Education is one of the five major categories that the index uses for its rankings according to the Wikipedia link. Does it bother you when the US ranks high in a world ranking? Or are you upset that we overtook Canada this year.
if you read what i wrote ... the US scores high this year simply based on economic opportunity ... when adjusted for inequality factors, the US is 12th ... so, basically - it just means that if you want to goto a country where the laws are favourable to make a lot of money without burden - the US is the place to be ... but it's also a place where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer ...
Education is one of the five major categories that the index uses for its rankings according to the Wikipedia link. Does it bother you when the US ranks high in a world ranking? Or are you upset that we overtook Canada this year.
if you read what i wrote ... the US scores high this year simply based on economic opportunity ... when adjusted for inequality factors, the US is 12th ... so, basically - it just means that if you want to goto a country where the laws are favourable to make a lot of money without burden - the US is the place to be ... but it's also a place where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer ...
THe reason the poor are getting poorer is because of our socialistic welfare programs... durr hurr...
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own collective good... You think that is positive?
Socialism also does not recognize human greed, it simply pretends it does not exist.
Education is one of the five major categories that the index uses for its rankings according to the Wikipedia link. Does it bother you when the US ranks high in a world ranking? Or are you upset that we overtook Canada this year.
if you read what i wrote ... the US scores high this year simply based on economic opportunity ... when adjusted for inequality factors, the US is 12th ... so, basically - it just means that if you want to goto a country where the laws are favourable to make a lot of money without burden - the US is the place to be ... but it's also a place where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer ...
So by taking out the one category that the US ranks best in, the US drops ... why are you looking for ways to skew the statistics so that the US looks worse? The UNI index uses three main categories to measure their results, one of which is education (life expectancy and income are the others). Even with education taking account for one-third of the total score, the US is 4th. In your quest to make the US look worse, did you take out the other countries best statistic out of the equation and see how the playing field leveled out after that?
Sorry, but the US is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. A country with over 300 million is going to have issues, but it is still one of the greatest places to live in the world.
So by taking out the one category that the US ranks best in, the US drops ... why are you looking for ways to skew the statistics so that the US looks worse? The UNI index uses three main categories to measure their results, one of which is education (life expectancy and income are the others). Even with education taking account for one-third of the total score, the US is 4th. In your quest to make the US look worse, did you take out the other countries best statistic out of the equation and see how the playing field leveled out after that?
Sorry, but the US is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. A country with over 300 million is going to have issues, but it is still one of the greatest places to live in the world.
although some people won't believe me, it's not my intention to purposefully make the US look worse ... i am just aiding in the interpretation of the data ... i think it's important to show how one category can skew a score ... there are also other indexes that uses similar variables ...
the US is 11th here ... but really it could be 5th here as well as the primary point tho is that the countries that are consistently at the top of these indexes are examples of modern-day socialist states ... access to health care and education are priorities as well as quality of life ...
you guys don't think socialism works ... these charts regardless of where you put the US shows that it does ...
So by taking out the one category that the US ranks best in, the US drops ... why are you looking for ways to skew the statistics so that the US looks worse? The UNI index uses three main categories to measure their results, one of which is education (life expectancy and income are the others). Even with education taking account for one-third of the total score, the US is 4th. In your quest to make the US look worse, did you take out the other countries best statistic out of the equation and see how the playing field leveled out after that?
Sorry, but the US is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. A country with over 300 million is going to have issues, but it is still one of the greatest places to live in the world.
although some people won't believe me, it's not my intention to purposefully make the US look worse ... i am just aiding in the interpretation of the data ... i think it's important to show how one category can skew a score ... there are also other indexes that uses similar variables ...
the US is 11th here ... but really it could be 5th here as well as the primary point tho is that the countries that are consistently at the top of these indexes are examples of modern-day socialist states ... access to health care and education are priorities as well as quality of life ...
you guys don't think socialism works ... these charts regardless of where you put the US shows that it does ...
The US has social programs but I don't interpret that as socialism or evidence that socialism is the way to go.
