Education, healthcare and legal services

[zinnat]

Again, it's already survived in the U.S. for 200 years, so I still find myself wondering how long is 'long'. Apparently not in our lifetimes, which means you don't have to worry about being proven wrong, which is always nice.

Ucci, i do not want to offend you but i am sorry to say that you do not know enough about the economic history of your own country. Your perception is based on your liking/disliking, instead of actual historical facts. Allow me to take you through the economic history of US of last two centuries.

The true America came into existence only in the later half of 18th century from the American revolution. Before it, there were mere British colonies in it thus it is useless to go beyond that.

The American Revolution (1775–1783) brought a dedication to unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, which emphasize individual liberty and economic entrepreneurship, and simultaneously a commitment to the political values of liberalism and republicanism, which emphasize natural rights, equality under the law for all citizens, civic virtue and duty, and promotion of the general welfare

Ucci, look very carefully to this mission statement of your forefathers, in the context of economy. They used the words like liberalism, civic virtue and duty and promotion of general welfare. Do I need to tell you for what these terms stand?

Secondly, as I said before, capitalism never survived for 200 years, simply because it never existed in its true form for 200 years. It was/is always dependent on crutches of other ideologies, because it always needed help in its adversaries, which tend to follow it often.

Merely some decades after becoming a complete nation, US economy had to faced two recessions in the early 19th century.

Now, look at this, what happened in the middle of 19th century -

  Land grants went to railroad construction companies to open up the western plains and link up to California. Together with the free lands provided farmers by the Homestead Law the low-cost farm lands provided by the land grants speeded up the expansion of commercial agriculture. 

This was right step as it not only pulled US out or recession but paved way for the commercialisation of agricultural products.

But Ucci, can you explain me how these land grants to rail companies and small farmers were different from your understanding of socialism? Did your forefathers then made mistake by giving free lands to small farmers?

And, what happen to your claim of survival of the capitalism for 200 years? How does this incident fit in your definition of capitalism?

US again faced two more recessions in the last period of 19th century. The later one is considered very severe and the most prolonged one in the history of US. This recession continued even in the first decade of the next century and forced US to shift from completely free economy/market version of capitalism. This era is called " Progressive Era ".

In the early years of American history, just like you, most political leaders were reluctant to involve the federal government too heavily in the private sector, except in the area of transportation. In general, they accepted the concept of laissez-faire, a doctrine opposing government interference in the economy except to maintain law and order. This attitude started to change during the latter part of the 19th century, when small business, farm, and labor movements began asking the government to intercede on their behalf.   

And, US left pure capitalism forever, when Federal Reserve established in 1913. Income tax was also imposed in US for the first time.

By the start of the 20th century, a middle class had developed that was leery of both the business elite and the somewhat radical political movements of farmers and laborers in the Midwest and West. Known as Progressives, these people favored government regulation of business practices to, in their minds, ensure competition and free enterprise. Congress enacted a law regulating railroads in 1887 (the Interstate Commerce Act), and one preventing large firms from controlling a single industry in 1890 (the Sherman Antitrust Act). These laws were not rigorously enforced, however, until the years between 1900 and 1920, when Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909), Democrat President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921), and others sympathetic to the views of the Progressives came to power. Many of today’s U.S. regulatory agencies were created during these years, including the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

The following testimony was delivered before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, chaired by Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), in Washington, D.C. on August 2, 2012 -

Central-banking authorities were given the power and responsibility to manage the gold reserves at their disposal and the quantity of notes and other bank deposit claims outstanding to maintain the soundness of the monetary system and to counteract various short-term fluctuations in the national currency’s foreign-exchange rate, the balance of payments, and the quantity of financial credit available in the country’s economy. Their policy “tools” included manipulation of short-term interest rates and the buying and selling of private-sector bills of trade and securities.

While the goals for monetary policy may have been considered modest and limited in the eyes of the classical liberals of the nineteenth century, it remained a fact that the monetary system was a subject for national government policy. In an era of relatively unrestricted free-market capitalism, money and the monetary system were a “nationalized industry.” And as such, even most of the advocates of economic liberty argued for monetary socialism and monetary central planning. They failed to call for and defend the privatization of the most important commodity in a market economy – the medium of exchange.

What they forgot was that once a government has control and responsibility for the monetary system within a country, little was outside the power of that government to influence and manipulate. This was clearly stated by a prominent German economist named Gustav Stolper while a refugee in the United States from war-torn Europe during the Second World War:

“Hardly ever do the advocates of free capitalism realize how utterly their ideal was frustrated at the moment the state assumed control of the monetary system . . . A “free” capitalism with government responsibility for money and credit has lost its innocence. From that point on it is no longer a matter of principle but one of expediency how far one wishes or permits governmental interference to go. Money control is the supreme and most comprehensive of all government controls short of expropriation.”

As a result, when economic collectivism, socialism, and interventionism gained popularity and power in the early decades of the twentieth century, money was the one area in which the central-planning ideal was already triumphant. For a hundred years, now, in the United States it had been taken for granted that the state should have either direct or indirect monopoly control over the supply of money in the market.

In the nearly one hundred years since the First World War, the goals assigned to monetary central planning changed, but the instrument for their application remained the same.

Ucci, you can see that I am not punching in the air. The experts of your country share my opinion that US migrated to controlled economy from free economy permanently since the establishment of fed.

Folks do not understand this but Adam Smith’s premise of the invisible hand, on which the capitalism was rooted, becomes mere a showpiece when state controls both of fiscal and monetary policies. It gives indirect control to the state to run and shape the economy. Mere one decision either from fed or the state, cause the rise or the fall of any industry and economy.

Economy kept in good shape more or less till the great depression of 1930, which was caused by private bank failures.

