So many leftist on these boards?

[Flying Pig]

So long as paying for a +5 'points' benefit in cancer care doesn't mean you have too little money in flu care so get a -10 'points' there.

 

[Cutlass]

Found the perfect quote by the typical conservative:

"We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No."
-- actor Craig T. Nelson

 

[aapo]

I don't see this analogy going anywhere, because, you do realize, this is one of the fundamental "freedoms" in the free-market that is often so highly touted- That a seller can haggle over price, sell at whatever price to whomever they want, and isn't obligated to sell to anyone ("We don't serve Your Kind here"). They could simply decide not to sell to you because they don't like you or for no reason at all.

- And vice versa: customer might opt to not pay the price for whatever reason. Employers are just people. Employees are just people. Customers are just people. What makes you think there's inherent inequality in this triangle?

Analogy in animal world: gazelles and lions in savannah. Unlike what nature documents might let you to believe, being a lion doesn't mean you can hunt any gazelle you come across. Gazelles are much faster than lions and lions really have to work hard to catch prey. Sneaking close to gazelle herd undetected is required. Weak gazelles and weak lions perish equally. That is the harmony of nature.

Oh and before you reply saying that I said people and animals are just the same, or that the poor should die, theme of this example was to show that things aren't inequal.

Modern industrial capitalism in general has shown itself to be fatally flawed & any pretense of maintaining it wastes time that should be spent fashioning new systems that work.

- It's just that people take lots of things for granted. Every section of pavement, public transportation, block of housing, lightbulb, conveniently placed store has taken lot of trial and error to perfect through history. You're born in world that is finished. It's not so uncommon to neglect the fact that everything needs people to work. Well done job requires not just any people, but intelligent and educated people. You can't just change the rules and think everything good would be like it is now, except the poor would be middle class and the rich would be middle class equally.

If everything would be split evenly among people living in some area today, in hundred years all economical inequality would be back. That's because people don't strive to reach same goals in life. Don't say that you should be allowed to stay home if you wouldn't want your mailman to stay home in the morning. Double standard would be obvious.

Are you Finn?

- Yes.

 

[Greizer85]

If I made $1000000 a year, I would gladly pay 10% of it towards healthcare, even though if I made 10000 a year, I'd only have to pay 5%. Because, you know, I'd still be rich. Beyond a certain level, additional income doesn't add anything but frivolous things to your lifestyle; you don't need sportscars or mansions to survive or even to live comfortably.

Yes, it's still technically wrong that the rich pay proportionally more. So what? You yourself said, Bei, that life is unfair sometimes - I'd rather it be unfair to the rich than to the poor. Since, you know, the rich can afford it.

 

[Flying Pig]

Found the perfect quote by the typical conservative:

"We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No."
-- actor Craig T. Nelson

He's lived by the goodwill of the state and thinks nobody helps him?

 

[Cutlass]

- And vice versa: customer might opt to not pay the price for whatever reason. Employers are just people. Employees are just people. Customers are just people. What makes you think there's inherent inequality in this triangle?

Analogy in animal world: gazelles and lions in savannah. Unlike what nature documents might let you to believe, being a lion doesn't mean you can hunt any gazelle you come across. Gazelles are much faster than lions and lions really have to work hard to catch prey. Sneaking close to gazelle herd undetected is required. Weak gazelles and weak lions perish equally. That is the harmony of nature.

Oh and before you reply saying that I said people and animals are just the same, or that the poor should die, theme of this example was to show that things aren't inequal.



- It's just that people take lots of things for granted. Every section of pavement, public transportation, block of housing, lightbulb, conveniently placed store has taken lot of trial and error to perfect through history. You're born in world that is finished. It's not so uncommon to neglect the fact that everything needs people to work. Well done job requires not just any people, but intelligent and educated people. You can't just change the rules and think everything good would be like it is now, except the poor would be middle class and the rich would be middle class equally.

If everything would be split evenly among people living in some area today, in hundred years all economical inequality would be back. That's because people don't strive to reach same goals in life. Don't say that you should be allowed to stay home if you wouldn't want your mailman to stay home in the morning. Double standard would be obvious.



- Yes.

You do realize that a lot of what the "king of beasts" eats is stolen from other animals like leopards and hyenas, right?

 

[El_Machinae]

This is probably not a good way of doing things, IMO. I'd assume a lot of new medical technology is prohibitively expensive (take MRI, for example). However, they may provide unparalleled benefits for society, and health care. But, due to their cost (which cannot be minimised without further research), no more research can be undertaken without public funding. But, if public funding isn't available due to normally prohibitive cost, then how will the product be made cheaper? And then how will the public gain from what would/could be of massive benefit to them?

Basically, in health services, it's more about quality than price, IMO.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I think that a government should take a strong role in medical research. Research is a huge public good: fund it as much as possible, I say. And since it's a public good, I ask that people spend time to learn the results of research, too.

I was talking about providing a medical service. A few super-rich people were able to get their genomes read. We're now moving to the point where a middle-class person can have their genome read an interpretted, because of entrepreneurs and research funding. Eventually, it should just become a normally funded service.

