Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (5214)	1/8/2017 10:18:28 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 367530

WRT people who are not able to provide for their own sustenance, we can and should supplement their condition to the minimal point of sustenance. We are currently doing that and far beyond. Couple of things about that. One is the "not able" as opposed to not willing. We don't differentiate much. Used to be that one didn't get subsidized unless one was actively job hunting, for example. That was an imperfect way to differentiate between the two but we did differentiate. We don't differentiate so much anymore and there are those who not only think that there is no value in differentiation but who find it wrong. The other is the "far beyond" "the minimal point of sustenance." The further away you get, the less consensus you have. Over-reaching threatens the acceptance of any supplementation. Then, there's the risk when we get too far from the consensus point. We begin to normalize the notion that everyone is entitled to the same level of support as those who pull their weight. The risk there is what they call the tragedy of the commons, examples of which are easy to find. The income of American citizens is still not commons but it is increasingly being thought of by some as such. Every time we consider increasing income taxes to pay for more welfare we are consciously or unconsciously doing that. The logical extension to that is the elimination of the whole notion of welfare because all wealth is considered commons, thus to be shared. That is a big-time paradigm shift. It's easy to cross paradigm boundaries without noticing until it's too late. I added a condition which is their obligation to participate toward the common good. The salient participation is contribution to the pot. Receiving a distribution from the pot absent some alternative contribution of value is questionable wrt the common good. Acceptable alternatives would require consensus. There doesn't seem to be any serious discussion about getting that consensus. I have asked the question of what would suffice on this very thread a couple of times without receiving an answer. Another true story, this one not from my childhood but from a couple of years ago when I moved to a CCRC. An example of an unconscious paradigm shift related to the commons. Here we pay a monthly fee, which includes a food allowance for use in the restaurants. The restaurants offer food both on a buffet model and an a la carte model. The concept of a la carte, of course, is that you pay a fixed price for a fixed item of food. The buffet model is a flat price for all the food you care to eat at that sitting. Each is a viable business model. So, not long after I arrived the dining room, as part of an efficiency improvement effort, announced that it would no longer allow buffet food to be carried out. Only a la carte purchases were offered a doggy bag. An uproar ensued within a faction. I was surprised that the dining room had ever allowed buffet leftovers to be carried out. Apparently the staff was being conciliatory to us old folks. It would never have occurred to me to ask to take home my buffet leftovers. A buffet is an example of commons. Everyone takes what they want from the pot. Some people eat more than others so it's a better value but there's general acceptance of the model. I've seen buffet restaurants with signs saying that they will charge extra if you leave too much food on your plate. My point in this example is that there were plenty of people who thought it was OK to take food home from a buffet. A number I spoke with insisted that they had been able to do that in various buffet restaurants. That was news to me. The reason buffets work as commons is that there is a natural barrier. While some eat to excess, there is only so much a person can hold. If you think you should be able to take some of the buffet home with you to eat later, you corrupt the paradigm. If a critical mass of diners do that, the paradigm is blown and restaurants will no longer offer it. If we're going to give up the buffet model, we should do that deliberately with awareness of the consequences, not just let it disappear from lack of respect.