Notice that I didn't cite Belgian rule, I cited British imperialist rule, Moultano.
And, Nadagast, the Scandinavian countries? Those countries are characterized as nations with relatively low populations, and a high concentration of natural resources. A lot of Norway's wealth is due to its extensive oil reserves. Plus the three northern Scandinavian countries have a divisive issue: their social programs. Many politicians in those nations are arguing for the reduction or even elimination of the services that the government provides because it's not sustainable.
When you're an exporting country with a low population, you tend to do well because you have a large resource base that hungrier nations like the UK, France, and Germany are willing to pay for. This wealth in turn can be used by any relatively non-corrupt organization to then educate and train the local populace for service sector jobs. In any case, their private sector has not much regulation, they practice a sort of welfare capitalism, and sooner or later, they're going to eliminate the welfare aspect of it. 5 million in Norway, 9 in Sweden. In the vastly larger nations (in terms of population), they simply can't sustain their services. Why do you think Norway, Sweden, and Finland all have tight restrictions on immigration? Because if they accepted more people, their government would have to care for more people, and the system will go to hell faster than it already is.
In almost any nation that has social programs more extensive than that of the United States, one of the most pressing issues is how to sustain those programs or cut down on them.
In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well.
If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.
Helping poor people is a great part of the free market. Look at China, there was no way they could have lifted themselves from 1979 levels to where they are now without the help of Western capital and investment. Money will go to the markets with the highest profitablity assuming that those markets are stable, and that's what China was at the time. A stable, vast market. That's where all the money went.
As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.
"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.
Note also the important statistic from your Nordic study you didn't bother to quote: Unemployment.
I'd copy paste, but I cant figure how to do that with PDF documents, so go to the bottom and look for footnote 70. It explains, in statistical detail, that the Nordic countries have lower employment growth, and higher unemployment, than countries with lower tax rates. And the US in particular.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited February 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1609057:date=Feb 24 2007, 02:55 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 24 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]1609057[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Notice that I didn't cite Belgian rule, I cited British imperialist rule, Moultano. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Consider then Zimbabwe, where even today most of the black population attempts to eke out an existence subsistence farming on plots of land too small and poor to feed a family, while many whites retain lush and fertile fields and make a profit off of commercial agriculture. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The free market is a tool like any other. Often it works beautifully, often it doesn't. In Pittsburgh in the '60s you had to change your shirt 3 times a day because it would be covered in soot in a matter of hours. When the pollution was especially bad it would blot out the sun entirely, and it would look like midnight at noon. That was the free market at work. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm all for doing away with agricultural subsidies. However, I haven't seen the case made 100% that it hurts poorer nations. It does prevent them from developing agricultural industry, but it also provides them with a lot of cheap food at our expense. Theoretically this should result in these countries specializing in other areas of production, but unfortunately infrastructure often isn't up to the task.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Many homeless people have untreated mental illnesses. You try holding a job with schizophrenia. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Socially optimal does not mean centrally planned. Markets can be pushed towards more socially optimal performance with appropriate subsidies and taxes, none of which requires central planning.
All of this is skirting around the central issue of the distribution of wealth, which is an issue of a wholly different quality. Free markets produce what is individually optimal for each person in proportion to the money they spend. This is a difficult problem, and not one that I'm willing yet to make any categorical statements on, but it's definitely worthy of discussion. It isn't intellectually sufficient to say that whatever the free market produces in this regard is best a priori.
Well it really comes down to the assumption of classical economics
Money is equivalent to the Well Being of Society.
And that if everyone seeks after their own rational self interest, that it fullfills the greater good through the wonders of the "invisible hand" of the market.
While they do share many parrallels, but they aren't entirely equivalent either.
_
It's comparable to how dumptrucks get measured by weight when going to the landfill. But landfills get filled by volume, not by weight.
<!--quoteo(post=1609119:date=Feb 24 2007, 09:33 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 24 2007, 09:33 PM) [snapback]1609119[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Note also the important statistic from your Nordic study you didn't bother to quote: Unemployment.
I'd copy paste, but I cant figure how to do that with PDF documents, so go to the bottom and look for footnote 70. It explains, in statistical detail, that the Nordic countries have lower employment growth, and higher unemployment, than countries with lower tax rates. And the US in particular. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is an interesting point. But I think it's important to note that even with slightly higher unemployment they have all these positives, lower poverty rates, better income distribution, more gender equality, more economic security, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and a higher percentage of college graduates.
I won't say that slightly higher unemployment is good, but it does seem to eclipsed by the benefits (many of which you'd expect to see the other way around).
In fact it seems to reinforce the policies, even with higher unemployment they are able to do better in many categories where we'd think unemployment would make them worse. It seems to attest to the robustness of the system...
<!--quoteo(post=1609057:date=Feb 24 2007, 02:55 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 24 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]1609057[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, Nadagast, the Scandinavian countries? Those countries are characterized as nations with relatively low populations, and a high concentration of natural resources. A lot of Norway's wealth is due to its extensive oil reserves. Plus the three northern Scandinavian countries have a divisive issue: their social programs. Many politicians in those nations are arguing for the reduction or even elimination of the services that the government provides because it's not sustainable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You could explain away Norway's wealth by Oil but it's not like America has no oil, and that doesn't do anything to explain the other countries. And again the assertion that it's not sustainable...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When you're an exporting country with a low population, you tend to do well because you have a large resource base that hungrier nations like the UK, France, and Germany are willing to pay for. This wealth in turn can be used by any relatively non-corrupt organization to then educate and train the local populace for service sector jobs. In any case, their private sector has not much regulation, they practice a sort of welfare capitalism, and sooner or later, they're going to eliminate the welfare aspect of it. 5 million in Norway, 9 in Sweden. In the vastly larger nations (in terms of population), they simply can't sustain their services. Why do you think Norway, Sweden, and Finland all have tight restrictions on immigration? Because if they accepted more people, their government would have to care for more people, and the system will go to hell faster than it already is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some more assertions... I see no reason to believe any of this. It's not obvious to me and you give no evidence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In almost any nation that has social programs more extensive than that of the United States, one of the most pressing issues is how to sustain those programs or cut down on them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't imagine that it is easy to do but that doesn't mean we should let millions of Americans (or any Human really) go without health care and live in miserable conditions...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People in Africa wouldn't get fed more? Why is that? It's because of the free market. I see no reason why... $1 million spent on a yacht couldn't in principle be spent anywhere, including feeding starving people around the world. I realize there are problems and it's not as easy as giving a ton of food to the leaders, but does that mean we should just let them starve?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Red herring... I am not interested in discussing this, but I'm pretty sure that by just doing away with CAP you won't magically feed and shelter everyone in the world.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Helping poor people is a great part of the free market. Look at China, there was no way they could have lifted themselves from 1979 levels to where they are now without the help of Western capital and investment. Money will go to the markets with the highest profitablity assuming that those markets are stable, and that's what China was at the time. A stable, vast market. That's where all the money went.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How is a child born in China any more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? This is where the free market fails. They both deserve our help.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Causes" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_...d_States#Causes</a> You're probably right, some of the homeless people are just lazy (wow I think I disagree after I typed that) but I think saying that every one of them is just lazy and could easily get a job and a home if they wanted to, I don't think that's honest or accurate. I believe medical bills (we spend the highest percent of our GDP on medicine in America out of any country) are one major reason for homelessness.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry I don't buy this at all. There's nothing holy about the free market. In theory it works great, but in theory it makes a lot of assumptions that I don't think hold in the real world. In theory communism works, but the same problems happen. Theory is not reality. The free market works great for some things, and is just plain awful for others. You are assigning too much value to what the free market thinks. It's just a system, thought up by a guy.
