------------------
The inevitable result of the leftist hatred for wealth is to eliminate money entirely. They think that money itself that is the root of all evil, rather than the love of money.
But that is only the start. Money represents inequality, power, and undeserved benefits. If money can be taken out of everyone's hands, then a central power would distribute it "equitably" and "fairly."
The socialist Left wants to take it even farther. If everything is "free," money is not even needed. Everyone would simply go and get whatever they want - sort of like the leftist looters - except without the messy requirement to break windows and burn things.
On the other hand, they love to break windows and burn things. Because their intent is not to solve racism, wealth inequality, homophobia, or any of the other stated desires. No, the unstated reason is to completely dismantle society. These issues aren't the issues, they're simply a means to an end.
Part of the problem socialists ignore is the issue of perceived value. Humans are naturally capitalists, they look to engage relationships for the purpose of exchange. Socialists want to essentially remove value from this exchange. What this necessarily means is that the service that is "free" is now rendered valueless. If a person does not have to give up something of value to receive something of value, then there is no value.
That is why public housing is always in a state of disrepair. Whatever one gets for free has no value, and therefore no financial or emotional investment is at stake. It then does not matter if there is pride of ownership or proper care given. People disdain what they did not have to work for.
Lastly, we note that this is a long, meandering article. We will edit out long passages.
--------------
The prospect of a “cashless” society is upon us. But could ordinary life be “moneyless” entirely?
(...)
Conservatives sometimes point out that when we lefties say we want something to be “free,” it is not really free, because it must be paid for by the government. This is correct. It is not free, it is “free at point of use,” meaning that it is funded out of a collective pool of wealth rather than by individuals when they use the service. (No, it is funded by tax dollars with the consent of the people. In many of these cases The People have decided that it is better to have another entity provide certain services they cannot perform themselves.
This does not presume government must be the default entity. Any entity with sufficient equipment and expertise can perform this function.
The author will now pivot. He will attempt to correlate the idea of pooled services to commodities which represent the exchange of value between parties. The author presumes the latter can and should be "free," without recognizing the difference.)
A good reason for making things free at point of use is that it makes them less stressful, and people can focus on fulfilling their needs and desires rather than on thinking about money. (A "good reason?" Reducing stress seems to us to be a superficial reason to nationalize entire industries.
The author will continue with superficial reasons [convenience, no distractions, waiting for the check in a restaurant]. These are not arguments, they are fairytales. We shall skip them.)
(...)
I got my first smartphone recently, after holding out for many years, and I was immediately impressed with how easy it was to pay for things. I do not have to put in my credit card information every time. I simply look at the phone, it identifies my face (creepy and worrisome, but convenient), (Ahh. The author has swerved into a truth [finally]. There is something creepy and worrisome about this whole idea, yet the author will be either unable or unwilling to to make the necessary connections.)
and I press “pay.” Use DoorDash or Lyft and you do not have to enter any bank information after the first time. In fact, so long as you know you have plenty of money in your bank account, you just pick what you want and order it. You do not even think about the money. The prices are not changing your decision, because you know can afford whatever you pick. Therefore: for you, the person who can afford any of the various options among which you are choosing, the prices are virtually superfluous information. You need them there to make sure you aren’t being bilked. (Hmm. Why is being bilked a problem? He seems very possessive about his money, but is happy to tell you what you should do with yours.)
But they almost cease to matter.
(The author will continue to prattle on about his buying habits and how he regards his finances. He appears to not have an argument to offer.)
(...)
I think a big part of the dream that many socialists have is to be released from having a life that is ruled by money. (Ruled by money, or ruled by oppressors. Pick one.)
The first priority, of course, is the abolition of class and making sure every person is free. (The only classes we have in society are those that are imposed, enforced, and exploited by leftists. In addition, freedom is very a very strange thing when one considers the leftist version of it.)
But there is a certain dislike for exchange relationships generally. (All relationships involve exchange, or there is no relationship.)
We want a world where you give someone something because you would like them to have it, not because you are looking to get something out of them. (?? The leftist pipe dream is to appropriate value from some so that others can have it for free! This is an astonishing color blindness.)
William Morris, in News from Nowhere, depicts a utopia in which an artisan spends months crafting a gorgeously painted smoking pipe, only to give it away to someone who saw it and admired it. For Morris, there was something beautiful in this. If you want it, it’s yours, no questions asked. (Which of course means that a particular version of What Is Beautiful will be imposed on everyone else by the likes of Mr. Robinson.)
The interesting thing is that for people who are wealthy, it is already almost possible to be released from a life in which thoughts about money play a significant part. Of course, the rich actually think constantly about money. But it’s not because they have to. You can pay people to think about your money and just go and enjoy your life. They “never have to worry about money again.”
Let me describe to you an imagined place where money has virtually disappeared from people’s lives: (Yes, please do. A land of pink unicorns and rainbows, completely divorced from reality. These utopians are truly puerile.)
