In whose movie? — Vera Mont

Well, I should have said "capacities and circumstances"—by " capacities" I really meant to include circumstances. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia that's basically how it has been, but government red tape is making it ever harder for the small entrepeneurs. Those who have the capacity to deal with that red tape can get ahead. I don't deny it is barely possible for many—equal opportunity has been a dream and is becoming ever more so.

Australia, from all I've heard, is a more democratic nation than the US. Maybe not every administration, but by and large, the governance has been more nearly equitable. Canada is similar in its cushioning of the blunt instrument of capital.
Why does government red tape make things difficult for small entrepreneurs but not for big ones? I hear the same complaint in Canada. I find it hard to believe that either government is deliberately trying to harm small businesses. What red tape is designed to hamper small business?
Is it, perhaps, that legislators try to make regulations for all businesses, and the big corporations can get around the regulations, while the small ones get caught?
(I don't know - I've only been involved in a tiny business and had no trouble with red tape.)

What red tape is designed to hamper small business?
Is it, perhaps, that legislators try to make regulations for all businesses, and the big corporations can get around the regulations, while the small ones get caught?
(I don't know - I've only been involved in a tiny business and had no trouble with red tape.) — Vera Mont

I guess it depends on the business, but in the building and home improvement trades, there is licensing, ongoing training requirements, quality assurance documentation, insurance and superannuation, which together require significant financial and administrative resources, and make it ever harder for small businesses to compete with the larger ones. The trio of supermarkets have pushed out a large proportion of small shopkeepers and the same goes for the building and hardware suppliers. I have no doubt the same applies in many sectors of retail as well as primary production.

Large corporations are also notorious for being able to deploy the financial and legal resources to avoid taxation, which throws the burden back onto the average wage earner and small business and although our governments frequently make noises about their intention to do something about that it never happens. It seems it's just virtue signaling designed to net votes—our governments certainly appear to be bought by the plutocracy..

I can't think of any totally unregulated capitalist systems. — Janus

Well, yes. A market can only exist in a legal framework, which is a form of regulation. I'm only referring, n short-hand to the movement at the end of the 19th century to palliate (welfare) or control (additional regulation) some of the anti-social consequences of capitalism.

On the other hand, communist systems, insofar as they are anti-democratic (which most seem to be and to have been) exercise far more control over their citizens. — Janus

Far more overt control, yes. Capitalism is subtler. I prefer the second, of course.

In the modern world it is money which effectively rules, and governments are, to a large extent, bought. The CCP on the other hand controls the money because it effectively owns the business it seems. — Janus

So either the people who control the money or the people who are members of the CCP are in charge. It doesn't look like a particularly exciting choice. Who looks after your interests and mine?

A badly organized society creates many malcontents and disrupters; a well organized one tends to give rise to very little crime and abuse. — Vera Mont

H'm - tempting
Dictatorships are quite good at creating an organized society, but at a high cost. Democracies (and free markets) seem to be chaotic, but the social costs are lower.
The critical factor is the extent to which the organization has consent, and has enough flexibility to give space to minority and unpopular interests.
The difference between a police force and an army is that the police must have the consent of those being policed and must be an integral part of the community, while an army needs neither.

Health care policy's hard, I agree. I've only heard anecdotal evidence about NHS. — fishfry

Well, be careful. Most anecdotes have an agenda behind them - not that statistics don't. You wouldn't believe the impression I get from the anecdotes I hear about the US "system". I just don't believe that it can be as bad as that.

Government doesn't have any money that it doesn't take from someone else. Or borrow and print, that's a nice game that has to end at some point too. — fishfry

The issue behind the student loan question is the question how far state-funded free education should go. If you want a level playing field in careers, everyone who can benefit should get higher education - and that means that almost everybody should be entitled to have a go. At the same time, if people benefit financially, there is a good case for saying that some of that benefit should go back to whoever funded it. Ironically, in the UK, the financial benefit from higher education is rapidly shrinking and, some say, has disappeared, mainly because it has been extended so widely. The proportion of student loans that is actually repaid is astonishingly low. (I can't remember the actual figures.)

Nobody has any money they don't take from someone else. We all give something in exchange. But even Government has to provide something in exchange. Sure taxes are compulsory, but is food and housing voluntary? They are certainly not classified as discretionary spending by economists.

Electronic money seems to be on the way, and that is going to making the arbitrary printing of money look like a tea party, if the existing private systems are anything to go by.

Perhaps it's a matter of pendulum swinging and patience. — fishfry

Yes, it probably is. That's one of the few things that my mother told me that I have found to be true.

I agree. We need a balance between trying to homogenize society, and old-fashioned notions of merit. — fishfry

II would prioritize effectiveness in the job (in the widest sense) above everything else. If that's what you mean by merit, then I agree.

The issue behind the student loan question is the question how far state-funded free education should go. If you want a level playing field in careers, everyone who can benefit should get higher education - and that means that almost everybody should be entitled to have a go. At the same time, if people benefit financially, there is a good case for saying that some of that benefit should go back to whoever funded it. Ironically, in the UK, the financial benefit from higher education is rapidly shrinking and, some say, has disappeared, mainly because it has been extended so widely. The proportion of student loans that is actually repaid is astonishingly low. (I can't remember the actual figures.) — Ludwig V

That's right. So the students majoring in unmarketable majors are subsidized by people who skipped school and went into the trades. That doesn't seem fair. It's just that the college grads vote for Democrats and the tradesmen vote for Republicans, so the Democratic administration forgives billions in student loans -- illegally, as the Supreme Court has already ruled -- in an election year.

And not just that. The Democratic party use to be the party of the tradesmen and no longer is. When did the left abandon the workers, and why? I gather the Labour party in the UK has undergone a similar transition, is that right?

