On 25-12-2009 21:20, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4B3### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 25-12-2009 14:27, somebody wrote:
>>> "Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>>> news:4b341689$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>   It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges
> just
>>>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes
> to
>>>>> mind.
>>>> The general reaction I've observed from people in the US about this
>>>> whole healthcare debacle also boils down to "what's in it for ME?
>>> That's a very, possibly the only, legitimate question.
> 
>> Only in the US, on this side of the Atlantic things are different*.
>> Besides we take that 'ME' a bit wider, including more complicated
>> concepts like: If health care improves for a group I do not belong to
>> now, do I know people who do and might I one day be part of that group?
> 
> That's still *me*. Do not make the all too common mistake of assuming "me"
> stands for "shortsided", or worse, "self destructive". 

I don't, that is why I referred to the Buxton index.

> Now, different
> peoples have different projections for the future, and that's normal. Maybe
> Europeans are more pessimistic about their futures than Americans, or maybe
> Americans think such long term plans have too much uncertainity in them to
> plan for, or maybe they prefer to invest their money the way they like it to
> take care of possible future hardships, I don't know - although the latter
> would be mainly my stance, for instance. But differences in opinion result
> from not one side being more selfless or more selfish, but from initial
> conditions and situations being different. What works for Finand will not
> work for USA, and vice versa, for any number of
> socio/economic/political/geographical/natural-resourse/...etc reasons.
> 
> In any case, modern economies and government are based on the expectation
> that people wish to maximize the benefit to themselves, even though,
> naturally, there won't be a single strategy that fits all. Democracy and
> capitalism will take care of finding compromises that somewhat satisfies
> significant numbers of people each with selfish goals, although the
> "solutions" may be far from optimal, from an irrational point of view.
> 
> When you ask people to make unselfish decisions, and, worse, when you assume
> they will do so, you can expect nothing but utter failure. Climate accords
> will fail spectacularly for this simple reason. 

In the case of the ozone hole they seem to be working however.

> Humans are too rational to
> "fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.

Again you should replace 'humans' with 'US citizens'. You'd be surprised 
how many people think different all over the globe. Don't make the 
mistake that because all humans you know think in a certain way that 
will be the case for all humans.

Post a reply to this message