Goverment regulation and jobs

It's pretty simple, say you add additional regulation to an Electrical company. That adds more cost, they pass that cost on to the customer ( YOU and I). Do you really think a business can survive if they keep eating the cost of more regulation without passing it on to the customer?

As I've said MANY MANY times. There is a need for regulation, it's the added regulation where it starts getting costly, and less efficient. It's like a gun law, why would you keep adding gun laws when CRIMINALS are the ones ignoring them? All you need to do is when a company breaks regulatory standards, punish them for doing so Instead of adding more regulation that really doesn't do anything. As I said before about gun laws, if people that commit crimes with guns got the maximum punishment for that crime, there wouldn't be any need for additional laws. This would apply the same way with regulation. Pretty simple stuff!

Still talking blanket generalizations sinij? For shame.

I don't think so. I don't need to look far to see your fellow conservatives rave and rage about the usual, communists, freedom and constitution, while not even understanding ideas behind their talking points. Derid, while you are not acting unreasonable or uninformed, conservative movement around you is going off the deep end in a blaze of ignorance.

Maybe, but to a much lesser degree than the leftists because the left is ignoring some basic self evident points.

1) The bigger the govt, the harder it is to keep an eye on what that govt does. One of the biggest problems with a huge federal govt is accountability.

2) Like any system, the more "moving parts" and the greater the complexity - the more entropy.

3) One size does not fit all. The more totalitarian you become, the more individuals get squeezed out. Society is made up of individuals, if you focus on individual rights then everyone's rights are protected. If you start thinking in a group-based mentality, many individuals get the shaft.

4) Socialism has not worked well anywhere. A few societies that have an abundance of natural resources have been able to fund socialist seeming programs to some extent, but every society that depends on a real internal economy and embraces it ends up devolving.

5) Just because what we have now is not perfect, does not mean that any other available change would necessarily be for the better.

So you're saying that added regulation cost doesn't get passed down to the consumer? Over regulation is a problem, and it causes A lot of Inefficiency. Obama has even came out and said there's some unnecessary regulation. Is he wrong as well? Or is he just being a conservative

Agree with 5, disagree with 4 but acknowledge our past natural resources argument, 3 is not an argument, 2 is unavoidable, stick is simplest weapon yet we fly jets, agree with #1.

You critique of point #2 is invalid because a Jet is a discrete system that requires considerable outside resources to keep working. It works by the same principles as a socialist economy funded by natural resources that acquire large amount of cash and other material support and resources simply by virtue of digging a hole in the ground and hauling stuff out of it.

A jet is not intended to be self-perpetuating.

Point 3 is an observation. I probably could have broken it into into two separate points for greater clarity.

I am still waiting on a working example in regards to point 4, that can operate with self sufficiency.

Regardless of example I provide, you simply going to argue that current western lifestyle is only possible due to abundance of cheap oil&gas energy. While this is correct, without oil&gas our civilization would collapse, this fact has nothing to do with social programs, and everything to do with cheap energy and resources enabling our present quality of life, from most social to least social government _ALL OF THEM_ would fail without this energy.

No, current western lifestyle is a result of capitalism. The couple instances of widespread socialism that occurs without demonstrable immediate problems is a result of large energy exports.

There is a big difference.

The world has many economies that are exist in varying states of capitalism, socialism, with varying degrees of corruption and cronyism etc. Different sources of various resources from energy to labor.

Understanding which are which, and who is doing and supplying what is critical if you want to tie together a case for any system of socioeconomic management.

Its also important to separate the accidental from the systemic.

One other thing to keep in mind is the level of interventionism, and the byproducts of such intervention (by govt into the economy). If you are not looking at the consequences of interventionism by several degrees of removal, you are not getting an accurate picture of the consequences.

The problem is that Socialist lines of thinking are fundamentally incapable of providing for a self sustaining economic growth. Which is why you cannot and will never see a self sustaining model. So, Socialist advocates fall back on the emotional aspects of how "good" it sounds or ad hominem attacks on those who challenge their faith.

If someone was capable of breaking this pattern and putting forth a model that actually worked, and allowed liberty to flourish I would be all for it. I am not exactly the "1%", if there was a way to actually provide for greater economic growth and happiness I would be all for it. Sadly, there is not - or at the very least noone has outlined how such a system would work.

Good lord give an example. You yourself have complained about this kind of response.

Helemoto, I have done just so in every thread.

The List:

1. Sweden (social, 9% GDP)
2. Canada ( social, 9% GDP )
3. Netherlands (state mandated purchase of private health insurance, 8% GDP)
4. Australia ( social, 6% GDP)


99. USA (private, 15% GDP)


Outcomes list reads pretty much in the same order. USA spends MORE (absolute and % GDP numbers) and gets LESS than every other first-world country.

How can you possibly argue that the US gets less than every other country for our medical care when nearly ALL of the medical advancements the rest of the world enjoys came from the US?

Perhaps you should separate out of that 15% how much is for R&D and then compare something closer to apples and apples.

Key is - rest of the world enjoys, not US. There is no denying that US has best medical care for those with unlimited budget, sadly too many people priced out of the market.

I previously posted these statistics, but any way you look at overall US population - life expectancy, child mortality, number of readmissions, % population dying from preventable diseases... they _ALL_ trail behind.

From other thread that got fagged up by Vuldan:

I would not like to enter discussion,
but can you Kaotic point out how much USA gain with royalties and patents from the rest of the world using them, and the new millionares and bilionares from those.. enjoy is not the word lol... the word is $$, because everything invented is patented, even to a government/company want to use a medicine developed by a US company, it will pay rolyalties to US company, it´s big money.

My point though is that your numbers include all the money being invested in R&D that other countries don't generally do nearly as much as the US does.

I'm sure there is quite a bit of money involved in providing quality medical care across the globe. Money makes the world go 'round brother. How would you propose those people be compensated for their hard work to save people's lives?

Also I do not know how the things works in USA, but here in Brazil the private companies behind the health care plans, determine how much they pay for medics, how much time the consult medical with doctors should last, which exams would/should the doctors pass to pacients, I do not need say hows its bad because there is a unbalancing between power.
I would prefer a quality government health care system, not free but everyone paying a small %, so with everyone paying would teorically be cheap(not the right word, but half of the price that costs in US) like in those countries that sinji listed. Not everyone would use/benefit from it, but it´s like insurance you never know when you would need it.

Mithus, didn't you say that you're currently in law school?

yes, my comment was about you saying the word "enjoy" like it was like free give by US. To me when you create/develop a service/product you gain money so you are not losing your GDP to it, because the rest of the world will pay for it, so its a not a cost like you were trying to pass, if I understand.

For example years ago went to Brazil news, a disput problem with Brazil med factories(public) producing medicines to give for free for people with AIDs in the countrie, that ending with a agreement to continue paying royalties to US companies.

Ok, I asked that question for a reason. Did you read Vuldan's post about socializing grades? If not you should, and then honestly tell me how hard you would work for your grades if no matter what you did you would get the same reward as the rest of the class.

Now, I assume you've realized that you would not study hard at all and would in fact feel cheated because you're paying to get an education and want to be rewarded for your hard work.

How then is that in any way different for folks who work hard everyday to find break through cures for myriad diseases and then get paid for it? If there is no reward on the back end, why would they work hard to find the cures?

Let's assume that ALL of the researchers who are finding cures are 100% altruistic and are only doing it because they want to help people (there are probably quite a few that are that way). Now, while they may be smart and capable they can't just wish equipment and facilities for research into being. Some one has to pay that bill. Should that person, who pays out millions of dollars to finance research not be compensated for their investment? What about the fact that nearly ALL of the medical investors in the country completely lose their shirts on most of the research that never pans out, or takes decades to bear fruit? If they don't make some money on the few things that do work, they won't have any to keep investing in things like HIV or cancer, that still don't have cures after decades of research.

To answer your question about the word "enjoy." From Webster's Dictionary enjoy: to have for one's use, benefit, or lot
It doesn't necessarily mean to like or take pleasure in, but no definition of it indicates something enjoyed would be free.

I think the language barrier is beating us up here. I didn't suggest that making medicine is a cost to be factored in to the percent of GDP spent on medical care. I'm making exactly the opposite case, that money spent on R&D should not be included in the numbers that Sinj has posted to show that the US spends more per capita on health care than other countries.

