Please don't insult my intelligence. I asked questions to have a larger debate about values, not sling mud at the President. Just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I hate Obama or accuse him of things he has not yet done.

That being said, many conservatives hate the bankers. Most of us were against a bailout without restrictions. DOn't confuse the politicians who need campaign contributions with actual people. But most of the "wealthy" are not bankers and don't work on WS. They are people who built their own companies mostly small business owners, they are risk takers who saw a need for a product or service and went for it because America is great like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:

What do you mean by "social justice"?

What is enough "equality"?

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?

Love to hear the answers.

OP, I grew up in a country that has a bona fide socialist party so it's really funny to hear people in this country call Obama a socialist. Shows that they indeed have no clue about socialism.
As far as American exceptionalism is concerned, I believe in it: this country is exceptionally dynamic, exceptionally open to outsiders, exceptionally law-abiding, exceptionally arrogant, exceptionally ignorant of outside perspectives, etc.

To answer your questions:

Social justice: how about the utilitarian definition, which is "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Enough equality: corresponds to a Gini coefficient somewhere between .25 and .4

Fairness: achieved when the marginal utility of that extra dollar that the rich person gets to keep equals the marginal utility of that dollar to the poor person to whom it could be redistributed. You could hypothetically measure the marginal rate of substitution of that dollar against leisure time for instance? So if a very wealthy person and a very poor one are told that they can each give up one minute of their leisure time for a dollar, you measure how much each is willing to give up to see how much should be redistributed from the very rich one to the poor one. It's a crude example, but you get the general idea.

Now we're talking. As I stated in my post I believe he's socialist but due to our system of government he can't enact and fully Change our country. But he sure would love to.

The problem with that wealth distribution is that it doesn't take in to effect that wealthy person did more to achieve that monetary value than a poor person. I hear liberals saying "you can't legislate morality", well you can't legislate economic equality.

So, to you, wealth redistribution is socialism?

Setting aside the inaccuracy of that definition, I view it more pragmatically. Commerce work best when there is a stronger middle class. Also, gross inequality will eventually lead to civil unrest, as the Occupy movement hints at. One of these days those ninnies are going to get smart and stop demonstrating against the stock exchange when they're angry at the bankers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:

What do you mean by "social justice"?

What is enough "equality"?

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?

Love to hear the answers.

OP, I grew up in a country that has a bona fide socialist party so it's really funny to hear people in this country call Obama a socialist. Shows that they indeed have no clue about socialism.
As far as American exceptionalism is concerned, I believe in it: this country is exceptionally dynamic, exceptionally open to outsiders, exceptionally law-abiding, exceptionally arrogant, exceptionally ignorant of outside perspectives, etc.

To answer your questions:

Social justice: how about the utilitarian definition, which is "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Enough equality: corresponds to a Gini coefficient somewhere between .25 and .4

Fairness: achieved when the marginal utility of that extra dollar that the rich person gets to keep equals the marginal utility of that dollar to the poor person to whom it could be redistributed. You could hypothetically measure the marginal rate of substitution of that dollar against leisure time for instance? So if a very wealthy person and a very poor one are told that they can each give up one minute of their leisure time for a dollar, you measure how much each is willing to give up to see how much should be redistributed from the very rich one to the poor one. It's a crude example, but you get the general idea.

+1 and +1 more for eloquence.

OP is probably one of these people who thinks Obama bailed out the banks. He also thinks Obama has raised taxes (on net he's cut them -- by a lot)

George W. Bush acted in a more socialist manner than this president has ever even suggested doing.

BTW, OP, what do you think socialism is?

I would say that the ditch diggers who make minimum wage work harder than the white collar dude making 6 figures.

Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:

What do you mean by "social justice"?

What is enough "equality"?

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?

Love to hear the answers.

How do you think Jesus answers those questions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:

What do you mean by "social justice"?

What is enough "equality"?

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?

Love to hear the answers.

