The NHS buys its drug and equipment in the same way that private hospitals do, so I can’t see how this is an issue. Although the NHS does have research hospitals and sponsor some (world leading) research programs into patient care, the bulk of research is still done by private companies, who sell the products of the research to the NHS (drugs, equipment, training courses), for no small price tag.
The only big difference in this respect would be that Americans use a lot more drugs than the brits do, so in that way, the companies make more profit from them. Also, it’s a much larger market, which explains why the bulk of new medical research occurs in America.
That makes sense too. I mostly hear this brought up in connection with Canada- drugs legally cannot be sold there for over a certain amount, so manufacturer’s have to sell them for more in the U.S. to pay for the R&D. In effect, Canada hasn’t ‘made healthcare cheaper’, they’ve just pushed the costs off onto a wealthier nation. Or so it is said.
I’m pretty certain that Arminius understands that socialism is about the “redistribution of wealth” in terms of merely a “welfare program” and “government grants” involving money with strings attached. Socialism does nothing without “strings attached”. The whole point in socialism is to force all people to bow to the supreme leader(s) (polyarchy). Money (specifically) is the primary means (the strings), even though media and medical pressures are also a serious part of the game.
SAM is a game changer, independent of prior schemes but its inherent structure (not requiring the whole nation to convert) is one of “distributivism of authority” (more commonly known as “distributed intelligence”).
That’s ridiculous. Drug companies own patents and do not have to sell to Canada. Canada simply employs common business sense and uses its larger buying power to negotiate cheaper contracts, which is what the NHS should do more too (and has started to, finally).
In America, on the other handMedicare and Medicade are forbidden from negotiating drug prices, a classic example of over-regulation interfering with the natural markets. So the drug companies charge them more, because somehow they managed to write a law and then get it through which says they can charge whatever they like.You can’t blame Canada for that absolute shambles of a policy. Sure - maybe it produces a bit more research money, but it also undoubtably creates larger shareholder dividends, bigger advertising budgets, and fatter executive paycheques too. It’s an absolute fantasy to think that a private company would invest all additional revenue into R&D, just because you have agreed to pay them more than the market value for their goods.
Yep, that all sounds reasonable. I’m just airing hearsay here- economics is not my strong suit. If Medicade and Medicare could negotiate for lower drug prices, I wonder how much money it would save, since it’s these programs with SS that are bankrupting the country.
SAM is anentropic, the very essence of defense against entropy or corruption. People normally try to hope that their scheme for doing other things will not suffer corruption, but the “people of SAM” do nothing BUT defend themselves against corruption.
You eat so as to restore your health and spirit, diverting entropy/corruption. You work so as to gain the resources for eating. You sleep so as to rid your body of inadvertent corruption. You clean your body and house so as to dispense with corruption. In the long run, literally everything people do is actually merely the result of an attempt to maintain themselves, including sex, watching TV, eating too much, drugs, scheming, political activism,… everything. The problem is merely that that get confused and don’t maintain very well.
The notion recently promoted in the last 400 years or so that the goal and purpose of life is “power” (WtP), is false and merely a social/psychological trick. And that is the real reason that so very many people are not Nietzschian nor Faustian. Life has never actually been about gaining power. The truth is rather that gaining power is for ensuring maintenance. But it is too easy for Man to confuse anti-entropy (the effort to grow) with an-entropy (the effort to maintain).
The focus must be maintained upon the actual goal/purpose. A degree of power must be sought, just as a degree of sex is required for reproduction. But that doesn’t mean that anyone has to become manic about either. Power and sex (just as examples) serve only the purpose of ensuring the future maintenance.
Acquisition is not the goal. SAM maintains focus on Maintaining = Anentropy (anti-corruption). It does that through its decision making process which involves IJOT, an ongoing calculation of the eternal maintaining of joy throughout its populous.
Well, when you said ‘socialism is a form of distributivism’ did you mean that socialism is a form of distributivism? If so, I understood it perfectly well which is why I called you wrong.
If you think that socialism has nothing to do with “distribution”, especially “redistribution”, then you are wrong. Please don’t tell me again that the word “distribution” does not mean distribution because “that’s not how” your “language works”.