Norway exports more oil than any other nation besides Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's a lot of oil wealth to be distributed to 4 million people. Of course the US has oil, but do you think we're exporting that? We're a massive net importer, to the tune of 14 million barrels per day. That oil is for domestic use and for domestic operations, it's not meant to be sold overseas.
Norway's oil wealth doesn't explain why the other countries are rich. But Norway is by far the richest of them all. And Norway has oil, Finland and Sweden do not. But Finland and Sweden, like Norway, also have extensive natural resources and low populations. They're like mini-Canadas in a way.
Free market is a theory that doesn't work well in reality? Well it sure as hell worked a lot better than the diseased variants of communism that Russia and China applied.
Doing away with agricultural subsidies is a form of deregulation that the third world desperately needs. Everybody outside the developed world is clamoring for MORE globalization, not less. Because lowering barriers of entry into rich markets is something any export oriented nation wants. And the poor countries aren't benefiting from low food prices, they're suffering because any farmer at the commercial level is being put out of business by incredibly high subsidies going towards unproductive farmers.
Nadagast, do you know why the person born in China was given money? Because China is a big market that welcomes foreign investment. War torn countries where there is a lack of stability and necessary economic infrastructure are not markets that appeal to foreign investment.
In any case, does it really matter? All of this? You can talk about helping people, but it's not going to happen. It's going to depend on profitability. Because that's where the money goes, and the people in that market are the ones that are going to benefit. Magically giving out money to the public doesn't work and is a pipe dream in the US.
<!--quoteo(post=1609232:date=Feb 25 2007, 10:45 AM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 25 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]1609232[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Free market is a theory that doesn't work well in reality? Well it sure as hell worked a lot better than the diseased variants of communism that Russia and China applied.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I said the free market works great for some things, but not so great at others. I think it is very useful as a base for society but I also think that it fails miserably at trying to help everyone on the planet see the benefits.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Norway exports more oil than any other nation besides Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's a lot of oil wealth to be distributed to 4 million people. Of course the US has oil, but do you think we're exporting that? We're a massive net importer, to the tune of 14 million barrels per day. That oil is for domestic use and for domestic operations, it's not meant to be sold overseas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> All the profit from oil goes into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Governmen..._Fund_of_Norway</a> And you're ignoring the whole study I linked, that was about all Nordic countries not just Norway. And it seems to me that they have a lot of benefits that I would like to have. But I guess you can just keep asserting things.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nadagast, do you know why the person born in China was given money? Because China is a big market that welcomes foreign investment. War torn countries where there is a lack of stability and necessary economic infrastructure are not markets that appeal to foreign investment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes I can read, I understand what you said. I think this just highlights the inability of the free market to deal with situations like this. Why is a child born in China more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? Because China has a market that is more promising to foreign investment? That's an argument that I don't think anyone would put forward.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In any case, does it really matter? All of this? You can talk about helping people, but it's not going to happen. It's going to depend on profitability. Because that's where the money goes, and the people in that market are the ones that are going to benefit. Magically giving out money to the public doesn't work and is a pipe dream in the US.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems that your assertion here that it doesn't work is flat out wrong. The countries we are talking about *actually do* some of the things that I would advocate and are doing pretty damn good by any measure and better than the US by many measures. You can foretell impending doom all you want but it's not convincing at all.
<!--quoteo(post=1609284:date=Feb 25 2007, 02:58 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Feb 25 2007, 02:58 PM) [snapback]1609284[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes I can read, I understand what you said. I think this just highlights the inability of the free market to deal with situations like this. Why is a child born in China more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? Because China has a market that is more promising to foreign investment? That's an argument that I don't think anyone would put forward. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suppose two hungry children are sitting in two different fields. One of them is sitting alone under a tree. The other is sitting next to a man with a gun, who already has plenty of food of his own, and is threatening to shoot anyone who gets near him or the kid, even if they are carrying free food.
Which kid is more "deserving" of help? Well, the kids didn't do anything, they're both innocent. So they're equally deserving, so much as anyone can be said to be "deserving" of the help of a stranger. But which one would you help first, if you were nearby with some extra food? 99% of charitable givers will go for the one that doesn't require risking their own life to help. This doesn't even have anything to do with greed or profitability--its self-preservation, plain and simple.
Edit: In case you think I'm exaggerating with my example, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/ts_nm/somalia_piracy_dc" target="_blank">Somali Pirates</a> just hijacked a ship loaded with UN food aid to starving Somalis, for the third time in 2 years.
<!--quoteo(post=1609367:date=Feb 26 2007, 02:40 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 26 2007, 02:40 AM) [snapback]1609367[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Suppose two hungry children are sitting in two different fields. One of them is sitting alone under a tree. The other is sitting next to a man with a gun, who already has plenty of food of his own, and is threatening to shoot anyone who gets near him or the kid, even if they are carrying free food.
Which kid is more "deserving" of help? Well, the kids didn't do anything, they're both innocent. So they're equally deserving, so much as anyone can be said to be "deserving" of the help of a stranger. But which one would you help first, if you were nearby with some extra food? 99% of charitable givers will go for the one that doesn't require risking their own life to help. This doesn't even have anything to do with greed or profitability--its self-preservation, plain and simple. Edit: In case you think I'm exaggerating with my example, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/ts_nm/somalia_piracy_dc" target="_blank">Somali Pirates</a> just hijacked a ship loaded with UN food aid to starving Somalis, for the third time in 2 years. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think you're exaggerating, and you do have a point, (it is very hard to reach some areas of the world) but I think we are far from doing as much as we can reasonably be expected to. I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right?