Anyway, my beef on my last post was more to do with the continuous negative view that you portray onto the US (at least in this forum). I know you are in Canada, and as far as geography goes I couldn't envision a better neighboring country. While some of our country's policies differ, we are pretty much the same. I couldn't envision ever collecting stats on why Canada sucks (unless you want to talk about recent Stanley Cup Finals appearances ) and then going on Rush’s forum and point out the country’s faults to Canadian fans.
Anywho, you are free to your opinions . . . but please just lighten up a little on your neighbors to the south. This country is not comprised of a handful of people that look like the Monopoly Man floating around in zeppelins while they look down upon a countryside where the other 98% huddle together in cardboard boxes while a never ending sea of smoke-stacks billow hot black ash onto a baron landscape … unless you are visiting Detroit, then the previous ramble is applicable .
The US has social programs but I don't interpret that as socialism or evidence that socialism is the way to go.
Anyway, my beef on my last post was more to do with the continuous negative view that you portray onto the US (at least in this forum). I know you are in Canada, and as far as geography goes I couldn't envision a better neighboring country. While some of our country's policies differ, we are pretty much the same. I couldn't envision ever collecting stats on why Canada sucks (unless you want to talk about recent Stanley Cup Finals appearances ) and then going on Rush’s forum and point out the country’s faults to Canadian fans.
Anywho, you are free to your opinions . . . but please just lighten up a little on your neighbors to the south. This country is not comprised of a handful of people that look like the Monopoly Man floating around in zeppelins while they look down upon a countryside where the other 98% huddle together in cardboard boxes while a never ending sea of smoke-stacks billow hot black ash onto a baron landscape … unless you are visiting Detroit, then the previous ramble is applicable .
the US does indeed have socialist programs but i would not describe it as a socialist nation ...
as for your defensiveness of my comments - it is not surprising ... it is what makes americans americans ... i've said it on here a bunch - your greatest asset is also one of your great weaknesses ... pride often kicks in when faced with criticism ... it is probably why not a whole lot has changed ... i consider myself fairly objective within my own biases ... i spend a lot of time in the US and i believe the US has a huge role to play in global issues ... there are indeed many great things about the country and just as many not so great ... within the context of this forum, we rarely talk about issues that are good simply because they wouldn't be issues ...
i am more than prepared to look at my own country critically ... feel free to start a thread on why canada sucks and i will most likely agree with a lot of it ... if you are uncomfortable with criticisms of the red white and blue - i would suggest you put me on ignore because i'm not going to withold my point of view simply because some people can't take it ...
also, i would add that many of the criticisms i have of the US are more than likely shared by the band members of both PJ and Rush ...
the US does indeed have socialist programs but i would not describe it as a socialist nation ...
as for your defensiveness of my comments - it is not surprising ... it is what makes americans americans ... i've said it on here a bunch - your greatest asset is also one of your great weaknesses ... pride often kicks in when faced with criticism ... it is probably why not a whole lot has changed ... i consider myself fairly objective within my own biases ... i spend a lot of time in the US and i believe the US has a huge role to play in global issues ... there are indeed many great things about the country and just as many not so great ... within the context of this forum, we rarely talk about issues that are good simply because they wouldn't be issues ...
i am more than prepared to look at my own country critically ... feel free to start a thread on why canada sucks and i will most likely agree with a lot of it ... if you are uncomfortable with criticisms of the red white and blue - i would suggest you put me on ignore because i'm not going to withold my point of view simply because some people can't take it ...
also, i would add that many of the criticisms i have of the US are more than likely shared by the band members of both PJ and Rush ...
It pride to a certain extent, but I've lived all across the States and this is really a very nice place to live. And it is still a land of opportunity to anyone who is willing to work for it.
Anyway, I would never bash Canada (except for a one border guard in Alberta who I hope lights himself on fire). Canada has given us hockey, high-octane brew, John Candy (who ironically attacked you hosers in Canadian Bacon), the McKenzie brothers, and a hilarious but lovable accent. Hell, I'll even forgive you guys for Barenaked Ladies and Justin Bieber.
All said, have a very nice weekend ... or as the Canadians say, take off, eh!
It pride to a certain extent, but I've lived all across the States and this is really a very nice place to live. And it is still a land of opportunity to anyone who is willing to work for it.
