See, in these threads...I feel it's quite hard to be understood by people who generally think in the logic only mode. I use much more emotional intelligence and it's quite hard to go about expressing that in a logic based debate. We are just wired too differently to understand the most of the good in where the other is coming from. I don't think of you guys who disagree with me as evil or horrible people...I just take comfort in knowing that we're just different. There are those who get where I'm coming from and those that simply won't...and we all have to live together in this world.
well maybe you can come on our side and think "logically". letting emotion get involved only clouds up the view
That picture and the point attempting to be made with it in this thread is just pretty stupid.
I agree, Im feeling sad for both the kids.
-95, Stockholm (MirrorBall Tour)
-00, Stockholm
-07, Copenhagen
-09, Berlin
-10, Berlin
-11, East Troy 1+2
-12, Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen, EV London 2
-13, London, Chicago
-14, Amsterdam 1+2, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo -16, TOTD San Francisco 1+2 -17, EV Amsterdam 2+3 -18, Amsterdam 1+2, London 1+(2), Barcelona, London 2 -19, EV Brussels
This is 100% correct, though not necessarily in the way you mean it. The globe does not need health care or education, so you probably mean "provide free health care and education for everyone on the globe". Such an assertion would be incorrect since many systems have eradicated extreme proverty without providing "global health care and education". But certainly the availability of health care and educational services are paramount to the end of poverty.
This is 0% correct. What on earth makes you believe capitalism "neglects" education and health care, since both are and have been delivered in many places in this world via largely capitalistic means?
Free health care and free education for everyone. I should have worded it better, but it's semantics, you know what I'm talking about. Sure capitalism offers health care and education, but at a price that many cannot afford. And what's the result? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Is that the philosophy you subscribe to?
Since there are so many capitalists pouring money onto charities and doing what's right, there shouldn't be such a huge class gap in the world, there shouldn't be starving children in the millions, there shouldn't be slave labor making our products. We shouldn't be the the main country consuming such a large portion of the world's resources while so many are going with out the bare necessities. The fact is, all of this is the way it is because of capitalism.
Great post Abook. Capitalism leaves little room for compassion. It's go, go, go 24/7 with business and nothing but the bottom line. Sure, not in all cases, but certainly in most. I've long believed that when money is the key motivator there will be gross irresponsibilties at hand.
As for someon's comment about the industrial revolution....I believe there are many people on this planet who are motivated by greater things than money. I strongly believe the industrial revolution would have taken place with or without capitalism. Innovation isn't based entirely on profit. Some people have the innate desire to lead, to innovate, to discover. Money or no money. The only difference in my mind between a capitalist innovator or a socialist innovator would be the complete lack of responsibilty with the one that's motivated solely by profits.
See we'll never agree on this because of our opposite world views. I don't think self interest is the only motivation driving the world. I believe the quality of life for the world as a whole motivates just as many.
I see countries like Canada, Denmark, France who have a more socialist approach doing fine. I also see this capitalism not working out too well for us here at home. I don't see this system being able to maintain itself.
Well, captialism in the U.S. is very dependent upon China and other countries. That alone makes it clear it's unable to maintain itself. The debt of the U.S. is what will bring this country and probably capitalism to it's knees. And I agree with you about those fine countries. They're not necessarily straight-line socialists, but they have socialistic basis for many things and better off than U.S. and A. IMO.
Canada, Denmark and France are "doing fine" with "socialism", while America is "not working" with "capitalism".
Can you elucidate the standards and facts upon which these contentions are based?
Anyone who thinks America is "working" is up in the fucking night. Richest country in the world (if we ignore our insane amount of debt, thanks W) and poverty all over the place.
Anyone who thinks America is "working" is up in the fucking night. Richest country in the world (if we ignore our insane amount of debt, thanks W) and poverty all over the place.
So rather than answer FFGs question, you essentially repeated yourself. Unless your answer was wealth disparity. Is that the standard by which you judge "doing fine" and "not working?"
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
What is free education? Do the teachers work for free? Ws the building built for free? Was all the building material and land donated?
What is free health care? Do the doctors work for free? Do the nurses just show up out of the goodness their hearts and expect no pay?
Just about every country with your so called "free health care" has a doctor shortage because funny enough they don't like working for free.
Not sure what you do but I wonder how happy you'd be to do it for free just so other people don't have to pay for it or pay as much for it.
surferdude, you're not stupid, I assume. Obviously the government is paying for the items you question.
How many of you out there have been to a dr. recently who seems like he doesn't give a shit? I know I have. And nearly everyone I've talked to about this has as well. Maybe if doctors were there for more than the ridiculously high paycheck then they'd actually care about their patients. But it's all about money so it's in and out...the more patients the better. get in, write a prescription and get out. It's negligence at the very least. But that's sort of a different topic. The answer is obvious about who would pay for free health care and free education. It would be the government. Who would get more taxes from the wealthy.
of course he's not stupid. he is smart enough to realize that just because the government is paying for it, doesnt make it "free"
Would you be against health care being availible to everyone instead of those lucky enough to be able afford insurance?
