudden desire, once purchased, would be on your doorstep delivered in an hour by a drone.

Near Instant-Gratification. Wow, the mind boggles at the thought of what might/could happen to human-nature.

My point is that either we, the sheeple, keep up with the skill-needs or we get left behind - somewhere in the purgatory below the Poverty Threshold.

Is that what you want for your son/daughter? Not me ...

________________________

 

[Ahlevah]

You disrespect for the basic human-right (to life) is noted.

Seriously, dude, paying people so they don't murder is demented. I noticed that people are upset because a rapist will do three months in the can. Why is that? Because it's pretty much taken as a given that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. So killing a murderer is about the most proportional sentence one could render and places THE MOST VALUE on INNOCENT life.

Not bad for a West-Bank resident living illegally on Palestinian land! Say it isn't so; and if it isn't so, that's where you belong with all the other Israeli Right-wing nutters ...

And here I have no idea what you're babbling about.

 

[James972]

In the US, with its high-crime rate - due to a Poverty Threshold containing 50 million people,[/COLOR]
___________________________

Of course thats incredibly moronic given that in 1950 there was far far more poverty and far far less crime. Modern crime is due to the liberal attack on the family, schools, and religion, and on liberal economic policies that drove 20 million jobs to China and gave 20 million more to illegals. 1+1=2

 

[dimensionallava]

Seriously, dude, paying people so they don't murder is demented.

thats not the reason for this Guaranteed Minimum Income program its more of a side benefit, a possible positive effect not the main reason for it. Do you understand?

 

[dimensionallava]

THE PURGATORY BELOW THE POVERTY THRESHOLD

I like that you title your posts like this its soo french lol

You know, you may be right. I am talking about doing the "right thing", which is rarely about "what people want".

and if its not what the people want than why bother?

For the most part, people want the "easy way out". Just a job, thank you very much.

they want even less than that, some people dont want a job they just want food, they see a job and they see education as means of providing their basic needs for survival, and thats a bigger problem then whether or not they have access to either

But that job today (if one has no real skills) is below minimum wage, will probably disappear tomorrow (as just about everything manual is automated out of existence). For the future, you need continual skills-training - and more than likely said training for all your life as the needs for skills evolves along with the market-economy in which we live and thrive.

It will depend, no doubt, about what the market-economy wants (consumers like you an me). But, if the past is indicative of the future - than whatever we want, we want it now. But even with the likes of Amazon, the evolution in commercial sales has only scratched the surface - and it has already caused the demise of multiple once well-known retailers.

Who ever imagined that the object of your sudden desire, once purchased, would be on your doorstep delivered in an hour by a drone.

Near Instant-Gratification. Wow, the mind boggles at the thought of what might/could happen to human-nature.

automation will continue too increase until wage labor vanishes entirely, and the majority of us are what you would consider to be unemployed, the desire for full employment is a right wing reaction and hinders this eventuality

My point is that either we, the sheeple, keep up with the skill-needs or we get left behind - somewhere in the purgatory below the Poverty Threshold.

Is that what you want for your son/daughter? Not me ...

________________________

i think most people want their children to be "financially secure", and a GMI gives them that, then allows them to focus on more important things like an education. While free education program without gmi still leaves doubt as to whether they will be financially secure and accomplishes far less.

Regardless, I wanted to go back to your earlier posts where you mentioned public schools vs private ones, and i looked up the top engineering college in the world, and its a chinese (sorry not french they were #81) university. Youve probably never heard of it :lol:, its called Tsinghua university. Tuition is almost free for chinese citizens and for foreigners its around $5000 per year. The chinese educational system had alot of difficulty when it first began after the cultural revolution, even though their schools were free for all grade levels, they actually had to build all the schools. Education was considered a royal luxury originally with even high schools costing around $40,000 per year to attend. Now they have more kids in college than the USA.

They did this by charging fees similar to the french system, but they also relied on volunteers by giving their citizens full scholarships in order to go to teach in rural china (as in no electricity, no water china). They realized that education is first and foremost a relationship between someone who wants to learn and someone who wants to teach, and the realization that many teachers will work for free, and many students value education over everything, even their daily bread. By crowding the system with students who dont want to learn, who are only there because they are instructed from a young age that they "need" school for their basic survival, and even teachers who just want a paycheck and dont want to be their either, you end up with an expensive worthless educational system

 

[Lafayette]

THE MONEY PUMP

and if its not what the people want than why bother?

What makes you think "you" know what the people want?

What the people have wanted (as shown at the ballot-box) is what got us into the present mess. We are a democracy and "the people", these past 30 years, handed it over to bunch of Replicants who fashioned it into THEIR notion of democracy. That is a Money Pump that manipulates taxation such that it gushes Income into Wealth and Wealth into Net Worth.

One huge massive money-pump upwards from Income to Wealth - which got We, the Sheeple, this Income Disparity:


And this Wealth Disparity:

And, one must suppose, that you feel that such disparities (brought about by the manipulation of upper-income flat-tax rates) is just fine.

You've got blinders on ...
____________________________________

 

[Lafayette]

Seriously, dude, paying people so they don't murder is demented.

And if it works, who cares?

Wanna put a price on human-life?

Cheapskate ...
___________________________________

 

[dimensionallava]

What makes you think "you" know what the people want?

What the people have wanted (as shown at the ballot-box) is what got us into the present mess. We are a democracy and "the people", these past 30 years, handed it over to bunch of Replicants who fashioned it into THEIR notion of democracy. That is a Money Pump that manipulates taxation such that it gushes Income into Wealth and Wealth into Net Worth.

as i said in the beginning of the thread the main problem is the racist and bigots who want a certain group wiped out entirely, they dont want them to live, much less be successful, or prosperous or secure. they in fact want the opposite. They dont want the economy too improve not really, what they want is their personal wealth and status too improve. Improving the whole economy would mean improving the lives of the people they hate

One huge massive money-pump upwards from Income to Wealth - which got We, the Sheeple, this Income Disparity:
View attachment 67202608

And this Wealth Disparity:

And, one must suppose, that you feel that such disparities (brought about by the manipulation of upper-income flat-tax rates) is just fine.

You've got blinders on ...

as you can see this happens right after the civil rights act, once unions started racially intergrating workforces, union memberships declined and an era of tax cuts, privtazation, and deregulation began.

 

[James972]

as i said in the beginning of the thread the main problem is the racist and bigots who want a certain group wiped out entirely, they dont want them to live, much less be successful, or prosperous or secure. they in fact want the opposite.

this is total insane lunacy or you have evidence of it??????

 

[James972]

One huge massive money-pump upwards from Income to Wealth -_

yes thanks to liberal taxes unions and deficits that drove 20 million jobs offshore, and thanks to the liberal attack on the family schools and religion that rendered many Americans unfit for work. And this is not to mention 20 million liberal illegals that took 20 million jobs and bid down the wages for those jobs. Notice Lafayette will not have the ability to understand these obvious points. When you have been brainwashed you have been taught not to think.