Daniel Bastos wrote:
> In article <4a8572e9$1@news.povray.org>,
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>>>> (I can't help noticing that not a single one of these systems makes 
>>>> sense...)
>>>   While the pages are humoristic, the "pure capitalism" actually *does*
>>> make sense to me:
>>>
>>>   "You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull."
>>>
>>>   That's rational behavior, looking towards the future and welfare.
>> Well, that's true I guess.
> 
> It makes perfect sense. But we don't have free trade. The most
> capitalist countries intervene heavily on trades.

The key issue, which a lot of people who are pure Libertarian fail to 
quite grasp, is that a) in a completely free system, you have no way of 
knowing if what they are selling you is what they claim it is, and b) 
intervention is only possible *after* they kill you with it. We see this 
in the nearly 100% free and open system of altie medicines. 90% of it 
doesn't do anything, 2% of it is being looked at semi-seriously as 
possible new medicine, 3% is pure placebo, and thus ethically unusable, 
and the other 5% is bought from other countries, or other untested, 
unexamined, and unreliable sources, with the result that it can end up 
with anything from copy cat pharmaceuticals (many *herbal suppliments* 
from China had those in them), to actual poisons, including arsenic 
levels, such as some "holy water" currently being sold, not here, but in 
some parts of the Middle East, which are well above *safe* levels.

You can't have a free and 100% open system, for the same reason that 
Communism is gibberish. People cheat, either by taking short cuts, 
selling things that are not what they claim, or even by trying to make a 
short term gain, while hoping that their poison will kill off anyone 
that might otherwise report on their cheating. In a communist system 
this means that some percentage will "need" things they can't have, and 
therefor won't be able to innovate with them, while others will not 
*produce* what is needed to maintain the rest. In a capitalist system, 
it means people will sell you dog shit and call it donuts, if they think 
they can get by with it, and without someone to stop them, they can just 
move on before you can catch up with them, and they don't care, since 
*they* made a profit, and you where a fool for not checking, while 
others... will steal, lie, and bargain their way up the ladder, which is 
"almost" as easy as just not bothering to do the work, and getting stuff 
for free anyway, under the other system.

In either system, you end up having to have people, whose job is to make 
sure that "other" people are doing their jobs. At that point, you no 
longer have either a pure capitalist or pure communist system.

In the case of China.. They tried to run "both" government and economy 
that way, and it failed, so they adjusted things to provide economy that 
is capitalist (more or less), while keeping the government tightly 
controlled within a limited set of interests, and equal to everyone. In 
reality, this isn't true though, since they do elect which group is in 
charge, making it a variation of a republic, and the only "major" 
difference between them and other such republics is that their parties 
tend to all fall on one side of the line, with respect to how they do 
things. Sort of the way that, in the US, the Democrats are drifting more 
and more right, in an attempt to find "common ground" with a party that 
is being overrun by people that the founders would have considered 
little better than the king we got rid of.

Heck, one of the wackos they "hired" as a leader of a US mercenary unit, 
to fight in Iraq, has even gone so far as to claim, publicly, that 
democracy is a failure, and that rich people are rich because they where 
ordained by god to rule over poor people. [sarc]It sounds strangely 
familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on where *that* idea was last 
seen in the world...[/sarc] And, Chenney.. what can you possibly say 
about a man that is writing a book in which he claims Bush "went soft on 
him", in the last few years of the presidency, and stopped listening to 
his advice on how to fight the evil Moslems, who some foreign power will 
on day "give" a nuke too. Yikes!

But, no. China is communist only in the sense that their parties 
"currently" have a very narrow set of ideas they subscribe to, a limited 
number of opinions, and still have a strong stance on certain things 
that have been traditionally the key factors that such "communist" 
systems have both apposed, and failed to rid themselves of, a) religion, 
b) non-conformity, and c) what ever they define as "morally 
questionable". In China's case this tends to be, well.. religions, 
speaking against the government, and porn.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
> vocal ones do.