In 1929–33 the economy was destabilized by bank failures. The initial reasons were substantial losses in investment banking, followed by bank runs. Bank runs occurred when a large number of customers lost confidence in their deposits (which were not insured) and rushed to withdraw their deposits. Runs destabilized many banks to the point where they faced bankruptcy. Between 1929 and 1933 40% of all banks (9,490 out of 23,697 banks) went bankrupt. Much of the Great Depression's economic damage was caused directly by bank runs.

Hoover had already considered a bank holiday to prevent further bank runs, but rejected the idea because he was afraid to trip a panic. Roosevelt acted as soon as he took office; he closed all the banks in the country and kept them all closed until he could pass new legislation. On March 9, Roosevelt sent to Congress the Emergency Banking Act, drafted in large part by Hoover’s top advisors. The act was passed and signed into law the same day. It provided for a system of reopening sound banks under Treasury supervision, with federal loans available if needed. Three-quarters of the banks in the Federal Reserve System reopened within the next three days. Billions of dollars in hoarded currency and gold flowed back into them within a month, thus stabilizing the banking system. By the end of 1933, 4,004 small local banks were permanently closed and merged into larger banks. Their deposits totalled $3.6 billion; depositors lost a total of $540 million, and eventually received on average 85 cents on the dollar of their deposits; it is a common myth that they received nothing back. The Glass–Steagall Act limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms to regulate speculations. It also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insured deposits for up to $250,000, ended the risk of runs on banks.

Ucci, you can see that to which extent US state went to regulate and bail out private banks. Yet, you are claiming that there was free market/economy in the US since last 200 years!

WW 2 helped US economy instead of hurting it and later period saw all around development and growth, and so the Keynesianism.

 Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. Especially important in formulating the CEA response to the recession—accelerating public works programs, easing credit, and reducing taxes—were Arthur F. Burns and Neil H. Jacoby. ""I am now a Keynesian in economics", proclaimed Republican President Richard Nixon in 1969  

Look carefully what your president Nixxon said above. But, as happens in the most of the cases, US failed to realize the limit and went into overdrive with the controls and regulations, which lead to troubles in the last quarter of the century. Then, Ronald Reagan tried to maintain the balance by some necessary deregulations, and that helped too. Economy came back on the track. But, the problem with the mankind is that it never learns from the history and keeps repeating the same mistakes again and again. US again overplayed Reaganomics and that lead to mortgage buble some years back, where financial institutions were running high on illusionary profits which were only on the paper. Since then, fed is trying hard to improve the economy through repeated stimulus packages, which are again the direct interference of the state in the economy.

In 2008, a series of related economic disasters hit the American and European financial systems. The bursting of a worldwide bubble in housing set the recession in motion. The end of housing bubbles in California, Florida and Arizona led to the collapse of housing prices and the shrinkage of construction sector. Millions of mortgages (averaging about $200,000 each) had been bundled into securities called collateralized debt obligations that were resold worldwide. Many banks and hedge funds had borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to buy these securities, which were now “toxic” because their value was unknown and no one wanted to buy them.

A series of the largest banks in the U.S. and Europe collapsed; some went bankrupt, such as Lehman Brothers with $690 billion in assets; others such as the leading insurance company AIG, the leading bank Citigroup, and the two largest mortgage companies were bailed out by the government. Congress voted $700 billion in bailout money, and the Treasury and Federal Reserve committed trillions of dollars to shoring up the financial system, but the measures did not reverse the declines. Banks drastically tightened their lending policies, despite infusions of federal money. The government for the first time took major ownership positions in the largest banks. The stock market plunged 40%, wiping out tens of trillions of dollars in wealth; housing prices fell 20% nationwide wiping out trillions more. By late 2008 distress was spreading beyond the financial and housing sectors, especially as the “Big Three” of the automobile industry (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler) were on the verge of bankruptcy, and the retail sector showed major weaknesses. President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in February 2009; the bill provides $787 billion in stimulus through a combination of spending and tax cuts. The plan is largely based on the Keynesian theory that government spending should offset the fall in private spending during an economic downturn; otherwise the fall in private spending may perpetuate itself and productive resources.

Ucci, as all that happened not long ago, you must be heard and remembered that. Your so called capitalism spend 700 billions to bail out private corporations in Bush regime and another 787 billions under Obama. Besides that, fed has been infused 4.5 trillions into US economy since 2009. Yes, you read it right. It is really 4.5 trillions, more than an year federal budget of US.

Yet, you are claiming that capitalism (as you define) successfully survived for last 200 years!

If you are interested in technical terms, the present economic system of US is called “Monetarism”, which is a version of Keynesianism. But, it is not free flowing capitalism by any stretch of imagination, as you claimed.

Of course that’s false. The more control you give your leaders (i.e, letting them build ghettos that the poor have to live in, controlling all medical research, and so on), the more you are relying on them being virtuous and competant.

Ghettos are natural, and bound to happen, whether state owned or private. We do not consider the term ghetto good, but ghetto is just a cluster of likewise people, nothing else. Means, technically, a colony of rich people is also a ghetto. That is different thing that nobody call it such.

But, is it not true that rich people like to have likewise neighbourhood? Why millionaires do not make villas in cheap slums but prefer only costly prime locations? If you were offered a free lone penthouse but just middle in a slum of beggars, would you prefer to live there? I do not think so. You will also prefer any ghetto of whites or rich.

Secondly, it is not capitalism but democracy that gives power to the state. Contrary to general perception, capitalism does not need democracy to survive. Pure (your) capitalism would flourish more in anarchism, as happened in the initial years of merchant capitalism, where profit and power were the only virtues.

So, if you do not want state controls, abolish democracy, because as long as it is there, it has to pay attention to those who need help, whether they are in majority or minority. Yes, it is quite possible that folks may not understand what is really good or bad for them. In that case, a state has to educate and convince its demanding citizens.