Something else just occurred to me. I used to have a friend in New Zealand. She suffered from chronic bronchitis, the cure for which is a minor surgery (tonsillectomy I think). Their socialized medical care would not provide that operation for her unless her bronchitis was life threatening. Instead she was forced to go see a doctor 3 to 4 times a year and wait for hours each time (after waiting days for an appointment) to get a prescription for an antibiotic (over use of which, by the way, only serves, through evolution, to ensure that those bacterium continue to grow stronger and stronger by eliminating the weak ones and selecting for those that are resistant to the drugs) that would then take several more days to eliminate the infection so she could return to work. Now, the medical treatment was nearly free for her, but what about the cost of her lost time at work, to both her and to the company she worked for? What about all the other folks who could be helped when they are wasting time seeing her over and over and over again rather than fix the problem once and for all? These are just a few of the problems with "free" medical care.

Please do not came with that history for child, I recomend you to read "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx, take a read full without any prejudice. It will no be a like history to a child about their grade take way by other people.

Also how is high school in US, do you guys take Political Science and other classes related to that like philosofy, sociology and etc?


the rest your comment is unecessary, I do not know, are you sure that like to me you pointed out that the 16% in US was because the word R&D, that i guess you are saying about research and development, so those 16% is because you are saying that you are is more expensive because that? but if that is true are you putting that in the equation the money gained with all patents and royalts around the world gained with those discoveries?

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dwhy%2520is%2520the%2520us%2520life%2520expectancy%2520and%2520child%2520mortality%2520lower%26fr%3Dytff1-#search=%22why%20us%20life%20expectancy%20child%20mortality%20lower%22

Take what you want from that link. Its a paper from the University of Penn.

In Brazil the "free(not free)" goverment health care system is a chaos, tha patient will wait much more like in your example, the private plans of course are much better but 70% population cannot pay for it, because its 2 times their whole salary per month(base familiar income here is about $500 US per month). So if we didnt have even a precarious government health system, that would be a big internal problem. I´m saying if there is a country that would make work a public and efficient health care system, that would be US and cheap.

I'm saying that 16% INCLUDES the cost of research and development and that for there to be accurate comparison to the socialized medical communities those moneys should be removed from that figure.

What is wrong with this analogy? Please explain to me why this is childish. It is a nearly perfect analogy for capitalism vs. communism.

Yes, in high school I had Political Science, Sociology, American History, and World History. I also had Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, and Calculus. Since then I've had three more history classes, a psychology class and two economics classes in college (never mind the chemistry, biology, physics and other courses). None of that includes the dozens of books I've read on these subjects and online research I do on a regular basis to stay informed. How is any of this pertinent to the debate? If you're trying to suggest that my viewpoints are molded by lack of education I'm afraid that dog won't hunt.

I would gladly read Das Kaptital, unfortunately its not free and I feel that it would be contributing to the evil capitalist machine if I purchase it. Perhaps if there is a copy at the library I'll check it out.

You've already pointed out several times to us, that much of the problem is Brazil is the corruption in the government. I think you have to seriously look at fixing that before you can legitimately talk about fixing your health care system.

Because it´s too simplistic, and do not put in many variable involved, and you do not get rich yourself alone, it´s not your hardwork alone. Many of the great bilionaries of the USA in the past century achivied that with exploring hard work of people with bad work conditions, so their fortunes were not fruit of their hard work, it was product of bad regulations from government. Give an example here from Brazil the Barons of Coffe got rich by exploring slave work until almost 1900.. then with the pression from england and other countries the government freed the slaves, while instead of giving them jobs they preferead to import imigrant work from europe and japan to work in their plantations..

ps: I´m not communism(comunism is not the answer for our society) or like socialism, but I believe we must find a balance betwen capitalism and some services that some of you would consider socialism like universal health care system(not free).

The private plans are a big industries that moves billions of dollars per year, its a industry like the war industry, so there are big lobbies behind it, telling and spreading lies to that their dominance continue going on..



Not in any moment I tried to say that you were not educated, but somehow to us the general archetype of an highschool american is that hes not that bright, sometimes you(the american) cannot point out where is the Europe in tha map of the globe(at same type you have stereotypes of the other peoples countries), to us is pointed that you guys only know about yourselves and your way of life, so if you guys really had political sciency and studied a semester on that you have at least to read some parts of Karl Max creations, but that would be waste of time or heresy to US people.

And I know you are that have more arguments out of people here in KGB about your political view points.

Monetary system and grade system are two different concepts, there isn't finite amount of grades that we as a society need to redistribute in most effective way and lack of grades does not result in dire socio-economic consequences for the individual.

Lets get back to our discussion.

If capitalism and free market is so effective at containing costs why is US spends significantly more than any other country with socialized medicine while results are significantly worse?

You suggest that US spends more on medical research and rest of the world benefits from this knowledge. While US does spend more (but only in absolute $, not percentage of GDP) on medical research, how none of this research (accounting for 6% of GDP!) produces any revenue? Are you suggesting that all these new drugs, medical devices and training for novel treatments are just given for free to the rest of the world?

There is also not a finite amount of wealth in the world...

I can't tell if you guys are intentionally ignoring my premiss or if I'm really that unclear.

Wealth, unless you define it as fiat currency, is finite.

As in, unlike grades, you can't have enough for everyone to have all they want.

The principle of taking from one who earned and giving to another who did not still stands.

Also, Das Kapital is a joke, Marx nor any others has ever actually described a working system of wealth creation. Marx supporters fall back on two defenses - one being that anyone who looks at their agenda with the critical eye of rationality and science is simply part of or a tool of the "1%" so to speak - and the other being their claim to an inherent "morality" of being "fair".

Sinij, maybe later I will explain to you how the health care system works and why we get the cost issues we have ( hint: there are 3 primary reasons). But before that, if you are so in favor of Obamacare why dont you write up an essay that addresses what it is trying to do, and account for the unintended consequences while you are at it.

You should take some time to say why it will work.

A few points to address - the payout system, medicare funding, death panels, where costs the govt tries to forcibly cut will re-appear, the level of care people should expect, the effect on existing insurance plans, long term viability in the face of a falling dollar. Also the effects on the economy of the new taxes it introduces, especially the new tax on home sales.

I will say one thing, Obamacare looks likely to raise the costs of advanced health care for people around the world as the pharmaceutical companies look to recoup costs. Expect big legal and diplomatic fights over that as well.

I stated this number of times, but you keep bringing it up, so please write it down: I am not in favor of Obamacare. Obamacare was Republican-proposed compromise plan back from the day of Hillarycare and this time around was the best deal democrats managed to push through due to opposition from the right. It is only marginally better than previous system by addressing lifetime maximum, providing exchanges for personal buyers and disallowing practice of dropping coverage to the sick. Obamacare will also likely to be more expensive than existing system, turning 15% GDP health care costs into something approaching 18% and probably pushing US healthcare expenditures above all EU spending combined in absolute numbers.

As I mentioned previously, I too have a problem with fragmented, not uniformly regulated private insurance market as a gatekeeper of health care. I don't see Obamacare as attack on my liberties, constitution or freedom, but that doesn't mean I think it is a good system.

The only real way of containing medical costs while providing universal coverage is strict rationing that only possible under fully socialized system, where government directly collects health care costs as taxes and provides payouts to hospitals and private practices. Current system, where individual and employer have to pay for medical insurance is already extra-governmental tax on income, where you have to pay at least 5% of average salary just to get any coverage.

As to "death panels"... I am disappointed. Of all people on the right I'd expect you to see through this hysteria. You know health care has to be rationed, there is no way around it. Only now private insurers make decisions how to ration it, they currently do "death paneling" while trying to maximize profits!

I really don't understand right's obsession with "mine, stay away, mine!". Do bank CEOs earn multimillion dollar bonuses while taking bailouts? This might be extreme example, but nobody earns anything in a vacuum. As exploitative as they might be, our society made these bonuses possible, not efforts of these CEOs. Society, in its entirety, from welfare queens to cure-for-cancer inventors, make your earning possible.

Whatever you do for living, imagine you are moved to Somalia. Do you see your life drastically changing and your ability to earn entirely disappearing as a result of absence of society enabling you to earn?

You are correct, was not sure that you had internalized the rationing though. I will agree with you on this as far as necessity of rationing goes.

