Topic: why all the hate for the welfare state? - page 2. (Read 3883 times)

Actually, the welfare state is good right now. Why? Because the fiat currencies of the world are going to collapse the whole thing anyway, if only by the implosion of their bubbles.

The welfare state is good right now, because it invites many little people to get onto welfare. If the little people are smart, they will use whatever welfare they get to buy things like land, gold, silver, and Bitcoin. Then, once they are set, who cares if the fiats crash the world.

The problem is, most of the little people on welfare won't understand this, and will never prepare. But for those of us who have a little foresight, we have the chance to prepare using the welfare state funds that we can get.

Bottom line is this, socialism in it's most extremist form is bad, as is extremism in all it's guises.  There's a balance to be struck, I'll meet you half way there.  But there needs to be a safety net when the system is designed to transfer money from the bottom to the top.  We both appear to agree that that's where the money flows.  You seem to be of the impression that it's entirely the fault of government, but that simply isn't the case.  I'll concede there are numerous problems with our current form of governance, mostly surrounding things like lobbying, which I think you'll find capitalists are quite fond of.  Despite all the noble mantra about true capitalism being a level playing field, at the first chance they get they want to change the law to suit their particular business model to gain an unfair advantage over the competition.  The money flows to the top and everyone else gets left behind.  Capitalism isn't capitalism.  That's the problem, so stop blaming welfare and taxation.

The salient point flew right over those loose rocks inside your cranium, that collectivized systems don't converge (i.e. don't optimize, a.k.a. no feedback loop stabilization) and instead diverge to megadeath every damn time over and over throughout history since Mesopotamia. Non-convergence has nothing to do with the specific examples of tax levels at any given stage of the divergence of collectivism along the way to its repeating horrific end game.

Even your feeble attempt at an obfuscatory rebuttal is factually incorrect. The insane tax levels I linked to (which exceed 19.5% limit of Hauser's Law) apply to the average worker in the nations of the world.


I have a very serious health problem of an incurable HPV virus that after 8 years has led to a worsening and debilitating neuropathy and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, with high probability of throat or head cancer. And I don't rely on any health insurance whatsoever, nor do I receive any welfare whatsoever. Nor am I wealthy any more, and I have to work to support myself while also being blind in one eye since 1999 and approaching 50 years of age.

Go whine to your mother you immature useless blob.

Perhaps you are one of those many foreigners over here in the Philippines who are living on fraudulent disability welfare.


Even I have no income lately and my savings is dwindling, I do still help the poor.

When your fucking government is done stealing and pilfering all the resources of the world, there will be nothing left to give to the poor. That is why socialism results in megadeath every damn time. But you are not a student of history.

The "stealing for the poor" can not be orthogonal to the "stealing for the banksters, perpetual wars, ...". Until you understand that IRON LAW, then you will continue your nonsense thinking.


Why don't you understand that the "1%" is the middle class? It is all a lie. The fact is the middle class is being destroyed and society is again headed towards the usual megadeath.


Learn how to separate propaganda from reality.

In the meatime, you and this other propagandist have the same context...

Post boils down to "I can list some extreme examples of taxation which in my backwards brain proves that all taxation is bad".  Shut up and pay your taxes, neo-lib.  Better yet, develop a serious health condition which leaves you unable to do your job and then let's see you bitch about welfare.  I'm guessing your world view basically equates to "fuck the poor".  


So we should keep making sure that all the money ends up in the hands of those who already have the most?  The insane thing to do is to carry on down that path and keep concentrating wealth in the hands of those who aren't spending it back into the economy.  

People don't spend money -> economy stagnates -> greater inequality -> people spend even less money -> cycle continues and worsens.

Learn basic numeracy, please.

Jealously stole your intellect.


Hey INSANE socialist pig idiot, GET A FUCKING CLUE:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9975573

Here is a small excerpt:


Make sure you understand the IRON LAW of Political Economics (a.k.a. of Resource Statism).