OP, I grew up in a country that has a bona fide socialist party so it's really funny to hear people in this country call Obama a socialist. Shows that they indeed have no clue about socialism.
As far as American exceptionalism is concerned, I believe in it: this country is exceptionally dynamic, exceptionally open to outsiders, exceptionally law-abiding, exceptionally arrogant, exceptionally ignorant of outside perspectives, etc.

To answer your questions:

Social justice: how about the utilitarian definition, which is "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Enough equality: corresponds to a Gini coefficient somewhere between .25 and .4

Fairness: achieved when the marginal utility of that extra dollar that the rich person gets to keep equals the marginal utility of that dollar to the poor person to whom it could be redistributed. You could hypothetically measure the marginal rate of substitution of that dollar against leisure time for instance? So if a very wealthy person and a very poor one are told that they can each give up one minute of their leisure time for a dollar, you measure how much each is willing to give up to see how much should be redistributed from the very rich one to the poor one. It's a crude example, but you get the general idea.

Now we're talking. As I stated in my post I believe he's socialist but due to our system of government he can't enact and fully Change our country. But he sure would love to.

The problem with that wealth distribution is that it doesn't take in to effect that wealthy person did more to achieve that monetary value than a poor person. I hear liberals saying "you can't legislate morality", well you can't legislate economic equality.

I wouldn't say Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton did more to achieve their monetary value than say a nurse, teacher, social worker or police man, would you? Or maybe you mean people like the CEO of Monsanto, who is worth billions by working so hard to screw the natural world.

Fairness, justice, equality are standard English terms that have grown and changed through the centuries, not academic concepts that can be precisely defined. Most of us recognize them much more easily in their absence.

Socialism has a much more specific meaning, or at least it did until the right hijacked it and turned it into a pejorative term for any policy they (including OP) disagree with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:

What do you mean by "social justice"?

What is enough "equality"?

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?

Love to hear the answers.

OP, I grew up in a country that has a bona fide socialist party so it's really funny to hear people in this country call Obama a socialist. Shows that they indeed have no clue about socialism.
As far as American exceptionalism is concerned, I believe in it: this country is exceptionally dynamic, exceptionally open to outsiders, exceptionally law-abiding, exceptionally arrogant, exceptionally ignorant of outside perspectives, etc.

To answer your questions:

Social justice: how about the utilitarian definition, which is "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Enough equality: corresponds to a Gini coefficient somewhere between .25 and .4

Fairness: achieved when the marginal utility of that extra dollar that the rich person gets to keep equals the marginal utility of that dollar to the poor person to whom it could be redistributed. You could hypothetically measure the marginal rate of substitution of that dollar against leisure time for instance? So if a very wealthy person and a very poor one are told that they can each give up one minute of their leisure time for a dollar, you measure how much each is willing to give up to see how much should be redistributed from the very rich one to the poor one. It's a crude example, but you get the general idea.

Now we're talking. As I stated in my post I believe he's socialist but due to our system of government he can't enact and fully Change our country. But he sure would love to.

The problem with that wealth distribution is that it doesn't take in to effect that wealthy person did more to achieve that monetary value than a poor person. I hear liberals saying "you can't legislate morality", well you can't legislate economic equality.

You are saying that the wealthy person deserves every penny he or she earned by virtue of having worked harder. I think if that were strictly the case then your argument would be justified.
However, you are assuming that the wealthy person achieved this wealth solely by virtue of his or her own effort, absent superior starting advantages (better education, better connections, etc.) or simply better luck. That sometimes happens, but far less than we are led to believe.

You are assuming a fair playing field , but the last five years have displayed in plain sight the type of crony capitalism that is widely practiced in this country, the financial industry being its prime example.

You are assuming that the wealthy person's economic activity has a value that is intrinsically higher--i.e., it is more beneficial to society--that the poor person's. I would argue that if a lot of these young financial engineers out of Wharton (full disclosure: I have an MBA from an Ivy so it's not like I begrudge them their creds) had become garbage men over the last decade, the country would be in a far better place.