  There's two problems there. 

1.) The idea that getting whatever you can and getting what you deserve are the same thing is complete fucking madness. There’s literally no reason to even talk about socialism if you believed such a thing.
2.) You use ‘deserve’ in an entirely other way when talking about people deserving housing, healthcare, and etc.

Ucci, the actual problem is only one from the very start of our discussion, and that is your do not pay enough attention to what is actually said by me.
Secondly, I am not taking any abstract meaning of the deserve, but a very simple and straightforward one, which is; To be entitled to, as a result of past actions; to be worthy to have.

Deserve does not mean either what is desired or what is necessary, though people use it that way too. Deservingness does not entail justification in the way as people think. It has to be earned and one can also deserve some extent beyond his necessities.

Thirdly, most of the poor do not deserve help from the state, they need it, and their need is justified to some extent too.

Let me take a very simple analogy to explain my point. Say, there is a race going on and all types of people are running in it. Some may be tall while some short. Some will run faster than others and thus deserve better places in the final tally. No interference from outside. That is pure (your) capitalism.

My version of capitalism is slightly different. Like you, I also do not want to interfere in the running. Let the running skill of participants decide their place. But, I want a fair race by all means, so I go in the details. Means, all should have proper sport shoes. It should not be case that some were running wearing sport shoes, while some bare foot. That is unfair because it does not provide the level playing field for all participants. The spirit of true competitiveness, on which the capitalism is rooted, is cheated from the very beginning. But, once shoes are provided to all, I also do not want any outside interference. You can name it socialism or whatever you want.

But Ucci, my version of capitalism is not only true and fair, but it will expose the real capacity of all participants; which place they deserve. My proposal of providing those three free basic services and community centres is just for providing shoes to all, not to interfere in the race. I am not sure whether you can still get it or not.

I can barely understand the above, but I’ll try to reply somehow. I am not Capitalism. Me feeling someting is not the same as it being a tenet of capitalism. So for example, I believe Jesus Christ is the risen Son of God. That isn’t a tenet of Capitalism just because I believe it, and I am a capitalist. Capitalism has nothing at all to do with justice or injustice. You are thinking of libertarianism.

Ucci, you still are not getting my intent. I am well aware of these terms and I can tell you that I am not a libertarian by any stretch of imagination. I am in the favor of some restrictions in all aspects of the life, whether social or economical, even if that brings some discomfort to some individuals. That is precisely why I am against homosexuality.

Secondly, I never said that capitalism believe in justice in which way you are interpreting it. I want justice only in ensuring initial level playing field for all participants. That is all. After that, one is free to have what he can get by his capacity and efforts. Naturally, all people will not be able to get the same but I do not mind that either.

You made this thread to reply to me. I can handle technical terms, don’t you worry. It’s important that when you criticize capitalism, you know what the fuck capitalism is, and don’t confuse it with libertarianism, you know?

It would be good if you can handle technical terms but I do not think so. Though it is not your fault as that needs proper education of the subject, which I do not think you have. Economy and budgeting of a country is a quite complex thing. Merely 1-2% can comprehend it completely. Rest can have only have a general idea.

BTW, I know very well what capitalism and libertarianism are, besides what is the meaning of “fuck”, since you seem to be quite obsessed with this term.

I don’t care. Capitalism isn’t a theory of justice and it doesn’t operate under the assumption that everybody gets what they deserve. Those are both preposterous statements regardless of who says them with whatever background.

You care a lot, and you have to, whether you want/like it or not. Till now, you have argued only with such leftists , who only think that they are well aware of all subtleties. That is why they never use technical terms and stats. But, that is not the case with me, as I am neither naive nor a leftist.

   There are plenty of left libertarians and I didn't imply otherwise. Nevertheless, any sort of commentary on what is just and unjust is not coming from capitalism

Addressed already.

 Not even a little bit. I'm just taking you to task for attributing ridiculous things to capitalism which have nothing to do with capitalism or are part of libertarianism instead.  

In that case, why do you not put your understanding of capitalism forth? Let me see what you have.

Eh? You just got done saying there’s a bunch of different kinds of capitalism, what he heck do you mean now by ‘it’s true form’? Are you talking Laissez-faire? Yeah that doesn’t last long, and I don’t care because I don’t support it. Nevertheless, socialists such as yourself have been predicting the downfall of capitaism for centuries, it hasn’t happened yet, and you seem to think it won’t in our lifetimes.

Already addressed that above in this post. Capitalism died in US a century ago in 1913.

But, I want to ask you a question. If you are saying that any version of capitalism is still in practice, which certainly includes many people and even corporate welfare schemes, then for what you are complaining? Is capitalism still on in the US or it is under socialism now? And, since when?

 You don't need to quote wikipedia, you have a Master's degree. Besides, none of this stuff defends or clarifies any of the silly things you said in your last post. I'm simply not interested in the history lesson, it seems to be serving no purpose but for you to try and prove to me how smart you are.  

Firstly, I need to quote some source. It is not because I need those quotes, but you will be first person to question of the validity of my sayings. I have seen you doing that many times in discussions.

Secondly, you may not be interested in a history lesson certainly needs one because you have many misperceptions about what actually happened in the past.

Thirdly, I may not be the smartest person on the earth, but certainly smarter than the majority in the subjects of my interest.

I’m much more interested in you defending somehow the idea that in capitalism, everybody gets what they deserve, or that capitalism makes claims about what is just and unjust.

Already addressed above in this post.

Um, you're the one who wants to get rid of private lawyers, remember? People who can't afford a lawyer already get a state-appointed one for free. If you don't think there's any reason to believe the state appointed ones are worse, what's the point to any of your reforms??!   

