Rick Reuben wrote:

chairman_hall wrote:Responsibilities to social life to me sounds like a society that is egalitarian and recognises the importance of a good and large welfare state.

Are 'good' and 'large' the same thing? Why do we need a 'large' welfare state for anybody? Are there people who are inherently inferior? Weak, dumb people who need a helping hand? That seems to be the very racist implication of the globalism cheerleaders: that the state must be large and dominant, because there are segments of society that cannot fend for themselves if government is made small.

What has globalism got to do with the welfare state?

The welfare state is needed to provide a safety net to the capitalist system. It is there to provide minimum living standards and try to promote a fair and equal society.

In Britain, it is designed to combat Beveridge's Five gaints: illness, ignorance, disease, squalor, want.

Idleness: Full employment.

Ignorance: Providing education as of right and not on the ability to pay.

Disease: Providing healthcare as of right and not on the ability to pay.

Squalor: Providing housing as of right and not on the ability to pay.

Want: To tackle low incomes and provide assistance to those unemployed, incapable or not able to work.

Dude, you need to be clear by what you say. Small government and progressive taxation cannot occur at the same time. You can only have a small government with a smaller tax base and a smaller welfare state.

I kind of agree with what you are saying mostly, but you asked if progressive taxation and small government could occur together and I am saying it can't.

Rick Reuben wrote:

chairman_hall wrote:The welfare state is needed to provide a safety net to the capitalist system.

Why don't we fix the capitalist system, instead of making a big welfare state band aid for the people hurt by it?

Please admit that you believe that there are weak, inferior people who cannot manage their lives without government guidance and government subsidies and government pacifiers. Please answer the question, "Why? Why do we need a safety net?"

I see only one possible answer: you must say that some in society are genetically inferior or developmentally retarded, and therefore must be made wards of the state, or you must admit that some in society are so devious and clever and greedy that we can't make a capitalist system that restrains their excesses and abuses of power, mandating the need for a safety net.

To say that we 'need' a welfare state is to state that some people are born predators and some people are born prey. Which is a racist statement. Your move.

The safety net needs to be there because the capitalist system by its very nature is exploitative. It is based around greed. Those that own the means to produce profit exploit those that do not.

A welfare state is needed because without it you would have a social system that would be highly stratified with a massive gap between the rich and poor. Those on low incomes would find their living standards dropped. They would be without adequate housing, healthcare, education.

It has nothing to do with racism or thinking that people who are poor are somehow inferior. It is about raising people out of absolute poverty.

Rick Reuben wrote:

chairman_hall wrote: Small government and progressive taxation cannot occur at the same time.

You can't read. You can have a small federal government that has the primary job of operating the military, and you can fund it with the most progressive tax system there is: all the taxes on corporate profits and individual capital gains.

Read my posts.

It's all there.

From wikipedia:

A progressive tax is a tax imposed so that the effective tax rate increases as the amount to which the rate is applied increases. The term "progressive tax" describes a distribution effect, which can be applied to any type of tax system (income or consumption) that meets the definition. It is frequently applied in reference to income taxes, where people with more disposable income pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income. The term progressive refers to the way the rate progresses from low to high. The term can also apply to adjustment of the tax base by using tax exemptions, tax credits, or selective taxation that would create progressive distributional effects.

We differ on taxation methods and definitions.

Back to this then:

chairman_hall wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

chairman_hall wrote:The welfare state is needed to provide a safety net to the capitalist system.

Why don't we fix the capitalist system, instead of making a big welfare state band aid for the people hurt by it?

Please admit that you believe that there are weak, inferior people who cannot manage their lives without government guidance and government subsidies and government pacifiers. Please answer the question, "Why? Why do we need a safety net?"

I see only one possible answer: you must say that some in society are genetically inferior or developmentally retarded, and therefore must be made wards of the state, or you must admit that some in society are so devious and clever and greedy that we can't make a capitalist system that restrains their excesses and abuses of power, mandating the need for a safety net.

To say that we 'need' a welfare state is to state that some people are born predators and some people are born prey. Which is a racist statement. Your move.

The safety net needs to be there because the capitalist system by its very nature is exploitative. It is based around greed. Those that own the means to produce profit exploit those that do not.