Dependence (and welfare and pension dependents on the State) on the top-down does not optimize, rather it devolves every damn time since Mesopotamia. The definition of insanity is doing the same damn thing over and over again and expecting a different result (or continuing to make excuses and be in denial about the generative essence of the outcome).

while a safety net is just and moral, most welfare states are poor;y designed and subsidise the lazy at the expense of the productive

Can't tell if the sarcasm was lost in my post somehow.  I don't think there's a single cause and even if there was it definitely isn't welfare.  There are likely dozens of causes, but lately all the scaremongering and scapegoating is on things like welfare and immigration and I'm sick of hearing it.  

This predicts a single cause for a single huge event.

All the other causes will be very unhappy that they were not invited to the party.

Why are you so mean?

Bitcoin will not be useless if you can still store it yourself but banks are involved too.

I don't disagree. But the thing that you are really saying is that people will wind up giving their information to the banks anyway. That means that Bitcoin will become almost useless, except for the reduced fee aspect in some cases. People don't understand the potential of what they have in Bitcoin.

I think the banks can integrate bitcoins rather than Bitcoin will make them all fail. They are facilitators, market makers and liquidity providers, their skills may still be needed but we can expect not to have the same system of big banks linked to the government in a new free world.

As money buys less and less these days, even so it is money that is losing its value, not the commodities it buys. That's why there is value in Bitcoin. The drop in money value will continue untill it is destroyed.

Money is good to have as a method for making trading easy. We need Bitcoin so that the trading can't be easily controlled by some central authority like the banks. At this stage of the game, even if Bitcoin were controlled, the banks need some viable competition to bring prices down. On the other hand, maybe we should simply let the banks fail altogether.

Financial regulation is regulation made for the banks and good for big banks but bad for the clients and for competition.

The welfare state is giving more and more but the state has to go into debt to give. It is crazy and unsustainable.

Because clearly that's the root cause of all your economic problems.  When the collapse comes, it definitely has nothing to do with inequality, military spending, foreign policy, financial deregulation, market manipulations and corrupt banks.  It was just welfare that ruined everything.  //EDIT:     (adding rolleyes for clarity in case sarcasm wasn't obvious)

When did the world get so gormless?  

From near the end of the movie Sahara:

Dirk: Hey, Al?

Al: Yeah.

Dirk: What would you do if you were about to be exposed as the worst polluter of modern times?

Al: I dunno. Run for President?

----------

I mean, how did Obama win? He promised, then gave, the biggest welfare state ever. We recipients like it now, but when it collapses, things will be worse than a toxic waste plant meltdown. Just a little nudge more, and Chicago will look like Detroit.

Rich people want to swim in money like Scrooge McDuck and they can't do that if they have to pay tax, therefore welfare is evil.  

The war on welfare is yet another symptom of neo-classical numerical illiteracy.  They don't understand the simple fact that people with low or no incomes will need to spend their money back into the economy out of necessity.  They're not collecting money to sit in a savings account.  They buy food, clothing and keep a roof over their heads and there's little else they can afford.  Unlike the wealthy who are sitting on piles of money in the bank, which does nothing for the economy except benefit the finance sector.  The only people against welfare are the ones who begrudge having money they're not actually using being forced back into circulation through taxation.  These are the same people against concepts like the living wage.  

Simple logic, 10 million people can spend 1 dollar faster than one person can spend 10 million dollars.  I bet in the short time it took me to write this, more than 10 million people somewhere in the world have just spent a dollar back into their respective economies.  The more multi-millionaires our broken system creates, hoarding their wealth, the faster it all crashes and burns.  The only thing you achieve by creating more poor people is a faster slide into depression.  Prosperity only works if you don't leave people behind.  Stop being financially illiterate.

Welfare state positively discriminates all kinds of benefit claimer scum, and punishing its own taxpayers.

When you tax something, you are going to war against it. They tax wealth and labor when they should tax not working

Providing basic amenities is considered okay.
The problem with "Welfare states" seems to be that they are rewarding laziness.

One of the problem is it's not forever, it's for how long the system will take to collapse