Though I dislike having govt agents decide it even less than I like the current system.

See this is where you veer off the cliff, rationally speaking. Society in its entirety certainly did not and does not make things possible, only certain aspects do.

Also, you know Somalia is a very silly comparison. You are trying to mix arguments.

So lets pick this apart.

First, Capitalism is self-evidently responsible for the wealth that has been created in our society. Socialism does not create wealth it spreads it around, I am pretty sure even you agree with this. Central economic planning simply doesn't work.

Secondly, we all agree that banks should not have gotten bailouts - but that is not Capitalism at work. That is Interventionism, a close cousin to Socialism. Also in this case throw in a good dose of cronyism, not sure how or why you insist on confusing that for Capitalism but that seems to be something all the "99percenters" like to do... and it makes absolutely zero sense.

Third, CEOs - that is people who lead and organize enterprise certainly can contribute to wealth generation. So can many others. Something that welfare queens certainly do not do is contribute to wealth generation.

Society as a whole just "is", if you want to create an accurate statement you have to consider the component parts and examine the details of how the wealth is actually created and flows. I think this is Jet's problem as well when he posts here. Its something endemic with the left, the left just does not understand in many cases that wealth even CAN be created by human action... and thinks it is something that occurs on its own, which is simply not true.

Sorry, creating wealth is hard. Making money if you get the govt on your side is not. But there is a very profound difference between the two.

Capitalism sans govt Intervention is a meritocracy. Socialism and Interventionism are bureaucracies. One system pays out profits fairly based on the services and goods provided. The other two pay out profits based on politics. I am sure you do not understand why anyone objects to having govt leeches who provide nothing and have no stake in your life or business telling you how to run your business or how to spend your money, but it irks the rest of us greatly.

And I am glad you do not understand the " mine, mine,mine". Please Paypal me all the money receive above and beyond what you need for survival. I am a part of society, and you couldn't have gotten it without me anyway. LOL

The "Mine , mine , mine" mentality is simply that having other people ( who did not work for your money ) tell you who to give it to, when those people you must give it to are not using it to provide services in your interest (like a military for ex. ) is very irritating. Especially when they preach down to you about their false morality as they do so.

In fact, the the Bank Bailouts are actually analogous to this. People who did not earn money receiving it from the govt because of politics. As mad as you get because a few Banks got bailed out, I get because of the govt trying to micromanage my finances and health care and taxing me to dole out money on the basis of crony politics. Whether it is Dems buying Union votes, Dems or GOPers handing cash to bankers, or either party handing out subsidies to their favorite industries. Its all the same.

That being said, some level of safety nets are acceptable as long as they are below the threshold of providing undue drain on my wallet or danger to the economy. If the left had left off where we were in 2000 I would have myself been content. But instead of being happy that we had created a more or less sustainable society that still contained safety nets and forced retirement programs ( SS, Medicare) the left wanted yet more.

My biggest objection to the left any more and the reason I now flat out reject them in all manners is because of this. It is clear that it will NEVER be enough. If I still have a penny of my own left to spend, there will be leftists waiting to spend it for me. If I have a choice left in what food I eat or what I choose to do with my time, there will be a leftist wanting to use force to make me abide by their way. Once they take over completely I can kiss any property I own goodbye as well, so says history.

I get really depressed whenever I think about how far socialism has progressed in this country, and statist group-think.

Somalia is not such off-base comparison. It demonstrate what happens when society disappears. You cannot create wealth in the vacuum, and society isn't just "is", social order has to be maintained so productive part of society can go on and create wealth.

Are you familiar with game theory? If yes, human society cannot exist with pure cooperators, it is just not in human nature to behave in altruistic manner or purely creatively. We can only manage level of exploitators, best we can hope is to keep level down so cooperators can function. As much as I hate defending welfare queens, their contribution to society is not murdering you and me with a machete while we sleep. That what we pay them for, to keep exploitators from outright destructive behavior. We both might not like it, but Somalian alternative is much, much worse.

Not exactly, unless you define popularity and good looks, family connections, inheritance, a lot of luck, and a great deal of ruthlessness and unprincipled backstabbing as a merit.

Noble prize winner club is meritocracy, our society as a whole is not and never will be. Plus 'Capitalism sans govt Intervention' is as much pipe dream as Communism. Wealth concentration leads to Power concentration, this in turn leads to Wealth influencing rules of wealth acquisition. Cronyism and Interventionism aren't deviations, they are inevitable conclusion of Capitalism.

Your choices are potentially incompetent, likely ineffective due to bureaucracy, or effective but malicious due to incentive system set up to encourage screwing people over.

I will pick incompetent and ineffective over someone who is given strong incentive to screw me over and deny coverage.

Except in no place have you made a successful argument that your brand of socialism is required or instrumental in the maintenance of such order. In fact, as society has greatly flourished, all things considered in the past two centuries and the topics we are debating revolve around relatively new or upcoming introductions into our economic and political life - it is therefore demonstratively false that your "Somalia example" serves as anything but a Red Herring in the discussion.

Three refutations to this post are self-evident.

1) You do not know the definition of Interventionism in regards to its scientific and academic terminology. ( Bank bailouts, govt mandates, etc are interventionism. Standard law prohibiting certain types of bad behavior is not.)

2) A small govt focused on protecting liberty, can better protect the smaller business from unfair and illegal assault by larger rivals who employ underhanded means. Large, Interventionist govt is most easily corrupted by nature of the difficulty of holding its small constituent pieces accountable.

3) The effects of "good looks, family connections, inheritance, a lot of luck, and a great deal of ruthlessness and unprincipled backstabbing " are human conditions, not ones strictly regulated to Capitalism. The USSR and other Socialism attempts have proven this, as has just about any iteration of any govt anywhere. That you would ignore this evident reality and attempt to impugn these traits on Capitalism alone has tipped your arguments off the precipice of short-sightedness into the realm of patent absurdity.

Talk about a false dichotomy. But a good reminder of one reason the Founders saw fit to enshrine our right to keep and bear arms nonetheless.

However, I must say I find the idea of allowing a sub-class to perpetuate by reason of not implementing free-market reforms that would help them lift themselves out of said sub-class due to fear of the sub-class itself to be utterly abhorrent.

Better give the scary man a fish, but dont even think about teaching him to fish - hes scary and might decide he just wants me to hand him fish after all?

You are misdirecting. Do you or do you not acknowledge that one of the roles of society is to enable wealth creation, and that no wealth could be created without society?

No misdirecting, calling you out on it.

Also, strictly speaking from the point of logic - yes you can in fact create wealth in a vacuum. Greater participants have greater capacity for wealth to be certain. However it is also certain that a solo person can start naked and alone and from there find seeds.

Plant the seeds in rows hoed out with a fallen branch and start farming. Tame animals, divert water for irrigation, build shelters.. and yes, create all sorts of wealth entirely in a vacuum. In fact at one point wealth had to be created in a vacuum, from nothing, or else we would never have achieved any sort of wealth.

A well ordered society can in fact provide a beneficial ENVIRONMENT that is more suited to creating additional wealth. You would be correct to say that it is more conducive to create certain types of wealth in the USA than in say, Somalia.

But your usage of that fact, and your comparisons were utterly irrelevant for the topics at hand, and you were also incorrect to state that wealth can only be created within society.

You probably also think of Society as an entity unto itself as opposed to the inter-workings of a great number of individuals as well - if I had to guess from your past writings.

But anyhow, now that we have hashed out the vernacular a bit - lets get down to the logic please.

I knew you would come up with 'Robinson Crusoe' example as a way to defend your shaky argument. Reason I keep bringing Somalia up is because this is not isolated environment but actual place on Earth. If you want to deal in pure logic, Society could exist with just one person, because you can perfectly cooperate with yourself. Now throw couple more people into this equation and you will need most of the belonging to Society (cooperating) in order for any Wealth creation to be possible.



This will simply not happen if society is not present. Other people will have different ideas, namely raping your wife, killing you and your children and stealing your food. This is what Somalia looks like, and no, you cannot create any appreciable wealth there.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society

I was simply clearing up the vernacular being used.

The issue here is that you are being inaccurate on so many levels, from your usage of terminology to the links you are trying to make.

