Discussion:
The Tyranny of Dead Ideas
(too old to reply)
Immortalist
2009-07-26 21:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Six Dead Ideas:

1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;

2) free trade is always good;

3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;

4) tax rates are too high;

5) local school finance;

6) free market outcomes are just and fair.

There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate excess
and health care threaten our national well-being and our position as a
world leader. We should denounce such cherished and longstanding
beliefs as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and The Kids Will
Earn More than We Do, and examines their historical provenances-for
example, if we trace the adoption of pensions to the early 20th
century, when employers like Proctor and Gamble and G.E. acted as
feudal lords offering benefits to recruit and retain employees-
strategies that are now strangling these same corporations at the
expense of global competitiveness.

There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it
thinks about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas
include corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and
pensions to its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected; and
since aging baby boomers will cause the government’s health and
pension costs to explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising
taxes to a level that destroys economic growth. Only top business
executives can spearhead new ideas since power-driven politicians are
incapable of such leadership. In an era when more change is expected
to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred,
the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key to success;
those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more harshly.

http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/dp/0805087877
miles
2009-07-26 21:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
We should be able to do this but Government has gotten to big to allow
it. They've got to bring us down, oppress us and keep control.
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Free trade will never work when the USA out produces every single other
nation.
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Not dead. It's better than Obamacare HR 3200 with ease. Most who wnat
socialized health care have not read HR 3200.
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
They are too high for many middle and upper class. Spending is too high.
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Depends on the market you refer to. People should not be punished
simply because they are successful.
Bret Cahill
2009-07-27 00:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
We should be able to do this but Government has gotten to big to allow
it.  They've got to bring us down, oppress us and keep control.
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Free trade will never work when the USA out produces every single other
nation.
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Not dead. It's better than Obamacare HR 3200 with ease.  Most who wnat
socialized health care have not read HR 3200.
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
They are too high for many middle and upper class.  Spending is too high.
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Depends on the market you refer to.  People should not be punished
simply because they are successful.
That was Saddam Hussein's argument. He was successul at brutalizing
the Iraqi people and should not be punished.


Bret Cahill
miles
2009-07-27 00:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
That was Saddam Hussein's argument. He was successul at brutalizing
the Iraqi people and should not be punished.
Oh geez. Comparing people who work hard in the USA and become
successful to Husseins slaughtering in torture dungeons?
Bret Cahill
2009-07-27 02:23:56 UTC
Permalink
That was Saddam Hussein's argument.  He was successul at brutalizing
the Iraqi people and should not be punished.
Oh geez.  
Face reality: I can discredit any GOP "market" economist in a matter
of seconds:

www.bretcahill.com
Comparing people who work hard in the USA
The hard workers in America aren't the ones trying to get a free lunch
on liberty.

We know freedom isn't free.

Taxation is the price of freedom.


Bret Cahill
miles
2009-07-27 02:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Taxation is the price of freedom.
Not it most certainly is not. Freedom is not being dependent on
Government for your every need. Freedom is being self reliable and
responsible. Freedom is being able to work hard and be successful
without fear of punishment through taxation.

Taxation should be used to fund Government and not a weapon against its
own people.
Lars Eighner
2009-07-27 11:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Bret Cahill
Taxation is the price of freedom.
Not it most certainly is not. Freedom is not being dependent on
Government for your every need. Freedom is being self reliable and
responsible. Freedom is being able to work hard and be successful
without fear of punishment through taxation.
What are you? About twelve and just finished "Atlas Shrugged"? The real
world isn't a bowl of cherries, but if you are going to live in a fantasy,
drugs will give you a better buzz than your free-market dreamscape.
Post by miles
Taxation should be used to fund Government and not a weapon against its
own people.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5809, 1993
187 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Poetic Justice
2009-07-27 16:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by miles
Post by Bret Cahill
That was Saddam Hussein's argument. He was successul at brutalizing
the Iraqi people and should not be punished.
Oh geez.
Face reality: I can discredit any GOP "market" economist in a matter
www.bretcahill.com
Post by miles
Comparing people who work hard in the USA
The hard workers in America aren't the ones trying to get a free lunch
on liberty.
We know freedom isn't free.
*Taxation* is the price of freedom.
^^^^^^^^
Post by Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
The correct word is *Vigilance*.... in other words, we have to fight
daily against the nuts on the left and the right.

You know....... the Socialist Obama's on the left and the tin pot
dictators on the right.
Lars Eighner
2009-07-27 11:26:55 UTC
Permalink
In our last episode,
<DF6bm.11310$***@newsfe01.iad>,
the lovely and talented miles
Post by miles
Post by Bret Cahill
That was Saddam Hussein's argument. He was successul at brutalizing
the Iraqi people and should not be punished.
Oh geez. Comparing people who work hard in the USA and become
successful to Husseins slaughtering in torture dungeons?
Here a clue: people who work hard do not become successful in the USA.
It doesn't happen now. It never did. People who get other people to work
hard for them become successful in the USA.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5809, 1993
187 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
tooly
2009-07-27 13:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
We should be able to do this but Government has gotten to big to allow
it.  They've got to bring us down, oppress us and keep control.
Peak oil and global warming might force us to change this illusion of
continual growth and prosperity.
Post by miles
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Free trade will never work when the USA out produces every single other
nation.
Huh? Free trade is about specialization and allowance of migration
of
capital and labor. Optimization is about 'NOT' producing a certain
commodity at all if it is inefficient to do so.

The big question about free trade is the sancity of nation-state
organization in the world; How does the human race want to
continue. Simply deconstructing old organization for new is
not as simple as it seems, as the human psyche is succinctly
tied to old ways [including deep sense of indentities, heritage,
familial ties, and ancestry]. In the short term, no self
respecting industrialized middle class will succumb to
redistributive pressures [to the third world] without kicking
and screaming.
Post by miles
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Not dead. It's better than Obamacare HR 3200 with ease.  Most who wnat
socialized health care have not read HR 3200.
The big flaw of employer health care benies is that one has to
be employed to qualify, but when one actually gets sick, they
can't really work. Huh? Go figure.
Post by miles
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
They are too high for many middle and upper class.  Spending is too high.
The laffer curve fully explains that cutting taxes make sense as long
as revenues increase. The issue is revenue...not taxes.
Post by miles
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Depends on the market you refer to.  People should not be punished
simply because they are successful.
This is a misnomer. No one has ever argued that free markets are
'just and fair'...they are only efficient. Free markets best fit a
Darwinist approach of 'selective nature' that accrues the 'fittest'
qualities in business [and thusly, the best use of scarse resources].
But as we all know, Darwinism [and natural selection] can also be
'very cruel' and highly 'unfair and unjust'...just like nature.
Rod Speed
2009-07-26 22:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Thats not dead, its still true.
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Thats was never an 'idea', its something that has always been disputed.
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Thats not dead either.
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
Thats not dead either.
Post by Immortalist
5) local school finance;
Thats not dead either.
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Thats was never an 'idea', its something that has always been disputed.
Post by Immortalist
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate excess
and health care threaten our national well-being and our position as a
world leader. We should denounce such cherished and longstanding
beliefs as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and The Kids Will
Earn More than We Do, and examines their historical provenances-for
example, if we trace the adoption of pensions to the early 20th century,
Wrong. They were around well before that.
Post by Immortalist
when employers like Proctor and Gamble and G.E. acted as feudal lords
You wouldnt know what a real feudal lord was if one bit you on your lard arse.
Post by Immortalist
offering benefits to recruit and retain employees-strategies
that are now strangling these same corporations at the
expense of global competitiveness.
Mindlessly silly. When the unemployment rate bottomed
at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate,
there clearly is no problem with global competitiveness.

In spades when thats an unemployment rate that many other
countrys would sell their first borns into slavery to get.
Post by Immortalist
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way
it thinks about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”).
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Post by Immortalist
Dead Ideas include corporate America’s desire to stop providing health
care and pensions to its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected;
Millions dont need any 'protection'
Post by Immortalist
and since aging baby boomers will cause the
government’s health and pension costs to explode,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
Post by Immortalist
we cannot manage this reality by raising
taxes to a level that destroys economic growth.
No one is proposing doing anything like that.
Post by Immortalist
Only top business executives can spearhead new ideas since
power-driven politicians are incapable of such leadership.
Mindlessly silly.
Post by Immortalist
In an era when more change is expected to occur in
the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred,
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Post by Immortalist
the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key to success;
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Post by Immortalist
those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more harshly.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Post by Immortalist
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/dp/0805087877
Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
Michael Coburn
2009-07-26 23:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
2) free trade is always good;
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
4) tax rates are too high;
5) local school finance;
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate excess
and health care threaten our national well-being and our position as a
world leader. We should denounce such cherished and longstanding beliefs
as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and The Kids Will Earn More
than We Do, and examines their historical provenances-for example, if we
trace the adoption of pensions to the early 20th century, when employers
like Proctor and Gamble and G.E. acted as feudal lords offering benefits
to recruit and retain employees- strategies that are now strangling
these same corporations at the expense of global competitiveness.
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it thinks
about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas include
corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and pensions to
its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected; and since aging
baby boomers will cause the government’s health and pension costs to
explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising taxes to a level that
destroys economic growth. Only top business executives can spearhead new
ideas since power-driven politicians are incapable of such leadership.
In an era when more change is expected to occur in the next thirty years
than in the previous three hundred, the skill and speed with which
people cope will be the key to success; those slow to adapt will be
punished faster and more harshly.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/
dp/0805087877

The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even
can, provide health care and pensions. GM, the largest corporation in
the world for a very long time failed because it tried to fund health
care and retirement. Those are the province of truly representative
governments that can use whatever means necessary to manage the
disabilities of failing health and old age.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
miles
2009-07-26 23:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even
can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more
efficient than private industry. In the end the only thing that happens
is that people become dependent on Government as the only choice. That
is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
Immortalist
2009-07-26 23:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even
can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more
efficient than private industry.  In the end the only thing that happens
is that people become dependent on Government as the only choice.  That
is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
What about countries that have national health care? They haven't had
nearly as many problems as the USA.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/f010ef88b055756a
Rod Speed
2009-07-26 23:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that
corporations should, or even can, provide health care
Corse they can, particularly while they are still employees.
Post by Immortalist
Post by miles
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and
more efficient than private industry. In the end the only thing
that happens is that people become dependent on Government
as the only choice. That is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
What about countries that have national health care?
They haven't had nearly as many problems as the USA.
Thats a lie.
Post by Immortalist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/f010ef88b055756a
More lies.
Immortalist
2009-07-26 23:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalist
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that
corporations should, or even can, provide health care
Corse they can, particularly while they are still employees.
Post by Immortalist
Post by miles
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and
more efficient than private industry. In the end the only thing
that happens is that people become dependent on Government
as the only choice. That is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
What about countries that have national health care?
They haven't had nearly as many problems as the USA.
Thats a lie.
Post by Immortalist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/f010ef88b055756a
More lies.
Can you point out the lies in the text I referred to?

Why We're Liberals: A Political
Handbook for Post-Bush America
by Eric Alterman
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Liberals-Political-Post-Bush/dp/0670018600
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/

Chapter 3 - What Does Liberalism Look Like?

As the previous chapter was pitched at a rather lofty level, it now
behooves us to ask what liberals want, not in theory, but in actual
practice, brought down to the level of the reality of everyday life. A
simple way of explaining the overall goals of contemporary American
liberalism would be to point to the success of social policies in
places like western Europe, and particularly in northern Europe. (I am
leaving Canada largely out of this discussion, though a similar case
could be made for it, because Canadians, unlike Americans and
Europeans, do not face any credible military threats, and so see no
need to devote a significant portion of their GDP to defense.)

