OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
vocal ones do.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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

  I think it's because most of them still have this misconception that
national health care = communism (a view promoted by many prominent figures,
among others, Ronald Reagan).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:28:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:

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

I've been having a discussion about this with a friend of mine today 
who's on "the other side" of the debate (against the Obama plan).  It 
seems the bulk of his opposition is because most of the people voting for 
it haven't read it.  He hasn't either.

It seems to me (being in favor of it, and no, I haven't read it either) 
that there are those who think that it should reformed as it is - nearly 
everybody agrees that what we have is broken, it's just a question of how 
best to fix it.

Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook 
that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't take 
care of individuals who get sick because they don't have insurance, we 
risk infecting everyone else.

Then there are those who think capitalism is the answer to *everything*.  
"Let the market decide" - the problem (as I see it) with this is that 
some things *shouldn't* be driven by the market (ie, money).  Health is 
one of those.  Public Safety is another (and public health is a component 
of public safety IMHO).  I don't think the prisons should be privatized 
either, because the profit motive is too strong, and that profit motive 
drives the wrong societal behaviour.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Then there are those who think capitalism is the answer to *everything*.  
> "Let the market decide"

We're currently seeing where this leads to... but I'm sure there are 
people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis... >_<

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:45:54 -0400, Warp wrote:

> most of them

No, just the vocal ones who oppose it.  And maybe not communism, but 
socialism.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:55:58 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Then there are those who think capitalism is the answer to
>> *everything*. "Let the market decide"
> 
> We're currently seeing where this leads to... but I'm sure there are
> people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis...
> >_<

LOL!

Capitalism and "self-regulation".  Isn't the latter what got us into this 
mess in the first place (at least in part)?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:4a847bbd$1@news.povray.org...

> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
> that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't take
> care of individuals who get sick because they don't have insurance, we
> risk infecting everyone else.

I think people on all sides miss the real issues. Health care doesn't 
magically become better or worse because it's public or private. Health care 
in both USA and Canada stinks, and the latter is public (and arguably stinks 
more, since well to do Canadians rely on USA for their timely health care 
needs). Granted, the private vs public or how much of each is a major 
decision, but the quality is all in the implementation, economy, management, 
logistics... etc.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> but I'm sure there are 
> people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis... >_<

  I'm not exactly sure why it wouldn't be.

  At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
commerce which keeps the cash flowing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
>> but I'm sure there are 
>> people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis... >_<
> 
>   I'm not exactly sure why it wouldn't be.

Maybe because it's exactly this liberal capitalism that got us to where 
we're at right now??

>   At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
> commerce which keeps the cash flowing.

At its core, capitalism is also about selfishness, and therefore needs 
to be counterbalanced by some other regulatory mechanisms if it is to 
work for good.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 17:24, somebody wrote:
> magically become better or worse because it's public or private. Health care
> in both USA and Canada stinks, and the latter is public (and arguably stinks
> more, since well to do Canadians rely on USA for their timely health care
> needs). Granted, the private vs public or how much of each is a major

	And the Americans rely on India for their timely health care needs as well.

	Your point?
	
	I have an article sitting around here somewhere that claims that in 
Canada (or at least some of the provinces) if someone gets put on a very 
long waiting list, and the doctor feels that it could be really 
dangerous/fatal to wait that long, they're allowed to seek treatment 
elsewhere (e.g. US) and get refunded.

	Can't find a way to confirm it...

	The point being that the long wait times are not necessarily due to 
shortage of money, but due to shortage of doctors.

	And just as an FYI, health care in Canada is almost completely private. 
It's merely government funded. Doctors don't work for the government, 
though.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 17:48, Warp wrote:
>    At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
> commerce which keeps the cash flowing.

	In which direction?

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 15:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It seems to me (being in favor of it, and no, I haven't read it either)
> that there are those who think that it should reformed as it is - nearly
> everybody agrees that what we have is broken, it's just a question of how
> best to fix it.