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
As for someon's comment about the industrial revolution....I believe there are many people on this planet who are motivated by greater things than money. I strongly believe the industrial revolution would have taken place with or without capitalism. Innovation isn't based entirely on profit. Some people have the innate desire to lead, to innovate, to discover. Money or no money. The only difference in my mind between a capitalist innovator or a socialist innovator would be the complete lack of responsibilty with the one that's motivated solely by profits.
It isn't money. You have this amazing fear of money apparently, and see it as evil.
The motivator is self-interest. And self-interest motivates both capitalists and socialists (who may or may not admit it). I agree with you that the difference is responsibility, but the socialist is the one who has lack of responsibility, since they need not be accountable or concerned with whose resources they're coopting on the way to their noble goals. The capitalist must make exchanges to realize goals and successes. Socialists have the luxury of coersion to get what they need.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
It isn't money. You have this amazing fear of money apparently, and see it as evil.
The motivator is self-interest. And self-interest motivates both capitalists and socialists (who may or may not admit it). I agree with you that the difference is responsibility, but the socialist is the one who has lack of responsibility, since they need not be accountable or concerned with whose resources they're coopting on the way to their noble goals. The capitalist must make exchanges to realize goals and successes. Socialists have the luxury of coersion to get what they need.
I love your insulting diagnosis. So tell me this, are you an analyst or a therapist? Or maybe an analrapist?
I love your insulting diagnosis. Just as inaccurate as the one where you stated all of my friends are assholes. So tell me this, are you an analyst or a therapist? Or maybe an analrapist?
My analysis is that you are good at ducking and dodging.
Where did I state that all of your friends are assholes? I honestly don't remember that. Maybe it's my alzheimers. They may well be, and I may well have said it, but I don't remember.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
of course he's not stupid. he is smart enough to realize that just because the government is paying for it, doesnt make it "free"
Yet maybe he's smart enough to read further along in my post where I acknowledged the fact that the wealthy would be paying for it, with a higher tax rate, through the government. Now jlew, I KNOW you're not stupid. So you're trying to be Bill O'Reilly or something and take my post out of context or spin it on me. Seriously, have some integrity and stop trying to mislead. We may not agree but try to be fair about what I'm saying.
My analysis is that you are good at ducking and dodging.
Where did I state that all of your friends are assholes? I honestly don't remember that. Maybe it's my alzheimers. They may well be, and I may well have said it, but I don't remember.
Oh fuck me. I thought you were surferdude. My bad...I'll edit the post. Except for the analrapist part cuz that's just funny. Really though, I apologize.
Has anyone here read, 'Das Capital'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
I first must admit I haven't waded through Das Capital in it's entirety, just excerpts.
None of us have first hand knowledge of the working conditions during the industrial revolution. But they would be mean by any of today's standards. And we owe today's standards in large part to Marx's notions of social justice. Simply stated, because you owned the capital does not impart the right to exploit. Which is how it was and before, when you look at feudalism, all the way back to say Egypt, where you had a slave class working tirelessly just to put up a tomb for the king.
These insights gave momentum to the union movement, both here and abroad, which among other gains, led to the 40 hr work week and the abolition of child labor. Now maybe you want to work 80 hrs+/week. But to use existing capital which might well be inherited to enforce such servitude is fundamentally anti-american. Time and time again natural experiments gravitate towards such an extreme. There are a lot of folks (objectivists) that would argue that if weren't for the guy with the dough and the ideas, nothing get done. Maybe. But that doesn't excuse this type of exploitation which now is simply exported onto an even less fortunate class.
Into any economic system it would seem prima fascia that there needs to have some greater good for all term. Pure capitalism doesn't provide it. What's especially nefarious about the present system is the invention of the corporation, which started (against fierce resistance) in the form of firefighters, etc. But these were always set up with the public good in mind.
It has devolved into an artificial structure where men and women are virtually immune to consequences. So they lay pillage to the planet, without any forethought re longterm consequences. And even when unsuccessful, their leaders collect obscene rewards. This is the perfect formula for sociopathy. I think Marx understood this, much better than we do, having been brought up in the lap of luxury and fed propaganda from day 1 re the evils of socialism.