 

[Camikaze]

Oh, I see. So allow richer people the opportunity to gain higher standards of expensive health care if they so desire, but still provide the basic necessities in health care for the poorer. Hmm. I don't like the idea (rich get 'richer' through greater health care), but it does make sense, I 'spose, in an essentially free market system.

 

[Flying Pig]

I say if you can afford private healthcare, you have the right to it.

 

[Kerozine]

For example, we consider that health care is such a human right that is should receive funding no matter what. First problem we have is estimation: how many patients need health care in our area? That is easy question to solve in free market -> more patients mean more personel, carrot here is reputation (based on results). If funding is received a priori it doesn't give incentive to better results. On the other hand if funding is based on political decision and not public's needs, staff on public clinics are often overworked.

Those arguments suck.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Hello, I see many guys have very leftist economical views on this board. Why is that?

I am not sure if this is humour or that you just have a very twisted perspective regarding this, but the fact remains that the great majority of the regular posters here are stalwart supporters of capitalism. Most of them behave like a nun in a military camp if the word socialism is brought up. Hardly "many guys with very leftist economical views" then.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see too many good things about the Left.

It is just you.

I have to repeat what has been said several times: look at where these people live.

Mostly in US, Canada and Western Europe: countries that have had no experience whatsoever with truly leftist economy. Therefore they think that:
1) leftist economy can actually work;
2) being leftist is cool and makes them look intelligent, caring and socially responsible.

It is as simple as that.

NB! Are you Finn?

For some cocky young men there are simple explanations for everything. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
But I guess I am way too "intelligent, caring and socially responsible" to comment any further on that.

 

[amadeus]

The US system has a low bar for free care (laissez faire would equate to no free care, which,as I say exists nowhere apart from the most deprived countries) and has a voluntary element to topping up that basic free care - this is the example that can be compared to the European model, and it is definitely more expensive and provides minimal healthcare benefits.

The US healthcare system is a bit chunky to be described as a 'strawman' IMHO!

I'm not sure what you mean by "low bar", but according to the Census Bureau, it seems the primary care provider for 83 million Americans is the United States government, or about 28% of the population. This is up from about 23% in 1987.

For some cocky young men there are simple explanations for everything. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

As opposed to "he's rich, so he exploited somebody"?

 

[aapo]

You do realize that a lot of what the "king of beasts" eats is stolen from other animals like leopards and hyenas, right?

- I've heard about it. Anyway, this was a metaphor to show that there isn't a "king of beasts" in either animal world or human society. Every living animal is born of natural selection's winner and every sentient being has different strategy to survive.

 

[Richard Cribb]

As opposed to "he's rich, so he exploited somebody"?

Yes.
That is apparently not so simple to understand. Here at least.

 

[bigfatron]

whats there to think about? lack of market leads to deficits and surpluses. thats what traffic jams are, thats what long court lines are, thats what long lines in healthcare are, thats what jammed buses are.

there were long lines to buy SAUSAGES and MILK in the soviet union, SAUSEAGEs for gods sake. and that was in 1980s

if you support socialised whatever service then it is obvious and inevitable that that stuff will happen.

This discussion is struggling to get beyond undergraduate economics.

Free markets lead to deficits and surpluses too - in fact that is part of the definition of a totally free market. Activity will tend to the equilibrium level that provides the maximum profit (well, it will as long as we accept a long list of assumptions most of which don't apply in the real world, but that's another problem).

That does not mean that everyone who wants to buy a sausage can buy a sausage, but that sausage production is stimulated to the level which maximises the sausage makers', suppliers' and vendors' profits. This may well be a level that means some, or even many, people, cannot afford to buy sausage.

Markets are intensely fallible - undergrads learn that markets tend to equilibria, markets know best, etc, and then economics professors spend their time trying to teach post-grad students that pretty much all of what they learnt in undergrad studies is meaningless or wrong.

You need to open your eyes, read some journals and think. The last year or more of credit crisis have occurred because the credit market fundamentally failed, by supplying a huge surplus of credit in the past, and it is now suffering a shortage of credit due to contraction of supply. These have clearly not been optimal behaviours for the economy or its participants (you and me).

You could not have a more textbook example of the failure of a free market to provide an optimum, or even near optimum, outcome.

Anyone who says that either governments or markets can be infallible is just proving their ignorance - they should be taken out to a public place and jeered at....

BFR

 

[Flying Pig]

Over the history of the market, it probably evens out eventually, but you get 'fluctuations' - the industrial revolution, the great depression etc.

 

[Angst]

I have to repeat what has been said several times: look at where these people live.

Mostly in US, Canada and Western Europe: countries that have had no experience whatsoever with truly leftist economy. Therefore they think that:
1) leftist economy can actually work;
2) being leftist is cool and makes them look intelligent, caring and socially responsible.

It is as simple as that.

NB! Are you Finn?

You actually misunderstood the OP; he thinks that european economy = leftist.

 

[Arwon]

What does that post have to do with Keynesianism, xarthaz? That's a really weak cop-out response.

 

[Earthling]

neither of us will change, we already have developed ideological views.

True, I strongly support capitalization, and nothing will probably change that.

 

[Arwon]

thats what those mainstream journals are. all their aggregate demand, consumer confidence, inflation expectations, animal spirits, all that stuff is keynesianism.

You're using "mainstream" as a synonym for "wrong" aren't you?