State of the Union 2014

[Jacob]

Why are you excluding transfer recipients?

Because it's exogenous.  It's a choice, not a result of an economic policy.

Totally not true. Transfer policy is an integral part of economic policy, both because it costs money and because it sets the context for how the economy functions.

Secondly, if we are discussing whether people are better off after a transition from command to market economy, excluding transfer recipients skews the data. Giving up the iron rice bowl most definitely has impacted pensioners without family support, for example, as well as those who failed to take advantage (or were screwed out of their alleged share) of the transition from command housing to private. Getting a few thousand RMB and a beating in exchange for your apartment or house so a connected developer can build a mall or whatever is not an improvement compared to having guaranteed housing for life.

Thirdly, excluding transfer recipients makes any comparison impossible since pretty much all social strata - including those benefitting from the transition to a free market - received transfers one way or the other in the command economy.

Anyhow, in China the uneducated rural poor are likely worse off after the free market reforms than they were before.

The uneducated rural poor are all making a billion times their former income slapping together iPhones.

No, not at all. Those are migrant workers. Millions and millions still remain in the countryside in poverty, and if they don't have migrant worker relatives to support them they are not better off than they would have been a few decades ago.

Besides, having an entire generation of rural children being raised seeing their parents only a week or two every few years if that is not particularly "better off" even of they do receive a Mickey Mouse branded jacket (counterfeit) on that occasion.

I'm not arguing that in aggregate the Chinese people have not benefitted from the transition to the free market system; they have. Hundreds of millions are materially better off than they were and would have been. But not every strata, those poor who remain in countryside and are unable to to take advantage of the urban economic progress are not better off; and if they are worse off, it is partially because of the deterioration of the previous transfer system, and partially because the value and/or their share of of the product of their labour has significantly deteriorated under the free market.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm not arguing that in aggregate the Chinese people have not benefitted from the transition to the free market system; they have. Hundreds of millions are materially better off than they were and would have been. But not every strata, those poor who remain in countryside and are unable to to take advantage of the urban economic progress are not better off; and if they are worse off, it is partially because of the deterioration of the previous transfer system, and partially because the value and/or their share of of the product of their labour has significantly deteriorated under the free market.

The Chinese have forsaken the path of the Party that Chairman Mao had laid before them, and it is coming back to haunt them.

[Admiral Yi]

Totally not true. Transfer policy is an integral part of economic policy, both because it costs money and because it sets the context for how the economy functions.

You give the impression of someone who responded without reading my post.  I said transfers are not a result of policy; you could have massive transfers in a market economy and zero transfers in a command economy.  It's a choice that's not determined by the economic system.

Thirdly, excluding transfer recipients makes any comparison impossible since pretty much all social strata - including those benefitting from the transition to a free market - received transfers one way or the other in the command economy.

How so?  What kind of transfers did Ivan the soldier or Boris the miner get under communism?

No, not at all. Those are migrant workers. Millions and millions still remain in the countryside in poverty, and if they don't have migrant worker relatives to support them they are not better off than they would have been a few decades ago.

Source?

Besides, having an entire generation of rural children being raised seeing their parents only a week or two every few years if that is not particularly "better off" even of they do receive a Mickey Mouse branded jacket (counterfeit) on that occasion.

Yet when given the choice between breaking their backs in a rice paddy their whole lives and spending quality time with their child, they chose to slap together iPhones for money.  Do you know better than a billion Chinese what's best for them?

[CountDeMoney]

Do you know better than a billion Chinese what's best for them?

I do.

[Admiral Yi]

I wasn't talking to you.

[Jacob]

The Chinese have forsaken the path of the Party that Chairman Mao had laid before them, and it is coming back to haunt them.

Fuck Chairman Mao.

[CountDeMoney]

I wasn't talking to your wife.

[Jacob]

I wasn't talking to your wife.

Good call.

[Jacob]

You give the impression of someone who responded without reading my post.  I said transfers are not a result of policy; you could have massive transfers in a market economy and zero transfers in a command economy.  It's a choice that's not determined by the economic system.

My mistake. It seemed to me that you were conflating the command economies with transfers, and using the flaws of the former to dismiss the latter. If you are not, then most of this tangent is rendered moot.

How so?  What kind of transfers did Ivan the soldier or Boris the miner get under communism?

I can't speak to the Soviet Union, but in China guaranteed housing and food allotments were part of the Communist system; as were guaranteed employment for graduates.

No, not at all. Those are migrant workers. Millions and millions still remain in the countryside in poverty, and if they don't have migrant worker relatives to support them they are not better off than they would have been a few decades ago.

Source?

For which bit? The existence of millions and millions of non-migrant worker rural poor? For the shittiness of their conditions? Or are you looking for statistically rigorous breakdown of changes in purchasing power and consumption of uneducated Chinese rural poor people in the last four decades?

Yet when given the choice between breaking their backs in a rice paddy their whole lives and spending quality time with their child, they chose to slap together iPhones for money.  Do you know better than a billion Chinese what's best for them?

I didn't claim that. I claimed that having millions of kids growing up without their parents is not a good thing by most definitions, even if economical pressure makes it the rational choice. If you do read some of the stories and sentiments of migrant workers separated from their kids, it certainly seems to cause significant anguish.

I'll also note that there are not a billion Chinese migrant workers.

Let me ask you a question - what is it about the assertion than the uneducated rural poor in China may be worse off under China's free market reforms than they were previously that you find so dubious?

[Admiral Yi]

Or are you looking for statistically rigorous breakdown of changes in purchasing power and consumption of uneducated Chinese rural poor people in the last four decades?

Or even an unrigorous one.

I didn't claim that. I claimed that having millions of kids growing up without their parents is not a good thing by most definitions, even if economical pressure makes it the rational choice. If you do read some of the stories and sentiments of migrant workers separated from their kids, it certainly seems to cause significant anguish.

Since you mentioned in the context of defending the claim that rural, uneducated Chinese are worse off, I figured the point about separation from children had, you know, something to do with the topic.

Let me ask you a question - what is it about the assertion than the uneducated rural poor in China may be worse off under China's free market reforms than they were previously that you find so dubious?

They have access to an entire array of consumer goods that they did not before.  They're living in a country that has experienced gigantic income growth, and, as part of that growth, has seen increased demand for agricultural products.  That would tend to drive up farm income.  They're also living in a country that has spend vast sums modernizing its transportation infrastructure; that would tend to drive down the cost and time to get goods to market and also increase farm income.

[Berkut]

I believe there are elements of faith and wishful thinking to all ideological systems.  Principally I was angry at Berkut, like I said.

So you admit that your response is driven by your anger, and yet that anger comes from me pointing out that your responses have not really been based on rational thinking, but on faith and emotion?

Hmmm, interesting....

[CountDeMoney]

And Berkut knows anger.  He's on his third keyboard this month, yet another victim to his Oven Mitts of Malice.

[Valmy]

And Berkut knows anger.  He's on his third keyboard this month, yet another victim to his Oven Mitts of Malice.

I was hoping the Arizona Basketball team would have led to a gentler and happier Berkut.

[Berkut]

Did you watch that game last night?

Nothing that is going to make me gentler or happier. I don't care how supremely talented Aaron Gordon might be, he has to figure out how to hit the fucking front end of a one and one! 48% free throw shooting. Fuck that noise.

[garbon]

Did I miss this getting posted?

Jimmy Kimmel Asked People How The State Of The Union Was Even Though It Hadn't Happened Yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kWI58bgdVfw