You mean a specific distributi(vi)sm:
Distributi(vi)sm has to do with distribution. Nobody can change this. And socialism has also to do with distribution, especially redistribution, regardless whether socialists use these words mostly rhetorically or not. We know that socialists distribute or, more precisely said, redistribute wealth, and according to this fact we can say that socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm. Nevertheless it is not the same distributi(vi)sm as the distributi(vi)sm of the Cathoilc social teaching. Did you just notice the word “social” in the term “Cathoilc social teaching”?
Didn't say anything like that. You're really being dense about this. "Distribution" merely means "giving things to people". Socialism, Distributivism, and Capitalism all involve giving things to people. That doesn't make them all distributivism. Distributivism is a specific economic philosophy different from capitalism and socialism. Socialism is not a form of Distributivism any more than it is a form of Capitalism.
Yes, and capitalism has to do with capital. So does socialism. Does that make socialism a form of capitalism?
No. You’re really being dense about this (and about the whole topic).
Not all but some of them. We - you and I - have two different definitions. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
That is your definition and the definition of the Catholic social teaching. I can merely partly accept that definition - as I already said in almost all my posts of this thread.
Partly yes and partly no. Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Socialism can also be a form of distributi(vi)sm, although the distributi(vi)sts say that distributi(vi)sm has nothing to do with both capitalism and socialism.
The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word “distributi(vi)sm”. Would you say that merely the members of the party “X” should be allowed to define the word “socialism”? I do not accept this, and - above all - I do not accept it in a thread of a webforum called “I Love Philosophy”!
The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
I am right: Distributi(vi)sm is not only what the Catholic social teaching wants it to be.
Are merely the leaders of capitalism allowed to say what capitalism is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of socialism allowed to say what socialism is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of distributi(vi)sm allowed to say what distributi(vi)sm is? Thus even in a webforum called “I Love Philosophy” is no other definition allowed?
Needs capitalism? I was asking if it was a form of capitalism. I’d like an answer!
Is socialism a form of capitalism merely because it ‘deals with capital’? Because that’s the argument you made for socialism being a form of distributivism, and I’d like to see if you’re being consistent.
Ah, I see. So you were using your own made up definition of distributivism when you told me that socialism was a form of distributivism, and resisted being corrected for three days. Kind of odd, considering I'm the one who brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it's a third way.
Yes, according to whatever definition of 'distributivism' lurks in your mind, socialism may well be form of it. So might line-dancing and deep sea diving for all I know.
Yes, and at least we arrive at the point. Socialism is a form of distributivism IF we just let you make up some wierd definition of one or the other of these terms that nobody is familiar with but you. Just as cats might be a sort of turtle if you choose to define the words as such. After all, why should it only be biologists who get to define ‘cat’? If you need to say cats are turtles or socialism is distributivism in order to avoid looking foolish, then by all means butcher the language until you get what you need from it.
Nevertheless, the distributivism I was talking about, which is an economic system, and I clearly stated it was an economic system, and you clearly know the one I mean because you cited the wikipedia entry at me....socialism is not a form of [i]that.[/i]
Yes, anything that distributes something is distributivism, and any teaching that uses the word ‘social’ is socialism. Still not clear on if everything that concerns capital is capitalism because you won’t tell me, but I think I see a bit more clearly how you are pretending your mind works.
What I told you days ago, is what you’re telling me now; Yes, you are using ‘distributivism’ as a general term for ‘any time you distribute things’. Yes, yes, I know. I told YOU that. You’re using distributivism in a very loose and generic way, and I’m actually talking about the economic system that goes by that name.
Right, words mean whatever you need them to mean to win arguments on the internet. I see that now.
Meanwhile, socialism is not a type of the economic system that the rest of the world referrs to by the word 'distributivism'. They are two completely different things, as economic systems go.
Yes, he doesn’t know what communism, socialism, capitalism and libertarianism are. No need to remind me.
You did not notice that I gave you the answer - several times: in my last post and also in other posts.
You did not notice that I gave you the answer - several times: in my last post and also in other posts.
And “resisted being corrected for three days”? It seem that you are using rhetoric instead of logic.
No. It is absolutely not odd. But it is odd that you believe it could be important for this topic just only because you “brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it’s a third way”. That’s really odd.
Why are you not talking about the possibilities of this “third way” (b.t.w.: not the first third way) to overcome the “faked coin” I was talking about?
It lurks in logic as well in the definitions and meanings of the words. And I did not use the word “well”. Stop using rhetoric instead of logic. I did not say that socialism is a good thing. Read my posts, please. Otherwise we go around in circles.