So is it possible that a different version of the social justice approach might be more effective? Is it possible that other places may be implementing it in a better way? — Ludwig V

Compassion for criminals is anti-compassion for their victims. New York City is a great lesson in restorative justice gone too far. I think the first duty of civic authorities is to provide for civic order. What's weird is that the voters themselves vote for the faux-compassion that ends up hurting them.

So the real solution to our problems is better voters!

and make it ever harder for small businesses to compete with the larger ones. — Janus

Oh. So, the regulations are designed to protect customers and workers from exploitation. My guess is that the bulk of the abuses to which the government is responding was perpetrated by large corporations - not because they're worse people, but because of the machinery of profit - and the small ones who have no intention of short-changing their customers or abusing their workers get caught up in it.
OTOH, I'm aware of some pretty awful scams in the building trades that are perpetrated by small contractors, so I can imagine how regulation and oversight would be reassuring to customers. OTTH, a under-the-table deals are made all the time by small contractors and complicit customers to cheat the government and circumvent regulations.
It's not so easy, governing a monetized society!

It seems it's just virtue signaling designed to net votes—our governments certainly appear to be bought by the plutocracy.. — Janus

In a monetized society, where political campaigns run on money, officials can't afford to cross the people who finance their election. And of course, financial interests and entrenched privilege have their staunch supporters, not only in the press and broadcast media (which they own, and which control the reputation of officials) but also among the voting and tax-paying public. A whole lot of the victims of mega-capital are willing to attack anyone who moves against the status quo.

The critical factor is the extent to which the organization has consent, and has enough flexibility to give space to minority and unpopular interests. — Ludwig V

To a very large extent, this is a question of economic disparity. Where the gap between richest and poorest is minimal, all the people have common interests and points of agreement.
https://ssir.org/books/reviews/entry/spirit_level_greater_equality_societies_stronger_richard_wilkinson_kate_pic
Where the gap between the richest and poorest is an immense chasm, many are disenfranchised, marginalized and driven to despair. Not only because subsistence is hard won at the bottom, but because the bulk of the resources are concentrated in the numerically small upper tiers and there is not enough left for the much bigger lowest tiers. This means everyone in the second, third and fourth economic bracket is in constant fear of being displaced by someone from the tier below.
The advocates of capital depict an open field of competition, where anyone who "works hard" can achieve their goals and climb the social ladder. In fact, there is very little competition at the top, and a good deal of collusion. If the haves can keep the have-nots fighting over scraps, nobody will come for their loot.

As for the difference between police and armies - don't count on in it. Police forces in many countries are increasingly militarized, insulated and alienated from the community they're meant to protect; in many communities, the citizenry and the police are locked in a cold war that occasionally erupts in gunfire.

That's right. So the students majoring in unmarketable majors are subsidized by people who skipped school and went into the trades. — fishfry

H'm. In principle, that is a valid complaint. But, back when I was involved, something like 60% of vacancies for graduates (i.e. those requiring a BA degree or higher) did not specify the subject. That may have changed. But you might be surprised at where Eng. Lit. and Fine Arts graduates end up.
I'm not sure how education for professions and trades differs now; there's a lot of emphasis on training all the way up to BA level and higher. Many Universities are re-casting their non-vocational qualifications as vocational and there's effort going in to tracking what level of job graduates actually get. I've heard anecdotes that some vocational programmes don't do very well. It's complicated. I suspect that the identity of the awarding institution is more important than the subject. Whether it is question of reputation, prestige or snobbery depends on how polite I'm feeling.

It's just that the college grads vote for Democrats and the tradesmen vote for Republicans, so the Democratic administration forgives billions in student loans -- illegally, as the Supreme Court has already ruled -- in an election year. — fishfry

Oh, I wondered why that business about the student loans was happening now. Not pretty, but then, one has to please one's voters.

The Democratic party use to be the party of the tradesmen and no longer is. When did the left abandon the workers, and why? I gather the Labour party in the UK has undergone a similar transition, is that right? — fishfry

It has happened gradually over two or three decades. I hesitate to get too detailed. It's mainly about social liberalism/conservativism - abortion, gay rights &c. Curiously, the Conservative party now seems to be at least as socially liberal as the Labour party, if not more so. There is certainly an issue in the Labour party that the liberal metropolitan elite now vote for Labour and this often clashes with the conservative social values of many "working class" people (not a politically correct classification any more.)
Originally the Labour party was explicitly a party for the working class - it was founded by the Trade Union movement. The Conservative Party tended also to have foundations in the "higher" parts of the class system; but now it's more about economics - free market vs state intervention (not Socialism as such). It does seem that many people in what used to be the working class who might well have voted Labour in the past now vote Conservative. This is all not very reliable. I'm not an expert.

Compassion for criminals is anti-compassion for their victims. — fishfry

I don't see why it has to be. Except, of course, that a victim may be more vengeful than the system is. But I don't see that as a question of compassion or not. Support for victims (in the UK at least) has been pathetic, but is now improving (but not nearly perfect).

I think the first duty of civic authorities is to provide for civic order. — fishfry

Of course that's true. Part of the argument is that sympathetic ("humane") treatment of criminals and addicts gets better results in preventing recidivism - and a huge proportion of crime is recidivism. There's empirical evidence for that.
Another part is that more severe sentences are not effective in preventing crime. Effective detection and police work is much more effective. It makes sense. 20 years in jail is not much of a deterrent if you aren't going to get caught. But if you know you won't get away with, you know also that you won't benefit much, whatever the penalty. (Some crimes are not deterred even by the high likelihood of getting caught, but those are unlikely to be deterred by severe penalties.) I know, I know, justice demands.... That, in my book, is not about justice; it is about revenge. Prevention is more important than revenge.