Even internationally do you really think that every person that starves is only does so because our aid to them was taken while going there?
I think the pirate story is really a lot more insignificant than you give it credit, 3 ships in 2 years out of all the total ships? I don't have any statistics but that can't be more than .1% (maybe more than this if you consider only UN Ships, but of all ships...)
<!--quoteo(post=1609588:date=Feb 26 2007, 09:01 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Feb 26 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]1609588[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't think you're exaggerating, and you do have a point, (it is very hard to reach some areas of the world) but I think we are far from doing as much as we can reasonably be expected to. I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right?
Even internationally do you really think that every person that starves is only does so because our aid to them was taken while going there?
I think the pirate story is really a lot more insignificant than you give it credit, 3 ships in 2 years out of all the total ships? I don't have any statistics but that can't be more than .1% <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A rare dissuasion can still have a drastic impact. Say there's a movie theatre that will be bombed one day in some year, now, you've only got 1/365 chance that you'll be at that movie theatre on that day, but do you take that chance to see some movie? (...you could potentially go further, by saying that the movie theatre wouldn't really benefit from your patronage anyway, especially if they're the ones asserting the bomb threat; nevermind the fact that visiting that theatre gets you no economic gain)
Then you've got to factor in that simply shipping the goods isn't the only process involved, and people get to be threatened all the way down the line (...so, going to the gas station to fill up before going to the theatre, driving to the theatre, etc.). People have a very hearty sense of self-preservation.
(Feel free to replace movie theatres with supermarkets/coffee shops/etc.)
Also, while it may only be an occasional ship that gets hi-jacked, if it's a UN security force (or whatever the group that'd delivering it), then it's a pretty good chance that people in that group are repeatedly making the trips, meaning that the danger isn't spread between as great a number of people. Just look at the US, bombed once and they just go ape[expletive] (...not really charity, just more of the charity of 'we will not bomb the country that may, or may not, host your activity').
They just need to find some nicely buried resources, so that developed countries' governments can go in and stage coups, so that they gain marginally functioning governments, which could potentially (but often not) lead to easier aid providing. Or just have them finish their civil wars already. I'm not even really sure colonialism and imperialism is a valid excuse anymore, all of the Americas was at one point colonies of foreign nations, and many of those countries are finally getting on track (...although often not with as environmentally friendly industrial pracitices as even more developed countries might like).
<!--quoteo(post=1609588:date=Feb 26 2007, 09:01 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Feb 26 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]1609588[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did we get from people starving to universal free health care? I must have missed the transition...
Well, you know, theres no risk involved with helping me buy a new car either, but I don't see charities lining up at my door. So instead I get to stick with my '87, and try to buy my OWN health insurance.
The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen.
<!--quoteo(post=1609608:date=Feb 27 2007, 01:29 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 27 2007, 01:29 AM) [snapback]1609608[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? People without health care is not a humanitarian problem? Again the assertion that it can't be solved by using money, ok... I don't buy it. And yeah I'm sure everyone of the millions of uninsured people are holding out for the multi-million dollar coverage. Sigh...
<!--quoteo(post=1609608:date=Feb 27 2007, 07:29 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 27 2007, 07:29 AM) [snapback]1609608[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Well, you know, theres no risk involved with helping me buy a new car either, but I don't see charities lining up at my door. So instead I get to stick with my '87, and try to buy my OWN health insurance.
The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Multi-million dollar coverage ceilings are of course a pipe dream, but nobody would seriously ask for those. Basic public healthcare, on the other hand, is quite possible. Denmark has it. And it's being paid by "someone else." Namely, taxes. Of course, that money comes out of my own pocket in the end, but it means that a large medical bill won't condemn me to bankruptcy.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Why is the answer to every supposed problem always "Throw gobs of money at it!"?
Rather than cut my paycheck down to 1/3, why not try to figure out why the medical bills have increased so fast? Reducing the costs is never an option for politicians, only reducing the portion paid by the old lady with nothing better to do than sit in the emergency room.
And while we're at it, let's take a closer look at why university costs have increased around 10% year after year. Of course, in both cases, the government has taken the role of the old mob loan shark: They cover the bill and then put the squeeze on the rest of us unsuspecting rubes for their payback (with interest of course). And if the cost is going to be covered no matter what, why not keep raising the prices?
Well, as it is with basic healthcare and education. There's the indivual's benefit, and then there's the larger societal benefit.
Flu Shots for instance, are often given out for free. Why? Because the societal benefit is much larger than the benefit 1 person attains for their own self.
_
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/11/BUG02O20R81.DTL&type=printable" target="_blank">Likewise, there's a monetary benefit to having healthy employees</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1609649:date=Feb 27 2007, 08:29 AM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Feb 27 2007, 08:29 AM) [snapback]1609649[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why is the answer to every supposed problem always "Throw gobs of money at it!"?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because money when used properly can fix problems? What else can you throw at a problem? I don't see what you can do about a problem other than spend money to try to fix it. (Donating time is essentially giving money)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Rather than cut my paycheck down to 1/3, why not try to figure out why the medical bills have increased so fast? Reducing the costs is never an option for politicians, only reducing the portion paid by the old lady with nothing better to do than sit in the emergency room.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why don't you tell me? Isn't our free market system supposed to be so effective and efficient? Yet we Americans spend by far the highest percentage of our GDP on medical bills. Countries with health care for everyone spend a lower percentage of their GDP on it and they seem to get better returns. Plus it's just a flat out good thing that everyone can go to the doctor when they get sick.
Well I guess when it all comes down to it, Free market mechanisms are tools.
Issue is, they aren't the only tools. Neither are they the best tools for all scenarios. Hell sometimes they can actually make things worse.
When there's a lot of players involved, low barriers to getting into the market, and flexibility in demand. Market mechanisms work very well.
But when the number of major players is just a handful, the barriers to entry are very high, and market demand is inflexible. Chances are market mechanisms aren't going to come up with the best solutions.
_
Another major irony about the "OMG paying tax dollars for basic healthcare" Well we already pay massive tax dollars for emergency rooms. The type of treatment where a mere bandaid costs $25
By keeping people out of the emergency room, by using low cost preventative healthcare. We're actually saving a large ammount of taxpayer dollars in net total.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1609774:date=Feb 27 2007, 06:59 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Feb 27 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]1609774[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Another major irony about the "OMG paying tax dollars for basic healthcare" Well we already pay massive tax dollars for emergency rooms. The type of treatment where a mere bandaid costs $25 <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perfect example: I can go down to the local store and purchase a whole box of bandaids for a couple dollars. Go to the emergency room at the hospital and it very well might cost $25 (admittedly an extreme though completely plausible scenario).