You are assuming that the wealthy person works (!) when our system rewards rentiers who have never lifted a finger in their life and are just living off a trust fund with a 15% tax on capital gains, lower than the tax on work for a good proportion of the population.

And you can legislate higher equality. Scandinavian countries have done it successfully for decades, and at this point they rank higher than we do on most measures of development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:

What do you mean by "social justice"?

What is enough "equality"?

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?

Love to hear the answers.

OP, I grew up in a country that has a bona fide socialist party so it's really funny to hear people in this country call Obama a socialist. Shows that they indeed have no clue about socialism.
As far as American exceptionalism is concerned, I believe in it: this country is exceptionally dynamic, exceptionally open to outsiders, exceptionally law-abiding, exceptionally arrogant, exceptionally ignorant of outside perspectives, etc.

To answer your questions:

Social justice: how about the utilitarian definition, which is "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Enough equality: corresponds to a Gini coefficient somewhere between .25 and .4

Fairness: achieved when the marginal utility of that extra dollar that the rich person gets to keep equals the marginal utility of that dollar to the poor person to whom it could be redistributed. You could hypothetically measure the marginal rate of substitution of that dollar against leisure time for instance? So if a very wealthy person and a very poor one are told that they can each give up one minute of their leisure time for a dollar, you measure how much each is willing to give up to see how much should be redistributed from the very rich one to the poor one. It's a crude example, but you get the general idea.

Now we're talking. As I stated in my post I believe he's socialist but due to our system of government he can't enact and fully Change our country. But he sure would love to.

The problem with that wealth distribution is that it doesn't take in to effect that wealthy person did more to achieve that monetary value than a poor person. I hear liberals saying "you can't legislate morality", well you can't legislate economic equality.

Anonymous wrote:Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:

What do you mean by "social justice"?

What is enough "equality"?

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?

Love to hear the answers.

OP, I grew up in a country that has a bona fide socialist party so it's really funny to hear people in this country call Obama a socialist. Shows that they indeed have no clue about socialism.
As far as American exceptionalism is concerned, I believe in it: this country is exceptionally dynamic, exceptionally open to outsiders, exceptionally law-abiding, exceptionally arrogant, exceptionally ignorant of outside perspectives, etc.

To answer your questions:

Social justice: how about the utilitarian definition, which is "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Enough equality: corresponds to a Gini coefficient somewhere between .25 and .4

Fairness: achieved when the marginal utility of that extra dollar that the rich person gets to keep equals the marginal utility of that dollar to the poor person to whom it could be redistributed. You could hypothetically measure the marginal rate of substitution of that dollar against leisure time for instance? So if a very wealthy person and a very poor one are told that they can each give up one minute of their leisure time for a dollar, you measure how much each is willing to give up to see how much should be redistributed from the very rich one to the poor one. It's a crude example, but you get the general idea.

Anonymous wrote:The actual socialists I know laugh hysterically when they hear anyone say they think Obama's a Socialist.

Exactly!

The actual socialists I know laugh hysterically when they hear anyone say they think Obama's a Socialist.

OP, you have no idea what Socialism is if you think Obama is a socialist. That's pure stupidity and ignorance on your part.

I'm not a liberal - I am a solutionist. Neither Dem or Rep.

Answers off-the-top-of-my-head...

What do you mean by "social justice"? I would think the term means a society that sees value in fostering opportunity for everyone to live a decent life.

What is enough "equality"? Being fair.

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"? I am not sure that there is a specific standard(s). But I think the principle behind fairness is that people should treat each other with decency and respect.

I do not believe that there is anything wrong with working toward leveling the "playing field" of opportunities for all. This'll create more competition and ingenuity. Nothing wrong (right or left) about that.

Before we start I'll admit I truly believe that Obama is a socialist who does not believe in American execptionalism. I also believe if he had his way he would radically change this country. That being said I don't think he's been able to do much. But here are my questions:

What do you mean by "social justice"?

What is enough "equality"?

By what objective standard does one test "fairness"?

Love to hear the answers.