Then welcome to the socialistic dictatorship of the US.
My definition has to do with logic not with rhetoric like your definition. You do not know anything about the realisation of your odd kind of distributivism, because the statements of the Catholic social teaching are not more than theoretical statements - means: that there is no practical example. The only practical examples we have are those of the history where I referred to. The rest must be defined, preferably by logic.
That’s merely rhetorical cynism, thus nonsense. Everyone - except you and some other people who are dense about this topic - know what the word “distribution” means, what the morpheme “ism” of the word “distribution” means, and what the word “distributioni(vi)sm” means. A philosopher does not have to follow the definition of the Catholic social teaching (I - myself - am a Catholic, but that does not mean that I obey everything what the Catholic church said, says and will say). But on ILP it seems to be forbidden to be a philosopher.
Yes, and I never said that I would have a problem with it, if you tried to explain how this kind of distributivism can be realised in the future. But you did not try to explain it but started a kind of war by using cynical nonsense.
That is again cynisms and rhetoric. Your first response to my first post of this thread (cf. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=188134#p2547293) was probably the only honest one, because after it you became more and more cynical - I guess it was because of the lack of arguments.
Yes. Where is the problem? There is no problem at all. Why should it not be allwoed to use the word “distributivism in a very loose and generic way”? Please do not forget that there is no practical evidence. The examples of the premodern economic situations do not count, because we are talking about modern economic situations.
If this was true, Uccisore, then I would more argue in the opposite direction. Again: I am Catholic. I think you are the one who tries to win arguments by using those words whatever you need them to mean: you started with the word “dense”, and now you are already at the point to allege that I want to win arguments on the internet. That is ridiculous.
You are wrong. Because of the fact that socialism needs money in order to redistribute wealth, it depends on capitalism. That is logical. Therefore socialism became a part of the economic system.
No. In your sentence the word “completely” is completely wrong.
I would like to read some arguments for the thesis that the distributivism of the Catholic social teaching will have a chance to win in the near future. Are you interested in such arguments or not?
But, besides your emotions, you have not provided name of such a single shitlode country which follows capitalism in its pure form without any socialism at all.
Secondly, I am not taking claim of anything, neither saying that only socialism is a very good way to handle economy.
All I am saying that capitalism is a good way of governing by and large, if mixed with little doses of socialism of right amount at right places, which with you totally disagree.
Where I advocated socialism in toto? All I said it should be mixed with the majority of capitalism.
Secondly, I did not deny my first given reason. Actually, I put that aside for a moment to show you that you were wrong without that too.
I did not mentioned any time to determine success or failure of capitalism because it is useless as we are not able to live that to see it. But, I tell you that capitalism will not survive long in exactly present form but with a lot of twists and turns, which are not accepted to you.
No economic system, whether capitalism or socialism, require faith in the leaders. It is democracy that runs on the faith and people are given choices to express their faith in the leadership too. But, dictatorship does not provide that chance. Yes, people expect help from the state in socialism, but is not because they consider their leaders wiser. In socialism, people think that is first and foremost duty of the govt to help them in all verticals.
Yes, because we are talking about average people, not the wise ones, who can handle themselves.
If I am wrong, why capitalism relies on competitiveness? Does owning the means of production for profit not implies that people will get what they can (deserve)?
Again, if that is true, why you feel that there is something wrong (injustice) with the more competent and capable people (like you) in socialism?
Sorry, I did not get what you want to say!
Ucci, I was intentionally avoiding to get into these technical terms because I did not want to argue over definitions instead of actual issues. But, it seems to me that you are trying to take some advantage of it, so I would like to clarify, so that other posters can also get the clear picture of the subject.
And also, for your kind information, I have masters degree in economics, and it is also a subject of my interest besides spirituality and politics. Not only that, I have quite a good knowledge and experience of trading in stock market, though only Indian.
Secondly, it is not me but you who does not understand libertarianism completely. It is a very vague and broad term having many subsets within. Furthermore, it is not restricted merely to right wingers but there are many socialist libertarians also. On the other hand, pure capitalism basically believe in the notion of Laissez-faire (let it be) or the invisible hand, which takes care of everything, as Adam Smith himself put it. Even capitalism has very broad and different range of doctrines. You seems to be a hardcore Laissez-faire supporter, while I consider Nordic model of capitalism better than others.