Pleasant Acres is one of those awful Florida retirement villages full of Trump supporters where everyone plays pickleball and does salsa dancing. We are not here interested in the cultural vibrancy of Pleasant Acres or the politics of its residents. Instead, we are concerned with the internal economy. Residents pay $100,000 per year to live in Pleasant Acres. (In other words, the residents willingly exchange a substantial amount of their own money for something of value. We have not even read what the author's point will be, nor do we have to. The example will not do what the author wants it to do.)
That price secures them access to the following: (A priced paid for services rendered. Hmm.)
A condo
A golf cart
Golf equipment, if they do not have it already
Access to the tennis courts, swimming pool, and gymnasium
Dance classes
Academic classes at the “university” (unaccredited but with excellent instructors)
3 meals a day at any one of the 6 “restaurants” in the village, plus unlimited snacks
2 baskets of groceries per week at the community “store”
Rental of whatever art they would like from the art warehouse, to put in their condo
Art supplies if they want to make art at the studio
Medical care at the clinic and on-call nursing
Use of the library
Unlimited cocktails
Protection by a private security firm
As many plants as they would like for their condo, from the nursery
Up to 3 pets from the pet repository (residents may also bring their own pets. If they would like to leave Pleasant Acres and keep a repository pet they must pay $500).
Maintenance of their condo
Water, electricity, and internet for their condo
Participation in the full social life of the village including game nights, film screenings, visiting lecturers, community hoedowns, speed-dating
Up to 10 subscriptions to newspapers and magazines of their choice
A certain number of guest passes for many amenities
I am sure you see already where I am going with this. It is possible to live in Pleasant Acres, have your $100,000 deducted annually from your bank account, and go through your day to day life without thinking about money at all. I do not mean “not thinking about money because you have so much that the cost of each transaction doesn’t matter to you.” I mean that there are no internal transactions taking place between the residents and the management. Getting a newspaper isn’t deducted from your $100,000. It’s inclusive. The facility might track internal usage of the amenities, or it might not. It might have an internal pricing system, deducting the cost of a pet or newspaper from a person’s $100,000, but it also might not, and could just look at the income coming in versus the total expenses going out in each category.
The system here is not communism, because there is private property. (The author concedes.)
The residents do not own the facility, which is run by a private company. (The author concedes again.)
The “means of production” are in private hands. (The author concedes yet again.)
But within Pleasant Acres, there is no “market.” (Um, no. Value was offered in exchange for value, a willing and mutually beneficial exchange. The point in time when the particular parts of value arrive to the purchaser is irrelevant.)
Now, the case of art supplies is quite interesting, because what happens if a person makes a painting that they then want to sell? Of course, Pleasant Acres could say that use of their art supplies means they own any paintings that are produced, but they don’t say that. The gentle seniors of the village may sell each other whatever they wish. In practice, however, nobody has ever sold a painting to another resident. Usually they just give them to someone who seems to want it. This is because getting money for your painting would not have much of a point. (The author now demonstrates his ignorance of peoples' behavior, particularly senior citizens. He doesn't understand people who arrive at a point in life when the future is much shorter than the past, which means things don't matter as much as doing nice things for others.
Unfortunately for the author, this all still belongs in the realm of capitalism. The painter chooses for himself if he wishes to engage in a profitable exchange, or, to be generous with his possession and give it to someone else.)
All of your needs are taken care of. You are satisfied. You want for nothing. What would you buy with the money? A big television? They have those at the Electronics Station, and if you call, one will be brought to your condo.
Now, some people drink more than their fair share of the unlimited cocktails, so that if everyone guzzled as many mimosas as Norma, or as many martinis as Walt, the place would swiftly have to start cutting costs elsewhere or face ruin. But some residents don’t drink, so it averages out, and the facility adjusts its annual fee to make sure that its total income covers the total amount of its expenditures. Within a single institution, then, market relationships and commodification have been functionally eliminated as part of day to day life. (All a result of the voluntary and mutually beneficial private exchange of value. The author's myopia is palpable.)
Yes, there is the $100,000 coming annually from people’s bank accounts. But people who come here know they have enough to cover the rest of their lives. The $100,000 is something they thought about once, for ten seconds, before signing up. (The way the author pretends to know peoples' thoughts and motivations is unseemly.
The author will continue to discuss private institutions and what they choose to do with their resources, as if any of this has anything to do with a central coercive government controlling peoples' choices and wealth.)
(...)
When people don’t have to make cost-benefit calculations, they tend to use more of a thing. Mainstream economics often assumes we have “unlimited wants” and that the things we want are scarce, meaning there’s not enough of them to satisfy our wants. Pricing things helps keep us from having to “ration” them. (No, this is not the reason for pricing things.)
Thus the British NHS has to decide how to give out scarce healthcare (Waaait. Why is it scarce, Mr. Robinson? Do you know? Have you thought about it?
Is it possibly because those who offer healthcare are highly skilled, which makes what they offer rare and valuable? We aren't talking about dime-a-dozen ditch diggers here. People want the person cutting open their abdomens to be very, very good at what she does.
But what happens to the highly skilled doctor who has spent years and years studying and working towards obtaining her MD credential when the product she offers is suddenly "free?" What happens to the level of care when the expert skills required are no longer commensurate to the possible reward? What incentive does she have to continue to practice medicine without proper compensation for all the effort, hassle, and pressure of making life and death decisions?