Where the gap between the richest and poorest is an immense chasm, many are disenfranchised, marginalized and driven to despair. — Vera Mont

Tell me about it. It isn't an easy problem to shift the views of the rich and (therefore) powerful. It doesn't help that there is no objective criterion for what the right distribution would be. I think it comes down to a deal - not a formal deal, but a state of affairs that most people are prepared to acquiesce in. But neither side seems willing to acknowledge that and work with it, so I'm not optimistic. I cling to hope because I remember Bismarck. That story tells you that you are just as likely to get a solution from a right-winger as from a left-winger.

Police forces in many countries are increasingly militarized, insulated and alienated from the community they're meant to protect; in many communities, the citizenry and the police are locked in a cold war that occasionally erupts in gunfire. — Vera Mont

Oh, I know that. But if the difference was implemented, most of those problems would go away. Very few people actually want chaos or a "cold war that occasionally erupts in gunfire". They want order without repression.

There is always a problem about excessive competition. There are usually systems in place to control it and they are at least reasonably successful. — Ludwig V

Who makes these systems? Is power and authority not a trait of the "winning faction" of any competitive environment?

I just noticed this. What means would you use to bring this about? — fishfry

Constructive or healthy modes of competition. We cannot eliminate our desire to win or outcompete one another. We like reward, acknowledgement and status. All we can do is steer the compulsion away from competition that worsens the the wellbeing or basic rights of the losing group.

But neither side seems willing to acknowledge that and work with it, so I'm not optimistic. — Ludwig V

Oh, please don't fall into the 'both are as bad as each other' fallacy. They're not. The billionnaires want to keep taking more and more; the wretched just want a little of it back. Some of the advocates of the wretched are bellicose, a few are even violently angry, but their violence is mere fleabites compared to the might of property-defending police and mercenaries. Not to mention all the upper middle class who benefit from enabling and stroking the super-rich, the portion of the middle class that fears being worse off if there is any change and - especially - the persuadable lower middle class buys into the system, in hopes of betterment, in fear of a potent underdog, in misdirected resentment of the very authority that tries to regulate their exploiters, in moral outrage over the reputed erosion of their cherished values, in defense of the little advantage they have over some other group.
At the present level of disparity compromise is impossible; the "sides" far too unequal to negotiate.

But if the difference was implemented, most of those problems would go away. — Ludwig V

Not without major reconstruction of the justice system. But that's doable - would save a lot of resources, too. This is the bit the right wingers don't get: it's cheaper for society to assure everyone a reasonable life than to protect the wealth of a few. Money is a very, very expensive commodity.

Oh, please don't fall into the 'both are as bad as each other' fallacy. — Vera Mont

I'll tell you what - I'll promise not to fall into that fallcy if you'll promise not to fall into mine. OK?
Here's my side of the bargain.

But neither side seems willing to acknowledge that and work with it, so I'm not optimistic. — Ludwig V

describes the present socio-political situation; I am not making a moral judgement.
The fallacy I'm asking you to avoid is the fallacy of stereotyping groups of people. Deal?
I think we agree that the present situation is seriously wrong. So, a question. Do you know what the right distribution of wealth across our society should be?

At the present level of disparity compromise is impossible; the "sides" far too unequal to negotiate. — Vera Mont

So what is your recommendation. Surely not civil war?

This is the bit the right wingers don't get: it's cheaper for society to assure everyone a reasonable life than to protect the wealth of a few. — Vera Mont

True.

Who makes these systems? Is power and authority not a trait of the "winning faction" of any competitive environment? — Benj96

Our only hope is substantial and persistent political pressure. What else is there? How else would you ensure "constructive and healthy competition", given that the people in power have substantial political support?
The history of the 19th and early 20th century gives ground for hope.

describes the present socio-political situation; I am not making a moral judgement. — Ludwig V

Where? In Australia? I don't know who the 'sides' are there. It would take me a while to catch up. In Canada, I think the sides do understand the problem but are uninclined to work together, since one side wants to eliminate the problem, while the other wants to reinforce it. Most of the political spectrum fall somewhere in the middle, groping their way from crisis to crisis, dispensing duct tape on the Titanic.

The fallacy I'm asking you to avoid is the fallacy of stereotyping groups of people. Deal? — Ludwig V

I didn't think I was. I meant to describe political positions. I'm quite aware of the magnanimous billionnaires who use their money for culture and charity, as well as larcenous beggars.

Do you know what the right distribution of wealth across our society should be? — Ludwig V

No. I have trouble dealing with the concept of wealth in any distribution. I'd rather think in terms of resource allocation and sharing.

I believe everyone should have enough food, shelter, security and leisure, a chance to contribute to their community and be recognized for their effort, access to education and the freedom to fulfill their potential. I believe nobody should have more of anything than they can use and enjoy in one lifetime.
I believe no child should start life materially better off than others of its cohort, and those who start life with a handicap should be offered all available support by the community, as should any adult who falls ill, is injured or grows feeble.
I believe we should not take from the Earth more than we collectively need, and dispose of our waste in a productive manner.
I realize it's a pipe-dream.

I didn't think I was. I meant to describe political positions. I'm quite aware of the magnanimous billionnaires who use their money for culture and charity, as well as larcenous beggars. — Vera Mont

I'm sorry if I took you the wrong way.

No. I have trouble dealing with the concept of wealth in any distribution. I'd rather think in terms of resource allocation and sharing. — Vera Mont

I don't understand this. Money represents resources. So the distribution of money is allocation of resources. Sharing is more complicated, but the family is partly about sharing resources, isn't it? Perhaps you are just talking about an attitude? Or do you have in mind a reform of property laws?

I believe everyone should have enough food, shelter, security and leisure, a chance to contribute to their community and be recognized for their effort, access to education and the freedom to fulfill their potential.
I believe nobody should have more of anything than they can use and enjoy in one lifetime.
I believe no child should start life materially better off than others of its cohort, and those who start life with a handicap should be offered all available support by the community, as should any adult who falls ill, is injured or grows feeble.
I believe we should not take from the Earth more than we collectively need, and dispose of our waste in a productive manner.
I realize it's a pipe-dream. — Vera Mont

I don't have a problem with pipe-dreams. I understand your objection to inherited wealth. But I'll spare you any flat-footed objections about practicalities.