	Funny - I haven't heard any suggestions of alternatives from those who 
keep opposing it. Are you sure they agree it is broken?

> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
> that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't take
> care of individuals who get sick because they don't have insurance, we
> risk infecting everyone else.

	Not really. I'm betting most serious problems where people get hurt by 
private health care/insurance are not contagious.
	
	(And my sig was totally randomly picked. I swear!)

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 16:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:45:54 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> most of them
>
> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it.  And maybe not communism, but
> socialism.

	How many of Americans who oppose it know the difference?

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have that). 
They're opposed to *universal* health care.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a848d62$1@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:55:58 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Then there are those who think capitalism is the answer to
>>> *everything*. "Let the market decide"
>> 
>> We're currently seeing where this leads to... but I'm sure there are
>> people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis...
>> >_<
>
> LOL!
>
> Capitalism and "self-regulation".  Isn't the latter what got us into this 
> mess in the first place (at least in part)?

What you mean (or what is meant) by self-regulation? Some effect of
free trade?

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a849ed4$1@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 17:48, Warp wrote:
>>    At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
>> commerce which keeps the cash flowing.
>
> 	In which direction?

Good question. :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:17:03 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 16:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:45:54 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> most of them
>>
>> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it.  And maybe not communism, but
>> socialism.
> 
> 	How many of Americans who oppose it know the difference?

Probably not many - it's probably in the bucket of "not capitalism" 
bucket and so, by definition, "bad".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:02:08 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

>> Capitalism and "self-regulation".  Isn't the latter what got us into
>> this mess in the first place (at least in part)?
> 
> What you mean (or what is meant) by self-regulation? Some effect of free
> trade?

Self-regulation means that the industry regulates itself, or provides 
"guidance" to the regulating body by making up the rules for themselves.

So, in the case of the banking industry, there are allegations (I don't 
know whether they're true or not, but I have my suspicions) that many of 
the banking regulations in place now were written by people in the 
banking industry.  Thus, they set rules that allowed them to get away 
with the shenanigans that got us into our current economic situation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:24:17 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a847bbd$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
>> that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't
>> take care of individuals who get sick because they don't have
>> insurance, we risk infecting everyone else.
> 
> I think people on all sides miss the real issues. Health care doesn't
> magically become better or worse because it's public or private. Health

Agreed.

> care in both USA and Canada stinks, and the latter is public (and
> arguably stinks more, since well to do Canadians rely on USA for their
> timely health care needs). Granted, the private vs public or how much of
> each is a major decision, but the quality is all in the implementation,
> economy, management, logistics... etc.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:16:58 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 15:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It seems to me (being in favor of it, and no, I haven't read it either)
>> that there are those who think that it should reformed as it is -
>> nearly everybody agrees that what we have is broken, it's just a
>> question of how best to fix it.
> 
> 	Funny - I haven't heard any suggestions of alternatives from 
those who
> keep opposing it. Are you sure they agree it is broken?

The ones I've talked to agree that it's broken, but they are against "big 
government" and I understand the reasons why, even though I might not 
agree with them.

>> Those in favour of continuing private insurance, in my view, overlook
>> that public health is, by definition, a public concern.  If we don't
>> take care of individuals who get sick because they don't have
>> insurance, we risk infecting everyone else.
> 
> 	Not really. I'm betting most serious problems where people get 
hurt by
> private health care/insurance are not contagious.

No, probably not, but the problems of contagious/infectious diseases 
should not be discounted either.  Health affects everyone, directly or 
indirectly.  People on long-term (or permanent) disability, for example, 
affect you and me because they still need medical care.  People without 
insurance currently are paid for by you and me (IIRC you're in the US as 
well) because part of our premiums goes towards covering the uninsured - 
but they tend to only go in when things get REALLY bad and consequently 
REALLY expensive.  I'd rather they were covered for preventative care so 
that my (and your) premiums can come down because they don't wait until 
they have to go to the emergency room to get treated for a sore throat 
(that turns into something serious enough to need a trip to the ER).

