Where is Argentina?
- Thread starter W|M
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!
Spoiler :
Gzz
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
The video does not work. To properly imbed the video, do this:
[YOUTUBE]fM3XfC9H8Ug[/YOUTUBE]
Which is displayed as:
Link to video.
[YOUTUBE]fM3XfC9H8Ug[/YOUTUBE]
Which is displayed as:
Link to video.
Daedwartin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,785
Wait...people wer calling others heretics last page...*CRACK* well, The heresy committed by those on the previous page has been dealt with. This is why I went through the paperwork to get a lasgun.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Spoiler :
Well. I feel accomplished today.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I'm Ogilvie Maurice. Posted 102 posts at one point... ticking down now since it counts posts per 24 hours. I was at 22% of the forum's total posts for the day...
Daedwartin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,785
Well, too bad. Your fortress is having a tantrum spiral.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
Fear not! Armok will set for a goblin seig to release you from a (worse) fetal fate.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Good ol' Seig. Saving people from being turned into babies by phones since 1781.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Response to ilduce's post in another thread:
You mean with the bit with Fascism not being bad or the bit where you say the leap from Fascism to Libertarianism was "nonsensical"? I'll assume the former, as you attack Fascism later. I do see WIM's point, as Fascism and Libertarianism are seemingly on the opposite sides of the spectrum, as Fascism is all about removing personal liberties and Libertarianism is all about granting them.
I have not read the study, but mathematically speaking that isn't necessarily true.
Technically that would also indicate profit as the primary motive, as stories about Swine Flu sold a lot of papers.
In my opinion Private and Public healthcare has it's place in any self respecting Capitalist society.
I found the wiki article here, although it doesn't seem like there is consensus on that one. Besides, at least some of the crisis was caused by poor decision making and gambling large amounts of money on the incorrect assumption that house prices would always rise.
The free market requires the government to regulate it, otherwise it would not be free.
Capitalism is best ism.
Not necessarily true. I have life experiences to back that up.
Okay I was exaggerating slightly. And the idea of Libertarianism as in "people should be free to do what they want unless it hurts someone else" is generally a good principle. Unfortunately, Libertarianism has been hijacked by Ron Paulists, who are usually also Extremist Christians and Anarcho-Capitalists, and they are anything but consistent.
"People should be free to do whatever they want unless they want to marry someone of the same gender or have an abortion. Also the succession should be legal, complete decentralisation never hurt anyone, the Confederacy was a glittering Utopia that was destroyed by the War of Northern agression and the UN is EVIL!!!" ~Ron Paul
Non-Paulist Libertarianism has it's merits, but Anarchy (including anything with Anarcho stuck on the front with a hyphen) is terrible and Communism has been disproven to work.
So very, very true.
If you mean Libertarianism = Anarcho-Capitalism, than that is very true as well.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is terrible as well as all of the "Anarcho" family. Also, when your country has the third subsection in wikipedia as "Atrocities" then that isn't usually a good sign.
You mean with the bit with Fascism not being bad or the bit where you say the leap from Fascism to Libertarianism was "nonsensical"? I'll assume the former, as you attack Fascism later. I do see WIM's point, as Fascism and Libertarianism are seemingly on the opposite sides of the spectrum, as Fascism is all about removing personal liberties and Libertarianism is all about granting them.
I have not read the study, but mathematically speaking that isn't necessarily true.
Technically that would also indicate profit as the primary motive, as stories about Swine Flu sold a lot of papers.
In my opinion Private and Public healthcare has it's place in any self respecting Capitalist society.
I found the wiki article here, although it doesn't seem like there is consensus on that one. Besides, at least some of the crisis was caused by poor decision making and gambling large amounts of money on the incorrect assumption that house prices would always rise.
The free market requires the government to regulate it, otherwise it would not be free.
Capitalism is best ism.
Not necessarily true. I have life experiences to back that up.
Okay I was exaggerating slightly. And the idea of Libertarianism as in "people should be free to do what they want unless it hurts someone else" is generally a good principle. Unfortunately, Libertarianism has been hijacked by Ron Paulists, who are usually also Extremist Christians and Anarcho-Capitalists, and they are anything but consistent.
"People should be free to do whatever they want unless they want to marry someone of the same gender or have an abortion. Also the succession should be legal, complete decentralisation never hurt anyone, the Confederacy was a glittering Utopia that was destroyed by the War of Northern agression and the UN is EVIL!!!" ~Ron Paul
Non-Paulist Libertarianism has it's merits, but Anarchy (including anything with Anarcho stuck on the front with a hyphen) is terrible and Communism has been disproven to work.
So very, very true.
If you mean Libertarianism = Anarcho-Capitalism, than that is very true as well.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is terrible as well as all of the "Anarcho" family. Also, when your country has the third subsection in wikipedia as "Atrocities" then that isn't usually a good sign.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Nihilism best ism
mayor
Heart & Mind
wrong, mayorism best ism
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
I has taken NC's suggestion.
True. I do not want this place to be... like that area.
Jeho is going to be not pleased with your comment reguarding the sins...