Conservatives so consistently denigrate the amazing achievements of
twenty-first-century Europeans that one can't help but wonder what has
them so worried. "If you want a lower standard of living,"
conservative policy experts Grace-Marie Turner and Robert Moffit
argued in a December 2006 op-ed, "the Europeans have the right
prescription." Their argument echoes views, as the New Republic's
Jonathan Cohn notes, that are popular across the conservative
spectrum, from News-week's Robert Samuelson ("Europe is history's has-
been") to the National Review's Jonah Goldberg ("Europe has an
asthmatic economy") to the New York Times pundit David Brooks ("The
European model is flat-out unsustainable"). Conservatives have been
making exactly these arguments for roughly five decades now, yet these
same European nations have by almost every measurement—individual
rights and community, capitalist enterprise and social solidarity, and
even personal mobility— proven superior to the United States. Despite
some significant philosophical distinctions, what in practice
Americans call "liberalism" is known in Europe as "social democracy."
By any name, however, and allowing for differences in national
preferences, character, history, racial and ethnic makeup, and so on,
the progress that Europeans have made toward the goal of "justice as
fairness" ought to be enough to make most Americans—and not just
liberals—ashamed and envious.

The workers of France, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Norway
all produce the same goods and services as the United States or more,
and thereby enjoy higher productivity per hour worked than do U.S.
workers. The reasons for this are myriad, but almost all of them
contradict conservative conventional wisdom. According to conservative
ideology, high tax rates are supposed to kill personal initiative and
depress growth, but they are much higher and more progressive across
Europe than in the United States. Welfare payments—again, allegedly
the means by which the personal initiative of poor people is destroyed—
are based in Europe on universal entitlements, with little, if any,
means-testing. Finally, union membership, also the bane of
conservative propagandists in the United States, ranges from 70
percent of the workforce in Norway to over 95 percent of the workforce
in Finland, more than six times its level in the United States.

While these societies are hardly Utopias—much of Europe remains riven
by apparently insoluble Islamic immigration crises and relatively high
unemployment—the benefits provided by many if not most of these
societies would, for most Americans, prove a wonder to behold. Despite
the fact that Americans work nearly four hundred more hours a year
than those famously industrious Germans, and more than workers in
virtually every western European nation by a considerable margin,
these same states somehow sponsor far more generous programs of
training and job mobility, and pay generous unemployment benefits.
Families receive periods of paid maternity and paternity leave.
Europeans also enjoy high-quality public health and education
provisions, and all manner of public services, from parks to efficient
and inexpensive public transport systems, that are not available
anywhere in the United States. To give just one example, Denmark
spends nearly one-third of its gross domestic product on government-
run benefits and taxes its citizens at an equivalently high rate. Its
top bracket is 63 percent, nearly double the highest rate in the
United States. With these revenues, the state spends more than 5
percent of its GDP on the unemployed and more than 2 percent alone on
"flexicurity" labor market programs to help retrain displaced workers.
This compares with a feeble 0.16 percent in the United States, which
is by far the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). Partly as a result, in mid-2006 Denmark's
unemployment rate was just 3.6 percent, well below the 4.7 percent in
the United States. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit,
Denmark's "Quality of Life" index proved superior to that of America
as well, with advantages like universal health care and day care, and
a poverty rate of just 4.3 percent, compared with 17.1 percent in the
United States. (America has the second-worst record among OECD
nations.) Meanwhile, Denmark is, at this writing, enjoying a small
budget surplus, equal to approximately 0.65 percent of its GDP. The
United States, meanwhile, is saddled with ever-exploding deficits,
currently reaching 4.5 percent of GDP, and rising.

Denmark is hardly exceptional. In Finland, for instance, citizens are
entitled to state-funded educational, medical, and welfare services,
literally from the cradle to the grave. Finns pay nothing, ever, for
education, including both infant and child care as well as medical and
law school— to say nothing of their monthly stipend for expenses. And
they produce perhaps the best educational test results in the world.
(This is true even though they don't go in for standardized tests.)
According to 2003 OECD surveys, Finland ranks no. 1 in student reading
ability, no. 1 in student science ability, no. 2 in student problem-
solving ability, and no. 2 in student mathematics ability. The United
States, by contrast, ranks no. 12, no. 19, no. 26, and no. 24,
respectively.

When comparing social policies in the United States and the advanced
nations of Europe, such disparities are the rule, rather than the
exception. According to the most recent census figures, nearly sixteen
million Americans are living in "deep or severe poverty"—a category
that includes individuals making less than $5,080 a year, and families
of four bringing in less than $9,903 a year. Of these, barely 10
percent receive "welfare in the form of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families and just slightly more than a third receive food stamps.
Apart from cases of "severe poverty," one in six American households
earned less than 35 percent of the median income in 2000. (In Britain,
among the least equitable of European nations, that proportion is
fewer than one in twenty.) America's relatively niggardly welfare
system, even in its most generous incarnation, raised poor incomes
only moderately, and reduced the proportion of adults in poverty from
26.7 to 19.1 percent. In Germany, France, and Italy, meanwjiile, the
proportion of adults in poverty hovers at around just 7 percent. As
for the elderly—where America's social security program presents the
country at its most beneficent—the nation manages to reduce poverty
levels from nearly 60 percent before transfer payments to just below
20 percent. Yet the Europeans improve on this performance by
significant margins as well. Germany, France, and Italy leave only
7.6, 7.5, and 6.5 percent of their elderly populations living in
poverty, respectively. And what is perhaps worse, while roughly a
quarter of all American children are condemned to grow up in poverty,
the analogous proportions for the countries cited above are just 8.6,
7.4, and 10.5 percent. The lack of progress in this area in the United
States is one reason American conservatives insist on making these
programs so stingy. The truth is that, when it comes to social
mobility, these European nations prove far more successful in
providing what might be called "the Nordic Dream"— or even "the
British Dream"—than the romantic notion of "the American Dream" that
schoolchildren are taught to cherish. This is true at nearly every
level of society. According to two separate studies based on a set of
data collected over a period of five decades the Nordic countries
enjoy considerably greater degrees of social mobility than do
Americans. In the United States, a son's earnings are more than twice
as likely to be closely related to those of his father than inmost
Nordic nations, and even Britain does a much better job at offering
second-generation earners a higher probability of economic improvement
than does the United States. This is true across the board, but is
most dramatic for those stuck at society's bottom rungs.

Europe's more generous welfare system has actually proven more
successful than America's in reducing the size of these payments by
moving people off welfare—which is, after all, supposed to be the goal
of such programs. In the Nordic nations, for instance, three-quarters
of those on welfare had moved up and out of the system by the time
they reached their forties, but barely more than half of their
American counterparts had. As the editors of the Economist put it, "In
other words, Nordic countries have almost completely snapped the link
between the earnings of parents and children at and near the bottom.
That is not at all true of America." In Britain, too, fully 70 percent
of those enmeshed in the welfare system had moved out within a single
generation—again, a higher percentage than in America. The magazine
points to the generous tax and welfare provisions for families as "the
obvious explanation for greater mobility in the Nordic countries . . .
especially when compared with America's."

Now look at some other significant differences:

[No-Vacation Nation] The United States is the only wealthy
industrialized nation not to legislate any paid time off and holidays
for its workforce. Austria and Britain both offer four weeks, Denmark
gives thirty work days, and even Japan mandates ten days. The United
States guarantees nothing, with low-wage and part-time workers, not
surprisingly, suffering the most. Only 69 and 36 percent of them,
respectively, enjoy any vacation time at all.

[Children and Health] With America's wasteful and expensive system of
public health, and family-unfriendly employment laws, its children
face a whole host of impediments to their development potential that
are all but unknown across much of Europe. The United States and South
Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not
provide health care for all of their citizens. Nationally, 29 percent
of children had no health insurance at some point in the last twelve
months, and many get neither checkups nor vaccinations. The United
States ranks eighty-fourth in the world for measles immunizations and
eighty-ninth for polio. These figures are particularly shocking given
that Americans spend almost two and half times the industrialized
world's median on health care, nearly a third of which is wasted on
bureaucracy and administration. As the New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell
notes:

Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries.
We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We
get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other
Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our
counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower
than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United
States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the
nineteenth per-centile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform
more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than
in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have
more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan,
Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our
system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand
dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—
on healthcare-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada,
for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And,
of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all
its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we
spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any
insurance.

And remember the Finns? Not surprisingly, perhaps, they devote less
than half of what we do to medical care, as a percentage of GDP, and
yet their infant mortality rate is half that of the United States—and
one-sixth that of African-American babies—while their life expectancy
rate is greater. (The United States ranked forty-second, behind not
only Japan and most of Europe but also Jordan, Guam, and the Cayman
Islands, according to the most recent census figures.)

Perhaps all that education has made them smart enough to invest in
preventative care and universal coverage. Conservatives, members of
the American medical industrial complex, and other defenders of the
U.S. status quo frequently berate the European health care alternative
because, they say, the care that patients receive there is both less
responsive and less advanced than that available to Americans, however
much more we may have to pay for ours. These claims tend to evaporate
under even minimal scrutiny. Jonathan Cohn reports, for instance, that
American patients wait longer, on average, for routine treatments than
those in France and Germany. Moreover, hospitals in those two nations
also provide new mothers more than four days to recover, while
insurance companies insist that doctors send American mothers home
after only two. Swedes enjoy better success rates treating cervical
and ovarian cancers. The French best the American system when it comes
to stomach cancer, Hodgkin's disease, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
French also benefit from more cancer radiation equipment than
Americans. And despite so many American boasts on exactly this topic,
Germans get the most hip replacements. In the area where one hears the
loudest cheers for the American system—making new cancer treatments
available to patients as quickly (however expensively) as possible,
the United States is merely tied with Austria, France, and
Switzerland. Of course, the U.S. system does not do everything poorly.
Cohn points to the world's highest cure rate for "some cancers—
including breast and prostate cancer," but it's hard to connect these
to our system of health care delivery. And finally, he rightfully
asks, if the less expensive, more efficient, and more universal
European system "means worse health care overall, then why do so many
studies show the U.S. scoring so poorly on international comparisons,
including those examining 'mortality amenable to health care'— a
statistic devised specifically to test the quality of different health
care systems across the globe?"

Just how did the Europeans get so smart? The education figures tell a
similar story. Although the United States devotes roughly the same
proportion of national income to education as the European Union
nations, on average, European nations all rank higher in math and
science. They also enjoy, on average, an additional year of education
and have a higher proportion of young people in higher education.

[Toward a Humane Society] Socially, the values of Europe strike most
liberals as far more humane than our own. As amazing as it may sound
to many Americans, candidate countries for EU membership must first
abolish capital punishment as a condition for entry; in fact, it is
the very first condition listed. Gay marriage is the law in Belgium,
the Netherlands, and even Catholic Spain, while gay civil unions are
officially recognized by Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France, and Germany.
Although Americans prove to be evenly divided when asked by pollsters
whether "homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by
society," European acceptance levels range from 72 percent in Italy to
83 percent in Germany. While the names of many, mostly conservative,
European parties do contain the word Christian (as in "Christian
Democrat"), they are far less eager to inject their own parochial
understanding of biblical injunctions into politics. This is
particularly true in England, the most Americanized of "European"
nations. During the 2005 election there, Conservative candidate
Michael Howard raised none of what Americans consider "social" issues
like abortion or gay marriage, which proved so important an element in
Bush's 2004 campaign. When he appeared at the pulpit at the Tabernacle
Christian Centre near the outskirts of London, he mentioned neither
God nor religion during a twenty-minute speech. In an almost perfect
contrast to George W. Bush, Howard called for a massive increase in
British foreign aid, which speaks to yet another of Europe's great
advantages over the U.S. political system: the relatively responsible
positions its conservative parties take toward issues of social
solidarity and genuinely "compassionate conservatism." In Norway, for
instance, even the conservative investment community that manages the
country's enormous $300-billion-plus government pension fund refuses
to invest in companies with whose social practices it disagrees.

Additionally, Francis Fukuyama, the noted political theorist whose
"End of History" thesis so captured the imaginations of American
conservatives eager to pronounce their own society as the final
development point of world political history, finds that the European
Union's "attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power
politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in
line with a 'post-historical' world than the Americans' continuing
belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military." Certainly
the EU has disappointed many of its expectations, but members'
willingness to compromise their sovereignty for the improvement of all
on matters sometimes central to national identity is an example from
which many American liberals also find inspiration.