Thirdly, contrary to your claim, capitalism, in its true form, never run for centuries, but a little less even a century. Generally, the starting point and form of the capitalism is considered around 1600 CE as Merchant Capitalism, when Dutch and Britain East India Companies were founded. But, it was not never a true capitalism because these companies were hugely supported by their states economically, politically and militarily to take control over other countries in the disguise of trade. And, as there were many other motives also besides profit, you cannot claim that it was true capitalism. This continued till the middle of 19th century, when Adam Smith put the idea of more refined and improved capitalism forth, which restricted capitalism strictly to business activities, though providing more freedom in it. His doctrine was almost universally accepted by all developed nations. Economies of those countries also flourished a lot after that but happy days did not last long and ended when the great depression hit the economy in the starting of 20th century and all premises of completely free economy came under fire. After that, world economy put pure capitalism aside and adopted a slightly different version of economy in the name of Keynesianism. And, since then, it is more or less accepted as universal model of economy worldwide, including US.
Here is what wiki says -
Keynesianism is quite different from Adam Smith’s capitalism in some fundamental premises. It does not believe in the “let it be” or " the invisible hand" but advocates for active control over fiscal and monetary policies. It is not capitalism but Keynesianism, which gave birth to Central Banks, budget deficits, government bonds, spending in infrastructure and monetary stimuluses. And, all this is happening in the US since last one century.
Not at all. That is not what I am proposing, though you at least accepted that there is a problem.
I am suggesting a good solution, which is not “any” merely. That is a different issue that it is not according to your “taste”.
But, there is also no reason to think that state-appointed lawyers will be worse or more corrupt than private ones. I am not expecting them to be better or worse either, but just as good or bad as they are now.
Give me an example. I do not think that such type of judicial system was ever in practice.
Secondly, can you claim that present judicial system is totally incorrupt and perfect? And, if not, why not go for better option, even though it also may not be perfect!
Ucci, I am not asking the change just for the sake of change. That would be useless. Change is justified only if it brings some betterment with it.
Only in your mind which seems to be very fertile in producing wild assumptions about others rather than focussing on what is actually said by them.
Ucci, you neither able to understand my true intentions so far, nor there is any such attempt from your end. You are just playing to that image of mine which you created in your mind as an extreme socialist. That is all.
To me, the most basic issue with present judicial system is the presence of private lawyers. I am a firm believer that the money should not be able to play any role whatsoever in the whole of judicial system. All of my suggestions are just to address that anomaly, nothing else. The second thing that I want, is taking away the presumptuous mindset and prosecuting power of investigating agencies. They should not have any say in who is there to prosecute and who is not. Leave it to judges or jury.That is all.
Again, as usual, all that is either presumptuous/misunderstood or misrepresented. Let me deduct it completely to make it easier to comprehend.
Any judicial system takes it for granted that it’s judges/jury are wise, impartial and honest. I also take it as true.
Now, what the defence and prosecution lawyers do or supposed to do? To represent the case of their clients in the best way, right? But, I want to ask a slightly different question here. Are lawyers are supposed to be more knowledgeable and wise than judges/jury? And, if that is not true, it is useless to have lawyers. Why the jury cannot see on its own what the lawyers of both sides have to tell! And, if the jury is not that competent, it does not deserve to be a jury, in the first place.
I do not expect jury/judges just to give judgement on what the lawyers argue. I want jury to discuss the case from both angles and decide on its own. I am not bypassing the event of pleading from either side but want jury to do it, not lawyers. Having said that, I do not any issue with lawyers arguing from both sides, if they are not private. I am excluding them just because I do not see them of any use. But, I am flexible on this issue, if lawyers are not private but part of judicial system.
Secondly, how can you even imagine that concerned persons would not be inquired and not allowed to tell their version of the event? Of course, they would be not only allowed but even asked to do so. But, not through their lawyers but on their own. Private lawyers are not some kind to innocent and kind hearted citizens, who are willing to help others in charity. If any person is willing to help others in court cases just to help, I do not mind that but the motive of providing help should not be money.
Thirdly, free defence is provided not only in US, but in many countries, including India.
You still are not getting what my intention is. I very clearly mentioned that investigating agency will have no such right like arresting or bring anyone to the courts like accused, thus, there is no question of being bias from their side.
