Economic Systems (different version)

[opebo]

Ridiculously biased wording, monosodium.

Laissez-faire lite would be the current US, while the 1890's US would be laissez-faire.

Also the economic system in Europe is far more capitalist than it is socialist, so it is deceptive to use socialism in describing it. 

[opebo]

1890 is good all you need is some restrictions on monopolies and trusts to keep companies from hurting consumers.

Pretty much. Probably the closest to ideal economic system would be the US approximately 1910.

Are you, DanielX, a millionaire?

[opebo]

Maybe he likes freedom.

Freedom which one is incapable of ever excersizing is rather meaningless.

[opebo]

Not everyone is a selfish jerk, opebo.

Well, then they're being duped by a selfish jerk. 

If you're smart, you'll get busy being a selfish.  Life is short and no one else is looking out for you.

[opebo]

The vast majority of people do not benefit from the current minimum wage, Social Security system, welfare, farm subsidies, etc.

Well, it is certainly true that redistribution falls woefully short in our near-laissez-faire society.  Much more would be better.  In face welfare hardly exists at all anymore.  But many people do benefit at various times in their lives from government programs (including student loans and housing subsides not included in your list above), and many more would benefit if we taxed the owning class more to pay for better programs.

More importantly, even those who do not utilize a social safety net are benefited by the peace of mind of knowing it is there to catch them in the event of misfortune.  

Incidentally, all of this would be paid for by taxing the class of people who currently do no work and live 'comfortably', so I really don't see your objection to that aspect of the plan.

[opebo]

We are not near laissez-faire. These programs stunt growth, promote inefficiency, and create a culture of dependency. Most of us would be better off without such interventions.

Well, you're going to find out how well off the bottom 90% of the population was before these things - the 19th century is comeing back.  Assuming you are not very aged at present, you will no doubt see the utter impoverishment of the great majority of the population.  We're halfway there already.

[opebo]

What percentage of the bottom 90% benefit from the minimum wage, or farm subsidies (corporate welfare), or Social Security, which takes their money and gives it back to them?

Alas, not many.  We need more such programs, and a higher minimum wage.

[opebo]

So how are they going to become 'utterly improverished' when they're gone (which seems unlikely to happen for another 100 years)?

Point well taken.  They are mostly already impoverished, as one can see by simply driving around (as I do around St.Louis).  But they are getting progressively worse off, due to three things:
1) the owners have found other sources of cheaper labour
2) the unions are almost gone
3) the minimum wage has been allowed to decline in real terms to below subsistence level.

[opebo]

You said the BOTTOM 90%!

Not 1%, not 2%, 90%!

Well, guess what? The bottom 90% is not unemployed.

Most people do not make minimum wage, nor would they benefit from an increase. Certainly not 90%.

Yes, the bottom 90% are certainly working class.  If you read my post you would see that I carefully listed 3 causes of impoverishment, only one of which was the lack of a reasonable minimum wage. 

[opebo]

And I responded to two of them. The lack of unions is not impoverishing the bottom 90% either.

It is impoverishing a great many people. 

Certainly the unions are the only reason any working-class people ever rose above poverty-level wages in the first place.

[opebo]

A minimum wage increase is not going to benefit even a substantial percentage of the bottom 90%. Agree or disagree?

Disagree.  An increase to $15/hour would benefit the entire lower half of the population.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disagree.  They lack jobs that pay enough to avoid being poor.  Additionally, if they lose even these starvation level jobs, they immediately fall into utter destitution and even homelessness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is precisely because wages are set by market influences that most people become poor.  The only way to avoid poverty for the working class is to emeliorate market influences with a very high miniumum wage and encourage unionization.  Any resultant unemployment can be solved with a generous welfare state for the poor to relax in.  As for 'skills' those only represent a very ephemeral advantage in the marketplace, but I would be all for free univerisity education for the working class, as well as free technical education and 'retraining'.

[opebo]

1890 is good all you need is some restrictions on monopolies and trusts to keep companies from hurting consumers.

Pretty much. Probably the closest to ideal economic system would be the US approximately 1910.

Are you, DanielX, a millionaire?

Not even close. I want to be one someday, though.

Well, good luck with that.  Though the odds are against you, it is possible.  One thing to consider though - you will probably be an old man by the time you attain that goal.  Life after about 60 or 65 isn't actually worth much.

I would recommend enjoying the moment rather than striving for a wealthy decrepitude.

[opebo]

I do intend to get married (which would mean more $$$), and possibly have children

Ugh, I wouldn't recommend those things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that including all the poor who'se kids subsist on bacon and Ding-Dongs and then never go to college?  Because that can't cost so very much.