For starters: I love how one begins by stating the other arguerer as "logical flawed" for that is a debater's move.
Now each paragrath will set to each of the areas starting with the next:
"USA was frist" is a questionable consideration. The USA was not the first country to have a electoral process (Athens, certain part of India and Venice had some form of elective process. While neither of these may be universal sufferage, the USA started out as giving votes only to landlords like in the UK at the time. It is also a questionable statement to suggest the US goverment was the only goverment in that point in history to care for the people or in nature it was design to work for the people.
I will not comment on the bringing up of fascism.
Pardon? Health equality is important for good healthcare system yes? The NHS is a good healthcare system.
I may not have provided data but what makes one single data like you did the stone tablet? Ok I did provide data for one argument but we noting of notes. I bought up the NHS. It is a effective system. Still that does not question how the WHO ranked Canada above the US in healthcare systems.
But drug companies had a lot to gain as suggestions around the period noted.
Healthcare long term is better off under a nationa health service like the NHS, especilly as alas it is short term for the patience and to forget we are talking about people is not effective.
The bankers were taking a lot of risks, especilly the Royal Bank of Scotland and several American banks. They were not motivated by some goverment act safe for the deregulation that Reagan started and still continued to this day in the USA.
A free market at work is questionable on how the lives of the many are taken swayed by the greed of risk taking. Money does not needlessy follow what is good but what is short term in gaining.
...so if we place our resources correctly absolute monarchy would be a good thing? That is what the logic of the statements take too. Ruling by binnaries than by considerations lead not to fortune.
You are not the sayer of truth. You first part was "I am not [insert ...ist here] but..." in approuch. Many people with welfare benefits in the UK are working.
Your context being? I only see generalisations that treat people as if they are things.
You can be a dictator and promote the private sector as shown in Chile when it was under dictatorship.
How about freedom to murder? Absolutism is not the way to true happiness. Just as absolute control would set to be like chaining the bird in the cage, so true that a lawless path leads to conflict. Your path is of no peace just as absolute authoriterianism is not a path of ballance. The Middle Way is hence the consideration.
...there is no such thing as a consistent idea for humanity is set to debate and consider, with the blessing and curse of schism of note.
True. I do not want this place to be... like that area.
Jeho is going to be not pleased with your comment reguarding the sins...
For starters: I love how one begins by stating the other arguerer as "logical flawed" for that is a debater's move.
Now each paragrath will set to each of the areas starting with the next:
"USA was frist" is a questionable consideration. The USA was not the first country to have a electoral process (Athens, certain part of India and Venice had some form of elective process. While neither of these may be universal sufferage, the USA started out as giving votes only to landlords like in the UK at the time. It is also a questionable statement to suggest the US goverment was the only goverment in that point in history to care for the people or in nature it was design to work for the people.
I will not comment on the bringing up of fascism.
Pardon? Health equality is important for good healthcare system yes? The NHS is a good healthcare system.
I may not have provided data but what makes one single data like you did the stone tablet? Ok I did provide data for one argument but we noting of notes. I bought up the NHS. It is a effective system. Still that does not question how the WHO ranked Canada above the US in healthcare systems.
But drug companies had a lot to gain as suggestions around the period noted.
Healthcare long term is better off under a nationa health service like the NHS, especilly as alas it is short term for the patience and to forget we are talking about people is not effective.
The bankers were taking a lot of risks, especilly the Royal Bank of Scotland and several American banks. They were not motivated by some goverment act safe for the deregulation that Reagan started and still continued to this day in the USA.
A free market at work is questionable on how the lives of the many are taken swayed by the greed of risk taking. Money does not needlessy follow what is good but what is short term in gaining.
...so if we place our resources correctly absolute monarchy would be a good thing? That is what the logic of the statements take too. Ruling by binnaries than by considerations lead not to fortune.
You are not the sayer of truth. You first part was "I am not [insert ...ist here] but..." in approuch. Many people with welfare benefits in the UK are working.
Your context being? I only see generalisations that treat people as if they are things.
You can be a dictator and promote the private sector as shown in Chile when it was under dictatorship.
How about freedom to murder? Absolutism is not the way to true happiness. Just as absolute control would set to be like chaining the bird in the cage, so true that a lawless path leads to conflict. Your path is of no peace just as absolute authoriterianism is not a path of ballance. The Middle Way is hence the consideration.
...there is no such thing as a consistent idea for humanity is set to debate and consider, with the blessing and curse of schism of note.
mayor
Heart & Mind
did't I just read this somewhere else?
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,811
You did. I by accident posted the statement above you on the organisation thread. I have edited that post to scale for its deletion.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I don't know why I'm debating economics when I'm not accruing post count for it but why not?
In a country that makes such great use of cars as the United States though there is merit to keeping the roads publicly-funded and operated. Were travel more of a luxury I could see making them private as an option.
Let's make a deal. I'll support private ownership of all highways, on the condition that the government pay for people to put e-tolling receivers on their cars. A small expense on the government's part will lead to enormous efficiency by the private sector.