> 	(And my sig was totally randomly picked. I swear!)

LOL, it's a good one, though, and highlights one of the major problems 
with the US system:  litigation and malpractice insurance.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan schrieb:
>> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it.  And maybe not communism, but
>> socialism.
> 
>     How many of Americans who oppose it know the difference?
> 

Do /you/ know the difference?

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> On 08/13/09 17:48, Warp wrote:
>>    At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely 
>> free
>> commerce which keeps the cash flowing.
> 
>     In which direction?
> 
LOL!

Thinking about it, it seems like money is made of exotic matter these 
days...

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 19:22, clipka wrote:
> Neeum Zawan schrieb:
>>> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it. And maybe not communism, but
>>> socialism.
>>
>> How many of Americans who oppose it know the difference?
>
> Do /you/ know the difference?

	Yup. One leads to prosperity, and the other doesn't. And neither is 
capitalism.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 19:23, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 	Funny - I haven't heard any suggestions of alternatives from
> those who
>> keep opposing it. Are you sure they agree it is broken?
>
> The ones I've talked to agree that it's broken, but they are against "big
> government" and I understand the reasons why, even though I might not
> agree with them.

	Fair enough.

	And also fair enough that it need not be government run. Some countries 
do have very successful insurance driven health care - simply because of 
government regulations to prevent the companies from abusing it.

	Haven't looked at Obama's bill. General consensus, though, seems to be 
that it's different from virtually all models out there, so it's a toss 
up as to whether it's a good plan or not. I guess we'll know 40 years 
down the road.


-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:44:03 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 08/13/09 19:23, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 	Funny - I haven't heard any suggestions of alternatives from
>> those who
>>> keep opposing it. Are you sure they agree it is broken?
>>
>> The ones I've talked to agree that it's broken, but they are against
>> "big government" and I understand the reasons why, even though I might
>> not agree with them.
> 
> 	Fair enough.
> 
> 	And also fair enough that it need not be government run. Some 
countries
> do have very successful insurance driven health care - simply because of
> government regulations to prevent the companies from abusing it.

True.  Well-regulated could work well for us.

> 	Haven't looked at Obama's bill. General consensus, though, seems 
to be
> that it's different from virtually all models out there, so it's a toss
> up as to whether it's a good plan or not. I guess we'll know 40 years
> down the road.

I haven't looked at it either, but as I get drawn into more debates about 
it, I probably will at least read the summary view of it, if only to be 
better prepared for discussions about it. :-)

We'll know 40 years down the road if it's approved. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Daniel Bastos wrote:
> What you mean (or what is meant) by self-regulation? Some effect of
> free trade?

Self-regulation is the notion that everybody's actions, whether through 
goodwill or pure greed (though probably assumed the latter in every 
case), balance each other out and so prevent any one particular greedy 
individual from taking unfair advantage of those who don't happen to be 
as greedy--all the greedy ones hobble each other in an attempt to keep 
everyone but themselves from getting all the money, but since there's 
more than one of them...you get a fair market.

The only problem is it doesn't turn out that way, and you do need a 
(supposedly) impartial watchdog.  That's the government.  Proponents of 
pure free trade insist that any intervention, period, breaks capitalism 
and allows things to become unbalanced, instead of recognising that the 
government just tries to reduce the disparity that'll be there anyways.

Then there's the (somewhat peculiar, imo) notion of individual liberty. 
  It was a novel thing to found an entire country holding that concept 
as sacred, the way the USA was, at the time.  It hadn't ever actually 
been tried--it was a grand experiment.  So you drill into your citizens 
that belief, and that 'the government' as an entity that since time 
immemorial had just taken freedom away from ordinary folk (along with 
nobility, but since that was explicitly left out of the USA, in theory 
doesn't affect the situation ['cept it does, 'cuz you get class 
striation, with the rich people becoming the de facto nobility]), was 
something bad.  So when you have government needing to grow and have 
bureaucracy, it bothers people.

