Wojtek:
> I do not think that we disagree much on this issue, albeit I think you
> overestimate the power of business in EU. Yes, they are making inroads,
> because globalization gavet them upper hand over labor. But follow the
> money trail. In most EU countries, social welfare expenditure are still 25
> - 30 percent of the GDP (in Scandinavia even more), while in the US - it is
> only about 16%. So let's talk about neo-liberal taking over EU when this
> percentage does down to the US level.
I'm sure LBO has debated this issue, so I won't repeat it. But it should be stressed that with almost all welfare-state programs, the working class pays the taxes that finance the programs.
> > I don't understand why you like to insult straw men so often. Do you
> > think that anyone on lbo-talk fits this model of having no concept of
> > the collective and the public good, being incapable of seeing the
> > forest among the trees, and thus fancying himself or herself with
> > illusions of individualism?
> I think some people do - they are individualists and they hate big
> institutions, albeit they believe that individuals can create "just" order
> ex nihilo by sheer power of their will as soon as the current institutions
> are smashed into pieces. I think that most Americans believe in that tripe,
> and ideological differences are merely different seat arrangements on the
> deck of the Titanic. Normally, I find it silly and do not pay much
> attention to it, but from time I find it mildly irritating and depressing.
> Hence the straw men insulting.
You need to learn to mobilize perceived facts, logical argumentation, and the like to argue against the opinions you oppose. Insults don't help, except to produce more heat than light.
> > The whole issue of the "public good" is problematic. Who determines
> > what it is?
> Oh, I think neoclassicals worked that out pretty well. It is the goods
> whose consumption is non-excludable and non-rival i.e. ones that are
> available to everyone regardless of his ability or willingness to pay (say,
> unpolluted environment) and ones whose consumption by one person does > > not diminish the utility of another.
That's public goods. What you were talking about is _the_ public good or _the_ public interest. In economics, it used to be described by a social welfare function.
>... Stated differently, they [the neoclassicals] believe that goods
are public because they are non-excludable and non-rival (by nature),
whereas I would argue that the opposite is true. Goods are
non-excludable and non-rival because they were made public by the
authority that oversees their distribution. This, I believe is also
consistent with the Marxist position, no?<
I don't know what the Marxian position is. But on my position, see http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/HLR.html. It also deals with the question of _the_ public good: it can't be defined consistently in a class society. -- Jim Devine "living a life of quiet desperation -- but always with style!"