[Sex, Guns, and Death] Because Christian conservatives and the gun
lobby do not enjoy the power to shape public policy in Europe and
Canada, their children are also safer than are ours. Canadian and
European teenagers do not have to contend with restrictive laws that
deny them access to truthful sex education and contraception, or with
federally funded programs that deliberately misinform them about the
dangers associated with sex to try to scare them into abstinence.
Canadian and European young people are about as active sexually as
Americans, but teenage American girls are five times as likely to have
a baby as French girls, seven times as likely to have an abortion, and
seventy times as likely to have gonorrhea as girls in the Netherlands.
In addition, the incidence of HIV/AIDS among American teenagers is
five times that of the same age group in Germany.

As for violent deaths, the United States must contend with the power
of the conservative National Rifle Association, which not only lobbies
to prevent background checks to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals and terrorists, but also insists that when such checks are
conducted, the evidence amassed must be destroyed within twenty-four
hours. The result: American children are sixteen times more likely
than children in other industrialized nations to be murdered with a
gun, eleven times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine
times more likely to die from firearms accidents. These figures are
hardly surprising when one considers the fact that the rate of
firearms homicide in the United States is nineteen times higher than
that of thirty-five other high-income countries combined.

One could fill an entire book with examples and statistics that
demonstrate the multiple means by which various European governments
better serve their citizens than does our own. Apologists for American
failures in these areas point to characterological, ideological, and
historical reasons why Americans shy away from more effective delivery
and distribution systems for the services they need to live healthy,
prosperous lives. Liberalism, as the political scientist Paul Starr
correctly argues, derives from different roots than European social
democracy, and the accomplishments of a system based on the latter are
not immediately transferable to the former. But in most of these
cases, what prevents the realization of the kind of government and
society Americans say they desire is less a matter of choice than of
imposition. Powerful lobbies buy themselves the right to rip off
Americans with perfectly legal payments to politicians and then
pretend that somehow this legalized larceny represents the true desire
of a public that is perennially kept in the dark. Policies with strong
majority support such as universal health care and paid maternity
leave are written off as liberal or even socialistic, as if that ends
the argument then and there. What this book aims-to do in the pages
that follow is to tear down those barriers to coherent argument and
pragmatic practice. Remove the bugaboo from the word liberal, I argue,
and the policies of a sensible populace naturally follow.
Unfortunately, doing so is a great deal more difficult that it looks,
and in the following chapter, I attempt to explain why.

Why We're Liberals: A Political
Handbook for Post-Bush America
by Eric Alterman
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Liberals-Political-Post-Bush/dp/0670018600
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/
Rod Speed
2009-07-27 01:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalist
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that
corporations should, or even can, provide health care
Corse they can, particularly while they are still employees.
Post by Immortalist
Post by miles
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and
more efficient than private industry. In the end the only thing
that happens is that people become dependent on Government
as the only choice. That is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
What about countries that have national health care?
They haven't had nearly as many problems as the USA.
Thats a lie.
Post by Immortalist
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/f010ef88b055756a
More lies.
Can you point out the lies in the text I referred to?
Why We're Liberals: A Political
Handbook for Post-Bush America
by Eric Alterman
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Liberals-Political-Post-Bush/dp/0670018600
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/
Chapter 3 - What Does Liberalism Look Like?
As the previous chapter was pitched at a rather lofty level, it now
behooves us to ask what liberals want, not in theory, but in actual
practice, brought down to the level of the reality of everyday life. A
simple way of explaining the overall goals of contemporary American
liberalism would be to point to the success of social policies in
places like western Europe, and particularly in northern Europe. (I am
leaving Canada largely out of this discussion, though a similar case
could be made for it, because Canadians, unlike Americans and
Europeans, do not face any credible military threats, and so see
no need to devote a significant portion of their GDP to defense.)
Britain and France and Germany and Spain and Italy and Switzerland
etc etc etc dont face any credible military threat either.
Post by Immortalist
Conservatives so consistently denigrate the amazing
achievements of twenty-first-century Europeans
Pity the 20th century europeans did so badly at avoiding war.
Post by Immortalist
that one can't help but wonder what has them so worried.
You havent established that they are 'worried'
Post by Immortalist
"If you want a lower standard of living," conservative policy
experts Grace-Marie Turner and Robert Moffit argued in
a December 2006 op-ed, "the Europeans have the right
prescription." Their argument echoes views, as the New
Republic's Jonathan Cohn notes, that are popular across
the conservative spectrum, from News-week's Robert
Samuelson ("Europe is history's has-been") to the
National Review's Jonah Goldberg ("Europe has an
asthmatic economy") to the New York Times pundit David
Brooks ("The European model is flat-out unsustainable").
Its a viable point of view when it took the US Marshall Plan to finally
stop those fools furiously ripping each others throats out in virtually every
generation, and went on to invent the computer and the PC and the net etc.
Post by Immortalist
Conservatives have been making exactly these arguments for
roughly five decades now, yet these same European nations
have by almost every measurement—individual rights and
community, capitalist enterprise and social solidarity, and
even personal mobility— proven superior to the United States.
Thats one very obvious lie. In spades with the couple of decades before that.

AND it took the US to bail them out TWICE from the worst
obscenitys that the entire world has seen for millennia too.
Post by Immortalist
Despite some significant philosophical distinctions, what in practice
Americans call "liberalism" is known in Europe as "social democracy."
By any name, however, and allowing for differences in national
preferences, character, history, racial and ethnic makeup, and
so on, the progress that Europeans have made toward the
goal of "justice as fairness" ought to be enough to make
most Americans—and not just liberals—ashamed and envious.
Another mindlessly silly lie.
Post by Immortalist
The workers of France, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Norway
all produce the same goods and services as the United States or more,
Many of them however were first fully commercialised in the US.
Post by Immortalist
and thereby enjoy higher productivity per hour worked than do U.S. workers.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
The reasons for this are myriad, but almost all of them contradict
conservative conventional wisdom. According to conservative
ideology, high tax rates are supposed to kill personal initiative
and depress growth, but they are much higher and more
progressive across Europe than in the United States.
And EVERY european country has moved away from
the highest tax rates they once had for a reason.
Post by Immortalist
Welfare payments—again, allegedly the means by which the
personal initiative of poor people is destroyed— are based in
Europe on universal entitlements, with little, if any, means-testing.
That last is another bare faced lie.

And just because some are actually stupid enough to not means
test their welfare says sweet fuck all about what makes sense.
Post by Immortalist
Finally, union membership, also the bane of
conservative propagandists in the United States,
It is in quite a bit of europe too.
Post by Immortalist
ranges from 70 percent of the workforce in Norway
to over 95 percent of the workforce in Finland,
That is another bare faced lie, flagrantly dishonestly claiming
that the whole of europe has between those two percentages.
Post by Immortalist
more than six times its level in the United States.
There are plenty of western countrys that have union membership in the 20s etc.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_tra_uni_mem-labor-trade-union-membership
Post by Immortalist
While these societies are hardly Utopias—much of Europe remains riven
by apparently insoluble Islamic immigration crises and relatively high
unemployment—the benefits provided by many if not most of these
societies would, for most Americans, prove a wonder to behold.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
Despite the fact that Americans work nearly four hundred more hours
a year than those famously industrious Germans, and more than workers
in virtually every western European nation by a considerable margin,
these same states somehow sponsor far more generous programs of
training and job mobility, and pay generous unemployment benefits.
So what ? The US clearly manages fine without that.

And when the US unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x%
with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate, they
clearly dont need generous unemployment benefits.
Post by Immortalist
Families receive periods of paid maternity and paternity leave.
Whoopy do.
Post by Immortalist
Europeans also enjoy high-quality public health and education provisions,
So do americans.
Post by Immortalist
and all manner of public services, from parks to
efficient and inexpensive public transport systems,
that are not available anywhere in the United States.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
To give just one example, Denmark spends nearly one-third of its gross domestic
product on government-run benefits and taxes its citizens at an equivalently high rate.
More fool Denmark. It was actually stupid enough to quite
literally have a marginal tax rate OVER 100% at one time.
Post by Immortalist
Its top bracket is 63 percent,
More fool Denmark.
Post by Immortalist
nearly double the highest rate in the United States. With these revenues,
the state spends more than 5 percent of its GDP on the unemployed
More fool Denmark.
Post by Immortalist
and more than 2 percent alone on "flexicurity" labor
market programs to help retrain displaced workers.
More fool Denmark.
Post by Immortalist
This compares with a feeble 0.16 percent in the United States,
which is by far the lowest in the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Hardly surprising when their unemployment rate bottomed
at 4.x% with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate,

It would be terminally stupid to spend any more than that in those circumstances.
Post by Immortalist
Partly as a result, in mid-2006 Denmark's unemployment rate was just 3.6 percent,
With an unemployment rate of 3.6%, its terminally stupid
to be spending 5% of its GDP on the unemployed who
are entirely those between jobs or those who choose
to bludge on welfare instead of working.
Post by Immortalist
well below the 4.7 percent in the United States.
The US has a MUCH higher legal and illegal immigration rate.
Post by Immortalist
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, Denmark's "Quality of Life" index
Which is a pathetically inadequate measure of anything.
Post by Immortalist
proved superior to that of America as well, with advantages like
universal health care and day care, and a poverty rate of just
4.3 percent, compared with 17.1 percent in the United States.
Depends entirely on how you define 'poverty'
Post by Immortalist
(America has the second-worst record among OECD nations.)
And that is the result of their much higher levels of slavery in the past
and more recently their immense legal and illegal immigration rate,
Post by Immortalist
Meanwhile, Denmark is, at this writing, enjoying a small budget
surplus, equal to approximately 0.65 percent of its GDP.
Not anymore.
Post by Immortalist
The United States, meanwhile, is saddled with ever-exploding
deficits, currently reaching 4.5 percent of GDP, and rising.
Their choice.
Post by Immortalist
Denmark is hardly exceptional. In Finland, for instance,
citizens are entitled to state-funded educational, medical,
and welfare services, literally from the cradle to the grave.
And pay for that with MUCH higher taxation and a much higher
unemployment rate and get riots at a level that the US doesnt see.
Post by Immortalist
Finns pay nothing, ever, for education, including both
infant and child care as well as medical and law school
Another bare faced lie. They pay for that in MUCH higher taxation.
Post by Immortalist
— to say nothing of their monthly stipend for expenses. And
they produce perhaps the best educational test results in the world.
Anoher bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
(This is true even though they don't go in for standardized tests.)
Its a lie.
Post by Immortalist
According to 2003 OECD surveys, Finland ranks no. 1 in student reading
ability, no. 1 in student science ability, no. 2 in student problem-solving
ability, and no. 2 in student mathematics ability. The United States,
by contrast, ranks no. 12, no. 19, no. 26, and no. 24, respectively.
Hardly surprising given the radically different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
When comparing social policies in the United States and the advanced
nations of Europe, such disparities are the rule, rather than the exception.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
According to the most recent census figures, nearly sixteen
million Americans are living in "deep or severe poverty"—
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
a category that includes individuals making less than $5,080 a
year, and families of four bringing in less than $9,903 a year.
Thats not deep or severe povety, liar.
Post by Immortalist
Of these, barely 10 percent receive "welfare in the form
of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and just
slightly more than a third receive food stamps.
There's a hell of a lot more than just those two available there.
Post by Immortalist
Apart from cases of "severe poverty," one in six American households
earned less than 35 percent of the median income in 2000.
Thats primarily the result of the immense legal and illegal immigration rate,
Post by Immortalist
(In Britain, among the least equitable of European nations,
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
that proportion is fewer than one in twenty.)
So what ? Its a lousy measure of anything that matters.
Post by Immortalist
America's relatively niggardly welfare system, even in its most
generous incarnation, raised poor incomes only moderately,
Their choice.
Post by Immortalist
and reduced the proportion of adults in poverty from 26.7 to 19.1 percent.
'in poverty' is a complete wank.
Post by Immortalist
In Germany, France, and Italy, meanwjiile, the proportion
of adults in poverty hovers at around just 7 percent.
'in poverty' is a complete wank.
Post by Immortalist
As for the elderly—where America's social security
program presents the country at its most beneficent—
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
the nation manages to reduce poverty levels from nearly
60 percent before transfer payments to just below 20 percent.
'in poverty' is a complete wank.
Post by Immortalist
Yet the Europeans improve on this performance by significant margins as well.
And have MUCH higher levels of taxation because of that.
Post by Immortalist
Germany, France, and Italy leave only 7.6, 7.5, and 6.5 percent
of their elderly populations living in poverty, respectively.
'in poverty' is a complete wank.
Post by Immortalist
And what is perhaps worse, while roughly a quarter of all
American children are condemned to grow up in poverty,
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
the analogous proportions for the countries cited above are just 8.6,
7.4, and 10.5 percent. The lack of progress in this area in the United
States is one reason American conservatives insist on making these
programs so stingy.
Another bare faced lie. There is no alternative with
the immense legal and illegal immigration rate,