Small teams of investigating agency will be work under a judge. He would be their incharge and monitor all their activities on daily basis. They have to ask him before any arrest. Means, investigating officers have to convince the judge about the justification of the arrest, only then he will allow. If any such situation arises that taking someone into custody is required on the spot, the detained person should be brought before the judge immediately, without any delay, and the judge will decide whether that person should remain into custody or not. Yes, the investigating agency is free to inquire anything, anyone and anyplace, without any search warrant.
When the investigators feel that they are done with the investigation, they will submit their report with all concerned findings to a bench of judges/jury. At this stage, the judges/jury will only decide whether there is any prima facie merits in the case or not. Concerned parties may also represent themselves. If the jury decide to further with the case, it will hand over the case to a different jury to discuss and dispose, either on its own or after hearing from lawyers from prosecution and defence departments of judiciary. Any dissatisfied party may ask retrial from another jury.
Ucci, I was merely talking about the investigating powers that journalists use to have while investigating, not their intent.
That is certainly a valid point and I do not disagree completely with that either.
Having said that, the mindset also is desired to be looked in some cases, especially in these three services which we are discussing. Rules often become ineffective without right intent. And, to maintain right intent of incoming individuals, it is necessary to create very high standards initially, if not perfect. Once that happens, newcomers will automatically mould themselves into that mode.
I would like to give you an example. India is not a clean country. It’s citizens do not care much about keeping it clean. They use to throw garbage and waste wherever they like, besides spitting on walls and roads. All that is usual scene even in metros. But, when the same Indians go abroad, they tend to follow not only all the rules and regulations, but established customs also. The ambient forces them to do so.
The same is true about any organisation. Once created atmosphere, either good or bad, compelled newcomers to be in the same mode.
And, that is precisely why spending on good education is must to make people wise. Like, even the duty of a doctor may end at 5 pm, and no rule can force him to attend a patient beyond that, but he should not do that and take care of the patient. These are things where mindset matters. Everything cannot be left to the rules. Rules are there to tell people what exactly their mindset should be in different circumstances.
I am well aware of that. That system is followed in most of the countries, more or less. I neither see anything wrong in the stages not want to change it. I want to change only how the things are handled at those stages, not the stages per se.
I know that in US, federal prosecutors and United States District Attorneys represent state in all cases. But, not many people are aware of the fact that they are very much the part of department of Justice.
So, when prosecutors can be a part of department of Justice, why defendants cannot be?
Ucci, all that arguing goes in vain when I say that the state should provide all medical facilities free to everyone, no matter how much money and other means it takes. If there are not enough medical experts, train new ones. In the same way, if there are not enough medical facilities, create them. It is not such a thing that cannot be done.
Ucci, it is not me but you who need a little more awareness about the technicalities of economics. Though, it is not your fault because one cannot understand the subtleties without proper education of the subject. Allow me to clear the issue as that may help many posters.
Federal budget or spending is a very confusing term in US. Most of the people do not understand for what it actually stands and in which context it should be taken. Like you, many other people also live under this impression that US state spends half of its money on social welfare, but it is not true for many reasons.
First of all, federal budget is merely a subset of US economy. That is why to check the economy of any country and its ratios to the state expenses, you have to look at the GDP ( gross domestic product) of that country, not the federal budget. US federal budget is merely 20 of its GDP(more than 18 trillions). So, when you use that amount, all ratios will change accordingly and look quite smaller too.
US budget expenses stand at 3.8 trillion but this does not include the expenses of different states, which are at 3 trillions, means total US state expenses are 6.8 ,trillions, not 3.8 trillions. Though, it is true that almost the half of this money goes to social welfare.
But, it is not such a big deal as presented often. Many other countries also use to spend half or even more than that on social welfare, even more than US. And, it is not the case that those countries went bankrupt. On the contrary, both people and economies are in better shape there than the average.
Secondly, on what else a state has to spend, if not on administration, military maintenance and helping people? Helping Lehman brothers or fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq!
Thirdly, there is a one more state spending in disguise, which never gets attention of the intellectuals, and that is " Tax expenditures".
In US budget, there are three types of expenses. First ones are Mandatory expenses at 2.85 trillions. All social welfare schemes come from this sector and put together they comprise 75-80% (around 2 trillions) of this.Mandatory Spending is such federal spending that is spent based on existing laws rather than the budgeting process. For instance, spending for Social Security is based on the eligibility rules for that program. Mandatory spending is not part of the annual appropriations process.