So, why would someone go the hospital for this kind of simple treatment? Because the Medicare or Medicaid (read taxpayers) will pick up the tab and I don't have to spend my own money at the store.
Why would this kind of treatment cost so much? Because it's basically guaranteed to be paid. The hospital files the claim and gets a check. No customer complaint because it's not coming directly out of their wallet. Politicians won't argue to put controls on costs because of a) medical lobbyists and b) they'll be chastised as trying to reduce the quality of healthcare for senior citizens and babies.
Where, in this morally righteous system, is the incentive to lower costs and which of the players is most likely to propose the idea?
<!--quoteo(post=1609837:date=Feb 28 2007, 03:40 AM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Feb 28 2007, 03:40 AM) [snapback]1609837[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Perfect example: I can go down to the local store and purchase a whole box of bandaids for a couple dollars. Go to the emergency room at the hospital and it very well might cost $25 (admittedly an extreme though completely plausible scenario).
So, why would someone go the hospital for this kind of simple treatment? Because the Medicare or Medicaid (read taxpayers) will pick up the tab and I don't have to spend my own money at the store.
Why would this kind of treatment cost so much? Because it's basically guaranteed to be paid. The hospital files the claim and gets a check. No customer complaint because it's not coming directly out of their wallet. Politicians won't argue to put controls on costs because of a) medical lobbyists and b) they'll be chastised as trying to reduce the quality of healthcare for senior citizens and babies.
Where, in this morally righteous system, is the incentive to lower costs and which of the players is most likely to propose the idea? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually the costs arrise not from the materials, but from the services.
Staffing an emergency room is much more intensive than staffing normal hospital operations. Since you have to consider they are "ON" 24/7
This means that they need multiple shifts, most of which are working overtime. And even if people don't come in, the staff has to be there, ready and waiting.
And since people don't come in at a regulated pace, as they would with scheduled doctors visits. Often they are just sitting there with nothing to do.
To recoupe costs for this capacity, they have to charge exorbitant materials costs, and still likely have a hard time breaking even.
Hell, some hospitals have essentially shut down their emergency room operations entirely due to the costs. Which just shifts all the emergency room operations to other hospitals, making service conditions even more intense.
So yeah, thats why it costs so much.
_
Then since we're considering monetary benefits to society. Just think how much money could generated by drastically reducing sick days nationwide.
<!--quoteo(post=1609837:date=Feb 27 2007, 10:40 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Feb 27 2007, 10:40 PM) [snapback]1609837[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where, in this morally righteous system, is the incentive to lower costs and which of the players is most likely to propose the idea?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Get rid of lobbyists first of all. Second, you need to explain why other countries with health care for everyone (paid for by the government) spend less % of their GDP on health care than the US. Could it just be that America's system is poorly managed and corrupted by lobbyists? Why does the US pay by far the highest % of our GDP for medical bills?
Reducing sickdays across the nation? Americans already work more hours than every other post-industrial nation, and in fact, coming in sick to work actually costs American firms to the tune of 200 billion dollars a year.
For emergency rooms, it's labor that's expensive. And having to be on call 24/7 with enough staff to handle business as usual does get expensive simply because of the hours being put in. Usually, nobody goes to the emergency room unless someone got shot, broke a leg or arm, dislocated a shoulder, or something that's serious. But you also have free clinics in which hypochondriacs and deadbeats to indulge their narcissism or skip off work.
This gets even worse with nationalized healthcare. The number one political issue at the moment in Canada is reforming their health care system, simply because the quality of services are dropping (understaffed, underpaid medical workers) and the people exploiting the system are increasing. In any case, it says enough that the best health care in the world is found in the United States, if you can afford it. And American biotech companies are miles ahead of any foreign competition.
This is one of my favorite articles of all time, simply because so many people here put Europe on a pedestal, and the truth is they are either at the same level we are, or worse.
Well, I will agree with you on one thing Healthcare that requires highly trained doctors shouldn't be covered by any national healthcare system.
Which as I'm aware is the main point of contention with the Canadian system Since this has resulted in waiting lists due to a shortage of Surgeons. Which is only made worse by their level of pay.
However when it comes down to glorified nurses and pushing pills around. I really doubt thats something which would cause shortages.
While a fully nationalized healthcare program like Canada's may be too much
I would imagine at very least that a national program focused on *just* preventative healthcare would cause any of the issues the Canadians are facing.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
It seems that everyone missed the point of my example but that doesn't really matter.
The one major reason medical costs are higher in the US is government regulations. The US is a grossly litigious society. People here will sue for anything. When it comes to medicine, every doctor, nurse, medical device, procedure, etc, must be perfect every time all the time or somebody calls a lawyer.
What happens when you elect a bunch of lawyers as representatives in government? You get enough red tape beauracracy to drown an aircraft carrier. Rather than spend profits on regulatory officials to protect them against lawsuits, the medical community passes that cost onto consumers.
Of course, consumers can't afford the cost of a $10,000,000 lawsuit so we have to charge everyone to cover a few overly expensive procedures.
How do we improve this? <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030116.html" target="_blank">Medical Tort Reform.</a> Why won't it happen? Because the legislature isn't going to cut the money flow off from their own.
<!--quoteo(post=1609961:date=Feb 28 2007, 01:40 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Feb 28 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]1609961[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It seems that everyone missed the point of my example but that doesn't really matter.
The one major reason medical costs are higher in the US is government regulations. The US is a grossly litigious society. People here will sue for anything. When it comes to medicine, every doctor, nurse, medical device, procedure, etc, must be perfect every time all the time or somebody calls a lawyer.
What happens when you elect a bunch of lawyers as representatives in government? You get enough red tape beauracracy to drown an aircraft carrier. Rather than spend profits on regulatory officials to protect them against lawsuits, the medical community passes that cost onto consumers.
Of course, consumers can't afford the cost of a $10,000,000 lawsuit so we have to charge everyone to cover a few overly expensive procedures.
How do we improve this? <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030116.html" target="_blank">Medical Tort Reform.</a> Why won't it happen? Because the legislature isn't going to cut the money flow off from their own. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And yet it's the medications which cost so much, not the doctors services.
The doctors certainly aren't the one's absorbing all these higher costs.
