[ExI] Economy: "The Big Takeover".

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 31/03/2009 17.37, Lee Corbin ha scritto:
> BillK wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
>  >
>>> Actually, the economies of southeast Asia, particular
>>> that of Singapore, is far more free than here. And the
>>> economic results speak for themselves.
>>>
>>> And Samantha is right, the U.S. *used* to be far freer
>>> than it is now. The 19th century showed the greatest
>>> economic progress per decade of any since.
>>
>> As you said:
>> "It is harder to imagine a more hideously cruel system
>  > of getting economic progress".
>>
>> Oh, sorry, you were talking about evolution, not economics.
>>
>> That's where you're misapplying your logic.
>> The methods of evolution should not be used in a humane society.
>
> Freedom *is* indeed cruel to the irresponsible and improvident.

And it is right and fair to be so.
Because the reverse would be to be cruel with the responsible and the 
provident.

> Oh, sure, in every generation there will be sad sacks
> that just can't get it together, and people who know
> them ought to be appropriately charitable. But they
> should never be *entitled* to such charity. That's a trap.

It is a trap for the provident and responsible people, but the reward is 
not for the irresponsible and the improvident (they will be screwed 
nonetheless) but for the irresponsible and provident. The smart elite 
that feel themselves entitled to rule the lowlife and feel they don't 
need to do anything to payback their privileges.

Usually they are the proponents of welfare and they use it to extract 
wealth from the individuals that are productive and hardworking.

> Moreover, these sad sacks will hardly be able to afford
> a large family (unlike now, where on some kinds of welfare
> they're actually *rewarded* for each child they have),
> and so evolution---still a very powerful force even unto
> this very day---would cause there to be fewer imprudent
> people and more prudent ones.

Natural selection is a powerful force that will always be with us.
It could be stealthy and unseen, but it will always act.

> A relatively free economy, such as exhibited by the
> U.S. between 1800 and 1900 indeed does allow for a
> very small number of people to go completely broke
> and even face severe hunger. (But the unleashed
> capitalism is so effective at creating wealth that
> the society prevents none from actually starve to death,
> or vanishingly few in weird isolated cases, anyway.)

The only that will starve are the people unable or unwilling to ask help.

> But I suspect that whatever system you have in mind
> has a much more dismal history. (The present European
> system which, for example, in Germany has created a
> class of people on welfare who actually reside in Spain
> and other cheap countries, would be patently disastrous
> in a non-homogeneous country like the U.S.---or, for
> that matter, anywhere outside Europe with its historically
> large, homogeneous, and hardworking middle classes.)

Lee, the current European system is set to a big turmoil, as the 
homogeneus populations are becoming increasingly non-homogeneus.
So many immigrants are on welfare paid by indigenous population (and the 
burden is growing) that any serious disruption of the economy it is 
probable to ignite social problems without touching the religious strife 
with Muslims).

My opinion is that, in the next 10 years - but probably much before - we 
could see severe disruption in the social stability in a few European 
countries (something about people shooting people, blowing off people 
and cutting heads off - something like the ex-Jugoslavia, only a bit 
faster and harsher).

Mirco