Anyway, I would never bash Canada (except for a one border guard in Alberta who I hope lights himself on fire). Canada has given us hockey, high-octane brew, John Candy (who ironically attacked you hosers in Canadian Bacon), the McKenzie brothers, and a hilarious but lovable accent. Hell, I'll even forgive you guys for Barenaked Ladies and Justin Bieber.
All said, have a very nice weekend ... or as the Canadians say, take off, eh!
i think i've been through over 40 states and spent significant time (over a week) in at least 25 of them ... it really is a nice place to live ... at the end of the day, i only really have one complaint and it permeates through and that is corporations have taken over everything in the country from gov't to media to food production ...
still tho ... there is definitely plenty to like ... national parks, tailgating at football games, fresh crawdads in new orleans, etc ...
Pure socialism does not work.
1.) Socialistic principles are mutually exclusive with free market principles, namely
- Competition, which is the only general, feasible mechanism for increasing quality and reducing real prices over the long term.
- Profit-loss mechanism, which is the only effective mechanism, on the whole, for distributing finite capital and savings in a manner that leads towards consumer satisfaction
- Most individual motivation, which is the backbone of entrepreneurship, and thus progress of society.
2.) Inevitably leads to tragedy of the commons
3.) In todays day and age, inevitably leads to expansion of central government, authoritarianism, and increasing waste due to increasing layers of bureacracy.
4.) The goal of "helping people who really need it" is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far better met by a decentralized, bottom up society based on individual liberty + free markets.
Reasons for this include:
- Far less waste inherent in large bureaucracy
- Far less waste that is a typical secondary consequence of government bureaucratic inefficiency.
- bottom-up = far easier for people-employee (government) accountability
- bottom-up = resources are far better allocated, i.e a local organization in my town knows a hell of a lot better what my town needs than some bureaucrat in DC
- People as a whole are generous, and its ironic that this is used in an argument for government programs, i.e "capitalism is cruel (no it isnt -- it is a-emotional), and without government programs, people wouldnt get any help whatsoever).
The obvious confounded is that in any sort of democratic-type system, these government programs would not be voted in, unless a majority of the votees believed in helping people in some way. Thus making the original, and very common, proposition here meaningless.
- The "golden age of capitalism", which most poeple ignorantly point to as its "failure", was nothing of the sort -- its was also one of the most generous times -- the richest men were some of the biggest philanthropists.
Furthermore, the best service you can do to society is not to just donate your money -- it is to be an entrepreneur, and make millions by making a common product better & cheaper.
Does pure capitalism work? And if so, where has it been practiced successfully? Careful, now. This is a trap?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Pure socialism does not work.
1.) Socialistic principles are mutually exclusive with free market principles, namely
- Competition, which is the only general, feasible mechanism for increasing quality and reducing real prices over the long term.
- Profit-loss mechanism, which is the only effective mechanism, on the whole, for distributing finite capital and savings in a manner that leads towards consumer satisfaction
- Most individual motivation, which is the backbone of entrepreneurship, and thus progress of society.
okay but sometimes competition isn't a good thing, especially with regards to a wage race to the bottom, because then money is less at the bottom than at the top, leaving rich people with more and poor people with less so to speak, which is good in some regards its bad in other regards
2.) Inevitably leads to tragedy of the commons this point i have most contention with because if there was no regulation or government there would be much more likely for there to be a tragedy of the commons, for example with capitalism and the motive being poor profit there is no mechanism for stopping people to use all the valuable resources because they are only looking forward to their own profit, and will use their all the resources to make that profit, while with socialism there is a centralized government there to regulate how much of the resources people can use correctly
3.) In todays day and age, inevitably leads to expansion of central government, authoritarianism, and increasing waste due to increasing layers of bureacracy. i pretty much agree with this but this can happen in capitalism too
no im neither capitalist nor socialist
i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
Public education I see as an investment up to a certin point. It's wise to do with our tax dollars, because it leads to a more productive country. You can't say the same for say socialized health care
Does pure capitalism work? And if so, where has it been practiced successfully? Careful, now. This is a trap?