<!--quoteo(post=1610004:date=Feb 28 2007, 05:11 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 28 2007, 05:11 PM) [snapback]1610004[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Right. Its the lawyers soaking up all those extra dollars.
Didn't we explain that already?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really. Since it's not those administering the drugs who are making the bulk of the profit. Or even the HMOs they represent. It's the ones designing the drugs.
The trick with medications for specific treatments. Thats the perfect example of Very few players, Very high entry barriers, and Inflexible demand.
Monopolistic / Cartel(istic?) practices are where market mechanisms fail.
Comments
And, Nadagast, the Scandinavian countries? Those countries are characterized as nations with relatively low populations, and a high concentration of natural resources. A lot of Norway's wealth is due to its extensive oil reserves. Plus the three northern Scandinavian countries have a divisive issue: their social programs. Many politicians in those nations are arguing for the reduction or even elimination of the services that the government provides because it's not sustainable.
When you're an exporting country with a low population, you tend to do well because you have a large resource base that hungrier nations like the UK, France, and Germany are willing to pay for. This wealth in turn can be used by any relatively non-corrupt organization to then educate and train the local populace for service sector jobs. In any case, their private sector has not much regulation, they practice a sort of welfare capitalism, and sooner or later, they're going to eliminate the welfare aspect of it. 5 million in Norway, 9 in Sweden. In the vastly larger nations (in terms of population), they simply can't sustain their services. Why do you think Norway, Sweden, and Finland all have tight restrictions on immigration? Because if they accepted more people, their government would have to care for more people, and the system will go to hell faster than it already is.
In almost any nation that has social programs more extensive than that of the United States, one of the most pressing issues is how to sustain those programs or cut down on them.
In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well.
If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.
Helping poor people is a great part of the free market. Look at China, there was no way they could have lifted themselves from 1979 levels to where they are now without the help of Western capital and investment. Money will go to the markets with the highest profitablity assuming that those markets are stable, and that's what China was at the time. A stable, vast market. That's where all the money went.
As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.
"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.
I'd copy paste, but I cant figure how to do that with PDF documents, so go to the bottom and look for footnote 70. It explains, in statistical detail, that the Nordic countries have lower employment growth, and higher unemployment, than countries with lower tax rates. And the US in particular.
Notice that I didn't cite Belgian rule, I cited British imperialist rule, Moultano.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Consider then Zimbabwe, where even today most of the black population attempts to eke out an existence subsistence farming on plots of land too small and poor to feed a family, while many whites retain lush and fertile fields and make a profit off of commercial agriculture.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The free market is a tool like any other. Often it works beautifully, often it doesn't. In Pittsburgh in the '60s you had to change your shirt 3 times a day because it would be covered in soot in a matter of hours. When the pollution was especially bad it would blot out the sun entirely, and it would look like midnight at noon. That was the free market at work.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm all for doing away with agricultural subsidies. However, I haven't seen the case made 100% that it hurts poorer nations. It does prevent them from developing agricultural industry, but it also provides them with a lot of cheap food at our expense. Theoretically this should result in these countries specializing in other areas of production, but unfortunately infrastructure often isn't up to the task.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many homeless people have untreated mental illnesses. You try holding a job with schizophrenia.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Socially optimal does not mean centrally planned. Markets can be pushed towards more socially optimal performance with appropriate subsidies and taxes, none of which requires central planning.
All of this is skirting around the central issue of the distribution of wealth, which is an issue of a wholly different quality. Free markets produce what is individually optimal for each person in proportion to the money they spend. This is a difficult problem, and not one that I'm willing yet to make any categorical statements on, but it's definitely worthy of discussion. It isn't intellectually sufficient to say that whatever the free market produces in this regard is best a priori.
Money is equivalent to the Well Being of Society.
And that if everyone seeks after their own rational self interest,
that it fullfills the greater good through the wonders of the "invisible hand" of the market.
While they do share many parrallels, but they aren't entirely equivalent either.
_
It's comparable to how dumptrucks get measured by weight when going to the landfill.
But landfills get filled by volume, not by weight.
But weight is easier to measure.
Note also the important statistic from your Nordic study you didn't bother to quote: Unemployment.
I'd copy paste, but I cant figure how to do that with PDF documents, so go to the bottom and look for footnote 70. It explains, in statistical detail, that the Nordic countries have lower employment growth, and higher unemployment, than countries with lower tax rates. And the US in particular.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is an interesting point. But I think it's important to note that even with slightly higher unemployment they have all these positives, lower poverty rates, better income distribution, more gender equality, more economic security, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and a higher percentage of college graduates.
I won't say that slightly higher unemployment is good, but it does seem to eclipsed by the benefits (many of which you'd expect to see the other way around).
In fact it seems to reinforce the policies, even with higher unemployment they are able to do better in many categories where we'd think unemployment would make them worse. It seems to attest to the robustness of the system...