No one seems to have pointed out the obvious reasons why some of this is 
happening.

1. Right wing republicans showing up at townhalls to "lie" about both 
being republicans (and in one case the leader of the local republican 
party), and what the bill says.

2. Certain politicians, like Palin, making shit up, like the death 
panels. Ironically while having refused to fund health care in her own 
state, while under a budget surplus, resulting in the death of 224 
people, who died *waiting* for reassessment of whether or not they even 
needed more medical help. Part of the Alaskan system is **still** not 
funded by government money any more, because they placed a moratorium on 
*any* funding at all from the fed, until they fixed the problems, and 
part of the Alaskan system is still failing to meet the standards 
required to reinstate such federal programs.

3. An odd sort of political mess in the party at the moment, which has 
left even people that Obama stated, on national TV, as "working to find 
a solution", popping up less than 24 hours later to *repeat* the same 
death panel lie.

4. Major right wing religious groups, like Focus on the Family, which 
was founded by the same "I will be King, or at least on of the rich, 
powerful people that god gave political power too will.", Eric Prince 
that runs Blackwater, and currently under investigation for war crimes 
(including shooting Iraqi women and children because they where Muslims, 
instead of Christians), are putting out "fake" reports on what the bill 
actually says, all of it carefully crafted to look like its designed to 
rob people of health care, kill their grandparents, and steal their money.

Truth is, the current "leadership" of the Republican party doesn't want 
*any* reform. They have no proposals of their own, they made no attempt 
while in the majority to make reforms at all, and when confronted with 
the possibility of being seen siding with Obama, they immediately 
reverse their apparent positions, and start repeating the lies and 
idiocy of the party line. Worse, we have no way of knowing how many are 
like the people in #4, but we know Cheney likely hand picked Blackwater 
(or took someone else's suggestion to do so), and that at least *some* 
unknown number of senators belong to the C Street church, whose views 
are *basically* the same as Eric Prince's, that they are ordained to 
rule, their religion is the only right one, there is a strict social 
order, which includes the poor, non-whites, and women, below everyone 
else, and that democracy actually doesn't work, because more of *them* 
are not in power.

Not sure which is worse, that the entire Republican leadership might be 
these people at this point, or that the ones that are not can't tell the 
difference between a cobra and a rattlesnake, of which these wackos are 
the former, while the other right wingers are of the *slightly* less 
dangerous rattlesnake variety.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
> vocal ones do.

I think there are some unspoken fears that do not come out in the media 
'debate', and may provide a clue to the mystery.  One fear is that with 
anything 'government-run' the government must be especially 
non-descriminatory in the hiring and manangement of its workforce.  So 
there is the fear that somehow the *dispensation* of healthcare would 
become similar to the US Post Office euphanistically speaking. It is 
interesting how this racist fear ends up getting directed at the 
President directly.

I offer this after I assume you are aware of the known 'currents' in the 
opposition:  the money trail linking the organised protests and TV adds 
directly to the Heath Insurance Industry, the evidence of purely 
political posturing, the pure racist indignation for some that a black 
man was elected, and the ideological indignation for others that the 
'liberals' won the election.

Post a reply to this message

On 15-8-2009 18:16, somebody wrote:
> "Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
> news:4a8640a2$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> If it didn't push people back, then yes (i.e. if there's a separate
>> system of doctors who get paid directly, and who don't deal with the
>> people normally in the line).
>>
>> The real problem may be the line. However, her jumping it likely caused
>> problems for others. How can that not be negative?
> 
> Indeed. One problem with waiting lines of any sort is that it's an open
> invitation for bribery, nepotism, favouritism, racism, sexism... any any
> other kind of ism. Not to mention "class" differences (athletes get special
> treatment, zero wait times, for instance, especially in countries with
> "social" medicine). I have no doubt that the waiting times in Canada of
> poor, obese, aboriginal men for diagnosis and surgeries would on average be
> rather noticably longer than that of upper class, white, fit females, for
> instance, even if no explicit foul play is involved and when it's all
> completely subconscious. 