Ideally - Probably not
In Reality - Probably
No system can be tested in a vacuum so I don't think its all that productive to get too wrapped up in the theory, or "testing" of these systems anyway. Societies and economies are what they are and they are what we allow them to be. Certainly there are free market and socialistic principles that have considerable merit. As long as there is society and organization, there will be an amount of socialism.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
Public education I see as an investment up to a certin point. It's wise to do with our tax dollars, because it leads to a more productive country. You can't say the same for say socialized health care
I'm not sure I agree with the "production" statement but should health care be subservient to production or profit? Profit should not be the primary motivator in all systems, I think.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
Public education I see as an investment up to a certin point. It's wise to do with our tax dollars, because it leads to a more productive country. You can't say the same for say socialized health care
I'm not sure I agree with the "production" statement but should health care be subservient to production or profit? Profit should not be the primary motivator in all systems, I think.
Wait, you're argument (heidijam) is that governments SHOULDN'T put money into healthcare because it's not a good investment? Education is good for future productivity, but people having access to affordable healthcare isn't... Since when are people's lives based on their potential to make the country rich?
Public education I see as an investment up to a certin point. It's wise to do with our tax dollars, because it leads to a more productive country. You can't say the same for say socialized health care
Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.
(The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.
(The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )
Peace
Dan
Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.
(The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )
Peace
Dan
Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
As in, we can't decide what we read? People need to be responsible for educating themselves too, I think we all know of someone who is a good example of needing to do so... :?
Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.
(The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )
Peace
Dan
Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
It comes down to this. I don't want my next door neighbour to lose his house because he gets sick. I don't mind paying a little bit of extra taxes for that. Does it cover the fat ass who doesn't eat well? Yes, but I think the good outweighs the bad.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.
(The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )
Peace
Dan
Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
It comes down to this. I don't want my next door neighbour to lose his house because he gets sick. I don't mind paying a little bit of extra taxes for that. Does it cover the fat ass who doesn't eat well? Yes, but I think the good outweighs the bad.
Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.
(The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )
Peace
Dan
Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
It comes down to this. I don't want my next door neighbour to lose his house because he gets sick. I don't mind paying a little bit of extra taxes for that. Does it cover the fat ass who doesn't eat well? Yes, but I think the good outweighs the bad.
I wasn't aware that healthcare was not available? What should we be responsible for then?
Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.
(The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )
Peace
Dan
Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
As in, we can't decide what we read? People need to be responsible for educating themselves too, I think we all know of someone who is a good example of needing to do so... :?
Healthcare is a different aniaml. Public education cirriculum is set by the Gov. Healthcare is not so everybody is free to make choices on what they eat /drink and put in the bodies at everybody's expense. You also can't ensure health, there are way to many factors and risks. How should people not be responsible for their own health?
I dont see how it's fundamentally different from education, frankly. You could just as easily argue that people could and should pick up a damn book, and stay informed instead of relying on the gov to provide information and decide what people must learn. They can all make choices whether to read, listen or watch something they can learn from. They choose to watch x-factor instead? Sorry, bad call on their part...
I see both education and healthcare as public goods that have best effect when they are available for all, not just those that can pay for it. And having it public does not mean people aren't responsible for themselves healthwise and skillwise. People should take care of their health, people should learn a profession. The inevitable freeloaders is not a sufficient reason to scrap what is socioeconomically profitable and useful.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
if you read what i wrote ... the US scores high this year simply based on economic opportunity ... when adjusted for inequality factors, the US is 12th ... so, basically - it just means that if you want to goto a country where the laws are favourable to make a lot of money without burden - the US is the place to be ... but it's also a place where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer ...
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own collective good... You think that is positive?
Socialism also does not recognize human greed, it simply pretends it does not exist.
Sorry, but the US is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. A country with over 300 million is going to have issues, but it is still one of the greatest places to live in the world.
although some people won't believe me, it's not my intention to purposefully make the US look worse ... i am just aiding in the interpretation of the data ... i think it's important to show how one category can skew a score ... there are also other indexes that uses similar variables ...
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/inte ... tries.html
the US is 11th here ... but really it could be 5th here as well as the primary point tho is that the countries that are consistently at the top of these indexes are examples of modern-day socialist states ... access to health care and education are priorities as well as quality of life ...
you guys don't think socialism works ... these charts regardless of where you put the US shows that it does ...