<!--quoteo(post=1609057:date=Feb 24 2007, 02:55 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 24 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]1609057[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And, Nadagast, the Scandinavian countries? Those countries are characterized as nations with relatively low populations, and a high concentration of natural resources. A lot of Norway's wealth is due to its extensive oil reserves. Plus the three northern Scandinavian countries have a divisive issue: their social programs. Many politicians in those nations are arguing for the reduction or even elimination of the services that the government provides because it's not sustainable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could explain away Norway's wealth by Oil but it's not like America has no oil, and that doesn't do anything to explain the other countries. And again the assertion that it's not sustainable...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When you're an exporting country with a low population, you tend to do well because you have a large resource base that hungrier nations like the UK, France, and Germany are willing to pay for. This wealth in turn can be used by any relatively non-corrupt organization to then educate and train the local populace for service sector jobs. In any case, their private sector has not much regulation, they practice a sort of welfare capitalism, and sooner or later, they're going to eliminate the welfare aspect of it. 5 million in Norway, 9 in Sweden. In the vastly larger nations (in terms of population), they simply can't sustain their services. Why do you think Norway, Sweden, and Finland all have tight restrictions on immigration? Because if they accepted more people, their government would have to care for more people, and the system will go to hell faster than it already is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some more assertions... I see no reason to believe any of this. It's not obvious to me and you give no evidence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In almost any nation that has social programs more extensive than that of the United States, one of the most pressing issues is how to sustain those programs or cut down on them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't imagine that it is easy to do but that doesn't mean we should let millions of Americans (or any Human really) go without health care and live in miserable conditions...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In relation to the yacht question, there is no doubt that the money probably could have been put to "better" uses. But even if the yacht wasn't built, the people in Africa wouldn't get fed more. Centrally planned economies where a group of people decide what's best for the population have all failed. The free market is tons better in this aspect because the free market will address the issues of core demand, and spawn a little luxury to the side as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People in Africa wouldn't get fed more? Why is that? It's because of the free market. I see no reason why... $1 million spent on a yacht couldn't in principle be spent anywhere, including feeding starving people around the world. I realize there are problems and it's not as easy as giving a ton of food to the leaders, but does that mean we should just let them starve?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you really want to help the poorer nations, maybe it's time for the EU to slash down on CAP. That's a killer for developing nations because their farmers simply can't compete with those lazy ###### French farmers that reap in huge subsidies from the government. Almost half the EU budget goes towards the Common Agricultural Policy. The agricultural lobby in the US is substantial as well, but not to the same extent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Red herring... I am not interested in discussing this, but I'm pretty sure that by just doing away with CAP you won't magically feed and shelter everyone in the world.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Helping poor people is a great part of the free market. Look at China, there was no way they could have lifted themselves from 1979 levels to where they are now without the help of Western capital and investment. Money will go to the markets with the highest profitablity assuming that those markets are stable, and that's what China was at the time. A stable, vast market. That's where all the money went.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is a child born in China any more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? This is where the free market fails. They both deserve our help.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the case of poor and homeless people within post-industrial nations, there is simply one feeling I have towards them: disgust. Nobody that's willing to work hard and has an inkling of common sense will ever be out on the streets for long in any modern nation. If those illegals working for below minimum wage can cut it, anybody can. If you're poor and homeless in some ishhole of a country, my condolences.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Causes" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_...d_States#Causes</a>
You're probably right, some of the homeless people are just lazy (wow I think I disagree after I typed that) but I think saying that every one of them is just lazy and could easily get a job and a home if they wanted to, I don't think that's honest or accurate. I believe medical bills (we spend the highest percent of our GDP on medicine in America out of any country) are one major reason for homelessness.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Socially optimal" production is bunk. The free market (the market that builds yachts in the first place) determines what is socially optimal. Therefore, yes, the yacht was socially optimal. Because when you start directing production based on what YOU think is socially optimal and not what others think, that's when you get centrally planned economies, and that's where you get failed economies. Centrally planned economies do not work, but the free market does. Because if there wasn't enough money to build the yacht in the first place, it wouldn't have been built. But if there is, then people will want to buy yachts. A nation without an economic infrastructure would most likely develop the infrastructure first than to buy a yacht from some other nation. Yachts are luxuries. Luxuries are items you get after the essentials have been covered. And people living in markets that have a yacht niche are likely living in a post-industrial nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry I don't buy this at all. There's nothing holy about the free market. In theory it works great, but in theory it makes a lot of assumptions that I don't think hold in the real world. In theory communism works, but the same problems happen. Theory is not reality. The free market works great for some things, and is just plain awful for others. You are assigning too much value to what the free market thinks. It's just a system, thought up by a guy.
Norway's oil wealth doesn't explain why the other countries are rich. But Norway is by far the richest of them all. And Norway has oil, Finland and Sweden do not. But Finland and Sweden, like Norway, also have extensive natural resources and low populations. They're like mini-Canadas in a way.
Free market is a theory that doesn't work well in reality? Well it sure as hell worked a lot better than the diseased variants of communism that Russia and China applied.
Doing away with agricultural subsidies is a form of deregulation that the third world desperately needs. Everybody outside the developed world is clamoring for MORE globalization, not less. Because lowering barriers of entry into rich markets is something any export oriented nation wants. And the poor countries aren't benefiting from low food prices, they're suffering because any farmer at the commercial level is being put out of business by incredibly high subsidies going towards unproductive farmers.
Nadagast, do you know why the person born in China was given money? Because China is a big market that welcomes foreign investment. War torn countries where there is a lack of stability and necessary economic infrastructure are not markets that appeal to foreign investment.
In any case, does it really matter? All of this? You can talk about helping people, but it's not going to happen. It's going to depend on profitability. Because that's where the money goes, and the people in that market are the ones that are going to benefit. Magically giving out money to the public doesn't work and is a pipe dream in the US.
I said the free market works great for some things, but not so great at others. I think it is very useful as a base for society but I also think that it fails miserably at trying to help everyone on the planet see the benefits.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Norway exports more oil than any other nation besides Saudi Arabia and Russia. That's a lot of oil wealth to be distributed to 4 million people. Of course the US has oil, but do you think we're exporting that? We're a massive net importer, to the tune of 14 million barrels per day. That oil is for domestic use and for domestic operations, it's not meant to be sold overseas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All the profit from oil goes into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Governmen..._Fund_of_Norway</a>
And you're ignoring the whole study I linked, that was about all Nordic countries not just Norway. And it seems to me that they have a lot of benefits that I would like to have. But I guess you can just keep asserting things.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nadagast, do you know why the person born in China was given money? Because China is a big market that welcomes foreign investment. War torn countries where there is a lack of stability and necessary economic infrastructure are not markets that appeal to foreign investment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I can read, I understand what you said. I think this just highlights the inability of the free market to deal with situations like this. Why is a child born in China more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? Because China has a market that is more promising to foreign investment? That's an argument that I don't think anyone would put forward.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In any case, does it really matter? All of this? You can talk about helping people, but it's not going to happen. It's going to depend on profitability. Because that's where the money goes, and the people in that market are the ones that are going to benefit. Magically giving out money to the public doesn't work and is a pipe dream in the US.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems that your assertion here that it doesn't work is flat out wrong. The countries we are talking about *actually do* some of the things that I would advocate and are doing pretty damn good by any measure and better than the US by many measures. You can foretell impending doom all you want but it's not convincing at all.
Yes I can read, I understand what you said. I think this just highlights the inability of the free market to deal with situations like this. Why is a child born in China more deserving of our help than a child born in Africa? Because China has a market that is more promising to foreign investment? That's an argument that I don't think anyone would put forward.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suppose two hungry children are sitting in two different fields. One of them is sitting alone under a tree. The other is sitting next to a man with a gun, who already has plenty of food of his own, and is threatening to shoot anyone who gets near him or the kid, even if they are carrying free food.
Which kid is more "deserving" of help? Well, the kids didn't do anything, they're both innocent. So they're equally deserving, so much as anyone can be said to be "deserving" of the help of a stranger. But which one would you help first, if you were nearby with some extra food? 99% of charitable givers will go for the one that doesn't require risking their own life to help. This doesn't even have anything to do with greed or profitability--its self-preservation, plain and simple.