Money represents resources. — Ludwig V

Therein lies the rub. When dealing with symbols, you're dealing with abstracts: the interpretation is more important than the thing being represented. If a loaf of bread has a price tag, that figure doesn't necessarily reflect the amount of wheat, yeast and water it contains, nor the amount of time someone spent on preparing and then assembling the ingredients plus the energy it took to bake the bread. It represents, instead, an arbitrary value placed upon it by an arbiter - usually not the baker nor the consumer. Monetary values are assigned to things according to desirability or rarity or branding of some kind. The price can be at great variance to the resource-content of the item.
When it comes to remuneration for work, the time/effort component is the least consideration: it's valued according to a wholly arbitrary standard - stockbroker starting salaries (before bonuses and perks) are approximately double that of a teacher or construction worker (no bonuses or perks) You judge their relative contributions to the society. Or, you could always go back to the 400/1 ratio between the assembly line worker who actually makes the profitable product and the CEO who attends meetings and makes decisions. Not figuring in the people who do nothing but lend/invest money at interest.
Then factor in the cost of money itself: printing, storing, guarding, counting, shipping, tracking, exchanging, accounting, taxing and redistributing, litigation over it, stealing it and punishing the thieves... All those costs to society are added on to the price of commodities.

Add to this, the portability and morphology of money. A wagon load of turnips, you can readily calculate its nutritional value and the labour, time and land it took to produce. You can't disguise it as something else, can't spirit it out of the country, hide it in a vault or turn it into a gold coin and pocket it. When money exists mainly in electronic form, any kind of magic tricks can move it, transfer it or disappear it. A painting of two hazy orange squares by John Smith is worthless. A painting of two hazy orange squares by Mark Rothko is worth $45,000,000 - same canvas, same paint, same aesthetic. Not a resource-base valuation!

The practicality is not yet upon us. I don't think reform is feasible.
House-of-cards economies like the one we're living in periodically collapse. The last depression adversely affected much of the world and was followed by a crazy big war. This time the global interconnections are even less extricable. When one economy defaults on its debt, all the still viable ones have to rally round with loans and service-reducing, tax-hiking regimens - they have to, because the whole edifice is in danger. Debt is accumulating everywhere at a rate that bodes imminent collapse. Add the damage of climate events and the pressure of human migration.... Does the current system implode or explode?
There will be casualties. Lots of them. Maybe whoever's left standing can start over with a different model. I hope they get it right, but won't be here to see it.

Constructive or healthy modes of competition. We cannot eliminate our desire to win or outcompete one another. We like reward, acknowledgement and status. All we can do is steer the compulsion away from competition that worsens the the wellbeing or basic rights of the losing group. — Benj96

What ruling body decides on that? Steer the compulsion away if it "worsens the wellbeing?" Are their commissars for that? Your idea sounds like top-down authoritarianism in the guise of being caring. "We're crushing your competitiveness for your own good, Comrade. Enjoy your stay at the Gulag."

H'm. In principle, that is a valid complaint. But, back when I was involved, something like 60% of vacancies for graduates (i.e. those requiring a BA degree or higher) did not specify the subject. That may have changed. But you might be surprised at where Eng. Lit. and Fine Arts graduates end up. — Ludwig V

In the DEI departments of university administrations I imagine.

I'm not sure how education for professions and trades differs now; there's a lot of emphasis on training all the way up to BA level and higher. Many Universities are re-casting their non-vocational qualifications as vocational and there's effort going in to tracking what level of job graduates actually get. I've heard anecdotes that some vocational programmes don't do very well. It's complicated. I suspect that the identity of the awarding institution is more important than the subject. Whether it is question of reputation, prestige or snobbery depends on how polite I'm feeling. — Ludwig V

Point being that pipefitters shouldn't be shouldering the cost of the loans forgiven for social justice majors.

Oh, I wondered why that business about the student loans was happening now. Not pretty, but then, one has to please one's voters. — Ludwig V

It's a scandal. The executive branch (Biden) actually has no authority to forgive those loans and foist them on the taxpayers. The Supreme Court already ruled on that. Biden's actions are illegal. Just election year pandering. And of course we're seeing this week who those students are.

It has happened gradually over two or three decades. I hesitate to get too detailed. It's mainly about social liberalism/conservativism - abortion, gay rights &c. Curiously, the Conservative party now seems to be at least as socially liberal as the Labour party, if not more so. There is certainly an issue in the Labour party that the liberal metropolitan elite now vote for Labour and this often clashes with the conservative social values of many "working class" people (not a politically correct classification any more.) — Ludwig V

Right. The "liberals" used to be for the working classes. Now the liberals support the elite against the working classes. Bit of a puzzler.

Originally the Labour party was explicitly a party for the working class - it was founded by the Trade Union movement. The Conservative Party tended also to have foundations in the "higher" parts of the class system; but now it's more about economics - free market vs state intervention (not Socialism as such). It does seem that many people in what used to be the working class who might well have voted Labour in the past now vote Conservative. This is all not very reliable. I'm not an expert.[/qgge.uote]

Me either, I was making a much more limited point earlier, and the poster I was making it to has chosen not to engage.
— Ludwig V

Compassion for criminals is anti-compassion for their victims.
— fishfry
I don't see why it has to be. Except, of course, that a victim may be more vengeful than the system is. But I don't see that as a question of compassion or not. Support for victims (in the UK at least) has been pathetic, but is now improving (but not nearly perfect). — Ludwig V

Violent criminals are being put back on the street to re-offend. That's not fair to the victims. Violent criminals belong behind bars.

