[ExI] Meme change not person death/was Re: Friedman and negative income tax
painlord2k at libero.it
painlord2k at libero.it
Fri May 8 12:58:49 UTC 2009
Il 08/05/2009 4.50, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto:
> 2009/5/7 Dan<dan_ust at yahoo.com>:
> It doesn't actually work out that way. Most developing nations have
> poor social security and other government services, but it doesn't
> spur them to greater productivity.
Most developing nations have not the same "resources" like the developed
ones. And many, until yestersay, were leaded by socialist governments.
They started developing with 10% yearly growth when they moved from
socialism to a freer economy.
For them, social security and other government services are luxuries
they can not afford.
> Instead, people do die, of easily
> preventable or treatable conditions, sometimes even of starvation.
Usually, people die of starvation only in war ravaged or government
ravaged places. What welfare state do you want in Zimbabwe? Or in Libya?
The welfare state there is conceived as a tool to keep the people quiet
enough that the police can keep the unsatisfied down.
> On the other hand, laziness and not wanting to work is not a problem
> in countries where there are extensive social security systems, or
> there would be a labour shortage.
You mix causes and effects. Ad you see things in a small time frame.
Developed countries can afford a limited social security and some
government service free for all (or at politic prices) because they
became developed before these politics were so extended and costly.
Then you don't look at the right time frame and at the changing
conditions. Until a few decades ago, the people in the developing
nations (Europe, US, etc.) worked until they died. When retirement was
introduced in Italy people retired at 60 and died at 65 (average). Now
they retire at 65 (max - average is less than 60) and die at 80. This
change the equation.
Add that people before of this would work from 15 to 60 when now they
work from 25 to 65 (young people is often jobless, like women).
As the social services grew the economy started to slow down.
Italy grew at 10% rates until 1960, then the Center-Left governments
started to form and the rates went to 7-8%, then in the 1970 the rates
went around 5% and to 3% in the 1980. In the 1990 they were 2%-0% and
now they are negatives.
In between the government moved from taking the 27% of the GDP of Italy
in the 1970 to the 43% now (computed with a 20% of the economy in the
black market, so the rates paid by the "honests" is over 50%). I have no
numbers for the years before 1970, but I would suppose the burden of
taxes was lower than 20%.
An example of socialism is in Finland the fact that the car outside the
social housing are bigger, more costly than the cars out of private
housing. Why? because the people in social housing have more money
available for cars as they spend less for housing.
The same is true in Italy, where they sell more furs in Sicily than in
Lombardy. In Italy, a large part of the political discourse, in the last
twenty years, is about how much taxes are paid by the North regions that
go to the South Regions for welfare. This helped the people there? Not
much; but surely helped Mafia, Camorra and N'drangeta to expand their
business. Welfare to the mobsters.
More information about the extropy-chat