Just my opinion.
</rant(?)>

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> >> but I'm sure there are 
> >> people who even think capitalism is the answer to the economic crisis... >_<
> > 
> >   I'm not exactly sure why it wouldn't be.

> Maybe because it's exactly this liberal capitalism that got us to where 
> we're at right now??

  It's also what got us with free health care, hospitals, free education and
schools, public libraries, free roads for anyone to use, and all this while
maintaining basic human rights and freedom. Well, in most capitalist countries
at least.

  I find it rather amusing that you think that "capitalism caused the
economic crisis", when it was capitalism that caused the economic growth
in the first place. The "economic crisis" is only a recession in relation
to the previous economic growth, which was brought by capitalism. Without
capitalism there would be no "economic crisis" because we would be in a
constant economic recession, probably a much worse one than the current one.

> >   At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
> > commerce which keeps the cash flowing.

> At its core, capitalism is also about selfishness, and therefore needs 
> to be counterbalanced by some other regulatory mechanisms if it is to 
> work for good.

  Selfishness is a side-effect of free commerce, not the core of capitalism.
People are selfish bastards, but it's the people who are to blame about that,
not capitalism itself. People would be selfish regardless of capitalism, and
would abuse any other economic model equally badly.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 08/13/09 17:48, Warp wrote:
> >    At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
> > commerce which keeps the cash flowing.

>         In which direction?

  It's impossible for cash to flow into one single direction. It has to
circulate for the flow to keep going.

  You may be thinking that cash tends to flow towards big companies. However,
people paying money to those companies have to *get* that money from somewhere
first. Where do you think they get it from?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>         They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have that). 
> They're opposed to *universal* health care.

  I wonder why. Would it be unfair that *all* people could get health care
for free, that rich and poor people would be treated equally?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> On 08/13/09 19:22, clipka wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan schrieb:
>>>> No, just the vocal ones who oppose it. And maybe not communism, but
>>>> socialism.
>>>
>>> How many of Americans who oppose it know the difference?
>>
>> Do /you/ know the difference?
> 
>     Yup. One leads to prosperity, and the other doesn't. And neither is 
> capitalism.

So I guess that's the definition of these terms, is it? And which is which?

Last thing I heard of socialism was 1989 when the East German "real 
existing socialism" collapsed. It didn't appear to have been /too/ 
prosperous all the time.

And I guess we don't have to discuss how prosperous communist sovjet 
Russia was.

But then again, the German word "Sozialismus" may denote something else 
than the English "socialism".

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I wonder why. Would it be unfair that *all* people could get health care
> for free, that rich and poor people would be treated equally?

Yes, because (the argument goes) "if person x doesn't have to pay for it 
(because they don't have any money), why should I (even though I have 
more than enough)?  person x is just a lazy deadbeat who's stealing *my* 
money!"  :P

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:17:08 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>
>	They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have that). 
>They're opposed to *universal* health care.

Could you explain the difference between universal and national to a Brit?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   I wonder why. Would it be unfair that *all* people could get health care
> > for free, that rich and poor people would be treated equally?

> Yes, because (the argument goes) "if person x doesn't have to pay for it 
> (because they don't have any money), why should I (even though I have 
> more than enough)?  person x is just a lazy deadbeat who's stealing *my* 
> money!"  :P

  If that's someone's honest opinion, it has one major flaw: Basically the
person is saying that poor people should be left to die because society (in
other words, the citizens of the country) should have no obligation of
keeping poor people alive and healthy. In other words, that poor people
deserve no help from people who can afford helping them.

  While in a completely inhuman and technical society it could make logical
sense to get rid of people who don't contribute positively to the society
(by letting them die), that's not the kind of philosophy civilized society
is founded on. Human rights exist for a reason.

