Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Natural Consequnces

MP Exceptionalism keeps giving.
"You are absolutely correct that there are many rewards to be gained by going to school, learning, working, staying married, saving, investing, etc. One of which is I can easily afford the higher premiums they are going to charge me for making bad choices. This is one of the strengths of America.

I guess I see taking money from one citizen to pay for the poor choices of another is also immoral. Trade offs..." G2A

"Further punishing those whose lot in life enables a meager existence fraught with the constant peril of physical and financial collapse. All in order to save oneself a pittance on the tax bill, and to impose some vague idea of "moral justice" on those percieved as "lessers". Thanks, but I think I'll take Mr. Udstrand's version of morality 10 times out of 10." Matt
"I guess I see taking money from one citizen to pay for the poor choices of another is also immoral. Trade offs..."

This is where ideology become incoherent as well as immoral. This is how a citizen of a liberal democracy is converted into a "victim" of oppressive government simply because citizens pay taxes. The horror. Yeah I don't like paying for other people's bad choices either... how do I get my money back for the Iraq war and all these stadiums?

You do realize that your insurance premiums don't actually pay for your health care and that your premium dollars aren't earmarked for your health care and your health care alone right? One way or another we all pay for each others health care whether your in a private or public system." Paul 
"As we have discussed before.

I have 3 children, two are savers and one is a spender. When the spender can not afford to go out with her friends and I refuse to give her additional money to do so, am I punishing her?

When my other 2 kids go out and the spender is stuck at home with Mom and me, am I rewarding them unfairly?

If I gave the Spender more money, what message would that send to the Savers / Spender?

What behavior would that promote?

All Americans are given the opportunity to attend free public schooling, what they do with that societal investment in them is up to them and their Parents. There are natural consequences if one squanders that incredible opportunity. No punishment or judgment required." G2A
"You correct. Insurance is a pool of money to spread the risk. This is a very personal cost / benefit, unlike stadiums and wars.

If people want to be covered from the pool. Please have them pay their premiums." G2A 


Sean said...

I would argue there's nothing "natural" at all going on in our health care markets. There's no virtue test going on. Hard-working folks often go without care, while trust fund babies who live on the hard work of previous generations can go to the Mayo Clinic.

If a meritocracy is what you want, then support the policies that make it a reality.

John said...

What I want are systems that encourage people to:

- Have only the children they can afford and not until they are mature enough to raise them well with a spouse/life partner.

- Learn while they are in school/ young so they can support themselves and enjoy life as adults.

- being self reliant, hard working, collaborative and self disciplined.

These are the same goals I have for my daughters, and I assume most Parents have similar wishes for their children.

Unfortunately the War on Poverty back fired and promoted the opposite of these.

John said...

As for trust fund babies. Who cares... That is such a small portion of our population. And I am happy to charge them more if they make poor choices.

I am always fascinated by the jealously of the fortunate. Back to the TREES

Sean said...

It's easy to stand outside of the hole after you've pulled the ladder up and yell at the people still stuck in the hole.

John said...

Most of our families started in the hole, or we would not be here.

Now the question is how do we provide a ladder for those families to climb out of the hole through their own efforts? Instead of the Liberal plan of standing at the edge tossing food, healthcare, housing, etc down at them? And watching them procreate and languish.

There is a reason why most poor lottery winners end up poor again... And why the projects turned into slums... Learning and earning is the path to long term success !!!

Anonymous said...

How about a new Homestead Act?

You know, that huge government handout in the 1860s that allowed millions of families to amass wealth "all on their own".


John said...

You mean that act that was written to encourage people to move into the middle of nowhere, struggle against the weather, risk crop failures, risk animal attacks, etc?

Haven't you watched little house on the prairie? I mean the one girl went blind and lord knows they had worse struggles !!! :-)

Do you think the modern day welfare family would take that deal?

John said...

For some more interesting info on Homestead Acts.

"The Homestead Acts had few qualifying requirements. A homesteader had to be the head of the household or at least twenty-one years old. They had to live on the designated land, build a home, make improvements, and farm it for a minimum of five years. The filing fee was eighteen dollars (or ten to temporarily hold a claim to the land).

"The first of the acts, the Homestead Act of 1862, opened up millions of acres. Any adult who had never taken up arms against the U.S. government could apply. Women and immigrants who had applied for citizenship were eligible. The 1866 Act explicitly included and "encouraged" blacks to participate."

"Immigrants, farmers without their own land, single women, and former slaves could all qualify. The fundamental racial qualification was that one had to be a citizen, or have filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen, and so the qualification changed over the years with the varying legal qualifications for citizenship. African-Americans became qualified with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868."

John said...

And yes my Great Grandparents on both sides took advantage of this opportunity to strive for a better life, and both quarter sections (160 acres each) are still owned by my parents. The settler's life was hard and they lived on little, but over time and a couple of generations things improved.

The original homestead "home" was on the one farm until ~1980. It was pretty much 2 rooms. One for the animals and one for the people.

John said...

Now are the modern day folks ready to get married and stayed married through thick and thin?

Work from dawn to dusk?