Edit: In case you think I'm exaggerating with my example, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/ts_nm/somalia_piracy_dc" target="_blank">Somali Pirates</a> just hijacked a ship loaded with UN food aid to starving Somalis, for the third time in 2 years.
Suppose two hungry children are sitting in two different fields. One of them is sitting alone under a tree. The other is sitting next to a man with a gun, who already has plenty of food of his own, and is threatening to shoot anyone who gets near him or the kid, even if they are carrying free food.
Which kid is more "deserving" of help? Well, the kids didn't do anything, they're both innocent. So they're equally deserving, so much as anyone can be said to be "deserving" of the help of a stranger. But which one would you help first, if you were nearby with some extra food? 99% of charitable givers will go for the one that doesn't require risking their own life to help. This doesn't even have anything to do with greed or profitability--its self-preservation, plain and simple.
Edit: In case you think I'm exaggerating with my example, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/ts_nm/somalia_piracy_dc" target="_blank">Somali Pirates</a> just hijacked a ship loaded with UN food aid to starving Somalis, for the third time in 2 years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you're exaggerating, and you do have a point, (it is very hard to reach some areas of the world) but I think we are far from doing as much as we can reasonably be expected to. I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right?
Even internationally do you really think that every person that starves is only does so because our aid to them was taken while going there?
I think the pirate story is really a lot more insignificant than you give it credit, 3 ships in 2 years out of all the total ships? I don't have any statistics but that can't be more than .1% (maybe more than this if you consider only UN Ships, but of all ships...)
I don't think you're exaggerating, and you do have a point, (it is very hard to reach some areas of the world) but I think we are far from doing as much as we can reasonably be expected to. I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right?
Even internationally do you really think that every person that starves is only does so because our aid to them was taken while going there?
I think the pirate story is really a lot more insignificant than you give it credit, 3 ships in 2 years out of all the total ships? I don't have any statistics but that can't be more than .1%
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A rare dissuasion can still have a drastic impact. Say there's a movie theatre that will be bombed one day in some year, now, you've only got 1/365 chance that you'll be at that movie theatre on that day, but do you take that chance to see some movie? (...you could potentially go further, by saying that the movie theatre wouldn't really benefit from your patronage anyway, especially if they're the ones asserting the bomb threat; nevermind the fact that visiting that theatre gets you no economic gain)
Then you've got to factor in that simply shipping the goods isn't the only process involved, and people get to be threatened all the way down the line (...so, going to the gas station to fill up before going to the theatre, driving to the theatre, etc.). People have a very hearty sense of self-preservation.
(Feel free to replace movie theatres with supermarkets/coffee shops/etc.)
Also, while it may only be an occasional ship that gets hi-jacked, if it's a UN security force (or whatever the group that'd delivering it), then it's a pretty good chance that people in that group are repeatedly making the trips, meaning that the danger isn't spread between as great a number of people. Just look at the US, bombed once and they just go ape[expletive] (...not really charity, just more of the charity of 'we will not bomb the country that may, or may not, host your activity').
They just need to find some nicely buried resources, so that developed countries' governments can go in and stage coups, so that they gain marginally functioning governments, which could potentially (but often not) lead to easier aid providing. Or just have them finish their civil wars already. I'm not even really sure colonialism and imperialism is a valid excuse anymore, all of the Americas was at one point colonies of foreign nations, and many of those countries are finally getting on track (...although often not with as environmentally friendly industrial pracitices as even more developed countries might like).
I mean just in America alone, how many million people don't have health care? And there is certainly no threat or risk to helping them. Right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did we get from people starving to universal free health care? I must have missed the transition...
The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen.
What? People without health care is not a humanitarian problem? Again the assertion that it can't be solved by using money, ok... I don't buy it.
And yeah I'm sure everyone of the millions of uninsured people are holding out for the multi-million dollar coverage. Sigh...
Well, you know, theres no risk involved with helping me buy a new car either, but I don't see charities lining up at my door. So instead I get to stick with my '87, and try to buy my OWN health insurance.
The existence of people without medical insurance is not a "humanitarian problem". Its not a thing to be "solved", and especially not by throwing (charitable) money at it. The problem is we all want insurance with multi-million dollar coverage ceilings, and we all want it to be paid for by someone else. And thats just not going to happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Multi-million dollar coverage ceilings are of course a pipe dream, but nobody would seriously ask for those. Basic public healthcare, on the other hand, is quite possible. Denmark has it. And it's being paid by "someone else." Namely, taxes. Of course, that money comes out of my own pocket in the end, but it means that a large medical bill won't condemn me to bankruptcy.
Rather than cut my paycheck down to 1/3, why not try to figure out why the medical bills have increased so fast? Reducing the costs is never an option for politicians, only reducing the portion paid by the old lady with nothing better to do than sit in the emergency room.
And while we're at it, let's take a closer look at why university costs have increased around 10% year after year. Of course, in both cases, the government has taken the role of the old mob loan shark: They cover the bill and then put the squeeze on the rest of us unsuspecting rubes for their payback (with interest of course). And if the cost is going to be covered no matter what, why not keep raising the prices?
There's the indivual's benefit, and then there's the larger societal benefit.
Flu Shots for instance, are often given out for free.
Why? Because the societal benefit is much larger than the benefit 1 person attains for their own self.
_
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/11/BUG02O20R81.DTL&type=printable" target="_blank">Likewise, there's a monetary benefit to having healthy employees</a>
Because money when used properly can fix problems? What else can you throw at a problem? I don't see what you can do about a problem other than spend money to try to fix it. (Donating time is essentially giving money)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Rather than cut my paycheck down to 1/3, why not try to figure out why the medical bills have increased so fast? Reducing the costs is never an option for politicians, only reducing the portion paid by the old lady with nothing better to do than sit in the emergency room.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why don't you tell me? Isn't our free market system supposed to be so effective and efficient? Yet we Americans spend by far the highest percentage of our GDP on medical bills. Countries with health care for everyone spend a lower percentage of their GDP on it and they seem to get better returns. Plus it's just a flat out good thing that everyone can go to the doctor when they get sick.
Free market mechanisms are tools.
Issue is, they aren't the only tools.
Neither are they the best tools for all scenarios.
Hell sometimes they can actually make things worse.
When there's a lot of players involved, low barriers to getting into the market, and flexibility in demand.
Market mechanisms work very well.
But when the number of major players is just a handful, the barriers to entry are very high, and market demand is inflexible.
Chances are market mechanisms aren't going to come up with the best solutions.
_
Another major irony about the "OMG paying tax dollars for basic healthcare"
Well we already pay massive tax dollars for emergency rooms.