Essentially they are dramatically assisting the
poor in countrys that migrate to the US instead.
Post by Immortalist
The truth is that, when it comes to social mobility, these
European nations prove far more successful in providing
what might be called "the Nordic Dream"— or even "the
British Dream"—than the romantic notion of "the American
Dream" that schoolchildren are taught to cherish.
Another bare faced lie.There's a reason FAR more
choose to move to the US than ANY european country.
Post by Immortalist
This is true at nearly every level of society.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
According to two separate studies based on a set of data collected
over a period of five decades the Nordic countries enjoy considerably
greater degrees of social mobility than do Americans.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
In the United States, a son's earnings are more than twice as likely
to be closely related to those of his father than inmost Nordic nations,
Thats not social mobility, fool.
Post by Immortalist
and even Britain does a much better job at offering
second-generation earners a higher probability of
economic improvement than does the United States.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
This is true across the board, but is most dramatic
for those stuck at society's bottom rungs.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
Europe's more generous welfare system has actually proven
more successful than America's in reducing the size of these
payments by moving people off welfare—which is, after all,
supposed to be the goal of such programs.
Another bare faced lie.The unemployment rate is MUCH higher in most of them.
Post by Immortalist
In the Nordic nations, for instance, three-quarters
of those on welfare had moved up and out of the
system by the time they reached their forties,
Thats an obscenely slow rate.
Post by Immortalist
but barely more than half of their American counterparts had.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
As the editors of the Economist put it, "In other words, Nordic
countries have almost completely snapped the link between
the earnings of parents and children at and near the bottom.
And fuck all other european countrys have done anything like that.
Post by Immortalist
That is not at all true of America." In Britain, too, fully 70 percent
of those enmeshed in the welfare system had moved out within
a single generation—again, a higher percentage than in America.
Due to radically different demographics. The US has always been
unique for a first world country with a much higher percentage of
the dregs of society than anywher else, largely as a result of slavery.
Post by Immortalist
The magazine points to the generous tax and welfare provisions
for families as "the obvious explanation for greater mobility in the
Nordic countries . . . especially when compared with America's."
Pity about the tax required to pay for that.

In spades with what would be required if the US went that route.
Post by Immortalist
[No-Vacation Nation] The United States is the only wealthy industrialized
nation not to legislate any paid time off and holidays for its workforce.
They almost all get paid time off and holidays anyway.
Post by Immortalist
Austria and Britain both offer four weeks, Denmark gives thirty work days,
More fool Denmark.
Post by Immortalist
and even Japan mandates ten days.
Almost no one in the US gets that few.
Post by Immortalist
The United States guarantees nothing,
But they mostly get it anyway.
Post by Immortalist
with low-wage and part-time workers, not surprisingly,
suffering the most. Only 69 and 36 percent of them,
respectively, enjoy any vacation time at all.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
[Children and Health] With America's wasteful and expensive
system of public health, and family-unfriendly employment laws,
its children face a whole host of impediments to their development
potential that are all but unknown across much of Europe.
And they end up with a country that FAR more choose to move to anyway.
Post by Immortalist
The United States and South Africa are the only two developed countries
in the world that do not provide health care for all of their citizens.
Another bare faced lie.The US does provide health care for all of its citizens.
Post by Immortalist
Nationally, 29 percent of children had no health
insurance at some point in the last twelve months,
They get health care when they need it anyway.
Post by Immortalist
and many get neither checkups
They dont need that.
Post by Immortalist
nor vaccinations.
The United States ranks eighty-fourth in the world for
measles immunizations and eighty-ninth for polio.
The polio rate is now so low that they dont need that.

Plenty of modern first world countrys dont bother to vaccinate for it now.
Post by Immortalist
These figures are particularly shocking
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
given that Americans spend almost two and half times the industrialized
world's median on health care, nearly a third of which is wasted on
bureaucracy and administration. As the New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell
Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries.
Only marginally tho.
Post by Immortalist
We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
American life expectancy is lower than the Western average.
Because of the very different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average.
Because of the very different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth per-centile of industrialized nations.
Because of the very different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures,
such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries,
Funny that.
Post by Immortalist
but most of the wealthier Western countries have
more CT scanners than the United States does,
All that proves is that they use them more efficiently.
Post by Immortalist
and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita.
All that proves is that the US uses them more efficiently.
Post by Immortalist
Nor is our system more efficient.
In some respects it clearly is.
Post by Immortalist
The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per
capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on
healthcare-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada,
for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita.
And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world
insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions
of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million
people without any insurance.
And many of those dont need it.
Post by Immortalist
And remember the Finns? Not surprisingly, perhaps, they devote less
than half of what we do to medical care, as a percentage of GDP,
and yet their infant mortality rate is half that of the United States—
Because of the very different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
and one-sixth that of African-American babies—
while their life expectancy rate is greater.
Because of the very different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
(The United States ranked forty-second, behind not only Japan and most of Europe
Because of the very different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
but also Jordan, Guam, and the Cayman Islands,
according to the most recent census figures.)
Because of the very different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
Perhaps all that education has made them smart enough
to invest in preventative care and universal coverage.
Or the demographics and genetics is radically different.
Post by Immortalist
Conservatives, members of the American medical industrial
complex, and other defenders of the U.S. status quo frequently
berate the European health care alternative because, they say,
the care that patients receive there is both less responsive and
less advanced than that available to Americans, however much
more we may have to pay for ours. These claims tend to
evaporate under even minimal scrutiny.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
Jonathan Cohn reports, for instance, that American patients
wait longer, on average, for routine treatments than those
in France and Germany. Moreover, hospitals in those two
nations also provide new mothers more than four days to
recover, while insurance companies insist that doctors
send American mothers home after only two.
Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.
Post by Immortalist
Swedes enjoy better success rates treating cervical and ovarian
cancers. The French best the American system when it comes
to stomach cancer, Hodgkin's disease, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
The French also benefit from more cancer radiation equipment than
Americans. And despite so many American boasts on exactly this topic,
Germans get the most hip replacements.
You're mindlessly cherry picking.
Post by Immortalist
In the area where one hears the loudest cheers for the American
system—making new cancer treatments available to patients as
quickly (however expensively) as possible, the United States is
merely tied with Austria, France, and Switzerland. Of course,
the U.S. system does not do everything poorly. Cohn points
to the world's highest cure rate for "some cancers— including
breast and prostate cancer," but it's hard to connect these
to our system of health care delivery. And finally, he rightfully
asks, if the less expensive, more efficient, and more universal
European system "means worse health care overall, then why
do so many studies show the U.S. scoring so poorly on
international comparisons, including those examining 'mortality
amenable to health care'— a statistic devised specifically to test
the quality of different health care systems across the globe?"
Because of the radically different demographics, fool.
Post by Immortalist
Just how did the Europeans get so smart?
Pretty smart starting two world wars.

North americans came to their senses MUCH earlier than europe on that.
Post by Immortalist
The education figures tell a similar story. Although the United
States devotes roughly the same proportion of national income
to education as the European Union nations, on average,
European nations all rank higher in math and science.
And the US did fine with the full commercialisation of almost all technology first anyway.
Post by Immortalist
They also enjoy, on average, an additional year of education and
have a higher proportion of young people in higher education.
And the US did fine with the full commercialisation of almost all technology first anyway.
Post by Immortalist
[Toward a Humane Society] Socially, the values of Europe
strike most liberals as far more humane than our own.
Only the fools that mindlessly ignore those two world wars.
Post by Immortalist
As amazing as it may sound to many Americans, candidate countries for EU
membership must first abolish capital punishment as a condition for entry;
More fool the EU.
Post by Immortalist
in fact, it is the very first condition listed. Gay marriage is the
law in Belgium, the Netherlands, and even Catholic Spain,
More fool all of them.
Post by Immortalist
while gay civil unions are officially recognized by
Norway, Sweden, Iceland, France, and Germany.
More fool all of them.
Post by Immortalist
Although Americans prove to be evenly divided when asked by
pollsters whether "homosexuality is a way of life that should be
accepted by society," European acceptance levels range from
72 percent in Italy to 83 percent in Germany.
More fool them.
Post by Immortalist
While the names of many, mostly conservative, European
parties do contain the word Christian (as in "Christian
Democrat"), they are far less eager to inject their own
parochial understanding of biblical injunctions into politics.
So what ?
Post by Immortalist
This is particularly true in England, the most Americanized
of "European" nations. During the 2005 election there,
Conservative candidate Michael Howard raised none of
what Americans consider "social" issues like abortion or
gay marriage, which proved so important an element in
Bush's 2004 campaign.
Pity about so much of the rest of europe.

And the US never had the religious wars that so much of europe had.
Post by Immortalist
When he appeared at the pulpit at the Tabernacle Christian
Centre near the outskirts of London, he mentioned neither
God nor religion during a twenty-minute speech.
Well whoopy fucking do.

They just happen to have some fat little woman who just
happens to be the head of just one of their churches tho.
Post by Immortalist
In an almost perfect contrast to George W. Bush, Howard
called for a massive increase in British foreign aid,
Pity he didnt even get elected. He's completely irrelevant.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
the relatively responsible positions its conservative
parties take toward issues of social solidarity
and genuinely "compassionate conservatism."
Pity about very recent history and Maggie Thatcher.

