Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)

    This is just an assertion.

    It's an assertion that suggests I live in the real world, frankly.

    Minimum wage is £5.81. A forty hour a week job at that level is £232.40 a week. Assuming one main bread winner at this level, and one at part time (say, half), that's £348.60 a week, or £18,126.20 a year. Rent is £450 a month for a house. Thats £5400 a year, leaving £12,726. Say its a household of four. That would be about £60 a week on food, or £3120 a month. That leaves £9606. That's £800 a month left over after food and shelter.

    Emphasis on the phrase minimum wage there. Wouldn't you scrap that entirely? You've given incredibly conservative estimates here, too. You think people can live well on £15 worth of food a week? You haven't taken bills into account, utilities, petrol, insurance etc etc . . .

    This idea that those who don't have private pensions have simply chosen to spend their money on other luxuries is absolutely ridiculous.


    Day care. Creches.

    That's not exactly desirable, is it? The child doesn't receive a decent upbringing, surrounded by their parent.

    How disabled? I have seen paraplegics making souvenirs in charity built communities in Africa.

    Just because you've come across extreme examples like this, it doesn't mean that it's going to work for everyone. What about disabled people that charity doesn't reach? You're just turning a blind eye to reality if you think disadvantaged people would fare better in a world without any benefits and support from government.
    HappinessHappening.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    No, what makes you think that? There is a long tradition in deontological libertarianism (from Locke onwards) that doesn't consider just any old appropriation of land to be justified.
    It's just you seemed to be justifying the coerced appropriation of land on the grounds that it works better than Oswy's alternative.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Minimum wage is £5.81. A forty hour a week job at that level is £232.40 a week. Assuming one main bread winner at this level, and one at part time (say, half), that's £348.60 a week, or £18,126.20 a year. Rent is £450 a month for a house. Thats £5400 a year, leaving £12,726. Say its a household of four. That would be about £60 a week on food, or £3120 a month. That leaves £9606. That's £800 a month left over after food and shelter.
    Wow - I'd like to know where you can get a 4 bedroom house for £450 a month. I'm looking for a similar size house and I can't find much below £1000, certainly not £800. Also, £60 a week on food would be rations. Even as a impoverished student I still spent £20 a week on food. Also you ignore bills of ~£100 a month. By quick mental arithmetic, that leaves ~£200 a month with conservative estimates.
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Day care. Creches.
    Day care costs almost as much a persons salary. Creches are similarly expensive
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Interestingly enough, the people arguing against Richard A Garner claiming that prices are too high are arguing a Libertarian argument: namely, the one against inflation. Looking at the way the money supply has been increased, I think it's disingenuous to say that Libertarianism is flawed because things are too expensive for poor people to afford when etatists have been the ones that have claimed vast increases in the money supply are desirable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Everyone knows that free enterprise has created vast amounts of wealth and a general rise in the standard of living for all.

    However, I really don't understand libertarians sometimes. If the market is left unregulated and if there is no redistributive taxation to help those most in need, I think you're going to plunge us into a brutal 19th Century world. Imagine what would happen to all those people made unemployed (especially in recessions) and all the families dependant on them? It's just blind to assert that they will be fine with private charity and if they are 'responsible' they will have saved etc.

    The UKLP website says that they want to remove state pensions and encourage people to save for themselves. FFS, don't they realise that plenty of people in minimum wage jobs can scarcely afford to provide for their families from day to day, let alone save for pensions?

    What about lone parents who can't get a job and look after their children at the same time? What about the disabled who simply cannot work?

    People who criticise libertarianism are not necessarily communists. But there is a balance to be struck in any humane society. Allowing some people to starve 'free' in the street while others are buying their fifth Mercedes is not a respectable position to take.

    You saved me writing a reply. . . I agree 100% with you!! XxX
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by favh)
    Suppose we abolished all present land holdings and redistributed them 'equally' (I'm not sure this is actually meaningful - how much desert is worth an acre of steppe? - but whatever). We come back in fifty years, do you think they'll still be equal? I think it's fairly obvious that they won't, but, as your initial justification for redistributing the land was unjust acquisition in the past, that no longer holds, so you surely have to accept this new inequality?