  I think Americans should stop complaining about things like taxes. They
should take a look at Finland, where rich people pay up to 60% of their
income in taxes. And that's not a typo. Americans have it quite easy with
their, what, 20% tax roof? They could well increase that a bit.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a849ed2@news.povray.org...
> On 08/13/09 17:24, somebody wrote:

> > magically become better or worse because it's public or private. Health
care
> > in both USA and Canada stinks, and the latter is public (and arguably
stinks
> > more, since well to do Canadians rely on USA for their timely health
care
> > needs). Granted, the private vs public or how much of each is a major
>
> And the Americans rely on India for their timely health care needs as
well.
>
> Your point?

That both systems/implementations are flawed.

> I have an article sitting around here somewhere that claims that in
> Canada (or at least some of the provinces) if someone gets put on a very
> long waiting list, and the doctor feels that it could be really
> dangerous/fatal to wait that long, they're allowed to seek treatment
> elsewhere (e.g. US) and get refunded.
>
> Can't find a way to confirm it...

Possible in some life threatening cases. But health care is not just about
keeping dying people alive. Quality of life should be a big part of health
care. With limited and mismanaged resources, Canada has no option but to act
retroactively and in panic mode, keep pushing life threatening conditions to
the front of the long and growing wait lines. In the meantime, some in the
months or years long list either progress to the point of becoming life
threatening (a mixed blessing, for then they will be pushed to the front),
or if they are wealthy enough, or if they value their quality of life, seek
threatment out of the country with out of pocket expenses. Late treatment in
this manner is a losing battle.

Recently publicized story (and sometimes mis-publicized as a life
threatening case):

http://www.mayoclinic.org/patientstories/story-339.html

Sure, it's not life threatening, but if I were in her shoes, I'd not wait to
risk blindness either, not should I be expected to, in a developed country.

Besides the obvious months and years long waiting lists (6 months for MRI,
another 2-3 years for surgery is fairly common for knee surgeries, for
instance), and risks associated with late diagnosis and threatment, the
inability for a sizeable portion in some provinces of Canadians to have
access to family practicioners also overburderns an already stretched system
when patients are more or less left to use emergency rooms for diagnosis.

> The point being that the long wait times are not necessarily due to
> shortage of money, but due to shortage of doctors.

And where exactly do shortage of doctors and nurses come from? Are we saying
Canadian students are inherently dumber than their US counterparts and
cannot finish medical school? Of course not, it's mismanagement and/or
shortage of money. Many doctors and nurses move south of the border because
they can make more money, work under better conditions (which comes back to
money)... etc. Like it or not, money is what makes the world go around.

> And just as an FYI, health care in Canada is almost completely private.
> It's merely government funded. Doctors don't work for the government,
> though.

True (but it's more complicated - much of drugs, vision or dental care are
not government funded either, and government funding also brings government
regulation, of course, so it's not "merely" funded by government), but the
difference may be without distinction anyway. I don't believe Canada's
health care problems are due to doctors not working directly under
government payroll. Either implementation could be made to work equally
well, should there be enough money and good management.

Post a reply to this message

>> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
>> vocal ones do.
> 
>   I think it's because most of them still have this misconception that
> national health care = communism (a view promoted by many prominent figures,
> among others, Ronald Reagan).

Question: What the **** is communism anyway? And why is it bad?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Question: What the **** is communism anyway? And why is it bad?

  I once came up with this description:

  The basic idea of communism is that everyone should have the same wealth
as everyone else. That is: nothing.

  The idea of communism may sound good on paper, but in practice it doesn't
work very well because in order for communism to be upheld, people's freedom
and rights must be limited.

  Another reason why communism doesn't work is because it discourages
success: When you don't own anything, there's no point in earning more
or improving what you have. Why improve what you have when you don't
actually own it, and you could lose it at any time? This causes people
to simply do what they are forced to do in order to survive and not get
into problems, but nothing more. There's no point in doing anything more
because success is inconsequential.