To both of you: sure, some people get faster treatment even in systems 
where they officially would be equal to other. Indeed there are lots or 
ways to jump the line (a little). But why on earth should that be a 
reason to reject such a system in favour of one where the less lucky 
don't get treated at all?

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:30:16 -0400, Jim Charter wrote:

> One fear is that with
> anything 'government-run' the government must be especially
> non-descriminatory in the hiring and manangement of its workforce.

This is not a bad thing, so long as it is *truly* non-discriminatory.  
Unfortunately, most "non-discriminatory" policies are inherently 
discriminatory themselves because they don't say "hire on the merits" but 
get implemented as a quota system.

Having worked for a company that implemented this (years ago) and having 
seen the particular storefront I worked in suffer because the minorities 
who applied were completely unqualified for the positions, so positions 
like "assistant manager" didn't get filled and the manager (a good friend 
of mine to this day) had to make do with a staff of high school students 
who couldn't work during the day....I can understand this concern.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/15/09 12:52, Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:24:42 -0500, Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>
>> 	Universal means that everyone should be covered (through public or
>> private means).
>
> So to summarise, some Americans do not want a universal health service because
> all Americans would benefit. Even those Americans who cannot afford to pay for

	Nope. Because they feel all American's won't benefit, and they don't 
want to be the ones left out.



-- 
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/15/09 14:23, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the
>> majority of
>> vocal ones do.
>
>
> No one seems to have pointed out the obvious reasons why some of this is
> happening.

	Yes, but you make it sound like a conspiracy. ;-)

	The actions you describe are typical of any controversial political 
issue. I'm not sure I see your point.

> 4. Major right wing religious groups, like Focus on the Family, which
> was founded by the same "I will be King, or at least on of the rich,
> powerful people that god gave political power too will.", Eric Prince

	Prince wasn't the founder of Focus on the Family.

	I fail to see why you're bringing him into this. Has he made comments 
about health care?

	And just because he's a radical extremist doesn't mean he's wrong on 
health care. ;-)


-- 
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:45:21 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/15/09 12:52, Stephen wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:24:42 -0500, Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 	Universal means that everyone should be covered (through public or
>>> private means).
>>
>> So to summarise, some Americans do not want a universal health service
>> because all Americans would benefit. Even those Americans who cannot
>> afford to pay for
> 
> 	Nope. Because they feel all American's won't benefit, and they 
don't
> want to be the ones left out.

I don't think Rush Limbaugh is afraid he'll be left out.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
>   It's a "punishment" in practice, even if it isn't technically one.
> If you earn more, you get taxed with a higher percentage. That discourages
> earning more in that country, especially if in a neighbouring country you
> could earn the same amount and get taxed less, in which case you get to
> keep more. Guess what happens.

Let's see...

I make, say, 10000 quids which I have to tax at 20%, leaving me with 
8000 quids.

Or I make, say, 20000 quids which I have to tax at 25%, leaving me with 
15000 quids.

So is there any incentive for me to make more money? Seems to me like 
there is indeed...


>   60% in Finland.

Of the whole income? That would be an awful lot indeed, and makes more 
understandable why you're talking about "punishment".

Post a reply to this message

On 08/15/09 18:30, clipka wrote:
> Let's see...
>
> I make, say, 10000 quids which I have to tax at 20%, leaving me with
> 8000 quids.
>
> Or I make, say, 20000 quids which I have to tax at 25%, leaving me with
> 15000 quids.

	Is that really how it works where you're at?

	Over here, for example, the first 10,000 will be taxed at 20%. The 25% 
rate only applies for the amounts exceeding, say, 10,000 - not on the 
whole salary.


-- 
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

Post a reply to this message