Electricity: non political/political

[oggbashan]

Mutual Differences

Amicus,

I think that you and I will never understand each other. I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. I cannot accept that market forces are as beneficial as you think they are. I understand that the majority of US citizens think that social care is anathema. I cannot appreciate a society that denies health care to the uninsured sick and injured.

The employment problems of local unskilled young men are a matter of concern to me and I try my best to do something about improving the situation. If they were not so unskilled then my task would be easier. God helps them who help themselves. If some of them would consider that their education is worthwhile and would apply themselves to it - but that requires more than I can do.

This country has been changed by the work of Milton Friedman who died yesterday. Mrs Thatcher, when Prime Minister, applied his principles to a country. The present Labour government is closer to her style and his principles than any previous Labour administration. As a result this country is economically stronger than it would have been. In the picture of the country as a whole, my local difficulties are minute and may, eventually be overcome. They are still painful to individuals who want work and can't get it.

Og

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

High Rise apartments are built in London and have been since the 1960s.

The price of high rise apartments close to central London is incredible yet most people don't want to live in them. The demand is for houses with gardens.

Market forces have pushed the price of London housing very high. Part of it is due to the restriction on land for building. A proportion is caused by successive governments' policy that does not allow housing to be built on parkland and in the Green Belt around London but there just isn't the land around London anyway. What is now being developed is floodplain that is at risk from rising sea levels.

Building high in London has always been expensive because of what is underneath London - the geology isn't that stable unlike Manhattan's rock. The foundations have to be sunk deep - and underneath are the underground trains, the sewers, the service tunnels - the substructure of London is nearly as complex as the streets above.

Market forces are bringing people to London and SE England. The demand for housing pushes up the price. The average price of a house in Inner London is now one million pounds.

The public transport system struggles to manage the commuters each day and is close to its absolute capacity in some parts of London. The travellers pay the cost in frequent fare increases that have to be earned and the tax paid on the earnings.

It is a vicious circle. Back in the 1970s government tried to influence employers to relocate out of London. The effort produced a few moves, mainly to the London periphery and to towns that are now commuter towns. The employment that can operate at a distance now does - it has been outsourced to India.

There is no easy political solution. If the government really released sufficient land to drop house prices it would lose the next election because all the houseowners would have seen their major asset devalued. As it is, the government is happily taxing every house sale and getting more and more tax money as houses increase in value. All governments are addicted to taxes that increase year on year with no effort on their part.

What might work in other countries doesn't necessarily travel.

Og

That mostly makes sense. I question whether the engineering challenges to building high rises are the main cause of their expense, though. Certainly some of it, but even if you have to put a lot of concrete underneath such a structure the cost of that as a percentage of total is not going to be that great. But I may be wrong.

All those land use regulations, green belts, etc. have costs, yet the magnitude and incidence (who pays) of these are rarely if ever honesty revealed by their promoters, who may not know themselves, although they should know. Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with these regulations if there was full disclosure and wide dissemination beforehand of those costs, and if the owners of property whose value is reduced by the regulations were compensated. That way there would be democratic accountability and justice for individuals, which is about all one can realy expect. If people want to pay a much larger portion of their disposable income for housing than otherwise, and if they don't screw particular property owners along the way, let 'em.

(Of course it never happens that way. These things are sold to an ignorant population by statist central planners and special interests who ignore or hide the truth, or bury it in pretty pictures and happy-talk soundbytes.)

 

[Liar]

You are correct in a way; there is much I do not understand about contemporary European mentalities and aspirations. Perhaps a generation or two more must come and go before the human spirit that played such a great roll in Dutch and Viking History, will rise again.

No need to get all philosophical here. Rand and Soviet and subjectivism and whatnot...that's on a level far far from what I, right here and now, are talking about. Truly apples and oranges.

All I said was that you didn't seem to know much about local Stockholm housing policies and attempted, ignorantly and incorrectly, to apply a generalized (and highly exaggerated, but not entirely incorrect) Social Democratic standard to it. Which simply when it comes down to it, does not, there and then, apply.

History tells me that your country was invaded, occupied and brutalized by both the Germans and the Russians in the mid 20th century. Do you not think those traumatic events may have influenced your thinking?

You probably thinking about Finland there, by yhe way. Sweden was the cowadly fucks that betrayed their neighbors and bowed down to Hitler (And called it "neutrality". Neutrality my ass.) in order to not get invaded. Not a proud moment in our history.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Amicus,

I think that you and I will never understand each other. I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. I cannot accept that market forces are as beneficial as you think they are. I understand that the majority of US citizens think that social care is anathema. I cannot appreciate a society that denies health care to the uninsured sick and injured.

