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

[arbat]

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

[arbat]

In other words, this article does NOT confirm that Bismarck's scheme has been running continuously for 130 years.

Do you want to make another attempt to substantiate your claim about "130 years of endurance", or are you ready to admit that you... well... let's call it "spoken inartfully"?

[larvatus]

Very well. I apologize for having failed to clarify that my characterization of social security “as conceived and executed by Otto von Bismarck” was meant not to refer to the special and uncharacteristic case of Germany, but to credit the origins of the modern welfare state to its arch-conservative founding father. I continue to maintain that Bismarck’s innovation put a permanent end to laissez-faire capitalism as a viable political option for developed societies.

[arbat]

No, excuse me, this is not what I was talking about. I have no issue with you proclaiming Bismark the father of modern welfare state, or the origin of the arch-liberal world order, or grandmother of Russian NAVY, or [choose any other term of endearment you wish here]. Can't care less.

You made specific claim - that you consider government-run charities to be a "safety net" (as opposed to "sporadical" private ones) based on 130 years of endurance. And you mentioned Bismarck scheme - as a supporting evidence to THAT claim.

I want you to admit that (A) Bismark can not be used as supporting evidence, since his scheme did not last and (B) that you have no facts to prove the endurance of government "safety nets".

[larvatus]

Actually, based on evidence at hand, I am making the claim that Bismarck’s legacy of social security did last both in his homeland and outside of its boundaries, and continues to do so, notwithstanding its involvement in two crises of legitimacy of the German state. As a matter of fact, it has continually endured and expanded for three quarters of a century to date in these United States.

I note your ongoing failure to “ refuse to sign up for this social security business”, despite your own prognostication of its imminent demise. The system must be doing something to ensure its survival, even by your own lights.

[arbat]

All your evidence shows that people have been continuously DREAMING about creating a reliable safety net. Dreaming about something does not bring it into existence. You may claim that A DREAM of a government-run safety net endured for 130 years.

You, however, started with something very different. You claimed that government-run social security is a "safety net", and you based this qualification on its endurance.

Not on endurance of a DREAM, but on endurance of an actual institution.

Now. We both know that no social security institution lasted for long (not compared to the major private charities, anyway). Definitely not one of them endured for 130 years, - and it was dishonest of you to claim so.

So... what's your best example? Care to name actual institution that has a good track record and does not look like it is ready to go belly up?

[larvatus]

There is nothing dreamlike about the examples of German and American social security systems cited above. Please contact your ophthalmologist with all concerns about this or that looking like it is ready to go belly up.

Propounding “that no social security institution lasted for long (not compared to the major private charities, anyway)” as evidence of their instability or impermanence. bespeaks knowing fuck-all about the history of social security institutions emerging from a long tradition of private charities in the first instance. You might as well disparage number 1 for its moral failure to measure up to number 2.

[arbat]

Again, allow me reiterate: YOU made a certain claim about 130 years of endurance. When I asked for evidence, you gave none. Instead, you tried to do a switch, - you tried to pretend that the fact the people were DREAMING about social securities schemes for 130 years proves your statement. It does not.

Now, either you have an example of a social security scheme that has good track record, and looks like it will not go down in the foreseeable time, - or you do not.

If you do, please, give me THE BEST example you have.

If you do not than you have no basis to claim that those government-run schemes are "safety nets". And you are trying to sell me a standard dream-based Ponzi scheme, claiming that your scheme is different from all others.

[larvatus]

Please refer to the examples of German and American social security systems repeatedly cited above. Now would be a good time to read Gaston Rimlinger’s article. If you lack free access to JSTOR, I will be happy to email you a PDF copy. Once again, I am discussing objective factual records only. What “looks like it will not go down in the foreseeable time” is by definition subjective.

[arbat]

So, basically, you decision is to avoid pointing to any specific example. And to tell me to go looking on my own.

Out of my list of trolling techniques you have so far deployed 1, 2 and 4.

I do not like it. I feel that any person who posted that many comments in my journal is under certain moral obligation to answer one very simple question of mine.

So, either (A) provide me with The BEST example of government-run "safety net" that would have good track record and would not look like it is about to crash (no need to write long comment, - the name of the specific program will do,) - or (B) admit that you have no example that would look sufficiently convincing.

[larvatus]

OASDI.

[arbat]

OASDI was instituted barely 75 years ago.

As of this moment, it has no assets whatsoever, - every dollar that was ever placed into it, was immediately spent by the government. The only thing in there are pieces of paper that promise that the government will return the money when they will be needed, - from the then current taxes.

In other words, it exists as a pure, standard Ponzi scheme, making payments out of current contributions. This kind of scheme exists while new contributions EXCEED obligations. When it is no longer so, it has to borrow money - while people still hope for a miracle, - and when there is nobody left to borrow from, - it collapses.

Right now we are entering the last, borrowing stage. Since the percentage of the population that contribute is shrinking, and percentage of the poplation who withdraw grows - there is no any reason to believe that deficit of the system will ever change.

And this means, - this scheme is doomed.

Funny. That was you BEST example.

[larvatus]

Please spare me your Chicken Little concerns. My country borrows money right and left. I lose much less sleep over its borrowing money from our descendants, than I do over the selling of U.S. bonds to the present day Chinese. Either discuss the historical record, or have the decency to admit that reasonable men can differ in their calculations of risk and expectations of reward.

[arbat]

I did discuss historical record: just now US President Obama said that we must strengthen Social Security.

If it were solvent, there would have been no need to strengthen it, right?

As it is, it has ZERO assets. And it relies completely on willingness of the next generation to lose more, and more, and more money on the same scheme.

[larvatus]

Likewise, the U.S. Treasury relies completely on the willingness of the Chinese to buy and hold nearly a trillion dollars’ worth of its bonds. Big Hairy Fucking Deal.

[arbat]

So, if I understand correctly, your faith in the "safety net" is based on your unshakable belief that Chinese are yearning to support American retirees. Indefinitely.

Nice to know.