I do not prefer any lawyers, not even state owned. I think that jury/judge’s bench should look at the case from both ends on its own. But, it that cannot be possible for practical reasons or some expertise is needed, there should be only state lawyers from both sides. The only reform that I actually want is to put money out of the equation completely, besides taking away the presumptuous mindset of investigation. As I said in the last post, I do not any have major issue system wise. I just want to change some details.

  Well, there's the entire reason the U.S. decided to go with a jury system in the first place, for example. 

Everything else is fine except private lawyers. Let the state have lawyers for both sides, if they are so necessary.

So your argument for completely changing the American justice system is 'why not'?   

Read carefully again. My argument for change is “betterment” not “why not”.

  Whatever for, since you just said there is no reason to believe they are better or worse than state-appointed lawyers? 

Again, I am not doubting private lawyer’s knowledge, but only intent. Like, a private lawyer may try to proof his guilty client innocent knowingly, under the influence of the money. He may claim that it is his duty to save his client. Besides that, he can also hide such facts under the lawyer-client privilege, which are necessary to reach at true justice.

There is a very basic flaw in the understanding of the people about the role of lawyers in the judicial system. Lawyers, whether from prosecution or defence, are there to help in finding the justice, not to help their clients. The money is cheating the very purpose of the whole exercise, which is to reach at the right decision.

To me, the the basic question is what the lawyers of both sides try to achieve, win for their client or win for justice? At present, they go for their clients. But, is it a right thing to do? The expertise of the lawyers should be used in reaching at the justice, not cheating it. That is the only reason why I want to eliminate private lawyers.

A private lawyer is like a temporary employee to his client. Thus, it is quite natural that he will put the interest of his employer above all. He should be. There is nothing wrong in that. But, problem arises when his client’s interest and true justice come face to face and a lawyer has to fight for his client, knowing well that he is going against justice.

I want to address this very basic flow. And, there is only one way of doing it; by changing the loyalty of the lawyers from their clients to justice. That is why I want lawyers of both sides owned by judiciary, not by parties.

Now, I am ready to hear where I am wrong and what better suggestion you have!

Err...because without a lawyer, nobody told it to them? Look, the entire point of a lawyer is to decide what the important facts are, put them together in a compelling way, and create a CASE for the person's guilt or innocence. They decide what is worth presenting, what is not, what should be emphasized, how things should be phrased, and etc. So in your system, who is doing that? The plaintiff that has no legal education? The judge/jury who is going to be deciding the merit of the same case they put together? I don't understand how you aren't getting this.   

Ucci, it is not me but you who is not getting the gist of the issue. You are so accustomed with the system that cannot think beyond that.

Why jury/judges have to be told about the case by the lawyers, in the first place? Why they cannot see and discuss all that on their own? Are you saying that jury/judges supposed to be fools or less wise than lawyers, and they will be able to realize the subtleties only when lawyers will tell them? Can you give me any reason why jury cannot do all that what lawyers can and do? And, if jury/judges cannot do what lawyers can, such jury/judges should be thrown out of the juridical system immediately. Appoint those lawyers as a jury/judges instead. Is there any problem in that?

 I am going to court. I don't want to be jailed or executed. I only have a limited amount of time to explain to the court why I am innocent. I am not an expert in American law. I need somebody else's help to explain my situation to the judge/jury/whomever. It's very simple.  

Now you have come slightly closer to the actual problem which you are having with my proposed system. You are more concerned about your convenience than the deliverance of the justice, and as private lawyers can provide you that convenience for money, thus you want them to be there, whether their presence is serving any purpose in reaching to right decision or not.

That is precisely why people want private lawyers, especially who can afford them with ease. People know that they can take liberty with laws as if any issue will come up, their paid lawyers will take care of that and people would be able to carry on with their lives as nothing has happened. But, they fear that if they cannot buy an expert mind with money, they may have to face consequences by totally neutral judiciary. But, people must have that fear. It is good for those and society as well.

Secondly, if you have committed a crime, you should be punished, whether you “like” it or not. You need not be an expert of law to present yourself. Jury or state owned defence lawyer will be there for handle that. All you will have to do is to tell your side of story. That is all and you do not need a lawyer for that. The judiciary will take care of all the rest on its own. This system is much simpler and easier, as far as the people are concerned, but only if they do not want to manipulate the justice and want it in reality.

None of this is any different than what we have now.   

I have already said that the difference would be only in the mindset of concerned people and details, not in broad framework.

Well of course it can be done, because you just SAID it. We’ll just do whatever you think is a good idea, and money is no object, because you have declared money is no object. Except that countries with that attitude actually DO go broke with some regularity, you know.

Nothing of that sort would happen, if implemented wisely. My guess is that mere 10-15% increase on the social spending would take care of all that. The only issue that will come up is the state takeover of private medical and educational institutions. Govt can get all that valued by third party experts, and issue time bound bonds to previous owners, just in the same way in which such things were handled during WW 2.

Only if you’re a fucking rampant socialist.

Ucci, do not let your language to flow with emotions. Try to remain within the limits of civility. Remember, you are not just one of many posters of ILP, but a moderator too, which is equivalent to judge. Thus, you should be very careful in discussion. Do not give other posters an excuse by your behavior, no matter how much anger you have for me. Unlike you, I do not mind being criticised at all, if it does not cross the line of decency.

If you remember, I am repeating this for the second time. You used the same language in the “Nuking Japan thread”. And, that is the main reason, besides some time constraints, why I withdrew myself then. You were discussing less but showing anger more. The same is in this thread. Do not assume even for a second that I was unable to defend myself there. I you want to see it, ask me and I will resume that thread after this one.