The employment problems of local unskilled young men are a matter of concern to me and I try my best to do something about improving the situation. If they were not so unskilled then my task would be easier. God helps them who help themselves. If some of them would consider that their education is worthwhile and would apply themselves to it - but that requires more than I can do.

This country has been changed by the work of Milton Friedman who died yesterday. Mrs Thatcher, when Prime Minister, applied his principles to a country. The present Labour government is closer to her style and his principles than any previous Labour administration. As a result this country is economically stronger than it would have been. In the picture of the country as a whole, my local difficulties are minute and may, eventually be overcome. They are still painful to individuals who want work and can't get it.

Og

Og, there's some straw men in your post. No one is denied medical care in the U.S.; Medicaid pays for the health care of all poor people, and emergency rooms have to take all comers. There are some problems with working people who are not poor enough for Medicaid not being able to afford insurance, but the numbers are exagerated (a lot of 20-somethings choose to 'go bare.')

Also, the social security system (old age pensions) is a ponzi scheme that is ripping off younger workers, and everyone knows it. It's future costs, and the cost trends in our Medicare system, which provides health care for the aged, are completely unsustainable - as are those in your government health care system. These are train wrecks waiting to happen. The promised benefits are beyond what our societies are capable of delivering, because the confiscatory tax rates they would require would destroy the productive economies of our nations.

The hallmark of all these government systems is dishonesty. They promise much more than they are capable of delivering, and always disappoint. In contrast, the predominant characteristic of private enterprises is that they deliver exactly what they promise, and delight consumers. (Of course there are exceptions, but they are just that.)

I will not pretend that there are not problems in the private sector. Externalites are still imposed by producers, and they shouldn't be. The trend is that these externalities are lessening with every generation, though (compare Dickensian London with the present day.) Also, a free market economy generates insecurity and angst, as people in a changing world aren't sure what the future will bring them in terms of employment, compensation, etc.

In a way, that is just reality - it's always been that way. Public (socialized) systems only give an illusion of security, because they are ultimately subject to the same forces. There is no free lunch, and Utopia is not an option.

We have only been at this game of industrial civilization for around 200 years. We're getting better at it all the time. Those who claim it's unsustainable and will destroy the world are wrong, for the same reason Malthus was wrong. We may blow it all up the old fashioned way with new-fashioned WMDs, but but that's a separate issue.

 

[Pure]

i notice that neither amicus nor roxanne have produced the slightest bit of evidence that 'statism' or interference with laisser faire is responsible for the dear price of housing in London.

such factors as millionaires from overseas affect the market, and not because of 'state interference.'

likewise there is no evidence for the dogmatic claim that "capitalism" would solve this problem, and more than for "Jesus will help with it."
Laisser faire approaches do NOT even consider such problem as 'how would someone of modest means live in the core of London, New York, Hong Kong.' Land and housing are scarce and seller will charge what the market will bear; those with that kind of money will locate to the center of these cities.

i venture to say that NO examples can be produced which represent laisser faire (true ) solutions to this problem. i suspect that the best cases might be third world cities like Beunos Ares. IOW the 'capitalist' solution, without government interference is to allow for vast slums in portions of these cities; these are the 'affordable' housing accomodations provided by the 'free market.'

 

[Pure]

declarations of faith without evidence

On government run social welfare schemes like social security.

RA The hallmark of all these government systems is dishonesty. They promise much more than they are capable of delivering, and always disappoint.

This assertion of faith is proclaimed in the face of massive evidence. Government run 'old age pensions' date back to the Kaiser in Germany, and have been in placed, functioned successfully for 50-100 years, in numerous countries. As to 'disappoint', voters in all major parties in these countries (Germany, France, Sweden, Italy, England, Denmark, Holland, Canada, etc.) support the programs.

Jeremiads based on faith "this corruption is hated by God" "this deviation from 'free market' is evil" float about the American polical discourse, unanchored in reality. The ranters' position is at variance with that of *every major political party* in the above countries. It is so far 'right' as to be off the map, politically in relation to 90% of these populations. Talk of 'laisser faire' nostrums has almost no political audience in the [nonUS] countries with the highest standards of living in the world.

 

[amicus]

Pure, the clown, just doesn't get it, does he?

You may have no objection to my taking 15 percent of your wages by force, promising to secure your old age comfort when you reach 62, ah, 65, ah, 67...if the Democrats get away with it....and even if you do begin to collect, count the years of longevity you may actuarily expect on a small and insufficient income and sparse medical benefits...and then consider that 'lump sum' of investment money you would have accrued had you invested that 15 percent in an interest bearing account....


as I said, the distracting clown just doesn't get it...sighs....


amicus...