I'm not opposed to capitalism, as long as it is not 'pure' capitalism. I feel the healthiest balance a country can have is between social welfare and economics, if you can fine tune both then your population is happy, your business is happy and the rest is easier.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm all for universal health care, it sucks but it's still better than any other option. But be very upfront about what you get. You get bigger governments, you get a monopoly on health care delivery, you get people with absolutely zero vested interst in maintaining their health or lowering their use of this "free" system, who have approx. 10% of the population providing health care for all, you get a doctor shortage, you get a hospital shortage, you get a shortage of every kind imagineable, you get old technology as the new technology is too expensive. Services covered and not covered is now up to politicians, on of the few groups of people I trust less than health care insurance providers. Your long term health becomaes a political hot potato. Long term decisions are no longer made, everything becomes about meeting this year's budget.
Be very clear about what you are asking for. Universal healthcare sucks but it beats the alternative for about 50 million Americans.
Is it worth sacrificing the health and healthcare of 225 million to provide a more complete care package for 50 million people?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yet maybe he's smart enough to read further along in my post where I acknowledged the fact that the wealthy would be paying for it, with a higher tax rate, through the government. Now jlew, I KNOW you're not stupid. So you're trying to be Bill O'Reilly or something and take my post out of context or spin it on me. Seriously, have some integrity and stop trying to mislead. We may not agree but try to be fair about what I'm saying.
fair enough. but why should the rich be forced to pay for everyone's health care? how is it "free" to them?
because you simply stated you want free health care for all. i'm trying to tell you, there is no such thing.
I'm all for universal health care, it sucks but it's still better than any other option. But be very upfront about what you get. You get bigger governments, you get a monopoly on health care delivery, you get people with absolutely zero vested interst in maintaining their health or lowering their use of this "free" system, who have approx. 10% of the population providing health care for all, you get a doctor shortage, you get a hospital shortage, you get a shortage of every kind imagineable, you get old technology as the new technology is too expensive. Services covered and not covered is now up to politicians, on of the few groups of people I trust less than health care insurance providers. Your long term health becomaes a political hot potato. Long term decisions are no longer made, everything becomes about meeting this year's budget.
Be very clear about what you are asking for. Universal healthcare sucks but it beats the alternative for about 50 million Americans.
Is it worth sacrificing the health and healthcare of 225 million to provide a more complete care package for 50 million people?
Just because you would have free healthcare for everyone does not mean that you cannot have private healthcare for people who can afford it.
We have private healthcare here to in the UK aswell as the NHS.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I'm all for universal health care, it sucks but it's still better than any other option. But be very upfront about what you get. You get bigger governments, you get a monopoly on health care delivery, you get people with absolutely zero vested interst in maintaining their health or lowering their use of this "free" system, who have approx. 10% of the population providing health care for all, you get a doctor shortage, you get a hospital shortage, you get a shortage of every kind imagineable, you get old technology as the new technology is too expensive. Services covered and not covered is now up to politicians, on of the few groups of people I trust less than health care insurance providers. Your long term health becomaes a political hot potato. Long term decisions are no longer made, everything becomes about meeting this year's budget.
Be very clear about what you are asking for. Universal healthcare sucks but it beats the alternative for about 50 million Americans.
Is it worth sacrificing the health and healthcare of 225 million to provide a more complete care package for 50 million people?
I really don't think that's how it has to be. Maybe you're more realistic. Even so I'd say yes, sacrifices can be made by the 225 million to save lives in the 50 miillion.
fair enough. but why should the rich be forced to pay for everyone's health care? how is it "free" to them?
because you simply stated you want free health care for all. i'm trying to tell you, there is no such thing.
Well, how's it fair that one child is born into extreme poverty and spends most of his life busting his ass for minimum wage while another is born into wealth? A great deal of the wealth in this country has to do with where you were born, not how hard you work. Sure there are exceptions but overall it's still very unbalanced.
Well, how's it fair that one child is born into extreme poverty and spends most of his life busting his ass for minimum wage while another is born into wealth? A great deal of the wealth in this country has to do with where you were born, not how hard you work. Sure there are exceptions but overall it's still very unbalanced.
Well, how's it fair that one child is born into extreme poverty and spends most of his life busting his ass for minimum wage while another is born into wealth? A great deal of the wealth in this country has to do with where you were born, not how hard you work. Sure there are exceptions but overall it's still very unbalanced.
Well, it certainly could be argued that if one is wealthy and not helping others less fortunate then that is punishable. It surely immoral, IMO. That's clearly the case as a whole. The wealthy aren't doing enough to help those less fortunate.
Well, it certainly could be argued that if one is wealthy and not helping others less fortunate then that is punishable. It surely immoral, IMO. That's clearly the case as a whole. The wealthy aren't doing enough to help those less fortunate.
I understand where you are going with this but you cant have it both ways. you cant pick and choose who you punish to suit your needs.
Comments
well maybe you can come on our side and think "logically". letting emotion get involved only clouds up the view
I agree, Im feeling sad for both the kids.
