Poor and Homelessness

[amorphous_constellation]

Who gets to choose which self-proclaimed struggling artist is worthy of support? Or is simply anyone and everyone able to get funding?

I tend to think that our society, which is supposed to be at the cutting edge in all ways, should strive to have productive, but not necessarily monetized activity at its apex. In history, it seems that at the root of the thing we call work, was often general coercion, which often produced meaningless activity, and in many ways continues to. In other words, we work on things that are often subjective anyway, but that tend to maximize stress, appeal to authority, and a life's time spent.

You mention the idea of somebody's interest. Who's interest? What individual, here in america, sees that all the resources, money, and productivity etc. are going to the uses that he thinks is wise? So in other words, we are all living a composite vision for how life ought to be lived, and its hyper subjective anyway.

And what about waste. How many industries are band-aid industries that get profit from problems caused by industries upstream? So if there is demand, in the calculus of that context, it seems like it is a pretty superficial demand.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

There is no constitutional right to drive motor vehicles, or to have roads to drive them on, either. Yet we all can agree that, within reason, and with proper oversight, this is a right people should have, as it serves the well-being of everyone.

I think traffic is getting more and more horrific. How about the right to ride the horse, the animal we tamed for this purpose thousands of years ago, that doesn't use gas? I doubt they can be used in many places as of now

 

[PruePhillip]

Corruption is winning across the board. Excusing it by saying our corruption is better than their corruption is just stupid. Or saying that our corrupt system is destroying fewer lives than their corrupt system. That's insane! Obviously the solution is not to suipport "better corruption", but to stop the corruption.

It's all about control. Who wants it, and who has it, and by what methods they maintain it. Either by controlling the flow of necessary goods, or by threat of physical violence, the result is the same. Unjust control. And neither of these methods of forced control is "better" than the other. They both need to be stopped. The socioeconomic control needs to be spread out, and shared equally by everyone effected. It's the only way to limit the greed and abuse. So the question is what nation is doing this most effectively, right now, and how can we emulate and improve upon their system? At this moment in history that would appear to be the socialist democratic countries of northern Europe. And it's working because they are not stopping anyone from becoming wealthy, yet they are taxing that accumulation of wealth significantly, and then spending that money back into their economies in ways that significantly improves the lives of their citizens. And they are able to do this because they give their citizens a lot of control over their business and economic decisions. That shared control leads to a more healthy and secure society.

Yes, I am fine with the model of the Scandinavian countries. But they have corruption too. And yes, their corruption is better than Russia's corruption. In Western nations for instance tenders for projects can be corrupt - and there's enough oversight that sometimes audits figure out corruption. In Russia you say that tenders were corrupt you could wind up in jail or dead. Look how Sth Africa and Zimbabwe went after the impartiaity of the courts - that's a sign of corruption that goes beyone the presence of a corrupt judge. But Scandinavian nations are more or less mono-ethnic and mono-cultural, and they live under America's security arrangements - and their taxes are too high.

 

[metis]

So you're a third way kind of guy?

As an independent, yes.

Imagine a country where everyone passes, and every sports team wins, and we force people to buy bad music so good bands don't get more than bad bands.

Why did you post that as I just stated I don't agree with such an approach?

Thus, the question is "How much competition may go too far so as to hurt the country?". Morris knew what he was talking about, and a great many economists do believe that we have gone too far so as to create the divisions and hostility that we are seeing being regularly played out.

 

[PruePhillip]

It's amusing to see how hard you are trying to make this appear complex and difficult, when its not complicated or difficult at all.

It's not about stopping anyone from becoming rich. It's about stopping people and corporations from becoming absurdly, and unjustly rich. And then using that excess wealth to corrupt the system to gain even more power and money, at the expense of everyone else. To achieve that would only require a progressive tax rate such that the more money one takes in, the more tax one pays out. And how that money is then spent back into the economy is a job for the government. It's what governments are for. But it's then our job to make sure our governments are not being corrupted, so that the tax money is being spent back into the low end of the economy, and not just being handed back to the already rich in return for bribes and kickbacks.

So you are fine with Agnetha, Anni, Bjorn and Benny getting $1,000,000,000 to go on tour, and your average Karin or Anna getting $100 at a local gig?
Ok.
Bump up corporate tax rates and you lose your companies. I don't think anyone should pay more than one third of their income in taxes. Until recently tax rates were less than ten percent. Slug a large company 50% company tax and they will simply move over the border. And why not?