And, who picks up the slack of higher utilization when college students look at studying medicine and decide that it is simply not worth the hassle and decide to be ditch diggers and diesel mechanics instead?)
through having a central body decide how resources are apportioned, (Gee, this sounds a lot like rationing...)
whereas the American “free market” healthcare system uses the magic of prices to decide who gets what. (The American healthcare system is not "free market," and hasn't been for decades. The "magic of prices" does not come to bear, because government controls approximately half of all healthcare expenditures. There is very little point-of-service purchase of health care. Almost all of it is paid by third parties.
This is a spectacularly false statement.)
One fear about Medicare For All is that it will lead people to consume “too much” healthcare, because there won’t be any cost to them for doing so. The Google 15 shows that if food is free, people will eat more of it.
But the fact that “free at point of use” makes people use more of something is not actually a bad thing. (The author will never demonstrate this.)
I talked about how if fire departments charged people, homeowners would be disincentivized from calling the fire department, which would actually be very bad.(Why not have a Pleasant Acres arrangement for healthcare? The author never seems to be able to consider the ramifications of his pronouncements and how they connect together. He commends a private arrangement as if it advances his case, then switches to government arrangements without thought or logic.
None of this furthers the author's argument.)
In healthcare, it’s bad that people are discouraged from calling ambulances. If the public library charged to check out books, fewer people would read and learn. And in Pleasant Acres, the whole point is that seniors are liberated from the bother of having to think about transactions and get to simply enjoy things. (It isn't a matter of people being discouraged from calling ambulances. This rarely happens. People always decide to do what is necessary in an emergency, and worry about the money later.
The author tries to restrict the discussion to profound medical needs as if that is the only thing for which healthcare is utilized. But when we consider utilization of "free" healthcare, the need for removing a sliver also becomes an occasion to go to the emergency room. If it's all free, then trivial things are just as much utilization as is a compound arm fracture. "Free" equals "valueless.")
A funny thing happened at Pleasant Acres after a few years. First, management realized that full-time workers in the facility were costing about $110,000 each. So a program was introduced whereby you could have all the amenities of the facility, plus $10,000 annually, if you were willing to work full time. Many seniors therefore did not even engage with any direct financial transactions with the facility. They gave according to their ability, and took according to their need, (Classic Marxist dogma: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx himself uttered this in 1875.
However, the author attempts to deceive us by adding the word "gave." Marx is not suggesting people give, he referring to government taking from those with a lot and giving it to those who have less.)
in addition to having a “Basic Income.” (Once again, the operative word is they "gave." Not "government took." Further, all of this is a private, voluntary arrangement. The author persists in thinking that Pleasant Acres is some sort of microcosm of socialism. It isn't even close.)
A greater and greater percentage of residents started to do this to the point where the entire workforce, other than the company’s management, was composed of residents. Eventually, Pleasant Acres was so pleasant that it attracted many visitors, who liked to take its classes and attend the movie nights. The visitors were charged money (unless they were from elsewhere in the Pleasant Acres Network), and eventually the intake from visitors became substantial. At this point, Pleasant Acres did something interesting: it cut the workweek in half, and it entirely eliminated the $100,000 annual fee, instead simply requiring 20 hours a week of work from all residents. Supplies the facility needed to purchase from outside (new lawnmowers, electronics, food, medical equipment) were paid for with the tourist revenue. (*Chuckle* The author seems blissfully unaware that people are being charged for services rendered, the proceeds of which redound to the residents so that the revenue they receive offsets the expense of running the facility. This makes the residents robber barons, right Mr. Robinson?
Still no socialism in sight.)
But much was made inside the village, and all the work was simply done by the village residents. Performing the work guaranteed that when you eventually became unable to do work, you were still allowed to live and use all the amenities as before. (That is, non-productive residents receive charity as the other residents carry their expense.)
There was, of course, eventually a labor uprising, because the seniors of the village realized at a certain point that upper management was extraneous. They refused any longer to let extra tourist revenue go to the company’s profits, and insisted it be split among the workers equally. Because the company had made the mistake of becoming dependent on the village residents, it was forced to democratize. (That is, these seniors are skilled and successful people who through there own diligence, ingenuity, and frugality, came into their twilight years having accumulated substantial wealth. They freely chose to spend some of it on this community arrangement. Because they actually had great success life, the most certainly have high competence, which means that some of them possess the ability to manage a facility like Pleasant Acres.
The author seems to think that these seniors are helpless, sitting around the pool all day waiting for their meds. He doesn't seem to understand that to accumulate a retirement fund of sufficient size where $100,000 per year can be easily spent is difficult to do. These seniors have skills.
This means they have the ability to do the jobs others were doing, so they decided to do a very non-socialist thing: A corporate takeover.
All of this was privately done by wealthy retirees, smart and resourceful.)
And thus was Socialism In One Retirement Village achieved. (Clueless. Totally clueless.)
(...)
No comments:
Post a Comment