I think the first duty of civic authorities is to provide for civic order.
— fishfry
Of course that's true. Part of the argument is that sympathetic ("humane") treatment of criminals and addicts gets better results in preventing recidivism - and a huge proportion of crime is recidivism. There's empirical evidence for that. — Ludwig V

People can't re-offend if they're locked up.

Another part is that more severe sentences are not effective in preventing crime. Effective detection and police work is much more effective. It makes sense. 20 years in jail is not much of a deterrent if you aren't going to get caught. But if you know you won't get away with, you know also that you won't benefit much, whatever the penalty. (Some crimes are not deterred even by the high likelihood of getting caught, but those are unlikely to be deterred by severe penalties.) I know, I know, justice demands.... That, in my book, is not about justice; it is about revenge. Prevention is more important than revenge. — Ludwig V

Perhaps I just spend to much time following NYC politics. They're having a problem with soft-on-crime politicians leading to a great decrease in public safety.

The practicality is not yet upon us. I don't think reform is feasible. — Vera Mont

You are not alone. I also think the prospects are very very gloomy. I have the impression that many people all round the world have a sense of impending doom. I wish I could be more optimistic.

House-of-cards economies like the one we're living in periodically collapse. — Vera Mont

Yes. Any economic/social system is vulnerable to catastrophic events. But life goes on. People pick themselves up and work out what they will do next. That's not a facile optimism. It would be much, much better to avoid the disaster in the first place, but it isn't always possible.
Your analysis of where we are is quite familiar, but doesn't help much. Capitalism has been in crisis practically ever since it was invented. It is extremely resilient and adaptable, which is both a curse and a blessing. The obvious alternative is Socialism, which is as polymorphous as capitalism. It seems to be more effective as way of modifying capitalism than as a system in its own right. We seem to be working out how to blend the two, and that seems to me to be the right way to go

In the DEI departments of university administrations I imagine. — fishfry

Not so. I don't know what data is available to you, but perhaps you should look around. All I'm saying is that you cannot assume that every vocational programme provides marketable qualifications nor that every non-vocational programme does not. It's up to the market to decide what it wants.
Equally, it is up to students to decide what they want, even if they make choices that you think are unwise. It's not as if we can predict and provide what the economy wants.

Point being that pipefitters shouldn't be shouldering the cost of the loans forgiven for social justice majors. — fishfry

Well, if the cost is funded by general taxation, the contribution will depend on their income. That doesn't seem unreasonable - unless you think that people should not study social justice. But I think it is a good thing that as many people as possible should understand what social justice is.

Right. The "liberals" used to be for the working classes. Now the liberals support the elite against the working classes. Bit of a puzzler. — fishfry

It's complicated. In the UK, liberals in the 19th century were, by and large, members of the elite. They were never particularly enthusiastic about supporting the working classes. They were much more interested in free trade, political issues like voting rights and moral/social issues like divorce, gay rights &c. (Conservatives supported protection and social conservatism). The working classes, by and large, had to fight their own battles, which they did through the Trade Unions.
But I'm sure the alignments were different in the USA.

Violent criminals are being put back on the street to re-offend. That's not fair to the victims. Violent criminals belong behind bars. — fishfry

People can't re-offend if they're locked up. — fishfry

You can't imprison violent criminals forever, unless you can prove them criminally insane. Sooner or later, they have to hit the streets again. That's why rehabilitation is so important.

Perhaps I just spend to much time following NYC politics. They're having a problem with soft-on-crime politicians leading to a great decrease in public safety. — fishfry

Nothing wrong with that, so long as you are open to new ideas occasionally.
I don't know the details, but my instinct is to suggest that if the rehabilitation programmes in NYC aren't working, find a better programme, don't give up on the attempt. Money spent on effective programmes to keep people out of prison is a good investment. Back that up by improving detection and arrest, which is by far the most effective deterrent. Tossing people out of prison into the general population will not work and putting them back in prison later on is very expensive, not only in running the prisons, but also in the damage inflicted on families and children.

Capitalism has been in crisis practically ever since it was invented. — Ludwig V

You'd think somebody would've twigged that it's not the best possible system?

The obvious alternative is Socialism, which is as polymorphous as capitalism. — Ludwig V

That's not an alternative; it's a modification, an attempt to cushion the impact of a profit-driven economy.
All monetized systems - all shades of capitalism - are subject to the same internal and external dangers, but the Socialist versions are more sustainable, just because they eliminate the lower extreme where most of the casualties occur. In fact, if democracy is allowed to operate unhampered, all monetized societies tend toward Socialism, because the beneficiaries - i.e. the majority - vote to keep their benefits.
As for Communism, in a monetized economy, that's an oxymoron; a chimera at best. Money is infinitely corruptible and it tends to infect people who control too much of it.

We seem to be working out how to blend the two, and that seems to me to be the right way to go — Ludwig V

We were on the right track - UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, most of Europe and even the US - for a large portion of the 20th century. (Chastened by the depression, governments curbed big capital and invested in the population at large) Then, starting about 1980, the political pendulum was pushed hard to the right. Now, the far left is where the moderate right (remember them?) was in 1976. Now, we're heading toward fascism at a fair clip.




Side-bar, Your Honour
interesting bulletin from New York City

Continued declines across most major crime categories prevailed during January
2024, compared to the first month of last year, and included substantial drops in murder, rape, burglary, and felony assault. And for the second month in a row, the number of vehicles stolen in New York City was reduced by at least 3.8% (1,178 vs. 1,224).

It seems the upticks are in transit crime and hate crime - sign of the political climate, I imagine. That, of course, is what FUX news reports, without mentioning the overall decline.
You'd almost think New York was doing something right.

In a news release, the NYPD said “uniformed presence in the subway system was expanded in hot-spot areas and will be supported further over the coming weeks using a combination of Transit Bureau personnel and officers usually assigned to administrative duties department-wide.”