  Capitalism may sound "bad" on paper (at least if you believe the hype),
but in practice it just works. It encourages people to succeed, which in
turn improves the whole society. Yes, it causes large gaps between rich
and poor, but if the government works right, even the poor will have at
least as good living conditions as even in the best of communist countries.
(Yes, this isn't true for many capitalist countries, but that's because
their government is not perfect. It's not really because of capitalism
itself.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> and therefore needs 
> to be counterbalanced by some other regulatory mechanisms if it is to 
> work for good.

  Btw, that's true to *all* forms of economy. It's not exclusive to
capitalism.

  At its core, a government has two roles: Managing resources and stopping
people from hurting other people. How well different forms of government
succeed in these two goals depends, in the end, on how much they limit the
freedom and rights of their citizens.

  As far as I can see, democratic capitalism is the form of government which
succeeds in this with the least amount of freedom and rights limits. Other
forms of government and economy may sound good on paper, but they don't seem
to work very well in practice.

  That doesn't mean that capitalism is perfect. It just means that it seems
to be the best we have. Other forms don't seem to work in practice, no matter
how utopistic they sound in theory.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Question: What the **** is communism anyway? And why is it bad?
> 
>   I once came up with this description:
> 
>   The basic idea of communism is that everyone should have the same wealth
> as everyone else. That is: nothing.
> 
>   The idea of communism may sound good on paper, but in practice it doesn't
> work very well because in order for communism to be upheld, people's freedom
> and rights must be limited.
> 
>   Another reason why communism doesn't work is because it discourages
> success: When you don't own anything, there's no point in earning more
> or improving what you have.

I see. I think...

>   Capitalism may sound "bad" on paper (at least if you believe the hype),
> but in practice it just works.

What's capitalism?

And, for that matter, we still have socialism, fashism, fuedalism, and 
all those other isms that nobody understands...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   Capitalism may sound "bad" on paper (at least if you believe the hype),
> > but in practice it just works.

> What's capitalism?

  In essence: Free commerce and the right for individuals to own wealth.

> And, for that matter, we still have socialism, fashism, fuedalism, and 
> all those other isms that nobody understands...

  I don't think capitalism should be confused with those because capitalism
is more an economic model than a governmental one. While some governmental
models also imply a certain economic model (such as is mostly the case
with communism), capitalism is not so much tied to the specific govermental
model. For example, AFAIK, China is some kind of mixture of communism and
capitalism at the same time (I'm not exactly sure how it works there because
I haven't studied the subject).

  Of course capitalism seems to work best with democracy because they are
both based on the same concept: Freedom.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 03:02, clipka wrote:
>> Yup. One leads to prosperity, and the other doesn't. And neither is
>> capitalism.

> And I guess we don't have to discuss how prosperous communist sovjet
> Russia was.

	Obviously not. That was the one that wasn't prosperous.

	It was a joke. The point is that every country (that's still around) is 
pretty much a mix of socialism and capitalism.


-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> What's capitalism?
> 
> And, for that matter, we still have socialism, fashism, fuedalism, and 
> all those other isms that nobody understands...

Ooh!  Ooh!  Obligatory:
http://www.cyberclass.net/ref2cows.htm
http://www.manbottle.com/humor/capitalism_and_cows
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_have_two_cows )

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 07:45, Warp wrote:
>    Of course capitalism seems to work best with democracy because they are
> both based on the same concept: Freedom.

	It can't be freedom if the goods aren't free.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 02:49, Warp wrote:
>    I find it rather amusing that you think that "capitalism caused the
> economic crisis", when it was capitalism that caused the economic growth
> in the first place. The "economic crisis" is only a recession in relation

	The two are not contradictory. And let's not forget that interference 
with capitalism is playing a big role in getting out of the mess that 
capitalism created - although no doubt many will dispute that.