They weren't built entirely privately though. The government helped out a lot by giving them land and other bonuses to assist in the construction. This is one of the government's best economic tools: the subsidisation of private industry. Space likely would be miles behind what it is now if not for state investment; nowadays, even with NASA's gutting, the private sector is able to pull up the slack.
Which is why it's important to keep the government's spending projects simple. Ultimately it's a better idea to give the money to smaller actors, public or private, that actually know what they're doing. It's the same reason transfer payments are best made as a lump sum, rather than creating food stamps, healthcare, subsidised housing, etc. and then creating a gigantic bureaucracy to oversee them all.
As for crowding out, that's mitigated if the money is spent on infrastructure that could stimulate further economic activity, such as better transportation.
This all sounds good but when one considers the glorious Soviet Republics of Germany, Italy and Japan are kicking our teeth in in the fields of robotics, automobiles, and video games, and electronics in general, I think we can see that our current education system needs serious revamping (primarily cheaper access to college). We have a gigantic pool of unskilled labor, but rather than trying to solve that we debate raising the minimum wage for that same pool of unskilled laborers.
I've spoken with Canadians on the issue. Apparently a lot of their worse wait times are due to obsolete record keeping and such. Really I see no reason to eliminate profit from healthcare entirely (people are more responsible and efficient when money's at stake), but we simply cannot ignore it.
There is no reason for insurance to be private, however. It is just taking money from one person and shelling it out to others. Sounds no different from single payer when you think about it, except you have a profit motive on one hand and none on the other. Sounds like a gigantic waste of money to have private insurance; while the option should be there, I see no reason singlepayer shouldn't be standard, considering we're already halfway there with free insurance for the poor and elderly.
As for actual hospitals and doctors, those should definitely be kept private, because that's an actual service that can deteriorate in quality if the state uses regulations. Research needs more government funding though, and lots of it. We also need to weaken the FDA; if you're on your deathbed are you honestly going to care if a bureaucrat has approved a drug that could save your life? Businesses ultimately need to cover costs... and the bureaucracy of the FDA piles tons of operating costs onto drug development.
This is very true. Like the patent protections that are given to drugs. The profit motive in this case strangles healthcare; there are plenty of cures sitting on the shelf because the billions of dollars needed to be paid in royalties. This is the tragedy of the uncommons; some people are so devoted to profit they put a gigantic block to market efficiency. Patents definitely need revision in the field of healthcare for this reason.
In a country that makes such great use of cars as the United States though there is merit to keeping the roads publicly-funded and operated. Were travel more of a luxury I could see making them private as an option.
Let's make a deal. I'll support private ownership of all highways, on the condition that the government pay for people to put e-tolling receivers on their cars. A small expense on the government's part will lead to enormous efficiency by the private sector.
They weren't built entirely privately though. The government helped out a lot by giving them land and other bonuses to assist in the construction. This is one of the government's best economic tools: the subsidisation of private industry. Space likely would be miles behind what it is now if not for state investment; nowadays, even with NASA's gutting, the private sector is able to pull up the slack.
Which is why it's important to keep the government's spending projects simple. Ultimately it's a better idea to give the money to smaller actors, public or private, that actually know what they're doing. It's the same reason transfer payments are best made as a lump sum, rather than creating food stamps, healthcare, subsidised housing, etc. and then creating a gigantic bureaucracy to oversee them all.
As for crowding out, that's mitigated if the money is spent on infrastructure that could stimulate further economic activity, such as better transportation.
This all sounds good but when one considers the glorious Soviet Republics of Germany, Italy and Japan are kicking our teeth in in the fields of robotics, automobiles, and video games, and electronics in general, I think we can see that our current education system needs serious revamping (primarily cheaper access to college). We have a gigantic pool of unskilled labor, but rather than trying to solve that we debate raising the minimum wage for that same pool of unskilled laborers.
I've spoken with Canadians on the issue. Apparently a lot of their worse wait times are due to obsolete record keeping and such. Really I see no reason to eliminate profit from healthcare entirely (people are more responsible and efficient when money's at stake), but we simply cannot ignore it.
There is no reason for insurance to be private, however. It is just taking money from one person and shelling it out to others. Sounds no different from single payer when you think about it, except you have a profit motive on one hand and none on the other. Sounds like a gigantic waste of money to have private insurance; while the option should be there, I see no reason singlepayer shouldn't be standard, considering we're already halfway there with free insurance for the poor and elderly.
As for actual hospitals and doctors, those should definitely be kept private, because that's an actual service that can deteriorate in quality if the state uses regulations. Research needs more government funding though, and lots of it. We also need to weaken the FDA; if you're on your deathbed are you honestly going to care if a bureaucrat has approved a drug that could save your life? Businesses ultimately need to cover costs... and the bureaucracy of the FDA piles tons of operating costs onto drug development.
This is very true. Like the patent protections that are given to drugs. The profit motive in this case strangles healthcare; there are plenty of cures sitting on the shelf because the billions of dollars needed to be paid in royalties. This is the tragedy of the uncommons; some people are so devoted to profit they put a gigantic block to market efficiency. Patents definitely need revision in the field of healthcare for this reason.
- Status