I haven't found any mention of the crimes that do occur being committed by miscreants who had received civil summonses due to Criminal Justice Reform of 2016 https://council.nyc.gov/legislation/criminal-justice-reform/ but then, public urinators were never dangerous. The big issue seems to be

The City Bar supports enactment of the Communities Not Cages suite of bills[/url]. These three sentencing reform bills are a long overdue overhaul of the most pernicious aspects of New York’s sentencing laws.Eliminate Mandatory Minimums Act - Judges would be able to consider sentences that would be most effective in addressing the individual’s behavior and the unique circumstances of the offense;
The Second Look Act (A.531 AM Walker / S.321 Sen. Salazar) would enable those currently incarcerated with long sentences to petition judges for reduced sentences.
The Earned Time Act (A.1128 AM Kelles / S.774 Sen. Cooney) would enable those serving long sentences to earn credit to reduce their sentences by complying with prison rules and by participating in treatment, education, vocational training, and work programs. — https://www.nycbar.org/blogs/criminal-justice-reform-new-york-2024-nys-legislative-agenda/

And here it comes:

A number of proposed laws that advocates say would make the criminal justice system more fair for people charged with crimes face an uncertain future in Albany this year, as the Democrat-led state house grapples with backlash from critics who say reform measures have made New Yorkers less safe.

Reform is an uphill battle.

We were on the right track - UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, most of Europe and even the US - for a large portion of the 20th century. (Chastened by the depression, governments curbed big capital and invested in the population at large) Then, starting about 1980, the political pendulum was pushed hard to the right. Now, the far left is where the moderate right (remember them?) was in 1976. Now, we're heading toward fascism at a fair clip. — Vera Mont

I won't disagree with any of that. The obvious questions are when the pendulum will start to move the other way and how much damage will be done before that finally happens. Oh, and whether it is just a pendulum but more of a spiral - upwards. I happy to answer the first with "eventually". The others require "Don't know"

Reform is an uphill battle. — Vera Mont

Well, yes. Obviously a downhill battle would be better, but I'll settle for that.

Thanks for the clips. Very instructive.

The obvious questions are when the pendulum will start to move the other way and how much damage will be done before that finally happens — Ludwig V

Maybe it already has, and a lot of damage is already done. Trouble is, you're right: it's not so much a pendulum as a long spiral staircase upward and a steep slide down. Things take more time and effort to build than to destroy.
Other trouble is, we're running out of time.

Not so. I don't know what data is available to you, but perhaps you should look around. All I'm saying is that you cannot assume that every vocational programme provides marketable qualifications nor that every non-vocational programme does not. It's up to the market to decide what it wants.
Equally, it is up to students to decide what they want, even if they make choices that you think are unwise. It's not as if we can predict and provide what the economy wants. — Ludwig V

Perfectly correct. Then why should the taxpayers shoulder the burden of those who make bad choices? Doesn't that create what they call a moral hazard?

"In economics, a moral hazard is a situation where an economic actor has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk."

Why shouldn't I take out $100,000 US in loans to study underwater basket weaving, if I'm reasonably sure some future administration is going to transfer my loans to the taxpayers? "Cancelling" student loans, a deliberately misleading euphemism for transferring the debt to the taxpayers, incentivizes more bad choices.

Point being that pipefitters shouldn't be shouldering the cost of the loans forgiven for social justice majors.
— fishfry
Well, if the cost is funded by general taxation, the contribution will depend on their income. That doesn't seem unreasonable - unless you think that people should not study social justice. But I think it is a good thing that as many people as possible should understand what social justice is. — Ludwig V

I ask again. Why should a pipefitter pay off someone else's student loans? And if someone borrows large amounts of money to major in a financially unrewarding pursuit, why shouldn't they bear the burden of their own choice?

It's complicated. In the UK, liberals in the 19th century were, by and large, members of the elite. They were never particularly enthusiastic about supporting the working classes. They were much more interested in free trade, political issues like voting rights and moral/social issues like divorce, gay rights &c. (Conservatives supported protection and social conservatism). The working classes, by and large, had to fight their own battles, which they did through the Trade Unions.
But I'm sure the alignments were different in the USA. — Ludwig V

I think it's the same. "Classical" liberalism, which is more like conservatism today. Although conservatism is pretty muddled, what are they really for? Hard to tell these days.

Violent criminals are being put back on the street to re-offend. That's not fair to the victims. Violent criminals belong behind bars.
— fishfry
People can't re-offend if they're locked up.
— fishfry
You can't imprison violent criminals forever, unless you can prove them criminally insane. Sooner or later, they have to hit the streets again. That's why rehabilitation is so important. — Ludwig V

You can put them away for a little bitty while, can't you? In major US cities, soft-on-crime DA's won't even do that. And their victims are starting to notice.

Perhaps I just spend to much time following NYC politics. They're having a problem with soft-on-crime politicians leading to a great decrease in public safety.
— fishfry
Nothing wrong with that, so long as you are open to new ideas occasionally. — Ludwig V

I'm very open to new ideas. I used to be way more of a liberal. I still am. It's the liberals who have gone way too far recently.

I don't know the details, but my instinct is to suggest that if the rehabilitation programmes in NYC aren't working, find a better programme, don't give up on the attempt. Money spent on effective programmes to keep people out of prison is a good investment. Back that up by improving detection and arrest, which is by far the most effective deterrent. Tossing people out of prison into the general population will not work and putting them back in prison later on is very expensive, not only in running the prisons, but also in the damage inflicted on families and children. — Ludwig V

There's no rehabilitation going on. There's a revolving door of people committing violent crimes, being put back on the street, and re-offending.