 

[Pure]

there are simply no buyers for your schemes, amicus. outside the US they have smaller receptive audience than the Maharishi's or the nudists' political parties. indeed, probably 2/3 of the US Republicans would reject your doctrines of faith.

 

[wazhazhe]

I can even speculate that as numbers increased and ‘good’ tool makers associated with each other that they may have even traded techniques and quarry sites, if the price was right. And if the price could not be agreed upon, human nature, in the way of threats, theft, violence and murder no doubt took place as they artisans and craftsmen maneuvered for social position and the Chief’s daughter’s hand.

By any chance are you using the terms 'tribe' and 'Chief' to refer to American Indians or a larger group that includes American Indians? If you are, your speculation is not even close to accurate.

 

[Pure]

as you say, waz, i don't think there's any evidence that any aboriginal peoples had a basically 'trader' ethic, as per Rand.

all human societies and social groupings try for a general avoidance of 'force' and coercion within themselves, as least in settle times. good order in society demands it. but that is not to say that 'trade' according to capitalist characterization was the basis of these societies.

IOW, there's a *long leap* from avoidance of force or coercion in interactions, to a primeval capitalist [trader] society postulated by amicus.

 

[amicus]

Waz and Pure the clown....sighs...I did preface my remarks with "Speculate" as we have no hard history, no 'evidence', at least the kind you accept that Cro Magnum man was basically as human as we are, I.e. an innate desire to provide for himself and his family, the ability to reason and the facility to mutually cooperate to trade with others.

You, know, that absolute and essentially universal human traits I harp about all the time.

But then, as you offer nothing at all, saving criticism and disagreement, then why would anyone accept your lack of conceptual ability, your proclamation of ignorance and more valid than my rational reasonable approach?

Beats the hell out of me...


amicus....

 

[wazhazhe]

Waz and Pure the clown....sighs...I did preface my remarks with "Speculate" as we have no hard history, no 'evidence', at least the kind you accept that Cro Magnum man was basically as human as we are, I.e. an innate desire to provide for himself and his family, the ability to reason and the facility to mutually cooperate to trade with others.

You, know, that absolute and essentially universal human traits I harp about all the time.

But then, as you offer nothing at all, saving criticism and disagreement, then why would anyone accept your lack of conceptual ability, your proclamation of ignorance and more valid than my rational reasonable approach?

Beats the hell out of me...


amicus....

I asked you a simple question. I described why I asked the question. If you read the entire post you would have seen I asked about your “speculation.” If you had read my post you would have seen I neither criticized nor disagreed with you.

If you had been speaking of American Indians I would have contributed my knowledge of American Indian society and culture. That information would have contradicted your “speculation.” If you had been speaking of American Indians the sentence ending with, “ … maneuvered for social position and the Chief’s daughter’s hand” would have been absolutely hilarious. My tribe and the other tribes I am familiar with have complex societal and political structures that don’t allow “maneuvering for social position and the Chief’s daughter’s hand.”

I did not want to change the direction of the discussion if that is not what you were referring to: Thus I asked the question first.

As to my “lack of conceptual ability?” That’s pretty funny coming from you. Almost as funny as claiming your approach is "rational" and "reasonable."

 

[amicus]

My, my wazhazhe, a little pissy tonight are we?

contemporary american indian history doesn't interest me in any terms, I thought you might have gathered from my co equal mention of cromagnon, that I was referring to basic human nature, not the faith based purile native american history pawned off along with beads and blankets and free casino perq's

and I guess you have joined the long line of those who reject reason, but manage to claim I have note...so be it...can you hear me sobbing in dismay?


amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Let's play nice now, everyone. It's OK to call your opponent hopelessly misguided, but casting aspersions on their cognitive ability per se will not win any arguments.

 

[wazhazhe]

My, my wazhazhe, a little pissy tonight are we?

contemporary american indian history doesn't interest me in any terms, I thought you might have gathered from my co equal mention of cromagnon, that I was referring to basic human nature, not the faith based purile native american history pawned off along with beads and blankets and free casino perq's

and I guess you have joined the long line of those who reject reason, but manage to claim I have note...so be it...can you hear me sobbing in dismay?


amicus...

Pissy? Not at all. I feel great but thanks for asking.

I hear there are some pretty good perks at our casinos. You should check them out sometime.

I’m all about logic and reason. I thought you knew this.

Oh, and why are you sobbing? I hope it’s not something I said.