What you’re doing is taking all the money the private citizens have, and counting it by default as money the U.S. Goverment has access to spend. NO. The U.S. Government spends far more money on healthcare than it does on the military. You factoring in the money that it hasn’t taken from its citizens yet doesn’t change those ratios.

That attitude precisely becomes a big issue when people tend to consider themselves an expert without having enough knowledge of the subject.

Ucci, for your mind information, I am not doing anything out of the box by taking ratios from GDP. It is a standard practice followed by governments, different agencies and economists all over the world about all ratios, not social spending alone. The ratios of military expenses are also drawn from GDP, not the budget.

Look at those links -

oecd-ilibrary.org/social-iss … 904-table1

nationmaster.com/country-inf … -education

Secondly, again for your kind information, US does not top the list of social spending ratio, either with GDP or the budget. It does not even come under top 20. It’s place is 23, if I remember that correctly. So, The point is that spending more than half of its budget on social welfare is not such unusual thing, which only US is doing, as you are trying to present it. Most of the developed countries do that, even more than US, and none of those has fallen apart, except Greece. US actually tops from the bottom of that list of social spending ratio.

 You understnd that US States don't have their own militaries, but they DO have their own social welfare programs, so if you start counting state expenditures, the healthcare vs. military ratio is going to become further slanted towards healthcare, right?  

No Ucci, that is not true. You assumption is not right, though it is a nice try. Contrary to your claim, if you include the spending of the states in the federal spending, the social spending ratio comes down to some percentage points, instead of increasing. It is true that states do not own armies to spend on, but they have many other such expenses to meet, which federal govt does not has to.

You assumed but I will not assume. I will provide you the exact figures with proof so you can see yourself who is right or wrong.

Below is the percentages of different spending in federal budget only -

usgovernmentspending.com/usg … 2_0.592127

And, this is total US state spending -

usgovernmentspending.com/inc … t_pie1.png

Anyway, none of this vindicates your argument that gutting the military and NASA (lol) would be sufficient to pay for a massive expansion of healthcare of the sort you are talking about.   

Typical practice of losing side. Read my posts again. I never claimed that military and NASA expenses will be able meet all other. I merely said that some other expenses are more necessary than those.

Secondly, you must be aware of that but all governments use a very typical method of manipulation to misrepresent the accounts, especially expenses. It is some sort of pseudo accounting in which many expenses are shown in such heads where they do not belong. And, most of such expenses are of either related to military, spying or bribing officials/politicians/people or other countries to achieve diplomatic advantages.

 The reason that doesn't get talked about is that a tax break isn't a expense unless you're a socialist. Again, you're coming from the perspective that an country's entire GDP belongs to the State, and letting the people have some of it is an 'expense'  

Ucci, do not try to misrepresent me. I do not subscribe the opinion that state owns everything. My belief in personal freedom and ownership is not less than yours. But, a law is a law, as far as it is there.

Means, once a state has been decided tax rates and slabs, it is over. Then, if any individual or corporation gets any rebate on that predefined rates, it is subsidy and expense too, because the state is losing what it will be able to get. Simple as that.

Remember, I am not saying that a state cannot alter its tax rates and slabs. It certainly can. It can also lower its tax rates in general. That would not be considered as an expense. But, when a state gives some rebates in some conditions, it should be considered as expense.

You said that a private ownership and profit motive are the cornerstones of the capitalism and state should not interfere with that. I agree with that.

But, following that spirit, why on the earth a house owner should get rebate on interest payments of his house loan instalments? Why a capitalist state should care what an individual is buying or selling? Income tax is on income, not on what one does with that.

Say there are two persons having same income. Ideally, the tax imposed on them should also be same, right! But, one takes a house loan and start getting rebate on his tax. Technically speaking, is it not some kind of injustice to the other one? Should he be punished just because he is not paying any interest?

Would you like to explain!

Right. Which means they are making their profit off of people NOT getting sick. Which means, they have no reason to inflate health expenses- that’s when they pay out, not when they pay in. Hospitals (and auto repair places, an etc) will give inflated bills to try and bilk the insurance company. If anything, the insurance company will low-ball the cost of repairs/medical bills so they don’t have to pay out as much.

Ucci, you intentionally ignored that part of my post, in which I addressed the core of the issue.

Any insurance, whether medical, death or even commercial, has very little to do with the actual costs, as far as the customers are concerned. Insured persons pay insurance for their fear of unexpected events, liabilities and expenses, not what they can calculate. This fear, which otherwise would have remained in the mind of the people, gets monetized, comes in the system and adds to the cost of the insurance, besides the operating cost of the insurance company. Such monetized fear is the actual profit of the insurance industry and surely will be cost escalating.

Insurance industry relies on the law of average, which does not change overnight. They have the past data of actual expenses done by customers, which tells them what exact amount they will have to pay as claims at the end or the day. They also know what will be their operating cost. Now, all they have to do is add their profit to assumed claims and their operating cost, get a total figure, and redistribute it to all customers. That is all.

You’re simply putting the State in the role of the insurance company, to whom everybody will misrepresent their costs to try to get a bigger payout. And since no cost is too high for you, there will be little incentive to investigate. We already see this now, where the State is overcharged for simple things like aspirin and screws because people know they can get away wth it.

Ucci, I am not sure whether you are really misunderstanding or only pretending.

When I said that the state should provide the insurance instead of private players? Never. I do not know from where you dig this out!

My logic/suggestion is very simple, both in implementation and comprehending. The state should provide all medical facilities free of cost to all. That eliminates the whole of medical insurance industry from the system, along with their profit and operating costs, though the actual medical costs will remain the same. And, as a second step, the state should run all medical facilities on its own. That will again reduce the medical costs to some extent, to the tune which private players were charging as their profit.

 That's just anti-capitalist rhetoric without any baring in reality. I think you're just mad at people who earn money.  