The "Robinson Crusue" point, as you put it - simply states in black and white, and in an irrefutable manner that strictly speaking, wealth is not necessarily created in a group setting. One individual can in fact create wealth. Ergo, other members of a society may - but do not necessarily - play a part.

However, you should have also noted before sticking on this point that I also clarified that greater wealth can be created by group co-operation. This was defining a fine point of terminology and usage so we were on the same page.

Now, are you going to keep swinging at straw men, incorrectly using terminology and making wild claims that the alternative to your Socialist plan for society is Somalia - or are you going to step up and present an actual logical argument?

I am beginning to doubt you can, since you seem to be trying to base your first principles on easily debunked premises.

I will give you a hint: to go anywhere with this line of reasoning you appear to be pursuing, you need to re-arrange your budding argument away from the "society is needed to create wealth" to "most of the wealth we currently enjoy is created in the context of a modern society".

Now, start over, examine the clear cut difference in the lines of reasoning and try again.

Derid, my point still stands, and you failed to dispute it. You are confusing "created by" and "must be present" arguments.

A society, as defined by webster - "an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another" is necessary for any wealth creation. In very simplified terms, if multiple individuals are present, they need to show basic level of cooperation in order for any of them to create any wealth. I never claimed that individual cannot create wealth, they can and do, what I am saying is that individual has to belong to society to have opportunity to create wealth.



Your confusion seems to be based on the fact that you seem to completely dismiss negative effects of human interaction. You argue that since individual can create wealth in perfect isolation (I do not dispute this), you can scale it up to any size and proportionally scale wealth creation (I dispute this part) without any regards to interaction of these individuals.

These are 'human conditions' and are not unique to Capitalism, but these human conditions prevent Capitalism from becoming a meritocracy. Your claim that "Capitalism sans X, Y, Z is a meritocracy" is not a valid argument, since "sans X, Y, Z" will never happen outside of very controlled conditions controlling for 'human conditions'.

If you are trying to have a rational/logical debate, please stick to the statements/claims I actually made.

Holy cow sinij, it is just difficult when you pile up 1000 inaccurate assumptions to take time to dispel every single one.

First of all, I did not confuse them. You do not apparently understand their relevance is the problem. You cannot prove that society must be present, because you cannot prove that other people will even necessarily be around.

Plus just because other people WISH to interfere with you in a violent manner, does not make them capable of doing so. Please Think your arguments through please.

You cannot prove that a society is needed for wealth creation unless you can clear the following hurdles:

1) That other people are inherently needed. This is patently false, and self-evident.

2) That other people are even present. Unless you can prove that a guy hidden away in the mountains cannot create wealth for himself, your argument falls apart.

I understand what you are trying to say in a general sense, but the fine points of what you are trying to pass for logic just does not hold up. You can say a cat is a dog if you want, but it doesnt make it true.

Also, how have I dismissed the negative effects of human interaction? I addressed that. Read closer.

You try to say "Your confusion seems to be based on the fact that you seem to completely dismiss negative effects of human interaction. You argue that since individual can create wealth in perfect isolation (I do not dispute this), you can scale it up to any size and proportionally scale wealth creation (I dispute this part) without any regards to interaction of these individuals."

When the previous quotes from me

a)"However, you should have also noted before sticking on this point that I also clarified that greater wealth can be created by group co-operation. This was defining a fine point of terminology and usage so we were on the same page."

b) "A well ordered society can in fact provide a beneficial ENVIRONMENT that is more suited to creating additional wealth. You would be correct to say that it is more conducive to create certain types of wealth in the USA than in say, Somalia."

c) "I will give you a hint: to go anywhere with this line of reasoning you appear to be pursuing, you need to re-arrange your budding argument away from the "society is needed to create wealth" to "most of the wealth we currently enjoy is created in the context of a modern society"."

These quotes and others prove that I had not dismissed the negative effects of human interaction, and you either are simply not reading what I wrote or are trying to call a cat a dog.

Additionally your admission thus : "You argue that since individual can create wealth in perfect isolation (I do not dispute this)" is also an admission that you can create wealth in a vaccum.

And lastly, in your statement : "In very simplified terms, if multiple individuals are present, they need to show basic level of cooperation in order for any of them to create any wealth." you are technically correct. HOWEVER: It is important to identify and separate types of co-operation. The issue you seem to be getting at is security co-operation. Security co-operation does not imply a greater economic co-operation. Also, co-operation can be coerced.

So are you ever going to lay out a clear argument in favor of your policies? So far all you have done is try (unsuccessfully ) to nitpick semantics.

You have also focused on this particular point without addressing the other ways I debunked your thought train as well. A thought train that, I might add, has yet to even leave the station.

You did not clearly make them, but you were obviously trying to imply them. It should have been self-evident that these conditions applied universally, thus pointing it out in direct response to Capitalism can and should be taken the way it was taken.

Since we are comparing system of govt, all comparisons are relative to the types of govt being discussed. The burden lies on you to make a case that these human conditions are a greater detrimental effect on society under Capitalism than other forms of governance.. which is a difficult proposition because history has shown the opposite to be true time and again. Much better tactical tack to throw out an allusion while trying to retain plausible deniability and hope you dont get called on it, as you did.

Compared to a centrally planned system, Capitalism is indeed a meritocracy. The human traits you describe have been overcome by budding Capitalists again and again, because incidental cases of human failings have nowhere near the negative effect that a govt that acts in a large scale organized fashion to repress individuals has.

It should be self evident that an individual has a better chance to flourish in a system where the govt is small, accountable and focused on protecting his individual rights than in a system where the govt is large, unaccountable, and focused on centrally managing the lives of everyone.

So, I entreat you - please make your case. I recommend doing it in a separate thread but that of course is up to you.

So far the only point you have made is that in the presence of multiple individuals, some degree of security co-operation is required. A point which, contrary to some of your previous statements I have never disagreed with.

What I disagreed with was you trying to use that to make a case for govt programs and interference that had not previously existed (because trying to make such a link is evidently false, as evidenced immediately by the presence of the PC you are presumably typing on. ) But you somehow took this point and turned it into multiple posts worth of Red Herring.

So I ask again, make a case.

My case is, as always, was :

Nobody exists in a vacuum, every one is part of society. Your contributions, be it wealth creation or something else, are also product of the society as a whole. Functional society requires outlays for all individuals in order to continue functioning. As such existence of these outlays, be it in form of taxes, social programs or else is what enables society that enables individuals to be productive.

TL;DR version - if you cut social spending, society that allow you to create wealth will cease to exist in a massive wave of riots and anarchy. You can create wealth only because you are willing (or forced to) share portion of it in order to maintain this society.



Current lifestyle is a result of greater degree of cooperation within population, direct result of more equal and more protected societies we have built. Capitalism isn't new and existed long before our present level of prosperity and quality of life became possible.

Read this - Budget Cuts and Riots

Good luck living on an island, creating wealth and not paying for any social programs, Mr. Derid Crusoe.



I have about 7 billion reasons why this line of thinking is laughable.

Heheh getting snippy I see


You should have just taken my tip and argued from the position of "society having enabled higher degrees of wealth" as opposed to arguing semantics from an incorrect position. I never even wanted to get into the semantics debate, I just wanted to clarify the vernacular and force you to use more precision with your wording. Was hoping you would be precise and produce a logically consistent argument that would be interesting to pick apart.

It appears to have backfired though, since you seem to want to obsess over it and refuse to see the difference between "usually is" and "has to be".

So, you are saying that restraining entitlements to Clinton-era levels and halting the rapid expansion of govt and halting the centralization of control over health and other systems in the hands of the Federal Govt will turn the USA into a no-mans land?

Clarify this for me so I can be sure I am not swinging at a straw man here.

Also, even if it did result in social unrest - your position seems to imply (by virtue of it being the one you are pushing for) that you believe it to be the most correct one. I would also take issue with this. It is arguing that the threat of mob violence should take the place of rational decision making. I would also call it immoral if the argument you make above as I described it is actually the argument you are making.

It is one thing to provide a system that provides as much fairness of opportunity ( not equality of results) as humanly possible, it is quite another to bow to extortion.

I don't have to argue point you suggested, while it would present more interesting debate I detest conceding semantic fight, especially one where assertions are so illogical.

You argument that:

a) other people are not needed
b) other people might not be around

Ignores that a) other people can help and impede , and you don't get to pick and choose and
b) we live in a world where overpopulation is a problem, where anyone, least all 7 billion of us, will find such place to hide and create wealth?