A welfare state is needed because without it you would have a social system that would be highly stratified with a massive gap between the rich and poor. Those on low incomes would find their living standards dropped. They would be without adequate housing, healthcare, education.

It has nothing to do with racism or thinking that people who are poor are somehow inferior. It is about raising people out of absolute poverty.

Without globalization, in the sense that people travel, exchange and leave their home country permanently, I wouldn't be able to eat half the stuff that I love. That alone is NOT CRAP. Cultural exchange is almost always worth it.

Now, the politics/economics that are used to generate billions for the top few percent of humanity, those are CRAP.

Being able to communicate instantly worldwide. NOT CRAP. Before the telephone no one outside of Asia would have known/cared what happened in Burma recently. Thankfully we all now know, and while not much has happened, it is a step forward from ignorance. Hopefully we'll be able to make the next step and act, sometime.

Rick Reuben wrote:

chairman_hall wrote:
The safety net needs to be there because the capitalist system by its very nature is exploitative. It is based around greed.

So you agree. The problem begins with greed. What is more efficient? Attack the greedy and make them play fair, or create a giant welfare state to ameliorate the effects of the greedy? I think the first option is better. If there was a road in my town that kept causing flat tires because it was covered in glass and nails, I would dedicate my public works budget to getting rid of the glass and nails. I would not spend money on free tires for those forced to drive down the nail covered road. I would fix the nail problem. Similarly: if capitalism hurts people, fix the greed problem. I mean literally. Take their money in taxes, cap their salaries, throw them in jail if they can't resist their greedy ways.

Although I agree in principle to what you are proposing, how do you keep the economy productive if you make greed unprofitable?

What do you replace that economic and social instinct with?

My word -

As I just posted elsewhere I can usually see the differing sides to an argument. As a result I've ummed and arghhed about globalisation for some time. Thinking it could be used for good though it hasn't been.

I am now half way though Klein's The Shock Doctrine and have to say globalisation = total fucking shite.

A Not Crap vote for globalisation (of the free market, neo-liberal variety. In other words the variety that exists and has existed for 40 years) is close to a vote for Stalinism.

The chapter regarding South Africa is horribly depressing.

This Neo-Marxists says "si"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Negri

Here's a taste of "globalization" and green capitalism:

Feed the world? We are fighting a losing battle, UN admits
Huge budget deficit means millions more face starvation
# The Guardian,
# Tuesday February 26 2008

Excerpt
"This is the new face of hunger," Sheeran said. "There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before."

The impact has been felt around the world. Food riots have broken out in Morocco, Yemen, Mexico, Guinea, Mauritania, Senegal and Uzbekistan. Pakistan has reintroduced rationing for the first time in two decades. Russia has frozen the price of milk, bread, eggs and cooking oil for six months. Thailand is also planning a freeze on food staples. After protests around Indonesia, Jakarta has increased public food subsidies. India has banned the export of rice except the high-quality basmati variety.

"For us, the main concern is for the poorest countries and the net food buyers," said Frederic Mousseau, a humanitarian policy adviser at Oxfam. "For the poorest populations, 50%-80% of income goes on food purchases. We are concerned now about an immediate increase in malnutrition in these countries, and the landless, the farmworkers there, all those who are living on the edge."

Much of the blame has been put on the transfer of land and grains to the production of biofuel. But its impact has been outweighed by the sharp growth in demand from a new middle class in China and India for meat and other foods, which were previously viewed as luxuries.

"The fundamental cause is high income growth," said Joachim von Braun, the head of the International Food Policy Research Institute. "I estimate this is half the story. The biofuels is another 30%. Then there are weather-induced erratic changes which caused irritation in world food markets. These things have eaten into world levels of grain storage.

Another salutary answer to the "rising tide lifts all boats" axiom is here: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

E.g.
"20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods."

"A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World."

"1 in 5 children in the developing world lack access to safe water. (400 million children)."

"The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%"

"An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:

* 3 to 1 in 1820
* 11 to 1 in 1913
* 35 to 1 in 1950
* 44 to 1 in 1973
* 72 to 1 in 1992"

"A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people."

"The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%."

The link above includes a citation for each statement. Globalization also occasions great pleasures and opportunities for some of us. The above is pretty stark though.