 

[metis]

But Scandinavian nations are more or less mono-ethnic and mono-cultural, and they live under America's security arrangements - and their taxes are too high.

Tell my cousins in Sweden about that, as they will very much laugh at your "humor". Yes, taxes are higher there, but no one there will have trouble paying for their child's education or for healthcare or for retirement or for child & adult day care or...

 

[PruePhillip]

As an independent, yes.

Why did you post that as I just stated I don't agree with such an approach?

Thus, the question is "How much competition may go too far so as to hurt the country?". Morris knew what he was talking about, and a great many economists do believe that we have gone too far so as to create the divisions and hostility that we are seeing being regularly played out.

I follow space tech. SpaceX is beating Boeing, Grumman and Northrope in the aerospace industry. Many workers might just swap companies.
But bitterness, hostility, divisions? That's what happens when Toyota beat GM and Apple beat Ericson.

 

[PruePhillip]

What examples do you have of this oppressive communism?

Where to start?
Lenin and Stalin
Mao
Ho Chi Minh
Pol Pot
Honeker
Castro

Over one hundred million dead, and who nations destroyed for generations.

 

[PruePhillip]

What's Russia have to do with a communist society? Russia's as much a capitalist oligarchy as the US is.

Talking about the USSR, and Maoist China.

 

[metis]

I follow space tech. SpaceX is beating Boeing, Grumman and Northrope in the aerospace industry. Many workers might just swap companies.
But bitterness, hostility, divisions? That's what happens when Toyota beat GM and Apple beat Ericson.

So? That has 0 to do with what I posted.

 

[MikeF]

It's easy to support the arts, it could be as simple as supporting institutions that foster and present art to the public, like art schools and art galleries. Or by supporting grant committees. Corporations seem to be able to figure out how to support the arts when they feel so inclined, so I see no reason the government should have any special difficulty doing it.

This is not what you proposed and what I was pushing back against. You said:

... You tax ABBA's billion $ income, and use the money to support the struggling artists. Same way you tax the billion $ profits of the MegaCrappyFood Corp. and use the money to provide food stamps for the poor. Or you tax the billion $ profits of the MegaGreedyDrug Corp. and use the money to cover the cost of medications for the poor. And so on.

I took this to mean your plan was to only tax the income of artists who earn too much, in your opinion, perhaps some cap on earnings perhaps with the government taking all income over a certain, acceptable to you, amount, then distributing that money in a welfare program to "struggling artists".

I am curious as to the criteria that would qualify one for that welfare program.

Your response to my inquiry has you falling back to what is already occurring, general tax revenue used to support the arts with infrastructure support and support of organizations that curate and support talent. In other words, the status quo which I'm fine with.

 

[MikeF]

I tend to think that our society, which is supposed to be at the cutting edge in all ways, should strive to have productive, but not necessarily monetized activity at its apex. In history, it seems that at the root of the thing we call work, was often general coercion, which often produced meaningless activity, and in many ways continues to. In other words, we work on things that are often subjective anyway, but that tend to maximize stress, appeal to authority, and a life's time spent.

You mention the idea of somebody's interest. Who's interest? What individual, here in america, sees that all the resources, money, and productivity etc. are going to the uses that he thinks is wise? So in other words, we are all living a composite vision for how life ought to be lived, and its hyper subjective anyway.

And what about waste. How many industries are band-aid industries that get profit from problems caused by industries upstream? So if there is demand, in the calculus of that context, it seems like it is a pretty superficial demand.

I'm not sure of your point here in relationship to a welfare program for a yet undefined class of "struggling artists", paid for by taxing yet to be defined "wealthy artists". It is unclear whether @PureX would tax artists a percentage of their income, or cap their income at an "appropriate" level and distribute income over the cap through the artists welfare program.

Are you for or against an artist welfare program as described above?

 

[PruePhillip]

So? That has 0 to do with what I posted.

You claimed competition breeds animus, and that might be true at times, but it's not why we have competition - it's to improve our goods and services, and provide incentives for hard or creative effort. No competition = stagnation.

 

[metis]

You claimed competition breeds animus,

You are misrepresenting what I wrote and what I believe in. I basically said that competition is a two-way street. Please get it right.

Maybe read this: This Is Why Global Income Inequality Is a Real National-Security Threat | The National Interest

and: The science of income disparity - Dangerous Intersection

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm not sure of your point here in relationship to a welfare program for a yet undefined class of "struggling artists", paid for by taxing yet to be defined "wealthy artists". It is unclear whether @PureX would tax artists a percentage of their income, or cap their income at an "appropriate" level and distribute income over the cap through the artists welfare program.