I can't see how you can be intellectually honest and not concede this point.



This is not how I read your responses. Way I read it - "Lets take this idea to illogical and impossible extreme, see it doesn't work there, so whole concept is flawed".

P.S. How would you engage in political debates over internet if you are stuck on deserted island by yourself? Perhaps this entire debate is product of your approaching insanity? or maybe that coconut milk went bad and you should have thrown it away instead of drinking it?

As shocking as it may sound, I too believe in rationing of social programs. I 100% agree with you that it is possible to have too many social programs, but my "too many" probably well into "communists are here!" territory for you.

How, why and what is necessary as far as social program - that is all up to debate. How about we talk Unemployment Insurance and recent practice of extending it?

@Rationality - Are you familiar with work of Dan Ariely ( Irrationaly Yours )?

My position is that mob violence is a given part of human nature (see: human factors) and at this point rather predictable aspect that you can control with policy. Nobody should be surprised when a critical mass of starving people with no prospects form a mob and go looting.

This post seriously brought a smile to my face, and yes I mean that literally. The irony that you have allowed your inability to process and properly respond to simple logic has led you to degenerate to behaving in the same manner you took so much issue with in regards to Vuldan is not lost, at least on me. Not my intended outcome, but amusing nonetheless.

Now to pick apart what apparently passes for reasoning among leftists.

" Ignores that a) other people can help and impede " - As I pointed out earlier, I do not ignore that aspect in the slightest. It is you who by nature of the absolutism of your poorly worded argument that is trying to set a definition where outside interference is guaranteed. Again, you are confusing the way things "typically are" for "the absolute meaning of the words as used". Its really a black and white concept.

"b) we live in a world where overpopulation is a problem, where anyone, least all 7 billion of us, will find such place to hide and create wealth? " - Who ever said anything or even implied that hiding 7 billion people was practical or had anything to do with anything? It is however possible for one person to hide, and there is a ton of open space. Or perhaps the example could be set in prehistoric times, or even far in the future. The debate over the meaning of the terminology is a debate about the concepts at hand.

Remember, the debate was over the strict meaning of the wording you used - not any type of argument that hiding all 7 billion people would be practical. I will leave silly assertions of that nature to leftists.

"This is not how I read your responses. Way I read it - "Lets take this idea to illogical and impossible extreme, see it doesn't work there, so whole concept is flawed"." - no it gets back to the root concepts. If you allow a logical fallacy of that nature to stand, then presumption of the correctness of that fallacy can in turn be used to create an illogical case.

The concept of whether or not multiple people are, in the "strictest sense" required for wealth creation has powerful implications if extrapolated into a plausible scenario. As such, it is important to make sure someone misusing the terminology to misrepresent the concept is called out on it. Though in this particular case I may have just been over thinking it.

So, again asking for clarification - you are saying that if we freeze govt expansion at Clinton era levels that mobs of starving people are going to go looting?

Spell it out for me again, I do not see logical fallacy in my argument.



I personally don't agree with your argument that lone individual in perfect isolation can create wealth... wealth is a measure, if you have only one point, what do you measure it against, previous state? Even if I concede this point, how does it affect bigger argument? We established, and you agreed, that interaction is not all consensual and not all positive. So does it matter if single individual can or cannot create wealth, and if so does this wealth make a sound when it get bailed out, but nobody is there to cash in on it?

I am saying that if we eliminate all social programs the mob of starving people are going to go looting.

You could pick many benchmarks. What one has today vs what one had yesterday. If you measure wealth as something solely to be compared to against other people, I can see why you argue about it the way that you do. But wealth can be any sort of useful resource. Ex: Robinson Crusoe stumbles across a pile of fallen coconuts, and the fallen coconuts have not gone bad and turned into poison. He could be said to be much wealthier than he had been the day before. Ex2: Robinson Crusoe actually builds a still, and intentionally makes the coconut milk go bad in a manner designed to produce alcohol and now has a refreshing nightcap to provide a little luxury to his solitude.

""

I am saying that if we eliminate all social programs the mob of starving people are going to go looting. "" (dropped oracle quotes due to having to many quotes )

Well, even if we allow that presumption to stand for now - that has never been the crux of this discussion. I simply do not recall ever calling for the immediate and unconditional removal of all safety nets or social programs. In fact just the opposite, I made a case that the Clinton era system worked well enough for our purposes and that properly allowed to otherwise flourish, our economy could probably sustain such a level of social spending for a long period of time, perhaps even indefinitely.

The topic at hand was what has come after, and what is coming in the future.

Also, I have some issue with you classifying lack of violence with positive contribution to society. Or perhaps we simply need to clarify the difference between positive and negative contributions.

If we just kill all the poor people we wouldn't need social programs...right?

Derid, so since we agreed that we cannot end social programs, and we indeed need some for our society to continue cooperative (peacful) existence, the only question is what level of social programs do we need to maintain?

Do you want to discuss any specific programs? I am uncomfortable with "Clinton-era" budget estimates, not only this is fixed number, not adjusted by inflation, it also does not discuss priorities and use of these social programs...

Let me elaborate on this more. Hypothetical example - US implemented single-player health care system and merged medicare, VA into this program. Overall costs projected at 11% of GDP (down from 15%) and are now collected as value-added tax. Overall per-person costs go down from $7500 per year to $5000 per year per person.

If you look in absolute social outlays, numbers will increase. If you look at % of GDP numbers will decrease. If you look at per person costs number will decrease.

In the grand total, I doubt costs would go down and the CBO has a history of grossly underestimating costs, especially more than 2 years out. Or, if costs really did go down, quality and availability will also follow suit. I think our health care is *good enough*, because there are no plans to centralize it that will reduce costs while keeping quality and availability.

When I refer to Clinton era, I am more or less fixing it to GDP% and more or less general taxation/outlay ratio. Sure, in any budget that large there is room to re-arrange some things, or change spending priorities but if memory serves in 1998 total entitlements were about 9% of GDP.

I think that this number is more or less sustainable, though I think 8% would be a safer number when thinking in the long term.

If you have social and economic issues such that 8% of the total economy cannot successfully help sustain those who are unfortunate enough to require them, then you have much greater social and economic problems of a type that throwing more money at covering the symptoms and ignoring whatever the root issue might be will simply lead to an even bigger collapse down the road. Case in point is Greece. There were a lot of things wrong with Greece, but it is inarguable that they increased govt welfare, govt jobs as means of employment and borrowed heavily to do. Eventually this became unsustainable for them.

Which is where I see us currently heading, which is why I am so opposed to the path we are currently on.

If you want to fudge, plan for a cap of 9% with a target of 8%.

Also, I was agreeing in regards to short term. I think long term, most social programs could be offloaded to the states to craft more local solutions and there are various paths to get there.

What quality and availability? Too many uninsured, because they can't afford premiums even when healthy and cannot find minimal wage job that offers benefits. They get sick, with preventable and avoidable conditions, then when it gets serious start clogging emergency rooms.

I recently worked with a group of fresh out of school kids, out of curiosity I asked how many of them had health insurance while looking for job (these days it can take years to find a job!). None had, they simply could not afford it! Healthy mid-20th could not afford premiums!!! These are bright, educated young people... you can only imagine what it looks look for your average bear.



Good enough for you and me? Absolutely! With my plan I get best care in the world, it really covers everything I would ever want and I don't ever have to wait in line because Blue Cross Blue Shield is accepted everywhere. What happens when I lose my job? What happens if I get sick and can no longer work? What happens to people that are already in such predicament? How can I ever start my own small business if individual health care is so unaffordable?

I don't think that would work, because places like Texas exist. They would be more than happy to leave sick and poor to die in the sun. I know, I lived there for a number of years.

Medicaid. Enough said. Plus any hospital that takes govt money is required to treat emergency patients. I dont get why people act like insurance is the end of the world.

Bullshit, you can buy health insurance without going thru your company for about or less then what you pay now. Healthcare is not unaffordable. I just look up a family of 5 and got quoted 200 to 600 a month with 70 options.

Cost would be lower if you could go out of state to buy insurance.

Most young people do not want to pay for health insurance because they are young and healthy and dont want to waste the money. Hell I didnt even think about insurance till I got married.