I'm just trying to take the subtle approach. — fishfry

That was attempted back in 2016 with the whole "DESTROYS sjw with facts and logic", it only got worse. Some of the people on that "side" are victims, I imagine they don't even have an inner monologue so they can't even filter what information is fed to them.
Regardless of whether they even know what they are saying, the time to be subtle with people who want you gone and your culture burned was long ago, nobody cares about being called racist/sexist/theosophist any longer. There is no god anymore, everything goes.

That was attempted back in 2016 with the whole "DESTROYS sjw with facts and logic", it only got worse. Some of the people on that "side" are victims, I imagine they don't even have an inner monologue so they can't even filter what information is fed to them.
Regardless of whether they even know what they are saying, the time to be subtle with people who want you gone and your culture burned was long ago, nobody cares about being called racist/sexist/theosophist any longer. There is no god anymore, everything goes. — Lionino

Yeah I care. I spend most of my time on this forum in mathematically-oriented threads. I'm dipping my toes in the political waters over here and treading lightly. So far, anyway.

Why shouldn't I take out $100,000 US in loans to study underwater basket weaving, if I'm reasonably sure some future administration is going to transfer my loans to the taxpayers? — fishfry

I'm sorry about this rant, but I don't know how else to respond.

It depends on your philosophy of education. The thinking behind all education is a mess; the thinking behind higher education is even more of a mess; and the thinking about adult education is practically non-existent. You can think about in terms of vocational (career) benefits and non-vocational ("for fun") programmes and a combination of private benefits (for the student) and public benefits (for society in general). There's also an issue about benefits to employers, but these are rarely thought about in their own right.

Underwater basket weaving looks like a bad career choice, but possibly a good choice for fun. Either way, the student should pay. Some programmes, like IT skills (and mathematical ones) lead to extremely profitable careers in the finance industry; again, the student should pay. But if there's a serious shortage of welders, such that various industries cannot find the workers they need, there's good reason why employers, and/or the state, might want to pay. Then there are programmes like social work and nursing, which require specialized professional training, but don't pay well. Isn't there a good case for state support? What abaout high-level professional careers which could be financed by students, but where that is impractical because of their high costs whether in infrastructure or time required; again, public subsidy makes sense. Another category is risky careers, like acting or archaeology or philosophy; again, there's a case for public subsidy, not only to ensure a supply for the labour market, but because the existence of those careers is a public good.

If you thought that was a mess, consider the non-vocational subjects, or those subjects which can be studied for vocational reasons and can also be studied for fun. The catch here is that all the specific vocational careers presuppose some level of basic, general skills and knowledge, which enables people to function in society in general, both within and without their vocations; these skills are also the basis of good citizenship. These include reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also extend (In the UK) to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (practice needs theory, after all) and to various skills under the heading of good citizenship - philosophy, literature and history and the arts. Those last four are often regarded as purely for fun, so I don't claim that the idea that they are not just for fun is uncontentious. Perhaps the most effective argument for them is that democracy cannot function properly without them. J.S. Mill recognized this, but it seems now to be ignored, which is a pity. Mind you, the idea that an understanding of the humanities was essential for a decent society took a very serious knock in WW2. But it is far from dead.

Underwater basket weaving? Probably not. Philosophy? Fine Art? There's at least a case to think about, isn't there?

PS. I forgot to explain how students should pay when they need to. Through the tax system. If their career choice pays off, they will pay increased taxes, so the public purse will benefit and their debt "repaid" - or, if you prefer, the public investment in their career pays off. Where their career does not pay off in that way, the public (and employers) will benefit from an increased supply of highly qualified labour. Where their career is not directly developed by their qualification, it will have been helped by the "transferable skills" developed in their programme and by the improved contribution they can make by their contribution to social and political life.
In other words, payment through the tax system is perfectly well justified by the multiple benefits provided by higher education. Nobody has a problem with that way of paying for schools. Why would higher education be any different?

"Classical" liberalism, which is more like conservatism today. Although conservatism is pretty muddled, what are they really for? — fishfry

That process - what was liberal and new, becomes old hat, and conservative. That what's happened to feminism, etc. The agenda has moved on. It's very disappointing to those of us who thought the problems were solved. But there are unsolved and unconsidered issues and big gaps in even the basic rights that one thought had been established.

There's no rehabilitation going on. There's a revolving door of people committing violent crimes, being put back on the street, and re-offending. — fishfry

If that's so, there is a problem.

Some of the people on that "side" are victims, I imagine they don't even have an inner monologue so they can't even filter what information is fed to them. — Lionino

That's perfectly possible. But if you want them to develop one, it's as well not to tell them about it. Shouting about it just breeds resentment and resistance.

I ask again. Why should a pipefitter pay off someone else's student loans? — fishfry

Because two of the students are his own children, but he doesn't earn enough to pay for their higher education all alone. And because, even if he doesn't have children, he's helping to train up the well taxed caregivers and inventors of helpful products for his old age. And because he's making the world safer and better to live in for himself and his family. And because the industry that employs him depends on other industries and technologies that all need competent people to run them; he may find himself redundant, in need of training in a new skill; a public education fund can bail him out. And those underwater baskets may one day save his life by fishing out the plastic he'll otherwise choke on.

Well, yes. A market can only exist in a legal framework, which is a form of regulation. I'm only referring, n short-hand to the movement at the end of the 19th century to palliate (welfare) or control (additional regulation) some of the anti-social consequences of capitalism. — Ludwig V

Totally agree—unfettered capitalism would be a disaster for all but the few.

Far more overt control, yes. Capitalism is subtler. I prefer the second, of course. — Ludwig V

As do I. I am no fan of Churchill, but I tend to agree with the statement (probably falsely attributed to him and loosely paraphrased) "Democratic capitalism is the worst of all possible systems, apart from all the others".

So either the people who control the money or the people who are members of the CCP are in charge. It doesn't look like a particularly exciting choice. Who looks after your interests and mine? — Ludwig V

Those who do, or us, or perhaps no one, I guess.