The second category is Discretionary expenses. It was around 1.11 trillions, from which 600 billions go to military alone. Besides that, all research, war, foreign aid and contingencies go to this heading. This type of spending does not go by any rules but depends on congress and president. This needs yearly approval.
The third part of the expense is interest paid for debt. Nothing worth mentioning in it.
But, there is one more form of expense, which never gets mentioned, though plays it part. Actually, these are different types of tax breaks to individuals and corporates, which are not accounted for. Like, anybody buys a house on loan and the state deduct paid loan interest from is computable income. I am not sure whether that applies on depreciation on movable and immovable assets or not in US, but happens in many countries. Besides this, there are tax rebates on capital gains, employee’s contribution to PPF, Pension and Health Insurances. In the same way, many industries and corporates also get tax breaks. There are rebates on Solar energy industry. Very recently, US removed tax from foreign controlled mutual funds. Many charity and non-profit organizations get rebates. The issue is not whether this is good or bad, but why it is not included in the federal expenses, so that people can get the real picture and perspective.
And, let me also tell you these tax expenditures stand at 1.1 trillions. And also, most of these brakes go to wealthy people, not poor because poor are either not eligible for taxes, or very little. But, tax rebate on the interest on the loans taken to buy penthouses can be huge. Though, I am not against it but let me remind you that these tax breaks are also a form of socialism. A true capitalism state will not allow any tax break whatsoever.
Ucci, either you are trying to fool me like Mucter or you are a very bad businessman, who do not understand how it works, though, my guess is that you are not.
For a moment, forget about people, and try to think from the pov of an insurance company. As we know, those are not charity organizations and their aim is to earn money for their shareholders, so given that, how they are supposed to decide premiums?
They will look at the past data to guess how much an individual generally pays to medical care on an average. Then, they add their operational cost and some profit to it, and decide the premium. Not only insurance companies, but every business more or less works on this basic idea in normal circumstances.
Secondly, people do not take insurance because they do not know about their medical expenses or they cannot bear it normally. They take it to meet contingencies or unexpected requirements. They pay insurance companies more knowing very well that their actual medical expenses would not cost that much normally. But, they fear that something such big may come up by chance in the future, that they would not able to handle on their own. That is only why they take insurance and get ready to pay some extra to insurance company.
But, as the state is going to provide all medical facilities, thus, the extra payment for this fear will go, besides the operating cost and profit charged by the insurance industry.
Ucci, are you joking! Can anyone in this whole world can believe that any pharma company can do research to help humanity? What answer their management will give to their shareholders?
Secondly, if you are not aware, I must tell you that pharma industry’s profit earning ratio to their revenue is the highest amongst all industries. Some pharma companies’s ratio is even more that computer software and hardware industry, which relies totally on research and innovations. Look above at the stats of Pfizer to get the clear picture.
I am not expecting state innovations to be cheap cost wise either. Perhaps, they will be slightly costly. But, they will be certainly cheap for the consumers because the state will not sell those at 10 times higher to earn for shareholders, as pharma companies tend to do.
Not extremely slowly but only a bit. And, not painfully at all.
Secondly, as I said before, true capitalism did not last even a century, so your claim that all innovations we have just because of it, is basically wrong in the first place.
Ucci, you are both misrepresenting and besides the point too. I said that state innovations will be available to all, though they will be slightly behind the curve. On the other hand, private innovations will be faster but all will be not able to use it because of its high price. Both arrangements have one good and one bad implication.
As I said just above, what purpose the medical research can serve, if it is so costly that only a few can avail it? It is not a luxury but a necessity. What should be the real aim of medical research, getting money and Nobel prize or help all?
Yes, the state certainly depends taxpayers money. But, still there is no comparison between the means of a state and a particular industry. If a state has a real intent to do something, money can never be the issue.
Ucci, my proposed economy/ontology is based on my suggestions/premises, not what you think about those issues. Do not repeat the mistake of Mucter when he was inserting his understanding of definitions into my ontology. Thus, when I am saying that a state must/will pay full attention to all these three basic facilities, you have to accept it. You cannot challenge my proposals but their results within my ontology only.
Like, when I am saying that if a man will jump from the hill, he will die, you can argue only about what will happen after jumping, whether he will die or merely get injured, but cannot argue whether he will jump or not. That is my basic premise, on which my ontology if his death is rooted.
