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

[larvatus]

My girlfriend often confuses our descendants with the Chinese. Then again, she claims descent from Genghis Khan. What’s your excuse?

[arbat]

I am able remember what a dialog was about?

[larvatus]

Heaven forfend that we should credit your memory overmuch.

[arbat]

Anyways, I think you overstayed your welcome.

You made many statements, - but failed to provide any support for even one of them.

Instead, you flooded my journal with tons of meaningless repetitions, assertions and some most ridiculous things, - like claiming that US Social Security is hallmark of stability.

This is trolling.

[larvatus]

Oh, okay.

[tzirechnoy]

Ничего, что Бисмарковская схема накрылась медным тазом (вместе с государством) лет через 40 после того, как её начали строить?

То есть, по-Вашэму, единственно надёжный safety net -- это когда Вы начинаете его строить в 20 лет, а наркывается он в 60?

[larvatus]

Bismarck’s legacy of social security is alive and well in Germany.

[arbat]

So is Ponzi's legacy. Just recently in the US one Maddoff implemented one of those schemes.

By your measure it proves its reliability and qualifies it for the title of "safety net".

[larvatus]

As stated above, if Charles Ponzi had the authority to levy taxes and print money, your slander of state-operated social security programs might have made some sense. Since he didn’t, it doesn’t.

[arbat]

Remember what happened in the USSR?

You must think it happened because Soviet Government lacked ability to levy taxes and print money.

Well, I am happy to tell you that Soviet Government did both.

Problem is, - no government can order the supply of "greater fools" to become infinite. And infinite supply of "greater fools" is a conditio sine qua non for any such scheme.

[larvatus]

Please explain how and why the most robust Constitutional republic in recorded history might be liable to the failures of the Soviet government.

[arbat]

I think you lost the thread of discussion.

You claimed that government can avoid the fate of a private Ponzi scheme, since it has the power to tax.

Now, you need to explain what happened with the USSR. It had a power to tax, right? So, why did it crash?

What exactly were the failures of the Soviet Government that, - despite that magical power to tax, - lead to its utter economical failure?

Enlighten me.

[larvatus]

The Soviet system crashed because of a crisis of legitimacy. Nothing of the sort attends the U.S.A.

[arbat]

In other words, you have no idea whatsoever, what went wrong.

You just HOPING that when we do the exact same thing, - it will end differently.

[larvatus]

In other words, I am more impressed by my historical study than your take on the dismal science.