I'm sorry about this rant, but I don't know how else to respond.

It depends on your philosophy of education. The thinking behind all education is a mess; the thinking behind higher education is even more of a mess; and the thinking about adult education is practically non-existent. You can think about in terms of vocational (career) benefits and non-vocational ("for fun") programmes and a combination of private benefits (for the student) and public benefits (for society in general). There's also an issue about benefits to employers, but these are rarely thought about in their own right. — Ludwig V

I appreciate your heartfelt thoughts about education, but the subject is the morality and economics of student loan "forgiveness," which is a gaslighting euphemism for passing the costs on to the taxpayers.

If I, as a competent adult, borrow $100k and sign a legally binding contract to pay it back; and then the government declares that YOU should pay it back instead; I take it you would object. One, it's not your debt; and two, it creates a moral hazard. Why shouldn't I go out and borrow another $100k in the expectation that the government will favor me again?

Clearly the morality and economics are no different if the cost of covering my $100k debt "forgiveness" is spread out among a few tens of millions of taxpayers, instead of you personally.

In the case of Biden's recent loan forgiveness, it also happens to be illegal. Only Congress can profligately waste taxpayer money. The House of Representatives has the "power of the purse." The Supreme Court ruled that Biden's earlier loan "forgiveness" program was illegal. He's just flouting the law because nobody will call him on it.

Underwater basket weaving looks like a bad career choice, but possibly a good choice for fun. Either way, the student should pay. — Ludwig V

We have no disagreement then. People should pay off their own loans that they knowingly agreed to pay.

Some programmes, like IT skills (and mathematical ones) lead to extremely profitable careers in the finance industry; again, the student should pay. But if there's a serious shortage of welders, such that various industries cannot find the workers they need, there's good reason why employers, and/or the state, might want to pay. — Ludwig V

That's exactly the point. Welders don't have student loans. If you want to have a program where everyone who graduates from high school gets a couple hundred thousand in cash, to go to college or start a welding business, then let Congress pass such a law.

Then there are programmes like social work and nursing, which require specialized professional training, but don't pay well. Isn't there a good case for state support? What abaout high-level professional careers which could be financed by students, but where that is impractical because of their high costs whether in infrastructure or time required; again, public subsidy makes sense. Another category is risky careers, like acting or archaeology or philosophy; again, there's a case for public subsidy, not only to ensure a supply for the labour market, but because the existence of those careers is a public good. — Ludwig V

If state support is a social good, let Congress pass a law. There is no law authorizing Biden to "forgive," always in quotes, student loans, and pass the costs onto the taxpayers without Congress having authorized such an expenditure.

If you think the government should fund college and trade school for everyone, that would be a reasonable question. But that's not the loan bailouts we're talking about here. This is a transfer of wealth to the students camping out on university lawns this week, coming from the workers who had to pick up the trash after the police raids. All the more reason the students at "elite" colleges should not have their debts paid by the working class.

If you thought that was a mess, consider the non-vocational subjects, or those subjects which can be studied for vocational reasons and can also be studied for fun. The catch here is that all the specific vocational careers presuppose some level of basic, general skills and knowledge, which enables people to function in society in general, both within and without their vocations; these skills are also the basis of good citizenship. These include reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also extend (In the UK) to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (practice needs theory, after all) and to various skills under the heading of good citizenship - philosophy, literature and history and the arts. Those last four are often regarded as purely for fun, so I don't claim that the idea that they are not just for fun is uncontentious. Perhaps the most effective argument for them is that democracy cannot function properly without them. J.S. Mill recognized this, but it seems now to be ignored, which is a pity. Mind you, the idea that an understanding of the humanities was essential for a decent society took a very serious knock in WW2. But it is far from dead. — Ludwig V

I don't disagree with anything you say. The question isn't the virtue of the liberal arts. The question is Biden's bailouts of college students at the expense of everyone else.

Underwater basket weaving? Probably not. Philosophy? Fine Art? There's at least a case to think about, isn't there? — Ludwig V

Think about having the taxpayers assume the legal obligations of privileged university students? No, I don't think so. Forgive me, am I mistaken that we were talking about Biden's student loan bailouts as opposed to the general virtues of education? We're not having the same conversation any more.

PS. I forgot to explain how students should pay when they need to. Through the tax system. If their career choice pays off, they will pay increased taxes, so the public purse will benefit and their debt "repaid" - or, if you prefer, the public investment in their career pays off. Where their career does not pay off in that way, the public (and employers) will benefit from an increased supply of highly qualified labour. Where their career is not directly developed by their qualification, it will have been helped by the "transferable skills" developed in their programme and by the improved contribution they can make by their contribution to social and political life.
In other words, payment through the tax system is perfectly well justified by the multiple benefits provided by higher education. Nobody has a problem with that way of paying for schools. Why would higher education be any different? — Ludwig V

I haven't given these matters enough thought to converse sensibly about how post-secondary education should be paid for. I apologize if I've given that impression somehow. I have only been talking about Biden's transfer of billions in student debt to the taxpayers, most of whom didn't go to college. And this debt transfer, which is illegal by US law since only Congress can spend money, is happening not for any lofty goal of a more educated citizenry; but as a direct bribe to students to vote for Biden in an election year.

That process - what was liberal and new, becomes old hat, and conservative. That what's happened to feminism, etc. The agenda has moved on. It's very disappointing to those of us who thought the problems were solved. But there are unsolved and unconsidered issues and big gaps in even the basic rights that one thought had been established. — Ludwig V

Yes, a lot of positions have changed in the past couple of decades.

There's no rehabilitation going on. There's a revolving door of people committing violent crimes, being put back on the street, and re-offending.
— fishfry
If that's so, there is a problem. — Ludwig V

I follow New York City news. It's a revolving door. It's actually a bad situation.