Caught bare faced lying, again.
Post by Immortalist
In Norway, for instance, even the conservative investment
community that manages the country's enormous $300-billion
-plus government pension fund refuses to invest in companies
with whose social practices it disagrees.
Well whoopy fucking do.
Post by Immortalist
Additionally, Francis Fukuyama, the noted political theorist whose
"End of History" thesis so captured the imaginations of American
conservatives eager to pronounce their own society as the final
development point of world political history, finds that the European
Union's "attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power
politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in
line with a 'post-historical' world than the Americans' continuing
belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military."
More fool Fukuyama.
Post by Immortalist
Certainly the EU has disappointed many of its expectations, but
members' willingness to compromise their sovereignty for the
improvement of all on matters sometimes central to national identity
is an example from which many American liberals also find inspiration.
More fool them. So stupid that they havent even
noticed that americans did that CENTURYS earlier.
Post by Immortalist
[Sex, Guns, and Death] Because Christian conservatives and
the gun lobby do not enjoy the power to shape public policy in
Europe and Canada, their children are also safer than are ours.
Another bare faced lie.Those who live in the white leafy
suburbs are actually safer than in most in europe are.
Post by Immortalist
Canadian and European teenagers do not have
to contend with restrictive laws that deny them
access to truthful sex education and contraception,
But thats available to anyone who wants it
anyway, on what the americans invented too.
Post by Immortalist
or with federally funded programs that deliberately misinform them about
the dangers associated with sex to try to scare them into abstinence.
And they fuck anyway.
Post by Immortalist
Canadian and European young people are about as active sexually as
Americans, but teenage American girls are five times as likely to have
a baby as French girls, seven times as likely to have an abortion, and
seventy times as likely to have gonorrhea as girls in the Netherlands.
Again, radically different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
In addition, the incidence of HIV/AIDS among American
teenagers is five times that of the same age group in Germany.
Again, radically different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
As for violent deaths, the United States must contend with the power
of the conservative National Rifle Association, which not only lobbies
to prevent background checks to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals and terrorists, but also insists that when such checks are
conducted, the evidence amassed must be destroyed within twenty-four
hours. The result: American children are sixteen times more likely than
children in other industrialized nations to be murdered with a gun,
Another bare faced lie.Those who live in the white leafy
suburbs are actually safer than in most in europe are.
Post by Immortalist
eleven times more likely to commit suicide with a gun,
Its a much more viable way to kill yourself than jumping in front of a train etc.
Post by Immortalist
and nine times more likely to die from firearms accidents.
Hardly surprising when firearms arent readily available to so many europeans.
Post by Immortalist
These figures are hardly surprising when one considers the fact that
the rate of firearms homicide in the United States is nineteen times
higher than that of thirty-five other high-income countries combined.
Again, radically different demographics.
Post by Immortalist
One could fill an entire book with examples and statistics that
demonstrate the multiple means by which various European
governments better serve their citizens than does our own.
And it would be as flagrantly dishonest as the mindless silly shit and lies above.
Post by Immortalist
Apologists for American failures in these areas point to characterological,
ideological, and historical reasons why Americans shy away from more
effective delivery and distribution systems for the services they need to
live healthy, prosperous lives.
And to the radically different demographics that are
the real reason for the absolute vast bulk of them.
Post by Immortalist
Liberalism, as the political scientist Paul Starr correctly argues,
derives from different roots than European social democracy,
Which produced two world wars. Funny that.
Post by Immortalist
and the accomplishments of a system based on the
latter are not immediately transferable to the former.
Not ever in fact.
Post by Immortalist
But in most of these cases, what prevents the realization
of the kind of government and society Americans say
they desire is less a matter of choice than of imposition.
Another bare faced lie.
Post by Immortalist
Powerful lobbies buy themselves the right to rip off
Americans with perfectly legal payments to politicians
Corse nothing like that ever happens in europe, eh ?
Post by Immortalist
and then pretend that somehow this legalized larceny represents
the true desire of a public that is perennially kept in the dark.
Corse nothing like that ever happens in europe, eh ?
Post by Immortalist
Policies with strong majority support such as universal health care
There is no strong majority support for that in the US, liar.
Post by Immortalist
and paid maternity leave
There is no strong majority support for that in the US, liar.
Post by Immortalist
are written off as liberal or even socialistic,
as if that ends the argument then and there.
Corse nothing like that ever happens in europe, eh ?
Post by Immortalist
What this book aims-to do in the pages that follow is to tear down
those barriers to coherent argument and pragmatic practice.
Instead you just lie flagrantly.
Post by Immortalist
Remove the bugaboo from the word liberal, I argue,
and the policies of a sensible populace naturally follow.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
Post by Immortalist
Unfortunately, doing so is a great deal more difficult that it
looks, and in the following chapter, I attempt to explain why.
Yawn.
Post by Immortalist
Why We're Liberals: A Political
Handbook for Post-Bush America
by Eric Alterman
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Liberals-Political-Post-Bush/dp/0670018600
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/
Just another completely mindless steaming turd/complete pack of lies.
unknown
2009-07-27 12:50:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:28:45 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Post by Rod Speed
Britain and France and Germany and Spain and Italy and Switzerland
etc etc etc dont face any credible military threat either.
neither do we.
Rod Speed
2009-07-27 19:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalist
As the previous chapter was pitched at a rather lofty level, it now
behooves us to ask what liberals want, not in theory, but in actual
practice, brought down to the level of the reality of everyday life. A
simple way of explaining the overall goals of contemporary American
liberalism would be to point to the success of social policies in
places like western Europe, and particularly in northern Europe. (I am
leaving Canada largely out of this discussion, though a similar case
could be made for it, because Canadians, unlike Americans and
Europeans, do not face any credible military threats, and so see
no need to devote a significant portion of their GDP to defense.)
Britain and France and Germany and Spain and Italy and Switzerland
etc etc etc dont face any credible military threat either.
neither do we.
Indeed.
David P.
2009-07-27 16:48:40 UTC
Permalink
In talk.bizarre,
Post by Rod Speed
Thats one very obvious lie. In spades with the
couple of decades before that. AND it took the US
to bail them out TWICE from the worst obscenitys
that the entire world has seen for millennia too.
Nope. In both World Wars the Yanks sat at home
shitting themselves while the British defended
themselves against heavily armed enemies.
In the Second World War the Red Army had defeated
the Nazis before the Yanks bothered to get up off
their fucking arses. After the Second World War
the Yanks tried, knowingly, to destroy the British
economy by demanding a vast payment for their
assistance - just in case you thought they helped us
out when we needed it and all for nothing.

Stephen Spielberg's version of events be blowed.

Ken Johnson
.
.
--
Rod Speed
2009-07-27 19:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Immortalist
Conservatives so consistently denigrate the amazing
achievements of twenty-first-century Europeans
Pity the 20th century europeans did so badly at avoiding war.
Post by Immortalist
that one can't help but wonder what has them so worried.
You havent established that they are 'worried'
Post by Immortalist
"If you want a lower standard of living," conservative policy
experts Grace-Marie Turner and Robert Moffit argued in
a December 2006 op-ed, "the Europeans have the right
prescription." Their argument echoes views, as the New
Republic's Jonathan Cohn notes, that are popular across
the conservative spectrum, from News-week's Robert
Samuelson ("Europe is history's has-been") to the
National Review's Jonah Goldberg ("Europe has an
asthmatic economy") to the New York Times pundit David
Brooks ("The European model is flat-out unsustainable").
Its a viable point of view when it took the US Marshall Plan to finally
stop those fools furiously ripping each others throats out in virtually every
generation, and went on to invent the computer and the PC and the net etc.
Post by Immortalist
Conservatives have been making exactly these arguments for
roughly five decades now, yet these same European nations
have by almost every measurement-individual rights and
community, capitalist enterprise and social solidarity, and
even personal mobility- proven superior to the United States.
Thats one very obvious lie. In spades with the couple of decades before that.
AND it took the US to bail them out TWICE from the worst
obscenitys that the entire world has seen for millennia too.
Nope.
Yep.
In both World Wars the Yanks sat at home shitting themselves
Mindlessly silly. They just yawned about the stupid europeans
furiously ripping each others throats out, yet again.
while the British defended themselves against heavily armed enemies.
They in fact attacked heavily armed enemys at a time when they werent even being attacked.
In the Second World War the Red Army had defeated the Nazis
before the Yanks bothered to get up off their fucking arses.
Another bare faced lie.
After the Second World War the Yanks tried, knowingly, to destroy
the British economy by demanding a vast payment for their assistance
Why shouldnt the stupid british have to pay for the military assistance they got ?

And pity about the Marshall Plan.
- just in case you thought they helped us out when we needed it
Corse they did, twice.
and all for nothing.
Why shouldnt the stupid british have to pay for the military assistance they got ?
Rod Speed
2009-07-26 23:34:22 UTC
Permalink
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more efficient than private industry.
Have fun explaining how come some countrys get their health
care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US spends, and
simultaneously do better on longevity etc and completely eliminate
any risk of being bankrupted by a serious medical problem.

Looks better and more efficient to me.
In the end the only thing that happens is that people become dependent on Government as the only choice.
Another lie. That hasnt happened in even one modern first world country.
That is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
Thats actually a bare faced LIE.
miles
2009-07-27 00:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Have fun explaining how come some countrys get their health
care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US spends, and
simultaneously do better on longevity etc and completely eliminate
any risk of being bankrupted by a serious medical problem.
Because many live healthier lives. Many don't know what fast food is.
They don't sit on their butts as much. Has little to do with health
care. Look up how many times they visit the Dr. or are treated for
various illnesses. Its not their health care system thats different.
Take a look at the UK's system and tell me how great it is and how loved
it is by people there.
Rod Speed
2009-07-27 01:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Rod Speed
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more efficient than private industry.
Have fun explaining how come some countrys get their health
care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US spends, and
simultaneously do better on longevity etc and completely eliminate
any risk of being bankrupted by a serious medical problem.
Because many live healthier lives.
Mindlessly silly. You cant list even a single modern first world country that spends
HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does which lives healthier lives.
Post by miles
Many don't know what fast food is.
Another mindlessly silly bare faced pig ignorant lie.

NOT ONE modern first world country doesnt know what fast food is.
Post by miles
They don't sit on their butts as much.
Another mindlessly silly bare faced pig ignorant lie.

NOT ONE modern first world country does that.
Post by miles
Has little to do with health care.
Another mindlessly silly bare faced pig ignorant lie.
Post by miles
Look up how many times they visit the Dr. or are treated for various illnesses.
There's hardly any difference in that between any of the modern first world countrys.
Post by miles
Its not their health care system thats different.
Another mindlessly silly bare faced pig ignorant lie.
Post by miles
Take a look at the UK's system and tell me how great it is and how loved it is by people there.
Take a look at Japan's system and notice that there isnt any waiting time for any
doctor, even specialists, and no referrals needed either, and you get to pay only
$10 per night for a hospital stay if you are happy with a 4 bed ward and $90 if
you want a private room. For some odd reason they are very happy with that.
miles
2009-07-27 01:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Take a look at Japan's system and notice that there isnt any waiting time for any
doctor
Japan is not anything like Obamacare. Everyone in Japan is required to
get a health insurance policy, either at work or through a
community-based insurer. The Government picks up the tab only for the
poor. Japans government insurance policy competes with private
insurers. Obamacare seeks to kill private insurers. Companies can't
change policies or carriers. People who choose private insurance can't
change from that carrier after year one of Obamacare. Changing jobs
makes you ineligible for private insurance. After 5 years the company
must change over to Obamacare. Thats nothing like Japan at all.

I have no problem with socialized healthcare as a choice in principal.
I have a huge problem with Obamacare HR 2911 and HR 3200.
Poetic Justice
2009-07-27 05:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more efficient than private industry.
Have fun explaining how come some countrys get their health
care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US spends, and
Because they let their citizens live in pain and die, rather than
spending to keep them alive. Move to Canada or england or Cuba and get
cancer then tell us how that Hope and Change are work`n for`ya
Post by Rod Speed
simultaneously do better on longevity etc and completely eliminate
any risk of being bankrupted by a serious medical problem.
Looks better and more efficient to me.
In the end the only thing that happens is that people become dependent on Government as the only choice.
Another lie. That hasnt happened in even one modern first world country.
That is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
Thats actually a bare faced LIE.
Rod Speed
2009-07-27 22:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Poetic Justice
Post by Rod Speed
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that
corporations should, or even can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything
better and more efficient than private industry.
Have fun explaining how come some countrys get their health
care for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US spends, and
Because they let their citizens live in pain and
die, rather than spending to keep them alive.
Mindlessly silly lie. Japanese citizes live LONGER than USians, fool.
Post by Poetic Justice
Post by Rod Speed
simultaneously do better on longevity etc and completely eliminate
any risk of being bankrupted by a serious medical problem.
Looks better and more efficient to me.
Post by miles
In the end the only thing that happens is that people become
dependent on Government as the only choice.
Another lie. That hasnt happened in even one modern first world country.
Post by miles
That is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
Thats actually a bare faced LIE.
Bret Cahill
2009-07-27 00:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even
can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more
efficient than private industry.  
The people in countries with nationalized health care are in better
health and spend half the money on health care.

Milton Friedman was just trying to rip off the American public with
employer based coverage as usual.


Bret Cahill
miles
2009-07-27 00:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
The people in countries with nationalized health care are in better
health and spend half the money on health care.
Not because of better health care. Americans eat like pigs, don't
exercise etc.

Tell me about how great health care is in the UK, Brazil, Thailand,
Singapore, China, France and other socialized health care countries.
Several month delays for surgeries such as hip replacement is
unacceptable. Tell me how great the $8/gallon (over $14 last year) gas
is because of the massive taxes to fund socialism. Tell me how great
high VAT taxes are in many of these countries to fund it. Tell me why
the UK is having to cut back funding education in order to keep funding
a broke health care system.
Bret Cahill
2009-07-27 02:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
The people in countries with nationalized health care are in better
health and spend half the money on health care.
Not because of better health care.  Americans eat like pigs, don't
exercise etc.
They over eat because they eat when they aren't humgry.