Anyway, my beef on my last post was more to do with the continuous negative view that you portray onto the US (at least in this forum). I know you are in Canada, and as far as geography goes I couldn't envision a better neighboring country. While some of our country's policies differ, we are pretty much the same. I couldn't envision ever collecting stats on why Canada sucks (unless you want to talk about recent Stanley Cup Finals appearances
Anywho, you are free to your opinions . . . but please just lighten up a little on your neighbors to the south. This country is not comprised of a handful of people that look like the Monopoly Man floating around in zeppelins while they look down upon a countryside where the other 98% huddle together in cardboard boxes while a never ending sea of smoke-stacks billow hot black ash onto a baron landscape … unless you are visiting Detroit, then the previous ramble is applicable
the US does indeed have socialist programs but i would not describe it as a socialist nation ...
as for your defensiveness of my comments - it is not surprising ... it is what makes americans americans ... i've said it on here a bunch - your greatest asset is also one of your great weaknesses ... pride often kicks in when faced with criticism ... it is probably why not a whole lot has changed ... i consider myself fairly objective within my own biases ... i spend a lot of time in the US and i believe the US has a huge role to play in global issues ... there are indeed many great things about the country and just as many not so great ... within the context of this forum, we rarely talk about issues that are good simply because they wouldn't be issues ...
i am more than prepared to look at my own country critically ... feel free to start a thread on why canada sucks and i will most likely agree with a lot of it ... if you are uncomfortable with criticisms of the red white and blue - i would suggest you put me on ignore because i'm not going to withold my point of view simply because some people can't take it ...
also, i would add that many of the criticisms i have of the US are more than likely shared by the band members of both PJ and Rush ...
Anyway, I would never bash Canada (except for a one border guard in Alberta who I hope lights himself on fire). Canada has given us hockey, high-octane brew, John Candy (who ironically attacked you hosers in Canadian Bacon), the McKenzie brothers, and a hilarious but lovable accent. Hell, I'll even forgive you guys for Barenaked Ladies and Justin Bieber.
All said, have a very nice weekend ... or as the Canadians say, take off, eh!
i think i've been through over 40 states and spent significant time (over a week) in at least 25 of them ... it really is a nice place to live ... at the end of the day, i only really have one complaint and it permeates through and that is corporations have taken over everything in the country from gov't to media to food production ...
still tho ... there is definitely plenty to like ... national parks, tailgating at football games, fresh crawdads in new orleans, etc ...
you have a nice weekend too ...
"High octane"? Maybe High octane piss water. Of course, their piss water beats the hell out of our piss water.
Who are you running from?
Does pure capitalism work? And if so, where has it been practiced successfully? Careful, now. This is a trap?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
i feel the government has a responsibility to provide healthcare, education, and defense, and infrastructure, now what i don't understand is why people are so against the government providing healthcare and education as long as people have an option to get private healthcare and education if they can afford it
In Reality - Probably
No system can be tested in a vacuum so I don't think its all that productive to get too wrapped up in the theory, or "testing" of these systems anyway. Societies and economies are what they are and they are what we allow them to be. Certainly there are free market and socialistic principles that have considerable merit. As long as there is society and organization, there will be an amount of socialism.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
I'm not sure I agree with the "production" statement but should health care be subservient to production or profit? Profit should not be the primary motivator in all systems, I think.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Doesn't ensuring a healthy workforce have an effect on productivity? I'd say a healthy worker is more productive than a half-sick/sick one. And if access is ensured (and managed properly), they're more likely to get a check-up when they should, instead of postponing it until there's no other way and the problem has really taken root. Manage it through taxes, and it's not something the companies need to worry about either, since they can't cut the corners they'd might.
(The US system does provide some of this, but at a tremendous cost without even covering everyone. In my view, because you try your hardest to avoid a comprehensive public system, and continue to give it to the private sector with several band-aids and supports from the public to avoid the worst market failures and unwanted consequences. )
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I see both education and healthcare as public goods that have best effect when they are available for all, not just those that can pay for it. And having it public does not mean people aren't responsible for themselves healthwise and skillwise. People should take care of their health, people should learn a profession. The inevitable freeloaders is not a sufficient reason to scrap what is socioeconomically profitable and useful.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965