Are you for or against an artist welfare program as described above?

Well, if the government had a specific set of theaters and halls, set up to give amateurs a place to display art or play music, I don't really have any doubt that people would come. As of now, independent artists and musicians generally use the internet. Either that, or it seems like they have to totally self-fund, or get into a live music scene at a bar or restaurant, or have a specific in at the local government town level. In other words, there generally is a lot of vetting, which would be hard on amateurs that could be extremely talented, but have no marketing skill

 

[MikeF]

Well, if the government had a specific set of theaters and halls, set up to give amateurs a place to display art or play music, I don't really have any doubt that people would come. As of now, independent artists and musicians generally use the internet. Either that, or it seems like they have to totally self-fund, or get into a live music scene at a bar or restaurant, or have a specific in at the local government town level. In other words, there generally is a lot of vetting, which would be hard on amateurs that could be extremely talented, but have no marketing skill

That is the risk one takes if they want to make a living in the arts. The number of people who can become accomplished as a musician for example, is large. There just isn't a need or demand for all those who can become accomplished at their instrument to make a living at it. Just because you want to do a particular thing in life doesn't mean you get to do it as a career. It will have to become a hobby.

 

[PureX]

... then distributing that money in a welfare program to "struggling artists".

Already your bias is showing as your choice of terms clearly indicate that you presume this to be some sort of scam to avoid work and get money.

I am curious as to the criteria that would qualify one for that welfare program.

The criteria would be that the applicant be actively engaged in the arts, and have the results to show for it. I don't understand why you think this would be such a difficult criteria to set.

Your response to my inquiry has you falling back to what is already occurring, general tax revenue used to support the arts with infrastructure support and support of organizations that curate and support talent. In other words, the status quo which I'm fine with.

Actually, the republicans killed government support for the arts decades ago. Like all good fascists, it's the arts that go on the chopping block first. Can't have those pesky artists looking behind the masks, and then showing everyone else what they see.

 

[PureX]

That is the risk one takes if they want to make a living in the arts. The number of people who can become accomplished as a musician for example, is large.

There is a difference between a musician and an artist. Lots of people can play a musical instrument well, but very few of them are artists. Lots of people can make a living entertaining other people, but very few of them are artists. You may not understand or recognize the difference, but the difference exists. And there are people that can understand and recognize it. And it's not something one can easily fake, any more then one can fake being a doctor before a committee of doctors.

There just isn't a need or demand for all those who can become accomplished at their instrument to make a living at it.

There is an endless need for artists in any society. And "demand" isn't especially relevant since artists work in advance of any known demand. They define "demand".

Just because you want to do a particular thing in life doesn't mean you get to do it as a career..

You should, however, be given the opportunity to develop it to the best result. Because the last thing we want to do is crush the next budding Shakespeare or Picasso before he writes a word or paints a stroke because we thought we needed him flipping burgers to serve the greed of some corporate conglomerate and a bunch of already overweight citizens.

 

[MikeF]

Already your bias is showing as your choice of terms clearly indicate that you presume this to be some sort of scam to avoid work and get money.

You crack me up.
"Struggling artist" was a direct quote of your use of the phrase. It was your term. I used the composite term 'welfare' because you referenced food stamps and medicine for the poor (medicaid).

The criteria would be that the applicant be actively engaged in the arts, and have the results to show for it. I don't understand why you think this would be such a difficult criteria to set.

Yeah, I see what constitutes "having the results" to be so subjective as to be meaningless. If the artist is good enough and the approach or content unique enough, they will be more than capable of supporting themselves. If they can't, then they will simply have to be content to be a hobbyist.

Actually, the republicans killed government support for the arts decades ago. Like all good fascists, it's the arts that go on the chopping block first. Can't have those pesky artists looking behind the masks, and then showing everyone else what they see.

I see this as a separate issue from your artist welfare proposal. I have no problem rolling back the clock on the Republican cuts you reference.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, I see what constitutes "having the results" to be so subjective as to be meaningless.

How confusing for you that must be.

If the artist is good enough and the approach or content unique enough, they will be more than capable of supporting themselves. If they can't, then they will simply have to be content to be a hobbyist.

Ah, spoken like a true capitalist. If it can't generate a profit, it's of no real social value.

I see this as a separate issue from your artist welfare proposal. I have no problem rolling back the clock on the Republican cuts you reference.

I guess calling it "welfare" made it different, somehow.