And they eat when they aren't hungry because they've lost their
freedom.

And they've lost their freedom because Repugliars dumbed them down
into believing that there's a free lunch on liberty.
Tell me about how great health care is in the UK, Brazil, Thailand,
Singapore, China, France and other socialized health care countries.
The proof is in the pudding:

They live longer.

Next question?


Bret Cahill
miles
2009-07-27 02:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
And they've lost their freedom because Repugliars dumbed them down
into believing that there's a free lunch on liberty.
Reps dumbed them down? It is not the Reps who wish to make them
dependent on Government and oppress them. That would be the Dems.
Besides, most higher education schools are filled with liberal
professors, not conservative.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by miles
Tell me about how great health care is in the UK, Brazil, Thailand,
Singapore, China, France and other socialized health care countries.
They live longer.
Not because of treatment by Dr's. They live longer because of better
lifestyles with regards to health.
Poetic Justice
2009-07-27 05:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more
efficient than private industry.
The thing Government can do better, is waste money.
snakehawk
2009-07-27 00:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even
can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more
efficient than private industry.  In the end the only thing that happens
is that people become dependent on Government as the only choice.  That
is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
Private enterprise has its limits. It only works well in a
competitive environment. Where there is no competition, private
enterprise becomes simply greedy enterprise. It's human nature.

Private enterprise, could never furnish courtrooms and judges to the
population. Privately owned and profit-motivated courts would quickly
dissolve into tools for corruption. Private enterprise cannot provide
roads and bridges---not unless there were alternate routes available
to the same destinations that could offer competitive tolls. Private
schools have long ago priced themselves out of the general
population. Only a select few can afford to send their children to
those private high schools and universities. Private enterprise and
industry only work where there is a profit motive in a free market.

And that's why healthcare in the United States has gone awry.
Healthcare is not a competitive enterprise in a free market. Sick
people don't seek out the cheapest treatment---they want the best
there is and damned the cost. Sick people don't search around for the
cheapest doctors and rarely discharge their doctors for low quality
treatment. Sick people demand every hyperexpensive medical test that
could conceivably detect the cause of their illness. That's not a free
market; that's a captive market. In a captive market, free wheeling
enterprises can milk the system at their pleasure.

Can anyone doubt that's what is happening in the United States? The
private health care system in the United States has failed and is
failing, and it's getting worse every year. Medical costs are
exploding. Insurance premiums are out of reach to individual laborers
working by the hour. If individuals can't get into a group of some
kind, health insurance is unavailable. Drug companies can charge what
they like, doctors can order any combination of expensive tests, and
Insurance companies can limit their policies, set their premiums, and
rake huge profits off the top. Free enterprise has been a disaster
for healthcare in the United States.

Universal healthcare can best be handled by the government. That's
why private companies are so adamantly against a public healthcare
plan as an alternative to private insurance.
miles
2009-07-27 00:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by snakehawk
Private enterprise has its limits. It only works well in a
competitive environment.
That is true. Thats why there are laws against monopolies, anti-trust
policies etc. When Government forces out all competition and becomes a
monopoly its even worse.
Post by snakehawk
Where there is no competition, private
enterprise becomes simply greedy enterprise. It's human nature.
Very true. Government tries to do the very same thing through their own
greed for power and control through dependency and oppression.
Post by snakehawk
And that's why healthcare in the United States has gone awry.
Healthcare is not a competitive enterprise in a free market. Sick
people don't seek out the cheapest treatment---they want the best
there is and damned the cost.
Not true. They want the best care they can afford. That won't happen
with socialized healthcare. You get whatever is given to you and thats
it. No other choices.
Post by snakehawk
rarely discharge their doctors for low quality
BULL! People who get low quality Dr care do indeed go elsewhere. They
want results. Thats why Dr's who give high quality service are in high
demand.
Post by snakehawk
treatment. Sick people demand every hyperexpensive medical test that
could conceivably detect the cause of their illness. That's not a free
market; that's a captive market. In a captive market, free wheeling
enterprises can milk the system at their pleasure.
No they can't. Insurance companies dictate treatment. Ya, thats the
same as with the Government. Difference is that insurance companies
compete and I can always find a different one if desired.
Post by snakehawk
Can anyone doubt that's what is happening in the United States? The
private health care system in the United States has failed
Thats not because of insurance companies. Its because of the massive
cost of Drs and hospitalization as well as drug costs. The Governments
HR 3200 bill does nothing to control those costs. They simply shift who
pays for it. So the problem still exists.
Michael Coburn
2009-07-27 02:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or
even can, provide health care
The MYTH is that the Government can do anything better and more
efficient than private industry.
That is not a myth. It is proved every day by the Social Security system.
Post by miles
In the end the only thing that happens
is that people become dependent on Government as the only choice.
Yet another lie. The Social Security system does not stop people from
becoming filthy rich and being totally independent of the Social Security
system.
Post by miles
That
is OPPRESSION and that is TRUTH.
So far you have done nothing but lie.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
miles
2009-07-27 02:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Coburn
That is not a myth. It is proved every day by the Social Security system.
You mean the countries largest ponzie scheme that can't sustain itself?
Poetic Justice
2009-07-27 16:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by miles
Post by Michael Coburn
That is not a myth. It is proved every day by the Social Security system.
You mean the countries largest ponzie scheme that can't sustain itself?
They arrested Maddoff for trying the same Business model.
*Anarcissie*
2009-07-27 16:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
2) free trade is always good;
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
4) tax rates are too high;
5) local school finance;
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate excess
and health care threaten our national well-being and our position as a
world leader. We should denounce such cherished and longstanding beliefs
as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and The Kids Will Earn More
than We Do, and examines their historical provenances-for example, if we
trace the adoption of pensions to the early 20th century, when employers
like Proctor and Gamble and G.E. acted as feudal lords offering benefits
to recruit and retain employees- strategies that are now strangling
these same corporations at the expense of global competitiveness.
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it thinks
about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas include
corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and pensions to
its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected; and since aging
baby boomers will cause the government’s health and pension costs to
explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising taxes to a level that
destroys economic growth. Only top business executives can spearhead new
ideas since power-driven politicians are incapable of such leadership.
In an era when more change is expected to occur in the next thirty years
than in the previous three hundred, the skill and speed with which
people cope will be the key to success; those slow to adapt will be
punished faster and more harshly.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/
dp/0805087877
The MYTH that is truly DEAD is the MYTH that corporations should, or even
can, provide health care and pensions.  GM, the largest corporation in
the world for a very long time failed because it tried to fund health
care and retirement.  Those are the province of truly representative
governments that can use whatever means necessary to manage the
disabilities of failing health and old age.
Apparently no one can fund medical (not health) care.
giveitawhirl2008
2009-07-26 23:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
O-bomb-us ran on a platform of fixing the economy that, supoosedly,
the Republicans had busted.

First, Barnie Frank and his fellow Democrats crashed the banking
system, which in turn crashed the economy.

Second, in his acceptance speech, O-bomb-us very quickly got to
talking like a salesman talks when you've just signed the contract, or
are about to, pen in hand. You know, the promises that a saleman makes
to get you hooked, then, to cover his butt for later, he lets you know
in ways hopefully too subtle, to well worded to make you change your
mind, that, well, you are not getting COMPLETELY, EXACTLY what you are
picturing in your mind. He suddenly started back peddling on how soon
things might significantly change, and basically demanded a second
term to have time to actually make a difference.

Thirdly, the Democrap Propaganda Machine - which is, basically, the
entire set of major media companies and organizations, except for Fox
News - immediately began doing the same kind of back peddling, and
trying to make it look popular to expect high taxes and bad economic
conditions. You know, "Polls show Americans don't mind paying more
taxes," etc.

Which brings us to:

"Dead Idea: "Each generation can expect a rising standard of living.'
" Yeah, like Dead Idea: "Low taxes help the taxpayer!" What they are
saying is. "Don't expect a rising standard of living! Then you will
not be disappointed in Obama's Economy!"


Of course, when O-bomb-us runs for re-election, DO expect a rising
standard of living if he is re-elected! Then, AFTER he is re-elected,
the high priests will AGAIN tell us: "Dead Idea: Each generation can
expect a rising standard of living."
z***@netscape.net
2009-07-27 11:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Well, that one os mostly why computers were invented for the
uneducable, so it mght be another 5 generations, before the
message finally ripples through to the terminally idiot
industries
like shipping companries.
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
4) tax rates are too high;
5) local school finance;
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate excess
and health care threaten our national well-being and our position as a
world leader. We should denounce such cherished and longstanding
beliefs as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and The Kids Will
Earn More than We Do, and examines their historical provenances-for
example, if we trace the adoption of pensions to the early 20th
century, when employers like Proctor and Gamble and G.E. acted as
feudal lords offering benefits to recruit and retain employees-
strategies that are now strangling these same corporations at the
expense of global competitiveness.
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it
thinks about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas
include corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and
pensions to its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected; and
since aging baby boomers will cause the government’s health and
pension costs to explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising
taxes to a level that destroys economic growth. Only top business
executives can spearhead new ideas since power-driven politicians are
incapable of such leadership. In an era when more change is expected
to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred,
the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key to success;
those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more harshly.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/dp/08050...
Les Cargill
2009-07-27 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we
try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Maybe, maybe not.
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
Tax hatred is an old electoral warhorse. Very few
people are hardcore committed to the anarchism of
low taxes. And see also 1)

When a Dr. Ron Paul decries taxation as unfree, he is
right. But not because of the rates. He is right because
of what it is used for. Is the resultant un-free-ness bad?
It depends. It's things like seat belt laws. But the underlying
Mandarinism should be more of concern.
Post by Immortalist
5) local school finance;
Not even Texans do this.
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Justice and fairness are self-abnegating concepts. They
are hyperbolic versions of equity and balance. Poverty is
not injustice; it is an inequity. And fairness is in the eye
of the beholder, and dependent on dragging data ragged across
domains.

Useful versions of justice are only well-supported by
universally applicable things like the law, and we do a
reasonable job of keeping that upright. "Fairness" is
an inherently juvenile concept, only locally
applicable.
Post by Immortalist
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate excess
and health care threaten our national well-being and our position as a
world leader. We should denounce such cherished and longstanding
beliefs as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and The Kids Will
Earn More than We Do, and examines their historical provenances-for
example, if we trace the adoption of pensions to the early 20th
century, when employers like Proctor and Gamble and G.E. acted as
feudal lords offering benefits to recruit and retain employees-
strategies that are now strangling these same corporations at the
expense of global competitiveness.
That's pretty confused. America was once just an economic low spot
(relative to Great Britain, which was a low spot once).
It filled in. Now China is the low spot.

In particular, P&G found its principal outlet to be WalMart, and
adapted accordingly. GE was subject to the corporate nihilism
of Neutron Jack Welch. Correspondingly, the once-mighty Hudson's
Bay Company has evolved from that dinosaur into a modest bird
of the retail outlet Le Baie in Quebec.

The loss of paternalism isn't something all that bad. What is bad
is that people didn't see it coming.
Post by Immortalist
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it
thinks about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas
include corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and
pensions to its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected; and
since aging baby boomers will cause the government’s health and
pension costs to explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising
taxes to a level that destroys economic growth.
What is not thinly-disguised GenX whingeing about this?
Post by Immortalist
Only top business
executives can spearhead new ideas since power-driven politicians are
incapable of such leadership. In an era when more change is expected
HA!
Post by Immortalist
to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred,
the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key to success;
those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more harshly.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/dp/0805087877
So it devolves to a rehash of Gleick? Figures.

