|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 11:11:22 GMT -5
Semantics--that is, the study of the naming of things--matters. I'd get particularly Russellian and semantic with my doctor were he to tell me, "You've got an owie on your squishy bits. You know, the icky stuff inside your tummy." What kind of owie, I might inquire, on which particular squishy bit? Oh, says the doc with a dismissive wave of the hand, that's all just semantics. We'll do some stuff--you know, doctor stuff--and you'll feel all better. Think of semantic rigor as like tuning your guitar before a gig. You tune because you care. And because if you don't, your audience might think, with some justification, that you're a tin-eared incompetent. (I think the blunted barb was pointing out that as often as semantics is used to clarify, it is nearly as often used to sidetrack away from an already understood central point. Pointing out that "free" can be used non-literally in many cases is a misdirection from my point that "free" as used by those telling us that our health care and our education and our....(fill in the blank) should be free............because we know they actually believe "free" means "free", and are about to vote for policy based on that strongly felt but utterly wrongheaded understanding.)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 11:12:39 GMT -5
And, again I will repeat: Did Bush ever suggest privatizing Social Security? I hear this every election cycle, but the most I ever find evidence for is the suggestion that we might allow a small portion of the FICA to be self-directed into private investment.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 4, 2015 11:22:18 GMT -5
The economic history I'm familiar with distinguishes among and between mercantilism, capitalism, free markets, socialism, and communism, among other terms. Just as political-system taxonomy differentiates (and/or combines) anarchist, totalitarian, authoritarian, fascist, democratic, feudal, republican, oligarchic, aristocratic, theocratic, imperial, and probably others as well. (Not all these terms operate o n the same level of abstraction or generality.)
If you can't name entities with some degree of accuracy and articulate the underlying logic of the naming, chances are you don't know what you're really talking about. This is not an exclusively Russellian notion.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 4, 2015 11:24:32 GMT -5
the most I ever find evidence for is the suggestion that we might allow a small portion of the FICA to be self-directed into private investment. That is the usual meaning of "partly."
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 11:24:42 GMT -5
Again, that becomes a Russellian question of what you consider "government". Put it this way: If the US federal government, all the state governments, all the local governments just went away, so would socialism in the US. But we would still have capitalism. Maybe. It wouldn't be capitalism as we know it. No doubt. And here we get precisely to the nub of this whole thing. "Communism" and "cooperative" are diametrically opposed. Communism is use of government force. There is an inherent contradiction between wanting a society based on "shared labor and shared benefits" and thinking the only way to achieve that society is through force. "Share" and "force" don't mix. Curiously, I would say we already have "cooperative clusters" based around "shared labor" and "shared benefits". Capitalism gets us that. The only difference is that under communism, there is no individual agency. Only force. And gulags.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 11:33:40 GMT -5
the most I ever find evidence for is the suggestion that we might allow a small portion of the FICA to be self-directed into private investment. That is the usual meaning of "partly." And do you think ANYONE -- present company included -- EVER includes the most important part of that "privatizing social security" -- the "partly" part, when the discussion is brought up? The very purpose of saying "Bush wanted to privatize SS" is to interject the fearsome probability that by "privatize" one means "entirely". How fearful do you think the voting populace would be over allowing 1-2% of a person's contribution to SS? Now how fearful do you think the prospect of leaving the investment of SS entirely up to privatizing would be? And do you think the omission of "partly" is accidental or incidental? Yeah, I know, right?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 4, 2015 11:39:45 GMT -5
That is the usual meaning of "partly." And do you think ANYONE -- present company included -- EVER includes the most important part of that "privatizing social security" -- the "partly" part, when the discussion is brought up? The very purpose of saying "Bush wanted to privatize SS" is to interject the fearsome probability that by "privatize" one means "entirely". How fearful do you think the voting populace would be over allowing 1-2% of a person's contribution to SS? Now how fearful do you think the prospect of leaving the investment of SS entirely up to privatizing would be? And do you think the omission of "partly" is accidental or incidental? Yeah, I know, right? Like Russell always says, semantics matter. At least when it applies to others.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 11:56:41 GMT -5
Maybe. It wouldn't be capitalism as we know it. No doubt. And here we get precisely to the nub of this whole thing. "Communism" and "cooperative" are diametrically opposed. Communism is use of government force.
There is an inherent contradiction between wanting a society based on "shared labor and shared benefits" and thinking the only way to achieve that society is through force. "Share" and "force" don't mix. Curiously, I would say we already have "cooperative clusters" based around "shared labor" and "shared benefits". Capitalism gets us that. The only difference is that under communism, there is no individual agency. Only force. And gulags. Where are you getting "Communism is use of government force" from?
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Jun 4, 2015 11:57:35 GMT -5
Under both Bush and the Ryan plan the percentage of SS privatized was said to be one third. Just FYI. SS could be easily fixed by removing the cap.