-00, Stockholm
-07, Copenhagen
-09, Berlin
-10, Berlin
-11, East Troy 1+2
-12, Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen, EV London 2
-13, London, Chicago
-14, Amsterdam 1+2, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo
-16, TOTD San Francisco 1+2
-17, EV Amsterdam 2+3
-18, Amsterdam 1+2, London 1+(2), Barcelona, London 2
-19, EV Brussels
As for someon's comment about the industrial revolution....I believe there are many people on this planet who are motivated by greater things than money. I strongly believe the industrial revolution would have taken place with or without capitalism. Innovation isn't based entirely on profit. Some people have the innate desire to lead, to innovate, to discover. Money or no money. The only difference in my mind between a capitalist innovator or a socialist innovator would be the complete lack of responsibilty with the one that's motivated solely by profits.
What is free health care? Do the doctors work for free? Do the nurses just show up out of the goodness their hearts and expect no pay?
Just about every country with your so called "free health care" has a doctor shortage because funny enough they don't like working for free.
Not sure what you do but I wonder how happy you'd be to do it for free just so other people don't have to pay for it or pay as much for it.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
So rather than answer FFGs question, you essentially repeated yourself. Unless your answer was wealth disparity. Is that the standard by which you judge "doing fine" and "not working?"
LOL
How many of you out there have been to a dr. recently who seems like he doesn't give a shit? I know I have. And nearly everyone I've talked to about this has as well. Maybe if doctors were there for more than the ridiculously high paycheck then they'd actually care about their patients. But it's all about money so it's in and out...the more patients the better. get in, write a prescription and get out. It's negligence at the very least. But that's sort of a different topic. The answer is obvious about who would pay for free health care and free education. It would be the government. Who would get more taxes from the wealthy.
Would you be against health care being availible to everyone instead of those lucky enough to be able afford insurance?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
It isn't money. You have this amazing fear of money apparently, and see it as evil.
The motivator is self-interest. And self-interest motivates both capitalists and socialists (who may or may not admit it). I agree with you that the difference is responsibility, but the socialist is the one who has lack of responsibility, since they need not be accountable or concerned with whose resources they're coopting on the way to their noble goals. The capitalist must make exchanges to realize goals and successes. Socialists have the luxury of coersion to get what they need.
My analysis is that you are good at ducking and dodging.
Where did I state that all of your friends are assholes? I honestly don't remember that. Maybe it's my alzheimers. They may well be, and I may well have said it, but I don't remember.
I first must admit I haven't waded through Das Capital in it's entirety, just excerpts.
None of us have first hand knowledge of the working conditions during the industrial revolution. But they would be mean by any of today's standards. And we owe today's standards in large part to Marx's notions of social justice. Simply stated, because you owned the capital does not impart the right to exploit. Which is how it was and before, when you look at feudalism, all the way back to say Egypt, where you had a slave class working tirelessly just to put up a tomb for the king.
These insights gave momentum to the union movement, both here and abroad, which among other gains, led to the 40 hr work week and the abolition of child labor. Now maybe you want to work 80 hrs+/week. But to use existing capital which might well be inherited to enforce such servitude is fundamentally anti-american. Time and time again natural experiments gravitate towards such an extreme. There are a lot of folks (objectivists) that would argue that if weren't for the guy with the dough and the ideas, nothing get done. Maybe. But that doesn't excuse this type of exploitation which now is simply exported onto an even less fortunate class.
Into any economic system it would seem prima fascia that there needs to have some greater good for all term. Pure capitalism doesn't provide it. What's especially nefarious about the present system is the invention of the corporation, which started (against fierce resistance) in the form of firefighters, etc. But these were always set up with the public good in mind.
It has devolved into an artificial structure where men and women are virtually immune to consequences. So they lay pillage to the planet, without any forethought re longterm consequences. And even when unsuccessful, their leaders collect obscene rewards. This is the perfect formula for sociopathy. I think Marx understood this, much better than we do, having been brought up in the lap of luxury and fed propaganda from day 1 re the evils of socialism.
I'm not opposed to capitalism, as long as it is not 'pure' capitalism. I feel the healthiest balance a country can have is between social welfare and economics, if you can fine tune both then your population is happy, your business is happy and the rest is easier.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Be very clear about what you are asking for. Universal healthcare sucks but it beats the alternative for about 50 million Americans.
Is it worth sacrificing the health and healthcare of 225 million to provide a more complete care package for 50 million people?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
at what cost? who pays for this health care?
fair enough. but why should the rich be forced to pay for everyone's health care? how is it "free" to them?
because you simply stated you want free health care for all. i'm trying to tell you, there is no such thing.
Just because you would have free healthcare for everyone does not mean that you cannot have private healthcare for people who can afford it.
We have private healthcare here to in the UK aswell as the NHS.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=247497&highlight=birthright
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
how is it fair to punish the wealthy?