Why should I be mad at those who are successful and rich? On the contrary, I appreciate their effort. I myself basically belong to a rich family, though I am not rich now but my most relatives are because my grandfather was a big landlord in his times. Secondly, if you remember the other thread, my both children are very successful in their carriers, and on the way of being rich within few years.

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that healthcare researchers do it, in part, to help humanity.   

If that is true, would you enlighten me by telling the name of even one pharma co., who did not apply for patent for its innovations, even once in its history? I will salute the management and shareholders of that co.

On the other hand, I can tell you enumerable such cases, where pharma cos fought each other for patents. Not only that, they have been caught in using unfair and illegal trade practices many times and got punished too.

Ucci, I do not have any issue whatsoever with rich people. If one can be rich by his skill or efforts, or even by the virtue of heritage, it is his destiny. They should enjoy their wealth and success. Nobody should have any issue with that. Unlike typical socialists and leftists, I do not believe in making rich people less rich, or poor people making less poor. That is up to them to decide what they want or can. The only thing that I want is, when it comes to competition, any poor or his next generation should not be at any disadvantage just because of his poorness. I just want to ensure that, nothing else.

  Right, but since you consider an entire nation's GDP at the Government's disposal to spend, I suppose you don't give much of a shit how much things cost. 

GDP of a nation cannot be at the disposal of the govt, not even in a complete communist country, forget about socialism.

Ucci, it would serve the discussion better if you come up with some real economy related arguments, instead of relying on pure mocking. It looks good only when supported by some real and sound arguments about the actual subject in hand. Otherwise it is considered as a symbol of frustration for not having enough and proper arguments.

Mocking is just like a dressing of a dish, which looks good only if there is something real food beneath to be dressed.

  First you said it didn't exist. Then you said there were a bunch of different kinds of capitalism, then you picked one at random, called it 'true capitalism' and talked about how long it existed. And besides, lasting nearly a century still beats the pants off socialism. 

Already addressed in this post.

 Yes, you said it because you have the benefit of not having to actually make it reality. You can say everybody will get a 10 carat diamond ring too, and I don't have to take it fucking seriously. No, medical procedures that involve cutting edge technologies or rare chemicals will not be equally available to all. You're not going to have enough doctors, or enough platinum, or enough lasers, or whatever it is. If you force people to go to medical school to be doctors when they aren't allowed to work for a profit, then you may have enough 'doctors' but they won't be doctors, they'll be shitty medical students doing a bad job because you are forcing them into something they were never interested in or competant at. 

I say this, because we see it over and over again in socialist regimes. You get long ass waiting lists, horrible care, or both.

All that is looking more like a spirited rant rather than an argument. Nevertheless…

As I said in the last post, providing these three services free to all is not such a huge thing as you are trying to present. The only thing that is required, is the intent of the state, besides some planning.

You see this going wrong in communist regimes because they do not had any real intent to do this. Again, if a communist country can beat the most powerful capitalist nation in sending a man in the space, and also in landing a rocket on the moon, it can certainly innovate in medical research too. Secondly, I am not expecting all this in any communist or even socialist regime but in such countries, which run on 80/20 ratio in the favor of capitalism.

We're saying 'slightly' because that's the word you like. They may be very very very behind the curve for all we know. What we know for sure is that they won't be ahead.   

When I am using slightly, I also mean slightly. Above examples of Russian innovations are there to prove my point. Besides that, Apollo Mission, which is one of the landmarks of the mankind, was done by a state, not any private company. Was that also behind the curve?

The vast majority of medical care isn’t that costly. Most things that killed people 100 years ago can be cured by spending a few dollars at Wal-Mart. You forget you are trying to ‘fix healthcare’ for a nation where everybody already has sterile water, anti-biotics, vitamins, fluoride, and aspirin. The expensive stuff is mostly procedures invented in the past couple decades, or procedures that require long-term in patient care where a team of professionals are monitoring you 24 hours a day. There is nothing in the world you can do to make brand new cutting edge tech cheaply available to all, or entire teams of people with PhD’s widely available to help 1 person. All you can do is give people shitty care and bad doctors and say “Well, at least it’s equal”.

Ucci, I care as much for quality as for equality. Both are important.

Secondly, if the state is determined, my proposed all three services can be provided to all with quality. It is well within a reach, especially in US.

 Of course. I have to accept the hypothetical idea of a society in which the state pays full attention to medical research despite having no incentive to do so. But when you say "We should put this method into practice in reality", it stops being a hypothetical, and I get to point out all the fucking problems with it.  

Your assertion may have looked slightly more appealing, had you used “practical” instead of “fucking”. Are you having dinner regularly with Satyr these days!

FOR EXAMPLE: you are assuming the state will go on researching medical research as hard as they can, despite the state having no compelling reason to do so. That would be fine if you were writing a science fiction story, and I would be wrong to question your premise because it's just a story.   

Ucci, now you avoiding my answers and just repeating the same questions again and again. I have been addressed this very point in my last post. Here it is again for you. I hope you will not avoid it this time. -

 The same can be done for medical innovations even under state control. It is like creating a little private sector zone for medical innovators within a broader framework of state control. The state can lure the state innovators to do their best by creating competition within them. The more the individuals perform, the more they will get, both name and money wise. And, all that can be done easily.  

 Yeah, why not? That sounds like a GREAT reason to assume a socialist state will make every effort to advance medical research! Because why not! Well, I just told you why not  

And, I just told you again how it can by providing same incentives which private sector provides.

 and you compared me to mutcer and told me I was cheating at the conversation.  

Yes, I compared you with the Mucter but not because you share his views. I did that becsuse you are also using the same methodology in arguing.

You have no right to challenge my basic premises but its consequences only. When I say that a state should provide these three basic services free to all at any cost, you are not supposed to argue with it. Yes, you can argue that the state would become bankrupt after that. That is acceptable in debate and I will be happy to address that.