Live a very minimalistic life for the good of their family's future?

Walk to school [uphill both ways :-)]for the opportunity to learn?

Anonymous said...

Now wait just a second. Your family is land rich now because the government either bought land from a government that took it from those who were already living there or took it themselves and gave it to your ancestors and you have the audacity to claim that it somehow belongs to you or that your family somehow "did it on their own"?

Yes, the settlers life was hard, but the life would have been the same even if they had purchased the land instead of getting the handout from the government. Perhaps what you're saying is that your family couldn't have done it except for the government handout?

The point in all of this is that there is vast wealth in the 200+ million acres or so that the homestead acts gifted to American citizens, a gift that you and I have directly benefited from, but you bristle at spending a few billion dollars a year to give people adequate healthcare and keep them from becoming destitute.

Maybe the government should take all that land back (taking it in the same way it originally took it) and re-gift it to new settlers who can reap the rewards and pass it down to the future generations. Of course, the land is not as fertile as it once was due to intensive cropping and petro-chemical inputs, so it will be a hard life for those new settlers.

Does your false sense of self-righteousness know no end?


John said...

Now it seems you read the wiki link with a bias.

Nothing was given to these folks for FREE...
- first they had to get there
- second they had to pay for it
- third they had to live there for 5 years
- fourth they had to develop it
- fifth it was available to men, women, blacks, whites, Asians, everyone

Now there were many homesteading families who took advantage of the business arrangement and then later made bad decisions and lost the land. (ie alcoholism, huge families, bad business choices, didn't want to work so hard, gambling addiction, divorces, spending too much, etc) That was why their land was available to buy in later generations.

Fortunately my ancestors seized the business arrangement offered, and made good decisions, worked hard, lived well below their means, had small families, saved money, re-invested, etc. That is why my family is wealthy.

All it would have taken is one generation of waste to wipe out our holdings. Thankfully that did not happen. And so far me and my siblings are on the right track to continue the streak.

John said...

By the way, I assume you realize that the land owned by successful families is many times more "fertile" than when the settlers first bought it with their money and sweat equity.

Historical Corn Yields per Acre

My Great Grandfather used to farm his quarter and work as a tile digger.

Can you imagine digging trenches across fields by hand to place 18" clay tile sections in to drain the excess water? It is amazing. And many are still working.

Then there are all the terraces that have been built to prevent erosion...

Please remember the land is a big part of our business and we think long term, so we take very good care of it.

Anonymous said...

Paying a filing fee is not the same as paying for the land. If you were given something that valuable for a mere filing fee, you'd find a way to get there and keep it. You've put the cart before the horse here in order to make you feel better about the huge handout your family received.


Anonymous said...

Historical Corn Yields:

Notice the quick upward trend starting after World War II, when the petro-chemical companies needed to find a new customer for their industry. Being able to produce more on the same land does not mean that the soil or land is more fertile; you can produce magnificent yields in a growing medium that contains no inherent fertility at all.

A great deal of the soil treasure that was inherited is gone, and it costs us in many ways, including loss of yield and impaired water quality.

Iowa's Problem

"Can you imagine digging trenches across fields by hand to place 18" clay tile sections in to drain the excess water?"

No, but I don't have to imagine the catastrophic floods that impact the Red River Valley due to the land draining faster than it historically did. I don't have to imagine the decimation (or worse) of the populations of the great waterfowl that rely on lakes and ponds and marshes that no longer exist or the near extinction in Minnesota (until recently, due to efforts by conservationists) of the majestic Trumpeter Swan. I don't have to imagine our polluted rivers and lakes.


John said...

Sorry... Handouts are when you get something for nothing... (ie Welfare, Medicaid, Heating Assistance, etc)

Government incentives are programs that the government offers to get people to take a certain action. Maybe we can offer incentives for:
- Succeeding in school
- Waiting to have children
- Getting and staying married
- Staying clean and not addicted
- Working 40 hrs a week or more

Would that entice the folks who do not do these simple things to change their behaviors?

But unfortunately Liberals would consider that "punishing the poor"...

John said...

You are correct that some farmers do not take care of their land.

Those are the farms we bought and improved when that farmer went bankrupt. Remember what I said about bad choices...

As for flooding, much of that comes from levy systems that choke down the river in developed areas. (ie the water has to go somewhere) The good news is that farmers and government continue to work together to create more and more settling ponds / flood prevention structures near home.

Anonymous said...

"Government incentives are programs that the government offers to get people to take a certain action. Maybe we can offer incentives for:
- Succeeding in school
- Waiting to have children
- Getting and staying married
- Staying clean and not addicted
- Working 40 hrs a week or more"

Let's talk incentives, then. I'm good with having the discussion. Except for your last one...unless the incentive is a significant amount more paid time off. I don't agree that work is the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's important, but not most important.


jerrye92002 said...

Joel, you are wrong. The only real wealth derives from people working. By using capital we can increase the amount of wealth created per unit of work, but by leaving some people idle we double the negative effect on wealth-- consuming wealth and producing nothing in return. New Wealth= -wealth consumed - wealth not created.