--
Les Cargill
tooly
2009-07-27 13:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we
try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Second reply on this thread...so some repeat...sorry.
Consider Peak oil and Global warming only comment here.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Excactly! Free trade, in the long term, will undermine
nation-state existence as labor forces migrate across
the globe, no longer homogenous but more and more
a mishmash of multicultural diversity. Borders will
become more and more invisible. So, if one today
still believes in some patriotic notion of servitude
toward their country of origin, there might be
problems [ie free trade not good]. Free trade often
does undermine the internal work force of a
given nation, driving wages down and sending jobs
elsewhere [though through structural shifts creating
new industry].
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Maybe, maybe not.
There are problems. One cannot afford to get too sick
under employer healthcare. They have to work.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
Tax hatred is an old electoral warhorse. Very few
people are hardcore committed to the anarchism of
low taxes. And see also 1)
When a Dr. Ron Paul decries taxation as unfree, he is
right. But not because of the rates. He is right because
of what it is used for. Is the resultant un-free-ness bad?
It depends. It's things like seat belt laws. But the underlying
Mandarinism should be more of concern.
Again, think revenue. Government cannot function without
some taxation, so unless one is an anarchist, the question
is one of optimization. Cutting taxes usually means job
creation.

And also the fundamental question
as to size of government. I agree, as government grows,
it becomes more and more the Big Brother we have been
warned about in literature. Hayek remember, showed how
government acts in it's own self interest to 'grow' unless
an informed citizenry puts a leash on it.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
5) local school finance;
Not even Texans do this.
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Justice and fairness are self-abnegating concepts. They
are hyperbolic versions of equity and balance. Poverty is
not injustice; it is an inequity. And fairness is in the eye
of the beholder, and dependent on dragging data ragged across
domains.
Useful versions of justice are only well-supported by
universally applicable things like the law, and we do a
reasonable job of keeping that upright. "Fairness" is
an inherently juvenile concept, only locally
applicable.
Again...Efficient...not 'just and fair'. I don't know anyone who
argues that free markets are necessarily fair and just?
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate excess
and health care threaten our national well-being and our position as a
world leader. We should denounce such cherished and longstanding
beliefs as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and The Kids Will
Earn More than We Do, and examines their historical provenances-for
example, if we trace the adoption of pensions to the early 20th
century, when employers like Proctor and Gamble and G.E. acted as
feudal lords offering benefits to recruit and retain employees-
strategies that are now strangling these same corporations at the
expense of global competitiveness.
ha, I find this quaint as it starts out with the preverbial arguement
against
big government [as found in entrenched attitudes of entitlement etc],
but
then twists the argument against 'private enterprise' [us depending on
employers for said benies, ha], assumedly as 'pro big government'.
LOL.
Post by Les Cargill
That's pretty confused. America was once just an economic low spot
(relative to Great Britain, which was a low spot once).
It filled in. Now China is the low spot.
In particular, P&G found its principal outlet to be WalMart, and
adapted accordingly. GE was subject to the corporate nihilism
of Neutron Jack Welch. Correspondingly, the once-mighty Hudson's
Bay Company has evolved from that dinosaur into a modest bird
of the retail outlet Le Baie in Quebec.
The loss of paternalism isn't something all that bad. What is bad
is that people didn't see it coming.
Post by Immortalist
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it
thinks about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas
include corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and
pensions to its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected; and
since aging baby boomers will cause the government’s health and
pension costs to explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising
taxes to a level that destroys economic growth.
What is not thinly-disguised GenX whingeing about this?
Post by Immortalist
Only top business
executives can spearhead new ideas since power-driven politicians are
incapable of such leadership. In an era when more change is expected
HA!
Post by Immortalist
to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred,
the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key to success;
those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more harshly.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/dp/08050...
Ok, I see your point now...but took a lot of flotsom to get to it.
Free market
business will look to cut empolyee benefits in more globally
competitive
environments, thusly alienating large segments of the population,
which will
drive such population to 'democratically' install more socialist
principled
organization to satisfy needed benies [such as healthcare and
retirement]...
but which will also stifle economic growth. ERgo, lower standard of
living for
all? It's a good point, but not one that justifies discarding entire
social systems.
Things will evolve and it looks like command economies of places like
Cuba and
China 'evolve' toward some middle ground capitalism while free market
societies are evolving toward some middle ground socialism. There is
probably
some point of equilibrium.
Post by Les Cargill
So it devolves to a rehash of Gleick? Figures.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
2009-07-27 14:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we
try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Second reply on this thread...so some repeat...sorry.
Consider Peak oil and Global warming only comment here.
I did consider those. Both are Too Far Out. And
last I read of Hansen, he's decided Peak Oil is the
solution to AGW, anyway.

So they cancel out.
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Excactly! Free trade, in the long term, will undermine
nation-state existence
No. Exactly the opposite. *Empires* undermine
nation states much more. So does protectionism. it
wasn't just the Battle of Waterloo that was "the nearest
thing you ever saw" ( stolen from Schama, that :)

If you put someone in a position to choose between
material wellbeing and national identity, I'm pretty
sure which they'll choose. And there's no reason to consider
that nationalism, especially Nationalism is anything
more than a temporary phenomenon, anyway. There's nothing
wrong with being a "citizen of the world", expecially
if you have an expense account to support the lifestyle. After
all, the present bigger nation is made up of previous smaller ones.

The things exist to serve people.

Ironic, though - that capitalism, not Communism causes
"the State to wither away." Still, we have states in the
United States with little more than symbolic sovereignty.
Network effects are just powerful.
Post by tooly
as labor forces migrate across
the globe, no longer homogenous but more and more
a mishmash of multicultural diversity.
Multiculti is a fad, an artifact of the desire of
journalists to have variety in restaurants. The
parts of it that work will stick. In America,
it will more work than fail. Vive la
difference.
Post by tooly
Borders will
become more and more invisible. So, if one today
still believes in some patriotic notion of servitude
toward their country of origin, there might be
problems [ie free trade not good]. Free trade often
does undermine the internal work force of a
given nation, driving wages down and sending jobs
elsewhere [though through structural shifts creating
new industry].
Offshoring/globalization is merely one technology which
may drive down costs. We have an uncomfortable dualism -
we work 8 hours, five days a week, but we are consumers
24/7. In the longer run, lower cost probably has to win.

There are any of a number of reductio ad absurbum on
"keep it local" around. Now, local very often works out,
but when it fails, it fails big. It works better for
strawberries than cars.
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Maybe, maybe not.
There are problems. One cannot afford to get too sick
under employer healthcare. They have to work.
Employer-provided was a "hack" to start with - it
was designed to beat Truman's wage freezes. it's
path dependence again.
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
Tax hatred is an old electoral warhorse. Very few
people are hardcore committed to the anarchism of
low taxes. And see also 1)
When a Dr. Ron Paul decries taxation as unfree, he is
right. But not because of the rates. He is right because
of what it is used for. Is the resultant un-free-ness bad?
It depends. It's things like seat belt laws. But the underlying
Mandarinism should be more of concern.
Again, think revenue. Government cannot function without
some taxation, so unless one is an anarchist, the question
is one of optimization. Cutting taxes usually means job
creation.
Government isn't necessarily better off with more revenue. It's
"better off" ( it does the least damage ) with the exact minimum
mission it can get away with.
Post by tooly
And also the fundamental question
as to size of government. I agree, as government grows,
it becomes more and more the Big Brother we have been
warned about in literature. Hayek remember, showed how
government acts in it's own self interest to 'grow' unless
an informed citizenry puts a leash on it.
What has fascinated me is that this is not particularly
monolithic - the permanent bureaucracy has an instinct to
be conservative in scope. Governments naturally converge
on stasis, where the rule in corporations is really "grow
or die." People such as political appointees must
bridge the political and the permanent, and that
shear is usually won by the permanent.
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
5) local school finance;
Not even Texans do this.
:)
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Justice and fairness are self-abnegating concepts. They
are hyperbolic versions of equity and balance. Poverty is
not injustice; it is an inequity. And fairness is in the eye
of the beholder, and dependent on dragging data ragged across
domains.
Useful versions of justice are only well-supported by
universally applicable things like the law, and we do a
reasonable job of keeping that upright. "Fairness" is
an inherently juvenile concept, only locally
applicable.
Again...Efficient...not 'just and fair'. I don't know anyone who
argues that free markets are necessarily fair and just?
I tend to argue that - free markets better represent the
preferences ( and therefore the will ) of the people who
participate in them. That has a strongly democratic
ring to it.

It's a perfectly legitimate function of government to
thwart negative externalities expressed by markets.
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate excess
and health care threaten our national well-being and our position as a
world leader. We should denounce such cherished and longstanding
beliefs as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and The Kids Will
Earn More than We Do, and examines their historical provenances-for
example, if we trace the adoption of pensions to the early 20th
century, when employers like Proctor and Gamble and G.E. acted as
feudal lords offering benefits to recruit and retain employees-
strategies that are now strangling these same corporations at the
expense of global competitiveness.
ha, I find this quaint as it starts out with the preverbial arguement
against
big government [as found in entrenched attitudes of entitlement etc],
but
then twists the argument against 'private enterprise' [us depending on
employers for said benies, ha], assumedly as 'pro big government'.
LOL.
Yeah.
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
That's pretty confused. America was once just an economic low spot
(relative to Great Britain, which was a low spot once).
It filled in. Now China is the low spot.
In particular, P&G found its principal outlet to be WalMart, and
adapted accordingly. GE was subject to the corporate nihilism
of Neutron Jack Welch. Correspondingly, the once-mighty Hudson's
Bay Company has evolved from that dinosaur into a modest bird
of the retail outlet Le Baie in Quebec.
The loss of paternalism isn't something all that bad. What is bad
is that people didn't see it coming.
Post by Immortalist
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it
thinks about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas
include corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and
pensions to its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected; and
since aging baby boomers will cause the government’s health and
pension costs to explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising
taxes to a level that destroys economic growth.
What is not thinly-disguised GenX whingeing about this?
Post by Immortalist
Only top business
executives can spearhead new ideas since power-driven politicians are
incapable of such leadership. In an era when more change is expected
HA!
Post by Immortalist
to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred,
the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key to success;
those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more harshly.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/dp/08050...
Ok, I see your point now...but took a lot of flotsom to get to it.
Free market
business will look to cut empolyee benefits in more globally
competitive
environments, thusly alienating large segments of the population,
which will
drive such population to 'democratically' install more socialist
principled
organization to satisfy needed benies [such as healthcare and
retirement]...
Eh, no. Old line companies will simply be chasing smaller
markets. You have to consider Schumpeterian "creative
destruction."
Post by tooly
but which will also stifle economic growth. ERgo, lower standard of
living for
all?
Unlikely. Now, there may be a different basket of goods traded for,
but that's preferential, not "lowered." Studies show that affluent
people often choose more time off rather than more money. This is
perfectly natural, and an expression of the declining
marginal product of wealth - the second bass boat just isn't
as fun as the first.