There are lost of ways to get free health care now, nobody will be left to die in the street.

You are probably talking catastrophic-only, with high deductible, so when you end up in emergency room you will pay for it, instead of freeloading. Out of curiosity I looked up COBRA payments for my existing insurance - $3200ish/mo and I am healthy under 40 individual!! Who the fuck can afford this while unemployed?! Sure, I can find 200$ish catastrophic, but imagine if I had diabetes, history of cancer and were overweight smoker in my 50s. COBRA would be my only choice.

Good question, how are you going to afford it when obamacare is forcing you to pay 3k+ a year.

Costs AND availability are issues. Underlying issues are that it costs too much even if you are healthy and it gets outright unaffordable otherwise, and not enough people have coverage because they are priced out of the market.

Suggesting that someone "doesn't want any health insurance" is ridiculous, even young and healthy 20-something would buy health insurance if price was affordable and they had means to purchase. Current phenomena of young adults chancing it (odds are in your favor) and going without coverage is direct result of unreasonable cost.

Actually I have gone long periods of time without health insurance, simply because I did not think it was cost effective to have. I spent most of the rest of the past 10 years where I did have insurance, with the barest hospitalization. At one point in time I had a minimal plan with a local medical center, was fairly inexpensive but could go into the clinic/center.

Even when I had the two together, it was far less expensive than having typical insurance - and covered both routine visits and anything catastrophic. But the leftist plans eliminate that type of flexibility, all of them.

You do NOT speak for everyone. You do not even speak for the majority.

Because I certainly had the means to purchase.

Plus you are still on the "insurance" bit. Its still a fact that people arent left to die. Its also a fact that poor people already can get free govt medical care. Its also a fact that there are many programs and charities and income-scaled programs direct through doctors and providers.

Its also a fact that the leftist plans would suck the money and life out of everyone, for the additional benefit of a very few. Worse availability, worse service, higher costs... for EVERYONE.

Stop seeing the pie-in-the-sky daydream, and start looking at the facts.

The facts are, that you were taking unreasonable risks by going off insurance. Considering that health insurances are private, for profit (even supposed non-profits) organizations they create a set of rules where going off insurance creates a large number of risks outside of "on insurance"/"off insurance" decisions.

Ever heard of pre-existing conditions? If you ever get sick (I wish you many healthy years, this is hypothetical example) with something expensive, like cancer, you can be sure that these gaps in your insurance coverage would be used against you. Sure, you might eventually prevail in courts, but by that point your illness might be too far gone to effectively treat.

Under current system too many people get fucked, both insured and uninsured.

Insurance Insecurity: Families Are Losing Employer-Sponsored Insurance Coverage

Personal Bankruptcy

Pointing out again that the current system is not perfect, does not create a credible argument for your proposed solutions.

Fundamentally, centrally planned economies - which is what you propose in regards to health care, have ingrained inefficiencies that always produces a worse result. Central planning simply cannot work.

A better first step would be tort reform, which would bring down insurance costs for the doctors and hospitals themselves.

A huge part of that health care GDP goes to "insuring" against frivolous lawsuits.

Good quote that you can relate to from your own arguments, regarding the structural working of a centralized economy-
applicable to health care or anything centrally managed:

(“lower order” refers to consumer level, and “higher order”
production level.)

Every man who, in the course of economic life, takes a choice between the
satisfaction of one need as against another, eo ipso makes a judgment of value.
Such judgments of value at once include only the very satisfaction of the need
itself; and from this they reflect back upon the goods of a lower, and then further
upon goods of a higher order.2 As a rule, the man who knows his own mind is in
a position to value goods of a lower order. Under simple conditions it is also
possible for him without much ado to form some judgment of the significance to
him of goods of a higher order. But where the state of affairs is more involved
and their interconnections not so easily discernible, subtler means must be
employed to accomplish a correct(3) valuation of the means of production. It would
not be difficult for a farmer in economic isolation to come by a distinction
between the expansion of pasture-farming and the development of activity in the
hunting field. In such a case the processes of production involved are relatively
short and the expense and income entailed can be easily gauged. But it is quite a
different matter when the choice lies between the utilization of a water-course for
the manufacture of electricity or the extension of a coal mine or the drawing up
of plans for the better employment of the energies latent in raw coal. Here the
roundabout processes of production are many and each is very lengthy; here the
conditions necessary for the success of the enterprises which are to be initiated
are diverse, so that one cannot apply merely vague valuations, but requires rather
more exact estimates and some judgment of the economic issues actually
involved.
Valuation can only take place in terms of units, yet it is impossible that there
should ever be a unit of subjective use value for goods. Marginal utility does not
posit any unit of value, since it is obvious that the value of two units of a given
stock is necessarily greater than, but less than double, the value of a single unit.
(“lower order” refers to consumer level, and “higher order”
production level.)
(3 Using that term, of course, in the sense only of the valuating subject, and not in an objective and
universally applicable sense.)

Judgments of value do not measure; they merely establish grades and scales.
Even Robinson Crusoe, when he has to make a decision where no ready
judgment of value appears and where he has to construct one upon the basis of a
more or less exact estimate, cannot operate solely with subjective use value, but
must take into consideration the intersubstitutability of goods on the basis of
which he can then form his estimates. In such circumstances it will be impossible
for him to refer all things back to one unit. Rather will he, so far as he can, refer
all the elements which have to be taken into account in forming his estimate to
those economic goods which can be apprehended by an obvious judgment of
value--that is to say, to goods of a lower order and to pain-cost. That this is only
possible in very simple conditions is obvious. In the case of more complicated
and more lengthy processes of production it will, plainly, not answer.
In an exchange economy the objective exchange value of commodities enters
as the unit of economic calculation. This entails a threefold advantage. In the first
place, it renders it possible to base the calculation upon the valuations of all
participants in trade. The subjective use value of each is not immediately
comparable as a purely individual phenomenon with the subjective use value of
other men. It only becomes so in exchange value, whic h arises out of the
interplay of the subjective valuations of all who take part in exchange. But in that
case calculation by exchange value furnishes a control over the appropriate
employment of goods. Anyone who wishes to make calculations in regard to a
complicated process of production will immediately notice whether he has
worked more economically than others or not; if he finds, from reference to the
exchange relations obtaining in the market, that he will not be able to produce
profitably, this shows that others understand how to make a better use of the
goods of higher order in question. Lastly, calculation by exchange value makes it
possible to refer values back to a unit. For this purpose, since goods are mutually
substitutable in accordance with the exchange relations obtaining in the market,
any possible good can be chosen. In a monetary economy it is money that is so
chosen.
Monetary calculation has its limits. Money is no yardstick of value, nor yet of
price. Value is not indeed measured in money, nor is price. They merely consist
in money. Money as an economic good is not of stable value as has been naïvely,
but wrongly, assumed in using it as a “standard of deferred payments.” The
exchange-relationship which obtains between money and goods is subjected to
constant, if (as a rule) not too violent, fluctuations originating not only from the
side of other economic goods, but also from the side of money. However, these

fluctuations disturb value calculations only in the slightest degree, since usually,
in view of the ceaseless alternations in other economic data--these calculations
will refer only to comparatively short periods of time--periods in which “good”
money, at least normally, undergoes comparatively trivial fluctuations in regard
to its exchange relations. The inadequacy of the monetary calculation of value
does not have its mainspring in the fact that value is then calculated in terms of a
universal medium of exchange, namely money, but rather in the fact that in this
system it is exchange value and not subjective use value on which the calculation
is based. It can never obtain as a measure for the calculation of those value
determining elements which stand outside the domain of exchange transactions.
If, for example, a man were to calculate the profitability of erecting a
waterworks, he would not be able to include in his calculation the beauty of the
waterfall which the scheme might impair, except that he may pay attention to the
diminution of tourist traffic or similar changes, which may be valued in terms of
money. Yet these considerations might well prove one of the factors in deciding
whether or not the building is to go up at all.
It is customary to term such elements “extra-economic.” This perhaps is
appropriate; we are not concerned with disputes over terminology; yet the
considerations themselves can scarcely be termed irrational. In any place where
men regard as significant the beauty of a neighborhood or of a building, the
health, happiness and contentment of mankind, the honor of individuals or
nations, they are just as much motive forces of rational conduct as are economic
factors in the proper sense of the word, even where they are not substitutable
against each other on the market and therefore do not enter into exchange
relationships.
That monetary calculation cannot embrace these factors lies in its very nature;
but for the purposes of our everyday economic life this does not detract from the
significance of monetary calculation. For all those ideal goods are goods of a
lower order, and can hence be embraced straightway within the ambit of our
judgment of values. There is therefore no difficulty in taking them into account,
even though they must remain outside the sphere of monetary value. That they do
not admit of such computation renders their consideration in the affairs of life
easier and not harder. Once we see clearly how highly we value beauty, health,
honor and pride, surely nothing can prevent us from paying a corresponding
regard to them. It may seem painful to any sensitive spirit to have to balance
spiritual goods against material. But that is not the fault of monetary calculation;
it lies in the very nature of things themselves. Even where judgments of value
can be established directly without computation in value or in money, the
necessity of choosing between material and spiritual satisfaction cannot be evaded. Robinson Crusoe and the socialist
state have an equal obligation to make the choice.