Ucci, you need to understand this that the power of a state is immense, especially a country like US. It is nothing but the intent and power of a state that put China in the second place from nowhere within four decades. You may not be aware of that but in the sixties of last century, India was ahead of China in economy. But now India is far far behind. It happened just because China used state’s power while India did not. China worked on war footing to create a conducive ambience for business and investment, both in laws and infrastructure. Chinese achievements in infrastructure are amazing and no less than miracles, both in scale and time. All that happened just because Chinese state decided that it had to done at any cost, and they did i too.

If a country like China, which was no match for US then, can do it, why the richest state in the world cannot do it, given that it not only has money power but technology and skill too!

The only missing ingredient is the right intent, which is not letting US to become an ideal state. It lacks nothing else.

Let me explain it again: take cancer for example. People, right now, get along just fine even with cancer in the world. They live, they get old, they are productive, they have fun, they get cancer, they die. A private company has an interest in researching a cancer cure because INDIVIDUALS who have cancer don't want to die and will pay for the cure. The State isn't making a profit, the country isn't in a crisis. There's no plague about to wipe us out that the State needs to research a cure for, so the prudent thing for the State to do is say "Medcine has advanced far enough, we should concentrate on other things". What's more, even if they do medical research, with no profit motive there is no way to gauge success or failure. They can pay a million people for a thousand years to work on a cancer cure, and if they never find one, who cares? First of all, maybe there isn't one, so you can't say they are doing a bad job, and second of all, look at all jobs they provided! A private company actually has a vested interest in the results so they can sell them. The State only has a vested interest in being able to say "Look at al the time and energy we put into medical research" whether it turns up results or not. 

But again, since part of your theory is that the State won’t do anything bad, this is all irrelevant and I’m mutcer for pointing it out.

Ucci, I have been addressed that above already that, how a state can keep up pace in innovations just like private sector.

Secondly, you are again challenging my basic premise of a state having right intent. Nothing can happen without that.

 Getting re-elected because people will vote for you if you promise them things  

You are not wrong but why the same cannot the reason for providing these three services for free. Does it seem to be less lucrative than Obamacare!

 Obamacare relies on private companies doing the research and providing the insurance in order to work. If it didn't, it would have the problems I described.  

Addressed already in this post.

You say that, but I notice your reply completely stops talking about the U.S.S.R and their military advances. It’s almost like I completely demolished your point and now you want to change the subject… So I"m changing it back.

You demolished my argument! Are you serious?

Ucci, choose any such three posters of ILP as judges, which you think are ideologically closest to you, and ask them to post their opinion about who is winning or losing. Let us see what happens.

Ucci, as a thumb rule, I do not debate unless I am not sure of my winning, or upper hand at least. Though, I neither debate often nor like it. I prefer discussion, but I am sorry to say that you seem to be incapable of having discussion. Being a polemicist, you can only debate, not discuss. Discussion does not seem to be your cup of tea. You do not want to listen the other side patiently, but just want to knock it down considering your enemy.

BTW, what is left to discuss about Russia! Would you like to point out that so we can finish that too!

By your own admission, the USSR lagged behind U.S. innovation in almost every way; the military. You asked why. The answer is, because they were in a cold war with the US so obviously having a strong military was in the State’s interest. The State didn’t have an interest in other things like medical care, so they lagged behind. You accidentally proved my point in other words.

Ucci, you not able to realize but that proves my POV, not yours. Go through that again, carefully.

Secondly, your whole argument is useless when I initially declare that the state must have intent to do all that. This change has to initiate from the top. It will also initiate from the bottom, but that will take very long time.

It could be, but as we saw in examples like USSR, Cuba, and China, it probably won't be   

Yes, it would not be in those countries. Because, these countries have 80/20 ratio in the favor of socialism, while it needs the same ratio but in favor of capitalism.

Yes, and the State probably WILL do things like that when it comes to matters that actually benefit the state, like for example winning an arms race with a rival. I bet the USSR did something very similar to that with respect to military research.   

Again, nothing can happen unless the state has no real intent to provide these three services free to all, with quality.

And yes, Russia would have found something like that to keep the military innovations going. That is enough to prove that the innovations can bloom in the state control too, if the state wants.

 And yet, it seems they did not do that with respect to medicine, agriculture, entertainment tech, and so on. Or if they did, they didn't seem to actually push for good results. If you are relying on the State to provide incentive for people to work harder, it doesn't fix the problem of what the State will choose to incentivize.  

The same thing again. You are right that the first of all the state should have the intent to get the innovations done in that sector. Russia never pushed for any research except arms, besides some heavy machinery. Russian metallurgy is the best in the world, and mechanics almost equal to Germany. That reflects in Russian weapons too but its weapons lagged behind in computer related technologies from the west. Barring this, Russian weapons are still the best in all other aspects. Kalashnikov rifles are one of those examples. Very recently a US company has bought licence to manufacture it in US to cater local demand.

With love,
Sanjay

[Uccisore]

@zinnat

Ucci, look very carefully to this mission statement of your forefathers, in the context of economy. They used the words like liberalism, civic virtue and duty and promotion of general welfare. Do I need to tell you for what these terms stand?

Yes you do, considering I’m not convinced you know, and you are presumably trying to make some sort of point instead of just winking at me.

Secondly, as I said before, capitalism never survived for 200 years, simply because it never existed in its true form for 200 years. It was/is always dependent on crutches of other ideologies, because it always needed help in its adversaries, which tend to follow it often.

You’ve yet to define what it’s ‘true form’ is. Indeed, you’ve said their are a variety of forms.

This was right step as it not only pulled US out or recession but paved way for the commercialisation of agricultural products.