Our collective relative affluence ( over historical levels) is
pretty significant.
Post by tooly
It's a good point, but not one that justifies discarding entire
social systems.
Things will evolve and it looks like command economies of places like
Cuba and
China 'evolve' toward some middle ground capitalism while free market
societies are evolving toward some middle ground socialism. There is
probably
some point of equilibrium.
No, because self-interest always wins out.
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
So it devolves to a rehash of Gleick? Figures.
--
Les Cargill
--
Les Cargill
Jim Jones
2009-07-27 20:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we
try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Second reply on this thread...so some repeat...sorry.
Consider Peak oil and Global warming only comment here.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Excactly! Free trade, in the long term, will undermine
nation-state existence as labor forces migrate across
the globe, no longer homogenous but more and more
a mishmash of multicultural diversity. Borders will
become more and more invisible.
In fact what we have actually seen is the exact opposite,
borders have become harder and harder to move past
for those that are attempting to move to the most
successful countries.
Post by tooly
So, if one today
still believes in some patriotic notion of servitude
toward their country of origin, there might be
problems [ie free trade not good]. Free trade often
does undermine the internal work force of a
given nation, driving wages down and sending jobs
elsewhere [though through structural shifts creating
new industry].
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Maybe, maybe not.
There are problems. One cannot afford to get too sick
under employer healthcare. They have to work.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
Tax hatred is an old electoral warhorse. Very few
people are hardcore committed to the anarchism of
low taxes. And see also 1)
When a Dr. Ron Paul decries taxation as unfree, he is
right. But not because of the rates. He is right because
of what it is used for. Is the resultant un-free-ness bad?
It depends. It's things like seat belt laws. But the underlying
Mandarinism should be more of concern.
Again, think revenue. Government cannot function without
some taxation, so unless one is an anarchist, the question
is one of optimization. Cutting taxes usually means job
creation.
And also the fundamental question
as to size of government. I agree, as government grows,
it becomes more and more the Big Brother we have been
warned about in literature. Hayek remember, showed how
government acts in it's own self interest to 'grow' unless
an informed citizenry puts a leash on it.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
5) local school finance;
Not even Texans do this.
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Justice and fairness are self-abnegating concepts. They
are hyperbolic versions of equity and balance. Poverty is
not injustice; it is an inequity. And fairness is in the eye
of the beholder, and dependent on dragging data ragged across
domains.
Useful versions of justice are only well-supported by
universally applicable things like the law, and we do a
reasonable job of keeping that upright. "Fairness" is
an inherently juvenile concept, only locally
applicable.
Again...Efficient...not 'just and fair'. I don't know anyone who
argues that free markets are necessarily fair and just?
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate
excess and health care threaten our national well-being and our
position as a world leader. We should denounce such cherished and
longstanding beliefs as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and
The Kids Will Earn More than We Do, and examines their historical
provenances-for example, if we trace the adoption of pensions to
the early 20th century, when employers like Proctor and Gamble and
G.E. acted as feudal lords offering benefits to recruit and retain
employees- strategies that are now strangling these same
corporations at the expense of global competitiveness.
ha, I find this quaint as it starts out with the preverbial arguement
against
big government [as found in entrenched attitudes of entitlement etc],
but
then twists the argument against 'private enterprise' [us depending on
employers for said benies, ha], assumedly as 'pro big government'.
LOL.
Post by Les Cargill
That's pretty confused. America was once just an economic low spot
(relative to Great Britain, which was a low spot once).
It filled in. Now China is the low spot.
In particular, P&G found its principal outlet to be WalMart, and
adapted accordingly. GE was subject to the corporate nihilism
of Neutron Jack Welch. Correspondingly, the once-mighty Hudson's
Bay Company has evolved from that dinosaur into a modest bird
of the retail outlet Le Baie in Quebec.
The loss of paternalism isn't something all that bad. What is bad
is that people didn't see it coming.
Post by Immortalist
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it
thinks about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas
include corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and
pensions to its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected;
and since aging baby boomers will cause the government’s health and
pension costs to explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising
taxes to a level that destroys economic growth.
What is not thinly-disguised GenX whingeing about this?
Post by Immortalist
Only top business
executives can spearhead new ideas since power-driven politicians
are incapable of such leadership. In an era when more change is
expected
HA!
Post by Immortalist
to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three
hundred, the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key
to success; those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more
harshly.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/dp/08050...
Ok, I see your point now...but took a lot of flotsom to get to it.
Free market
business will look to cut empolyee benefits in more globally
competitive
environments, thusly alienating large segments of the population,
which will
drive such population to 'democratically' install more socialist
principled
organization to satisfy needed benies [such as healthcare and
retirement]...
but which will also stifle economic growth. ERgo, lower standard of
living for
all? It's a good point, but not one that justifies discarding entire
social systems.
Things will evolve and it looks like command economies of places like
Cuba and
China 'evolve' toward some middle ground capitalism while free market
societies are evolving toward some middle ground socialism. There is
probably
some point of equilibrium.
Post by Les Cargill
So it devolves to a rehash of Gleick? Figures.
--
Les Cargill
*Anarcissie*
2009-07-28 11:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Jones
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we
try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Second reply on this thread...so some repeat...sorry.
Consider Peak oil and Global warming only comment here.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Excactly!  Free trade, in the long term, will undermine
nation-state existence as labor forces migrate across
the globe, no longer homogenous but more and more
a mishmash of multicultural diversity.   Borders will
become more and more invisible.
In fact what we have actually seen is the exact opposite,
borders have become harder and harder to move past
for those that are attempting to move to the most
successful countries.
What about the Schengen agreement?
Jim Jones
2009-07-28 18:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by *Anarcissie*
Post by Jim Jones
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we
try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Second reply on this thread...so some repeat...sorry.
Consider Peak oil and Global warming only comment here.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Excactly! Free trade, in the long term, will undermine
nation-state existence as labor forces migrate across
the globe, no longer homogenous but more and more
a mishmash of multicultural diversity. Borders will
become more and more invisible.
In fact what we have actually seen is the exact opposite,
borders have become harder and harder to move past
for those that are attempting to move to the most
successful countries.
What about the Schengen agreement?
Even the EU chooses to make it a hell of a lot harder for the
dregs of the world to get in that it used to say 100 years ago.
*Anarcissie*
2009-07-28 20:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Jones
Post by *Anarcissie*
Post by Jim Jones
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we
try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Second reply on this thread...so some repeat...sorry.
Consider Peak oil and Global warming only comment here.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Excactly! Free trade, in the long term, will undermine
nation-state existence as labor forces migrate across
the globe, no longer homogenous but more and more
a mishmash of multicultural diversity. Borders will
become more and more invisible.
In fact what we have actually seen is the exact opposite,
borders have become harder and harder to move past
for those that are attempting to move to the most
successful countries.
What about the Schengen agreement?
Even the EU chooses to make it a hell of a lot harder for the
dregs of the world to get in that it used to say 100 years ago.
Not so. Anyway, you said borders were harder to move
past and I just gave you a whole bunch of borders that
are now easier to move past.

And to think they used to say, "The wogs start at Calais."
Jim Jones
2009-07-28 21:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by *Anarcissie*
Post by Jim Jones
Post by *Anarcissie*
Post by Jim Jones
Post by tooly
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we
try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Second reply on this thread...so some repeat...sorry.
Consider Peak oil and Global warming only comment here.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Excactly! Free trade, in the long term, will undermine
nation-state existence as labor forces migrate across
the globe, no longer homogenous but more and more
a mishmash of multicultural diversity. Borders will
become more and more invisible.
In fact what we have actually seen is the exact opposite,
borders have become harder and harder to move past
for those that are attempting to move to the most
successful countries.
What about the Schengen agreement?
Even the EU chooses to make it a hell of a lot harder for the
dregs of the world to get in that it used to say 100 years ago.
Not so.
Corse it is, most obviously with those from africa that want to move there now.
Post by *Anarcissie*
Anyway, you said borders were harder to move past
And they clearly are for those trying to get into the EU and america etc today.
Post by *Anarcissie*
and I just gave you a whole bunch of borders that are now easier to move past.
Different matter entirely.
Post by *Anarcissie*
And to think they used to say, "The wogs start at Calais."
They still do.

Rod Speed
2009-07-27 20:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
Six Dead Ideas
1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living;
Nothing dead about it. It's probably misunderstood, but
that's not the idea's fault. "A rising standard of living"
means different things to different generations. And when we try to be objective about what this means, it looks like
the kids have it pretty good.
Thats arguable with your more flexible definition of standard of living.

You can make a case that they dont do so well on being able to
choose any job they like today compared with say in the 50s and 60s.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
2) free trade is always good;
Nobody ever said that. What's said is that
free-er trade is more efficient than the same
market being served by mercantilist mechanisms.
Post by Immortalist
3) employer-provided healthcare benefits;
Maybe, maybe not.
Post by Immortalist
4) tax rates are too high;
Tax hatred is an old electoral warhorse. Very few
people are hardcore committed to the anarchism of
low taxes. And see also 1)
When a Dr. Ron Paul decries taxation as unfree, he is
right. But not because of the rates. He is right because
of what it is used for. Is the resultant un-free-ness bad?
It depends. It's things like seat belt laws. But the underlying Mandarinism should be more of concern.
Post by Immortalist
5) local school finance;
Not even Texans do this.
Post by Immortalist
6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Justice and fairness are self-abnegating concepts. They
are hyperbolic versions of equity and balance. Poverty is
not injustice; it is an inequity. And fairness is in the eye
of the beholder, and dependent on dragging data ragged across
domains.
Useful versions of justice are only well-supported by
universally applicable things like the law, and we do a
reasonable job of keeping that upright. "Fairness" is
an inherently juvenile concept, only locally applicable.
Post by Immortalist
There is an entrenched American attitude of entitlement and outdated
beliefs about government, education, taxes, business, corporate
excess and health care threaten our national well-being and our
position as a world leader. We should denounce such cherished and
longstanding beliefs as Your Company Should Take Care of You, and
The Kids Will Earn More than We Do, and examines their historical
provenances-for example, if we trace the adoption of pensions to the
early 20th century, when employers like Proctor and Gamble and G.E.
acted as feudal lords offering benefits to recruit and retain
employees- strategies that are now strangling these same
corporations at the expense of global competitiveness.
That's pretty confused. America was once just an economic low spot (relative to Great Britain, which was a low spot
once).
It filled in. Now China is the low spot.
In particular, P&G found its principal outlet to be WalMart, and
adapted accordingly. GE was subject to the corporate nihilism
of Neutron Jack Welch. Correspondingly, the once-mighty Hudson's Bay Company has evolved from that dinosaur into a
modest bird of the retail outlet Le Baie in Quebec.
The loss of paternalism isn't something all that bad. What is bad is that people didn't see it coming.
Post by Immortalist
There is a threat that America faces from the traditional way it
thinks about certain economic issues (“Dead Ideas”). Dead Ideas
include corporate America’s desire to stop providing health care and
pensions to its workforce, which will leave millions unprotected; and
since aging baby boomers will cause the government’s health and
pension costs to explode, we cannot manage this reality by raising
taxes to a level that destroys economic growth.
What is not thinly-disguised GenX whingeing about this?
Post by Immortalist
Only top business
executives can spearhead new ideas since power-driven politicians are
incapable of such leadership. In an era when more change is expected
HA!
Indeed. Silliest crap I have seen in a long time.
Post by Les Cargill
Post by Immortalist
to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred,
the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key to success; those slow to adapt will be punished faster
and more harshly.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Dead-Ideas-Thinking-Prosperity/dp/0805087877
So it devolves to a rehash of Gleick? Figures.
*Anarcissie*
2009-07-27 16:43:07 UTC
Permalink
... Only top business
executives can spearhead new ideas since power-driven politicians are
incapable of such leadership. In an era when more change is expected
to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred,
the skill and speed with which people cope will be the key to success;
those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more harshly. ...
This article is a pretty stupid collection of ideas, but this,
the idea that business executives are not politicians, is
probably the stupidest.
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'The Tyranny of Dead Ideas' (newsgroups and mailing lists)
12
replies
promoted through the tyranny of censorship - Don't let these neocon zionist bastards doe this to US - The FACT we have video footage of melted steel flowing like water out of of the WTC towers
started 2007-02-20 22:42:52 UTC
alt.radio
21
replies
promoted through the tyranny of censorship - Don't let these neocon zionist bastards doe this to US - The FACT we have video footage of melted steel flowing like water out of of the WTC towers
started 2007-02-20 22:42:52 UTC
alt.radio.talk
14
replies
TO EVERY AMERICAN: Now, are YOU still going to refuse to demand the Coast to Coast radio network stop working to kill Americans for evil stupidity through the tyranny of censorship?
started 2009-03-12 07:30:44 UTC
alt.mens-rights
12
replies
TO EVERY AMERICAN ELITE CELEB: Now, are YOU still going to refuse to demand the Coast to Coast radio network stop working to kill Americans for evil stupidity through the tyranny of censorship?
started 2009-03-12 07:34:55 UTC
alt.arabic.politics
8
replies
Hello everyone! Demon bushite slayer Johnny Wizard here, with an important announcement - I BEG the Christian men of Earth to help GOD - Coast to Coast radio hosts MUST face treason charges as enemies to Life as we know it. They lie to the American child, to trick them into sacrificing more lives for the tyranny of the antichrist. "Al-Qaida" = "General Mahmoud Ahmad" = "bush's ungodly partners in crime" GODPOD INCLUDED! ! !
started 2007-06-23 00:15:41 UTC
soc.culture.japan
Loading...