    Personally I do accept that much land was probably stolen. I do however think that the regular burden of proof would have to be observed in returning any such land. That said, I don't think it's nearly as big a problem as you do. As DH says, the vast majority of wealth produced today does not derive from pure land holdings.
    Well, are you at least recognising that private property generates a problem for wider liberty in the way I've characterised it? If you do then we should at least consider some more equitable solutions, if not then we're forever in circles. Personally I think the solution is less about distribution of land than about equitable benefit from it, problematic maybe, but the real world isn't simple.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Well, are you at least recognising that private property generates a problem for wider liberty in the way I've characterised it? If you do then we should at least consider some more equitable solutions, if not then we're forever in circles. Personally I think the solution is less about distribution of land than about equitable benefit from it, problematic maybe, but the real world isn't simple.
    That's just it, all your talk of 'land' is really a front: you don't care about access to land, but rather about equality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Well, are you at least recognising that private property generates a problem for wider liberty in the way I've characterised it?
    No - in fact, what you're replying to is nothing to do with that; alleged past land theft would result in an unjust distribution under the private property system as well. As far as I can tell, you didn't make any relevant defence of that 'distribution of liberties' stuff in that post.

    If you do then we should at least consider some more equitable solutions, if not then we're forever in circles. Personally I think the solution is less about distribution of land than about equitable benefit from it, problematic maybe, but the real world isn't simple.
    Presumably if I have an entitlement to a certain 'benefit' from land (a Georgist land dividend, for instance), then I have the right to sell it on? If so, I don't see any difference. If not, how do you justify preventing this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Wow - I'd like to know where you can get a 4 bedroom house for £450 a month.
    I rented a house with friends for £450 in Basford, Nottingham. Now I live in Sneinton and there is a house down the road going for £99 a week inclusive.

    I'm looking for a similar size house and I can't find much below £1000, certainly not £800. Also, £60 a week on food would be rations.
    It would not. I live on between £15 and £20 on food a week, and there are economies in scale for food buying (it is cheaper to buy for four people than for four people to buy for themselves). If I lived on rations I would be a different shape!

    Just as an example: £2.40 for mince, £1.20 for four cans of tomatos, 32p for four onions (actually £1 for a bag of twelve), a bulb of garlic for 40p, a carrot for 16p, two sticks of cellery for 20p, four vegetable stock cubes at 24p, 4 beef stock at the same, a splash of oil, say 2p, a dash of salt, and a pack of spaghetti at 50p. That is a total of £5.68 for four servings of spaghetti bolognese. (I may add a cheap can of wine, which would raise it £1.20 and perhaps some parmesan for maybe 80p). Three cheese and tomato pizzas for 99p, some chorizo for £1.30, and 10p of extra greated cheese on each would be £4.57. That brings the total to 7 meals for £10.25. Not a terribly wide variety, of course, but you could halve the bolognese and do something else. Two loaves of bread for 80p, a tub of marge for 50p, some cold meats for £2. That is a weeks lunches sorted for £3.30. Four pints of milk for £1.20 and some muesli for 46p is breakfasts for £1.66. A bottle of squash would be 60p. That is a weeks worth of food for £16.41. (Ooops, forgot Italian seasoning. Add 40p, so we are at £16.41)

    48p for bacon, 80p for a tub of creme freche, 60p for 6 eggs. 40p for two courgettes, 60p for some pancetta lardons, 16p for two onions, 20p for garlic, 10p for celery, 8p for a carrot and a pack of tagliatelli for 99p, and 12p for two vegetable stock cubes. That's £4.61 for tagliatelli carbonara to replace two spaghetti bologneses.