Healthcare up to 18% GDP.

Pointing out that current system is deeply flawed, astronomically expensive and still fails citizens creates a credible argument that drastic change is urgently needed.



You are still wrong, brining it up again does not make it any more true. See quote below from _this thread_.








This is also wrong. The Effect of Malpractice Liability on the Delivery of Health Care.

Ok say we get the Obamacare. Now say I make 15k a year. Now say the government sends me a bill for 3k for my new health care.
I now hate the people taking food out of my mouth.
But under current tax code I pay nothing in taxes, so there's that.

Obamacare was a bandaid on a gaping wound. I clearly demonstrated in this thread (and each thread that this topic was brought up) that US Healthcare failing US people. We need to change how it works, and more than token gestures and appeasement that Obamacare managed to achieve.

Based on what works elsewhere in the world I suggested Fully Socialized Health Care, there is no denying that it costs less and provides overall better outcomes. There might be different solutions, but this is one that has factual evidence supporting it.

Never mind. There are clearly some things we will never agree on.

You are more than entitled to your wrong opinion.

Sinij, those socialist countries you mention function in that way because they basically act as a corporation that buys health care from USA private corporations. It goes back to the export thing. If they had to do all the R & D, and cover all the structural costs there is no way that ratio would hold water.

The core problem with your arguments sinij, if you only use the data that fits your scenario and ignore things that do not.

Plus the article you linked that has the USA at 18% has and I quote" In 2009, the most recent year with complete data, the industrialized country with the next highest health expenditure per GDP is the Netherlands, at 12 percent, followed closely by France, Germany, Denmark, Canada and Sweden -- all above 11 percent."

You are even using mismatched sources to provide the "best looking" data without regard to consistency.

Plus the bulk of experimental procedures, R & D, trials and absolute top end medicine happens here in the USA.

Also, you might want to look at the ramifications in Sweden.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

Stop cherry-picking your stats in a manner that amounts to outright twisting of the truth, and examine the entire reality, and you will not be able to defend their policies.

Thanks Derid. This is what I started typing before I decided that it is futile to continue pointing out that we do the lion's share of the R&D. That fact doesn't fit into Sinj's paradigm so he's ignoring it.

Why are we going in circles? How many times and in how many threads do I need to address these talking points?

R&D is done everywhere, sure US does more of it in absolute numbers, but this is because US economy is larger. Plus, unless this is academia-based research (and it won't be part of health care expenses, instead it would be under education) results and fruits of this research are not just given away, they are SOLD FOR A PROFIT to these countries.

Your "R&D" argument is not logical, unless you are suggesting US does disproportionally more failed R&D (or one that only applicable to USA) than any other country and this failed research adds to health care costs.




The core problem with your arguments is that you base them on your brand of conservatism that at its core has a faith-based worldview. Any facts or data I present are outright dismissed as "selective", yet anything supporting your point of view is seen as a paragon of integrity. I have yet to see such extreme selective reading outside of political debates.




So what you believe is "the truth" and "entire reality" but what I say is "twisting of the truth". How can we have a factual argument when you show such open bias?

I don't think any of you understand normalization.

Here is how it works:

Country "A" GDP is $10, they spend $1 on R&D - 10% of GDP goes into R&D.

Country "B" GDP is $100, they spend $9 on R&D - 9% of GDP goes into R&D.

Who spends more on R&D ? As part of % GDP - A, in absolute numbers - B.

Thank you professor! I've been struggling with another concept. Would you please deign to help me in your spare time? What is the sum of 2 and 2?

You are no different from every other elitist liberal that I've ever debated. You believe you're the smartest man in the room and as such any disagreement with you must be because us "little people" just don't understand the super duper complicated intricacies of your argument. I call shenanigans. Everyone return here with your brooms in one hour to help sweep away all the bullshit.

If you want to drag this argument down to ad hominem level I would be more than happy to call you conservative hick and a troglodyte. We also could just debate points.

Feel free to tell us how you really think. The sharing of ideas can really only be accomplished when both sides know how the other perceives them. Recognize that not once have I accused you of being less than intelligent, merely misguided, while you just slapped all of us in the face with, "I think I'm smarter than all of you."

You try and say I do not understand the concept of normalization when you do not understand the concept that 200 countries importing USA drugs, treatments and tech results in the USA getting a larger health care industry as % of GDP.

Or are you talking about consumer level spending?

In which case you are ignoring that a foreign country that buys as a bloc essentially as a single buyer and is able to get considerable discounts as they are a secondary market.

You are also ignoring the extreme cases of advanced medicine where the costs of a few procedures/treatments , the retail value is exceedingly high and skew the overall results.

You also havent faced up to the bulk of rebuttals presented.

Also, I wouldnt say someones economics is somehow faith based when you do not even understand the basic concepts of how pricing and economic valuation are reached in the first place.

I had suggested breaking off to a new thread earlier so that the argument could be refocused with clarity, but it appears you want to keep dodging rebuttals and throwing out inconsistent sources. Being inconsistent and unclear and jumping back and forth between arguments may make it hard to pin you down on every independent point, but it doesnt make you right.

I am well aware that treatments and medicine are purchased at a discount by countries with social medicine. How is "single buyer" wholesale purchasing power is not an advantage of socialized medicine? Your earlier point is that socialized medicine is ineffective, now you are contradicting yourself by pointing otherwise.



Are you suggesting that innovative treatments and drugs is the main reason why costs are so high? Do you have any data supporting this?

I was under impression that one of the costs increase sources came from individual doctors doing unnecessary expensive treatments (spine fusion comes to mind) and health insurances not having enough tools to question them.

Because the entire international system isn't socialized, the socialist country in question functions economically like a large corporation. Ergo, it does not have to deal directly with the questions of valuation - those issues are largely settled in the USA. Because neither Canada nor Sweden represent or contain the bulk of the health "means of production" so to speak or the bulk of the world market, Sweden functions economically in regards to health care more as a company of 10 million employees that operate under a comprehensive health plan.

If the "core" health care economy, that is the USA, was socialized then the inherent problems with socialization will come into play. Remember me saying somewhere prior that one upside of socialization here at home, will be higher costs elsewhere in the world?

There are lots of reasons the costs are high here. Partly it being that the USA is the primary market for first line new drugs, that does play a part. New and experimental treatments are EXPENSIVE - to a degree that helps skew overall expenditure. So does the fact that most ultra rich come here for treatment, this adds to the overall health numbers.

There are certainly also structural problems with the way our insurance system works and the way govt regulates it that add unnecessarily to costs, but breaking down an analysis on where the pain points are is outside the scope of me slacking at work to cook up a post. Maybe I will revisit it tonight.

I don't disagree with your assessment. They only way to contain health-care costs is to a) ration b) massively redistribute them. This is exactly what US should be doing.





If you compare US health care to automotive market, the only cars that available are fully-loaded brand new Cadillacs. This works great if you could afford one, but if you are in the market for economy beater market does not serve you well.




Rotten-to-the-core comes to mind. I don't think market-driven system where individual consumers do not have an option of refusing product could exist. How many people would refuse life-saving treatment, regardless of how expensive this treatment is and regardless of how little it extends their life expectancy? If you are doing research on costs, look into end-of-life treatments and effects of redistributing these costs within insurance pool.

This underlying egoistical human nature is why health-care costs will keep going up until decision making is out of hands of individual consumers. Socializing is one way of doing it, perhaps you can think of another?