But Ucci, can you explain me how these land grants to rail companies and small farmers were different from your understanding of socialism?

Sure. The Government giving money to people so they can develop industries is different from socialism, which is the Government taking developed industries from people because the State believes they can regulate them better. In fact, one might even say it's the opposite. 
So for example, in a socialist State, the State would own the railroads, hire State workers to build the railroads, and decide where the railroads went, how much it cost to ride them, and what the quality of the construction materials would be.  You know, like what you want to do with education and medical research. 

In the US railroad example, the state gives money and/or land to private citizens, so the citizens can develop private corporations and industries to handle all these things so they can make a profit off what the State gave them.  You know, the opposite of what you want to do with education and medical research. 

Did your forefathers then made mistake by giving free lands to small farmers?

No, you made the mistake in thinking the State giving property to private citizens is socialism.

Do you understand how colonization works?  The State sends troops and paid explorers and so on to expand the borders in to wild territory. The State declares "Ok, this huge region is now part of the U.S. Let's call it Wyoming Territory".  Now, what does the State do with it?  If they are socialist, they keep it under State ownership, and decide what gets done with it for the good of the people, because State control of the means of production (which real estate always will be, and especially was back then) is the defining element of socalism.    A non-socialist state will not do this. They may, for example, encourage private citizens to move out there and stake their own claims, and do whatever they want with their new property because they believe encouraging private enterprise across the new territory is what's best for everybody. 

And, what happen to your claim of survival of the capitalism for 200 years? How does this incident fit in your definition of capitalism?

Nothing. All that's happened is you've revealed you know as little about socialism as you do capitalism.  The State handing out recently conquered territory to citizens isn't socialist, it's the opposite.  The state giving out grants to develop said land isn't socialist either.

US again faced two more recessions in the last period of 19th century. The later one is considered very severe and the most prolonged one in the history of US. This recession continued even in the first decade of the next century and forced US to shift from completely free economy/market version of capitalism. This era is called " Progressive Era ".

The later 19th century would still give us 100 years of free market capitalism, which is longer than any socialist State managed to endure. And anyway, saying that the U.S. hasn’t remained a captalist nation is preposterous- but that’s based on yo not really knowing what these things are.

And, US left pure capitalism forever, when Federal Reserve established in 1913. Income tax was also imposed in US for the first time.

So capitalism doesn’t endure if there’s any degree of regulation. You understand that you’re the one who raised the idea that capitalism can’t last, right? The only reason why we’re talking about this is becuase you want to convince me that a socialist overhaul is necessary. But now you’re arguing that capitalism hasn’t existed for over a 100 years anyway- so apparently according to you there’s nothing to fix! The socialist reforms (lol) we need are already in place. But then, there goes your point.

Ucci, you can see that I am not punching in the air.

No, you’re quoting mysterious strangers that share your political views without telling me who they are, and expecting me to take it as authoritative.

Meanwhile, the only part of the above that you actually said with your own words was the bit about land grants being a form of socialism- so it remains the case that when I am talking to you and not your mysterious benefactor, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The experts of your country share my opinion

I think you probably know that if you actually told me you were citing Richard M Ebeling so I could look him up myself, it would be easy to confirm that he, as a free market libertarian and fan of Hayek, would disagree with basically everything you say here. I’m assuming that’s why you didn’t bother to cite the person who basically wrote half your reply for you, which is pretty dishonest. But of course you’re the educated one, so no doubt you thought you could get away with such a thing.

No. Ebeling, and Hayek for that matter are completely against the kind of state central planning you advocate here, and you damn well know it, your selective non-sourced exerpts notwithstanding. All this shows is that, as I already knew, Hayek wasn’t a laissez-faire capitalist. It’s largely because I find The Road to Serfdom compelling that I’m not either.

. But, it is not free flowing capitalism by any stretch of imagination, as you claimed.

OH, and where did I do that? I don’t even know what you mean by ‘free flowing’. Is that you saying laissez-faire incorrectly for some reason?

Secondly, it is not capitalism but democracy that gives power to the state. Contrary to general perception, capitalism does not need democracy to survive. Pure (your) capitalism would flourish more in anarchism, as happened in the initial years of merchant capitalism, where profit and power were the only virtues.

You just spent HOW many pages arguing the opposite of this? I just finished reading this entire fucking mess that you didn’t bother to write yourself or even source saying that capitalism requires state controll in order to survive. Now all of a sudden laissez-faire does best in an anarchy without state regulation?

Ucci, the actual problem is only one from the very start of our discussion, and that is your do not pay enough attention to what is actually said by me.

Actually, you said something stupid, and only now a month later are you explaining it. That’s not on me.

Let me take a very simple analogy to explain my point. Say, there is a race going on and all types of people are running in it. Some may be tall while some short. Some will run faster than others and thus deserve better places in the final tally. No interference from outside. That is pure (your) capitalism.

I already told you I wasn’t for laissez-faire, and I’ve given you no reason to think that I am, other than the fact that I don’t like socialism, and because you don’t know much about economics, you think the only person that could be against socialism is a laissez-faire capitalist.

But Ucci, my version of capitalism is not only true and fair, but it will expose the real capacity of all participants; which place they deserve.

So in conclusion, the capitalism you think I advocate does not result in people getting what they deserve- which means you saying “capitalists believe people get what they deserve” has been completely wrong this whole time. Thank you.

That’s enough for me. Since you expect me to argue with Hayek and Ebeling about why laissez-faire is a bad idea (despite the fact that I don’t support it), I’ll let you argue with them about why centrally planned education, medical, and legal industries are a bad idea.

[zinnat]

Sorry Ucci,

I somehow missed your post. It just came to my notice. I was under the impression that you have been left. I will reply by tomorrow.

With love,
Sanjay