Secondly, why a state cannot have the intent to carry on with medical research? When a state can have almost impossible looking intent of landing a human on the moon and can achieve that too, why not medical research? Is it more difficult than Apollo mission, or needs more money than that?
What is the motivation behind all social securities programs and Obamacare? If US can have intent to provide Obamacare to every US citizen, why it cannot have intent to provide free medical facilities and carry on with reaserch?
Yes, I not denying it either.
Ucci, you do not deduct notions completely. That is why you reach to the wrong conclusions all the time.
It is true that competition pushes for innovation, but the story does not ends there but goes further. As nothing happens without a cause so there is one more question to be asked; why competition creates innovation?
The answer is that one tries to innovate in competition to leave others behind. But, that begs the next question; why one wants others to leave behind?
Again, the reason that one sees or expect some kind of personal benefit in leaving others behind. That is the actual reason for innovations in private sector, not competitiveness. And, if some worthy individuals of any field will be assured of that personal benefit, they will be able to innovate, irrespective of capitalism, socialism or even communism.
Means, if innovators will be sure that they will get some fame and money, they will certainly innovate even being in govt job. All depends on the provided or proposed incentive. That is why and how USSR managed to match US in military innovations, even being a communist country.
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.
Ucci, you neither pay full attention to my words nor think enough.
To work any system fine, it is not the govt but common citizens, who have to be wise as they are in the majority. A state comprises of merely some individuals, who are also supposed to be wiser than average. Thus, it is easier to force the issue from their side.
That is precisely why education is the most focussed sector in my ontology, to make the society wise, as a whole. But, to initiate that process, it has to be pushed once from the top. Though, it is not the case it will never initiate from the bottom of the pyramid. It certainly will one day, but not before going through a hard and long way of learning and suffering.
Adam Smith (1723-1790) lived in the 18th century. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776), usually abbreviated as “The Wealth of Nations”, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. It was published in 1776.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes, and?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??!
Well, there’s the entire reason the U.S. decided to go with a jury system in the first place, for example.
So your argument for completely changing the American justice system is ‘why not’?
Really. Because in your immediately previous quote, it really looks like that’s exactly what you did.
Whatever for, since you just said there is no reason to believe they are better or worse than state-appointed lawyers?
No. A judicial system that doesn’t suck takes it for granted that some of it’s judges/jury will be crooks, and tries to minimize their impact through an appeals process, jury selection procecess, and etc.
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.
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.
When the investigators feel that they are done with the investigation, they will submit their report with all concerned findings to a bench of judges/jury. At this stage, the judges/jury will only decide whether there is any prima facie merits in the case or not. Concerned parties may also represent themselves. If the jury decide to further with the case, it will hand over the case to a different jury to discuss and dispose, either on its own or after hearing from lawyers from prosecution and defence departments of judiciary. Any dissatisfied party may ask retrial from another jury.
[/quote]
None of this is any different than what we have now.
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.
Only if you’re a fucking rampant socialist. 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.
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?
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.
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’.
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.
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.
That’s just anti-capitalist rhetoric without any baring in reality. I think you’re just mad at people who earn money.
Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that healthcare researchers do it, in part, to help humanity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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 you compared me to mutcer and told me I was cheating at the conversation. 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.
Getting re-elected because people will vote for you if you promise them things.
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.
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.
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.
It could be, but as we saw in examples like USSR, Cuba, and China, it probably won’t be.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
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 ".
And, US left pure capitalism forever, when Federal Reserve established in 1913. Income tax was also imposed in US for the first time.
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 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Addressed already.
In that case, why do you not put your understanding of capitalism forth? Let me see what you have.
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?
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.
Already addressed above in this post.
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.
Everything else is fine except private lawyers. Let the state have lawyers for both sides, if they are so necessary.
Read carefully again. My argument for change is “betterment” not “why not”.
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!
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?
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.
I have already said that the difference would be only in the mindset of concerned people and details, not in broad framework.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Already addressed in this post.
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.
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?
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.
Your assertion may have looked slightly more appealing, had you used “practical” instead of “fucking”. Are you having dinner regularly with Satyr these days!
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. -
And, I just told you again how it can by providing same incentives which private sector provides.
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.
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.
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!
Addressed already in this post.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’ve yet to define what it’s ‘true form’ is. Indeed, you’ve said their are a variety of forms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Actually, you said something stupid, and only now a month later are you explaining it. That’s not on me.
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.
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.
[/tab]