-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 06:18, Warp wrote:
>    Btw, that's true to *all* forms of economy. It's not exclusive to
> capitalism.
>
>    At its core, a government has two roles: Managing resources and stopping
> people from hurting other people. How well different forms of government
> succeed in these two goals depends, in the end, on how much they limit the
> freedom and rights of their citizens.
>
>    As far as I can see, democratic capitalism is the form of government which
> succeeds in this with the least amount of freedom and rights limits. Other
> forms of government and economy may sound good on paper, but they don't seem
> to work very well in practice.
>
>    That doesn't mean that capitalism is perfect. It just means that it seems
> to be the best we have. Other forms don't seem to work in practice, no matter
> how utopistic they sound in theory.

	I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying.

	I don't know your view of the economies in Europe, but when many 
(most?) ordinary people in the US talk about capitalism, they don't view 
most European economies as capitalist (and Scandinavian countries are 
probably the least likely to be considered capitalist).

	Likewise, when folks in the US speak negatively of capitalism, they're 
often speaking positively of the economy in places like Germany, or even 
the Scandinavian countries. Again, that's because they just don't call 
it capitalism.

	I think the people of every country view their system as "centrist" or 
a good balance. So the capitalism in the US is the "standard" for them, 
and the stuff in Europe is too far off to be called it the same thing.

	I just thought I'd point that out to everyone because it will likely 
cause confusion in the discussion.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

>> What's capitalism?
>>
>> And, for that matter, we still have socialism, fashism, fuedalism, and 
>> all those other isms that nobody understands...
> 
> Ooh!  Ooh!  Obligatory:
> http://www.cyberclass.net/ref2cows.htm
> http://www.manbottle.com/humor/capitalism_and_cows
> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_have_two_cows )

Well, that conclusively proves... something.

(I can't help noticing that not a single one of these systems makes 
sense...)

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> On 08/14/09 07:45, Warp wrote:
> >    Of course capitalism seems to work best with democracy because they are
> > both based on the same concept: Freedom.

>         It can't be freedom if the goods aren't free.

  Now you are confusing the two completely different meanings of the
word "free". Most other languages have completely separate words for
these two meanings.

  "Freedom" in this context does not mean "no monetary cost".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 02:51, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>> On 08/13/09 17:48, Warp wrote:
>>>     At its core, capitalism is about free commerce, and it's precisely free
>>> commerce which keeps the cash flowing.
>
>>          In which direction?
>
>    It's impossible for cash to flow into one single direction. It has to
> circulate for the flow to keep going.
>
>    You may be thinking that cash tends to flow towards big companies. However,
> people paying money to those companies have to *get* that money from somewhere
> first. Where do you think they get it from?

	It's a question of rates. In the US, the percentage of the overall 
wealth owned by the top 1% keeps increasing (depending on who you ask - 
I'm seeing some contradictory figures). That's a net flow in that 
direction.

	I meant my statement as a half joke, but now you've got me thinking...

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> What's capitalism?
> >>
> >> And, for that matter, we still have socialism, fashism, fuedalism, and 
> >> all those other isms that nobody understands...
> > 
> > Ooh!  Ooh!  Obligatory:
> > http://www.cyberclass.net/ref2cows.htm
> > http://www.manbottle.com/humor/capitalism_and_cows
> > ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_have_two_cows )

> Well, that conclusively proves... something.

> (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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         I don't know your view of the economies in Europe, but when many 
> (most?) ordinary people in the US talk about capitalism, they don't view 
> most European economies as capitalist (and Scandinavian countries are 
> probably the least likely to be considered capitalist).

  I think too many people only concentrate on the (sometimes only perceived)
negative aspects of capitalism while outright ignoring the positive aspects.
Then they define "capitalism" purely based on these negative aspects.

  It may be true that economy is somewhat more controlled in Europe, and
particularly in the northern countries, than it is in the US, but it's still
capitalism.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>         It can't be freedom if the goods aren't free.
> 
>   Now you are confusing the two completely different meanings of the
> word "free". Most other languages have completely separate words for
> these two meanings.
> 
>   "Freedom" in this context does not mean "no monetary cost".

Libre / gratis, the bane of the OSS movement. ;-)

Post a reply to this message