The type of treatment where a mere bandaid costs $25
By keeping people out of the emergency room, by using low cost preventative healthcare.
We're actually saving a large ammount of taxpayer dollars in net total.
Another major irony about the "OMG paying tax dollars for basic healthcare"
Well we already pay massive tax dollars for emergency rooms.
The type of treatment where a mere bandaid costs $25
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perfect example: I can go down to the local store and purchase a whole box of bandaids for a couple dollars. Go to the emergency room at the hospital and it very well might cost $25 (admittedly an extreme though completely plausible scenario).
So, why would someone go the hospital for this kind of simple treatment? Because the Medicare or Medicaid (read taxpayers) will pick up the tab and I don't have to spend my own money at the store.
Why would this kind of treatment cost so much? Because it's basically guaranteed to be paid. The hospital files the claim and gets a check. No customer complaint because it's not coming directly out of their wallet. Politicians won't argue to put controls on costs because of a) medical lobbyists and b) they'll be chastised as trying to reduce the quality of healthcare for senior citizens and babies.
Where, in this morally righteous system, is the incentive to lower costs and which of the players is most likely to propose the idea?
Perfect example: I can go down to the local store and purchase a whole box of bandaids for a couple dollars. Go to the emergency room at the hospital and it very well might cost $25 (admittedly an extreme though completely plausible scenario).
So, why would someone go the hospital for this kind of simple treatment? Because the Medicare or Medicaid (read taxpayers) will pick up the tab and I don't have to spend my own money at the store.
Why would this kind of treatment cost so much? Because it's basically guaranteed to be paid. The hospital files the claim and gets a check. No customer complaint because it's not coming directly out of their wallet. Politicians won't argue to put controls on costs because of a) medical lobbyists and b) they'll be chastised as trying to reduce the quality of healthcare for senior citizens and babies.
Where, in this morally righteous system, is the incentive to lower costs and which of the players is most likely to propose the idea?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually the costs arrise not from the materials, but from the services.
Staffing an emergency room is much more intensive than staffing normal hospital operations.
Since you have to consider they are "ON" 24/7
This means that they need multiple shifts, most of which are working overtime.
And even if people don't come in, the staff has to be there, ready and waiting.
And since people don't come in at a regulated pace, as they would with scheduled doctors visits.
Often they are just sitting there with nothing to do.
To recoupe costs for this capacity, they have to charge exorbitant materials costs, and still likely have a hard time breaking even.
Hell, some hospitals have essentially shut down their emergency room operations entirely due to the costs.
Which just shifts all the emergency room operations to other hospitals, making service conditions even more intense.
So yeah, thats why it costs so much.
_
Then since we're considering monetary benefits to society.
Just think how much money could generated by drastically reducing sick days nationwide.
More business. More federal tax revenue.
Get rid of lobbyists first of all.
Second, you need to explain why other countries with health care for everyone (paid for by the government) spend less % of their GDP on health care than the US. Could it just be that America's system is poorly managed and corrupted by lobbyists? Why does the US pay by far the highest % of our GDP for medical bills?
For emergency rooms, it's labor that's expensive. And having to be on call 24/7 with enough staff to handle business as usual does get expensive simply because of the hours being put in. Usually, nobody goes to the emergency room unless someone got shot, broke a leg or arm, dislocated a shoulder, or something that's serious. But you also have free clinics in which hypochondriacs and deadbeats to indulge their narcissism or skip off work.
This gets even worse with nationalized healthcare. The number one political issue at the moment in Canada is reforming their health care system, simply because the quality of services are dropping (understaffed, underpaid medical workers) and the people exploiting the system are increasing. In any case, it says enough that the best health care in the world is found in the United States, if you can afford it. And American biotech companies are miles ahead of any foreign competition.
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,901040119-574849,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,9...-574849,00.html</a>
This is one of my favorite articles of all time, simply because so many people here put Europe on a pedestal, and the truth is they are either at the same level we are, or worse.
Healthcare that requires highly trained doctors shouldn't be covered by any national healthcare system.
Which as I'm aware is the main point of contention with the Canadian system
Since this has resulted in waiting lists due to a shortage of Surgeons.
Which is only made worse by their level of pay.
However when it comes down to glorified nurses and pushing pills around.
I really doubt thats something which would cause shortages.
While a fully nationalized healthcare program like Canada's may be too much
I would imagine at very least that a national program
focused on *just* preventative healthcare would cause any of the issues the Canadians are facing.
The one major reason medical costs are higher in the US is government regulations. The US is a grossly litigious society. People here will sue for anything. When it comes to medicine, every doctor, nurse, medical device, procedure, etc, must be perfect every time all the time or somebody calls a lawyer.
What happens when you elect a bunch of lawyers as representatives in government? You get enough red tape beauracracy to drown an aircraft carrier. Rather than spend profits on regulatory officials to protect them against lawsuits, the medical community passes that cost onto consumers.
Of course, consumers can't afford the cost of a $10,000,000 lawsuit so we have to charge everyone to cover a few overly expensive procedures.
How do we improve this? <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030116.html" target="_blank">Medical Tort Reform.</a> Why won't it happen? Because the legislature isn't going to cut the money flow off from their own.
It seems that everyone missed the point of my example but that doesn't really matter.
The one major reason medical costs are higher in the US is government regulations. The US is a grossly litigious society. People here will sue for anything. When it comes to medicine, every doctor, nurse, medical device, procedure, etc, must be perfect every time all the time or somebody calls a lawyer.
What happens when you elect a bunch of lawyers as representatives in government? You get enough red tape beauracracy to drown an aircraft carrier. Rather than spend profits on regulatory officials to protect them against lawsuits, the medical community passes that cost onto consumers.
Of course, consumers can't afford the cost of a $10,000,000 lawsuit so we have to charge everyone to cover a few overly expensive procedures.
How do we improve this? <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030116.html" target="_blank">Medical Tort Reform.</a> Why won't it happen? Because the legislature isn't going to cut the money flow off from their own.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet it's the medications which cost so much, not the doctors services.
The doctors certainly aren't the one's absorbing all these higher costs.
Didn't we explain that already?
Right. Its the lawyers soaking up all those extra dollars.
Didn't we explain that already?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. Since it's not those administering the drugs who are making the bulk of the profit.
Or even the HMOs they represent. It's the ones designing the drugs.
The trick with medications for specific treatments.
Thats the perfect example of Very few players, Very high entry barriers, and Inflexible demand.
Monopolistic / Cartel(istic?) practices are where market mechanisms fail.