    Even as a impoverished student I still spent £20 a week on food. Also you ignore bills of ~£100 a month. By quick mental arithmetic, that leaves ~£200 a month with conservative estimates.
    My rent is very low, I have a bargain, at £175 a month for a pretty big room, exclusive of bills. I give the landlord £75 a month for bills, but that is usually to much and he returns, say £75 a quarter. My brother, in Liverpool, rented an attic room for £250 inclusive. Perhaps, though, £300 is more realistic. (Check Nottingham here). That still means food and shelter sorted in 16 hours work at minimum wage. Get those hours up to 20 and you can have pocket money, too... halve it and you can get less pocket money and some extensive coverage medical insurance!

    Day care costs almost as much a persons salary. Creches are similarly expensive
    Under the status quo or under libertarianism. Under libertarianism day care and creches would be unlicensed. This should mean more of them, at lower prices. On the other hand, savings would be greater, capital accumulation great, productivity greater, so real wages would be greater. This would mean an increased likeihood of creches in the workplace, as well as the affordability of others.

    However, the absence of a welfare state should, for precisely the reasons you are implying, mean fewer people having kids whilst they are living on a very low income, and more people starting families later, when they have increased their chances of supporting themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Interestingly enough, the people arguing against Richard A Garner claiming that prices are too high are arguing a Libertarian argument: namely, the one against inflation. Looking at the way the money supply has been increased, I think it's disingenuous to say that Libertarianism is flawed because things are too expensive for poor people to afford when etatists have been the ones that have claimed vast increases in the money supply are desirable.
    Agreed. Real income would be greater, too, firstly because there would be greater productivity (freer economies have higher growth, and high growth correlates with higher incomes), which would be a result of greater capital accumulation (increased savings etc.). Secondly, though, because of increased opportunity thanks to the removal of regulatory obstacles. And thirdly, because of the removal of regulations that make it harder for businesses to compete with established firms for labour, or for business.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nice graph. I like this one: it's basically an argument why Rawlsians should have no problem with the USA in graph format.



    Actually this one is pretty awesome as well:

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    But DH, Austrians don't know maths... I thought you knew we didn't use graphs :wink2:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    But DH, Austrians don't know maths... I thought you knew we didn't use graphs :wink2:
    Oh **** :facepalm: better chuck that maths degree away, too...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    But DH, Austrians don't know maths... I thought you knew we didn't use graphs :wink2:
    Lol! Actually, though, Rothbard uses two graphs in Power and Market when discussing price controls. They are of supply and demand curves. Also I saw an academic piece by Walter Block and there was so much maths in that I couldn't make head nor tail, although he did say that in that section he was providing neo-classical proof of his position in addition to Austrian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Oh **** :facepalm: better chuck that maths degree away, too...
    Rothbard's first degree was in Maths, I believe.

    David Friedman teaches economics and law and has no qualification in either: His degrees are in physics!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Rothbard's first degree was in Maths, I believe.

    David Friedman teaches economics and law and has no qualification in either: His degrees are in physics!
    Milton Friedman's son > PhD in economics.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Nice graph. I like this one: it's basically an argument why Rawlsians should have no problem with the USA in graph format.



    Actually this one is pretty awesome as well:

    *cough* one of the worst gini coefficients *cough*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    *cough* one of the worst gini coefficients *cough*
    Rats, I am away from home, otherwise I would have my copy of Norberg's In Defense of Global Capitalism at hand and I could beat you on those gini coefficients too.

    Although, that is simply a measure of equality, and equality is not that big a deal. I mean, is a society where everybody starves equally better than one where only some people starve? Better to be poor in the US than poor in Africa.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Rats, I am away from home, otherwise I would have my copy of Norberg's In Defense of Global Capitalism at hand and I could beat you on those gini coefficients too.

    Although, that is simply a measure of equality, and equality is not that big a deal. I mean, is a society where everybody starves equally better than one where only some people starve? Better to be poor in the US than poor in Africa.
    The point (which he appears to truly have missed) is that Rawlsians shouldn't care about the Gini coefficient. It's the welfare of the worst-off that matters - and the bottom 10% in the US are better off than the bottom 10% in Sweden. Thus, Rawlsians should have no problem with US style capitalism.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 10, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.