Earlier Jeff called SS payouts a pittance. I get $25K a year and only worked 29 years under SS. To me it is no pittance. And if I'd gotten cancer five years ago instead of two, I could have gotten pretty much the same under disability which is automatic for stage IV rcc.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 12:02:23 GMT -5
Where are you getting "Communism is use of government force" from? Yeah, I'm just making stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 12:07:07 GMT -5
Under both Bush and the Ryan plan the percentage of SS privatized was said to be one third. Just FYI Heh. Funny thing. I can't "fact check" this because the first four google pages are left wing sources doing exactly the scaremongering I'm talking about. I'd think it should be easy enough to find Ryan's proposal right from the horse's mouth. Can't even find it here: paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12227#.VXCFXVLmUSU
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 12:09:59 GMT -5
....still, it's "partly" -- the purposeful omission that changes the entire issue as a scare tactic and misrepresents the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 12:11:25 GMT -5
(I think the blunted barb was pointing out that as often as semantics is used to clarify, it is nearly as often used to sidetrack away from an already understood central point. Pointing out that "free" can be used non-literally in many cases is a misdirection from my point that "free" as used by those telling us that our health care and our education and our....(fill in the blank) should be free............because we know they actually believe "free" means "free", and are about to vote for policy based on that strongly felt but utterly wrongheaded understanding.) For the guy with a broken arm, health care is free when he can go to the doctor and get his arm fixed without paying out of pocket. For the student and the student's parents, education is free when the student can go to school without paying anything out of pocket. Do they realize that those things are not really free in the literal sense? I would think they do. I think it's unfair to assume that people using the word "free" are wrongheaded and need to be shown the error in their logic, even though I can understand where you're coming from. I feel the same way when I try to explain to my wife that she didn't save 25% on that sweater, she spent 75%. But she already knows that. And I, like many others, favor free education and free healthcare. Is it really free? Of course not. But everyone knows what I'm talking about if I say free healthcare. My earlier post about "free" was not misdirection. Those examples were no better or worse than yours. Like most people, I use the word free freely, even though free rarely if ever means free.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 12:13:05 GMT -5
Where are you getting "Communism is use of government force" from? Yeah, I'm just making stuff up. That was a serious question. I know where I think you got it from, but before I go off on a needless tangent, I thought I'd ask you to clarify your statement.
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Jun 4, 2015 12:13:10 GMT -5
Under both Bush and the Ryan plan the percentage of SS privatized was said to be one third. Just FYI Heh. Funny thing. I can't "fact check" this because the first four google pages are left wing sources doing exactly the scaremongering I'm talking about. I'd think it should be easy enough to find Ryan's proposal right from the horse's mouth. Can't even find it here: paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12227#.VXCFXVLmUSUI'm a librarian, remember? Actually the source I found said that the privatized account would be protected from loss under the Ryan proposal. I don't remember that getting reported. SS is such a sacred cow that any proposal by any side is immediately cause for scaremongering by the other. SS is not broken -- remove the cap and it's good for 75 years
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 4, 2015 12:16:24 GMT -5
For the guy with a broken arm, health care is free when he can go to the doctor and get his arm fixed without paying out of pocket. It shouldn't be. That's the point.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 12:16:44 GMT -5
Under both Bush and the Ryan plan the percentage of SS privatized was said to be one third. Just FYI. SS could be easily fixed by removing the cap. Earlier Jeff called SS payouts a pittance. I get $25K a year and only worked 29 years under SS. To me it is no pittance. Round numbers, if I had been free to direct my SS to an S&P 500 based investment for my entire working life, then annuitize the money at retirement, it would be worth around 5x what SS will pay me. And that is based on the (laughably false) assumption that I can count on the SS payments that are currently promised to me.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 4, 2015 12:18:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm just making stuff up. That was a serious question. I know where I think you got it from, but before I go off on a needless tangent, I thought I'd ask you to clarify your statement. Violence is inherent in communism. How else are you going to compel people to do that which they do not want to do?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 4, 2015 12:18:47 GMT -5
John made the mistake of asking (in the presence of a research nerd with a literalist streak), "Did Bush ever suggest privatizing Social Security?" Said nerd dutifully spent five minutes finding an answer to point to and even suggested a modifier.
Of course, what John seems to have wanted to ask was something like, "Why do the people I disagree with construct exaggerated, scary arguments?" Though I think he already has an answer to that one, too: for the same reason people he does agree with construct exaggerated, etc.
(Seems to me that the real question is, "What would be the effects of redirecting some portion of SS funding into the private-investment machinery?" Others might include, "How accurate was the characterization of the SS system that led to Bush's proposal?" and "What other policy changes might have addressed the problems he pointed to, if those problems were real?" and even "How do the Bush analysis and proposal fit into the history of conservative opposition to SS, going back to its initial implementation?")
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 4, 2015 12:19:23 GMT -5
For the guy with a broken arm, health care is free when he can go to the doctor and get his arm fixed without paying out of pocket. It shouldn't be. That's the point. I'm lost. Before I thought I was found, but I must've been wrong. He shouldn't be able to get his arm fixed without having to pay for it directly? Is that what you're saying? I thought we were talking about "free."
|
|