Well, you are still ignoring the inherent valuation problems within any system that depends on committee based valuation (assignment of value)

But to use some real life experience, basic medical care is not all Cadillac. Like I said before, I have had basic membership at the Local Med-Alert or whatever it was called, one of those chains of emergency/walk-in clinics. Was like 80$/month. Catastrophic Hospitalization / major was like 40$. For like 120$/month I could walk in and get basic health care and was covered in case of something major.

Encouraging that type of division of labor, and private enterprise to see a need in the market and fill it at lower cost is always going to work better than assigning paid bureaucrats to try and quantify the details of a system that will actually work and serve its purpose.

Capitalistic systems (true Capitalism) are superior because all participants in the supply chain have a say in determining the exchange rate for goods and services.

Even if you maintain your argument that health care is something people "have" to have, as long as they have a real choice in which health care and who the provider is, there is always motivation for someone to try and provide that service for less cost.

This does not always happen in our current system, for a number of reasons, many of which have their roots in unnecessary govt intervention. Other root causes are people not shopping around as much as they should. Lots of people just take whatever they get from work, but the work plans are tied up in lots of regulation and HMOs, plus all the govt money that gets pumped into the system often makes a more attractive commercial target than targeting individuals who are looking to save money.

But regardless of that, there are still plenty of services and programs that do target cost savers. The fact is, that just because many people overpaid for health care - does not mean they had to over pay. If they did over pay, its their fault not the govts fault and not something we should up-end our whole society over.

I still stand by my point that "true capitalism" isn't possible outside of very narrow controlled (lot of regulation, har har) circumstances. If left to its own Capitalism quickly turns into Cronyism or Corporatism due to interchangeable nature of wealth and power. Designing "Capitalistic systems (true Capitalism)" is as realistic assumption as building communism. Both assume unrealistic lack of "human factors" from its participants.

Derid, at some point you will come to realization that "true capitalism" is only possible in a tightly regulated environment where 'rules of the game' are rigidly defined and deviations and rule bending are heavily discouraged.

You know what the number of personal bankruptcies caused by health bills in Canada? Zero. No fine prints, no pre-existing conditions, no for-profit middle man.

They don't take away your house, your wedding ring, your non-protected retirement savings, they don't harass you with bill collections just because you got sick.

The thing you are forgetting is that governmental power is even more substitutable for political power than money is to political power. In fact they are practically one and the same. Yes, money can and does corrupt, but corruption happens even without money. Hence why all statist regimes, Communist, Socialist, or Otherwise in history all end up being more corrupt than free market societies. You saying that corruption occurs in free market societies is correct, but you need to remember that a small govt can more easily be kept in check and made to enforce sensible rules than a large govt with a plethora of rules.

Even Sweden, with its huge energy exports as % of GDP and its small size making it more liken to a large corporation for economics purposes has its own considerable http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ll22aa01.html corruption issues in regard to its public housing and health system.

Lets not even get into total Socialist and Statist societies like USSR, North Korea, Cuba, or whats been going on in Venezuela.

You mention an unrealistic lack of human factors being the cornerstone for true capitalism, but you've neglected to recognize that human flaws are what breaks down EVERY system. The same will be true in your socialist eutopia with the exception that in your dream society the people will have no way to repair the problem because not only do they have no say in the matter but you've also taken away their ability to defend themselves against an oppressive government (I'm assuming you're also against the 2nd amendment).

You seem to be working under the assumption that corruption only occurs in the private sector, or at the behest of the private sector. What happens when you get your way only to find that some animals are more equal than others? What happens to the people when they have no say in how things are run or who runs the government?

I'm sure you're already planning to attack my post as changing the subject. The health care market doesn't exist in a vacuum. You cannot make valid arguments related to health care without also addressing all of the ramifications of your plan. As Derid has tried to point out to you over and over and over again, you cannot know ALL of the impact that the change you're proposing (and we're all potentially faced with dependant upon the S.C. decision in June '12) will have but you can look around at similar systems that currently exist and you can measure a) their effectiveness b) their cost c) the impact for the populace d) their contribution to the medical community, and a whole host of other things that can help make an informed decision. Derid has pointed out many of the flaws of these sytems but I've yet to see you point out the benefits in a quantifiable way. To date you've only spouted platitudes about how much better it is in other countries, with a random bit of cherry picked data thrown in to make your claims look credible. Show us the unbiased report that takes into account the macro level impacts of this change and compares our current system to these other systems while taking into account the medical community contribution of each of the parties being compaired.

You're still hanging on to the idea that wealth = power = corruption, but you've failed to recognize that the only reason either of those things results in corruption is simple human nature. Call it greed if you want. You cannot devise a system devoid of humans (skynet isn't online yet) so you cannot yet create the uncorruptable system. Luckily for us our founders realized this and did their best to design a system that restricts government by the will of the people. Unfortunately, people have still managed to corrupt and misuse that system for their own gain, or because they naively believe they are smarter than everyone else and must seize power to force people to do what is best for them. What us "hick trogolodites" want is a return to that foundation so that we can make decisions for ourselves. I can only assume from your posts that you're one of those who believes that you know better what is good for me than I do and therefore must step in and save me from myself. How about we let nature take is course and let the chips fall where they may on an individual level?

You're probably going to notice that I've not argued the finer points of the discussion here, but that's because I've realized the futility of attempting such a debate. This, I believe, is the root problem with any debate between the two sides of the political spectrum. Those two sides cannot possibly have a discussion about something as localized as health care until they've come to some understanding over how the larger system must be run. There is simply no point in arguing the merits of either system of health care until we agree on some basic principles. If we are unable to come to some agreement then there is really nothing we can do but shake hands and agree to disagree because there is little enough that we will ever agree on to make any debate worthwhile. Now, if we can find some common ground perhaps we can work backwards from there, but so far I've not seen it. I don't know if you believe everything you say in here, but it seems like much of it is you playing devil's advocate and your actual views lie somewhere towards the center from your statements. If that's true perhaps there is some common ground.

For the record, that kind of stalemate is what I think the founders intended to keep the government from getting bloated.

Sinji about your dream of socialized health Care system, will not pass.

Kaotic, every system is prone to corruption, but we _KNOW_ that health insurance is for-profit, so corruption is incentivized.

Simply put - when someone could make money screwing you, you are more likely to get screwed.



This argument going in circles. Again, it is concentration of wealth that leads to power and corruption. Solution is to minimize concentration of wealth. This can be easily done with progressive tax system, just like in the past.

Actually socialization concentrates power more that capitalism, it just concentrates the power in the hands a few bureaucrats and politicians.

When people have no choices or options.. it doesnt work out in the end. In a free market, when a bad industry collapses it can and will be reborn, in a socialized or interventionist system, collapse has large repercussions. And more often, collapse is prevented, perpetuation a stagnant, inefficient system.

Sinij in your world the wealth=power=corruption just gets turned around to corruption=power=wealth.

You (conservatives) genuinely believe that lots of individual making choice to best satisfy their own needs work better in large scale systems that any overseeing body trying to lay down strategies or directives. You cannot comprehend the end results of this ideology, and no historical examples, sociological theory or pointing out human nature can convince you otherwise. You still believe that if we left it all to the free market somehow this time, unlike other times, we would not end up with robber barons and oligarchs.

There is the psychodynamic construct called repetition compulsion, individuals and large social groups unconsciously repeat past conflicts in an attempt at mastery, re-creating old, unresolved problems hoping for the potential of a better outcome.

Yep. Because we walk around with our eyes open and participate in the system enough to know that it works. Where is your proof that it doesn't work. Please remember to only include capitalist examples not crony capitalism.

USSR, China, North Korea, Italy would you like more examples of failed attempts at socialism?

So I know how well you like to point towards Canada as one of the beacons for Socialism. I'm pretty sure you won't like what you see, but here it is.

How Canada Turned around their economy!

Just in case it won't let you see the full page.

You might not know this, but Jean Chretien belongs to Liberal party. That would be left of US Democrats on almost every issue. Plus article is misleading, taxes were raised. Guess what taxes? Yes, you guessed it, top tax rate.

Just a FYI.

Starting over with regulation

Here is much more balanced conservative opinion on regulation. While I still disagree with a number of points, it does articulate the problem.