- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,100
- Reactions
- 12,707
Glutinous ?
Glutinous ?
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
How did my thread on the lunatic left turn into a sensible discussion on health care systems? LOL.
Anyway, I am quite in favour of the socialization of a certain aspects of the economy, always have done. The perfect example he is health. (Along with certain public utilities)
I would say that well designed public health systems with good design may basically blow up because of other aspects of leftist ideology, open borders for example.
So when looking at a dysfunctional public health system is it due to the design or undue pressures because of other aspects of the economy.
I'm by no means an expert here, fortunately I don't have to use the health system very much at all, just throwing that out there as part of the discussion.
Anyway, I am quite in favour of the socialization of a certain aspects of the economy, always have done. The perfect example he is health. (Along with certain public utilities)
I would say that well designed public health systems with good design may basically blow up because of other aspects of leftist ideology, open borders for example.
So when looking at a dysfunctional public health system is it due to the design or undue pressures because of other aspects of the economy.
I'm by no means an expert here, fortunately I don't have to use the health system very much at all, just throwing that out there as part of the discussion.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,668
- Reactions
- 4,758
Here is WA like SP had to use the system a couple of times.
The doctors / specialists have been extremely good as have the hospitals without exception.
Mind blowing technology along with exception organisations public and private.
The US numbers for bankruptcies due to health care is very sad for such a wealthy country like Chiff says the yanks hate paying for someone else for the common good.
The doctors / specialists have been extremely good as have the hospitals without exception.
Mind blowing technology along with exception organisations public and private.
The US numbers for bankruptcies due to health care is very sad for such a wealthy country like Chiff says the yanks hate paying for someone else for the common good.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
I see a state having three interconnected systems. An economic system, a regulatory system and a social system.
The economic system can be capitalist, a command economy, plutocracy, communist, the very nebulous socialist and there are perhaps a few others that are combinations of these in different ways. The regulatory system is our laws and in particular in relation to this discussion, our taxation laws. Our Social System is our Health, Education, Employment, etc. and of most importance our general happiness.
Capitalism has proven itself to be the best economic system to achieve the highest output objective for the least cost. The problem is the definition of the output objective. If we look solely at GDP and not relate our objectives in anyway to the objectives of our Social System, we get something like the USA. That is where our regulatory system comes in.
Adam Smith used the term Invisible Hand of Capitalism and it can loosely be defined as a theory of economics that refers to the self-regulating nature of the marketplace in determining how resources are allocated based on individuals acting in their own self-interest.
The key here is own self interest. One's own self interest will, in general, be the maximisation of personal profit. We do not need to change that in a capitalist economy (let people, e.g. industry and its shareholders, continue to strive to maximise profit), but use the regulatory system to ensure that can only be achieved by meeting social objectives. So things like regulating the working week, prohibition of child labour, employee entitlements regarding sick leave etc. help ensure that the social objectives of employee wellbeing are met. Different taxation levels for different types of energy use, royalties on natural resources use etc. can help meet objectives regarding Climate Change etc. I don't need to list everything but you should know what I mean when I say that the regulatory system can direct the economic system to meet the objectives of the social system.
The gist of what I am getting at is essentially not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Capitalism has proven to be the best system at achieving the highest output objective for the least cost. Everything (with probably few, if any, exceptions) that we strive for under our social system can be best achieved by using the regulatory system to guide the invisible hand of capitalism so that self interest aligns with social objectives.
I recently watched a short video of George Monbiot (of The Guardian fame) saying we should throw out capitalism. Such stupidity in his arguments. For example, one reason he gave is that governments strive for economic growth and use GDP as the yardstick. He then states GDP is not a measure of human welfare. 100% correct. GDP is not a measure of human welfare. Neither is the Richter Scale. GDP is a measure of, wait for it, GDP. GDP has been used as a measure of economic growth under every economic system out there; capitalist, communist and even traditional agrarian economies such as Butan. If we want to measure human welfare then create a measurement tool for that and set our regulatory system so that our capitalist economy can help us achieve that. Butan uses a Happiness Index as one of its societal goals. We can do that and still use capitalism as the engine to achieve it.
Everything else in his video related to environmental goals of sorts and even though I do not agree with some of his remedies, each remedy can be incorporated in our overall system by using the regulatory framework to do so and that can include the "massive rewilding" that Monbiot talks about in the video below.
And interestingly, he does not say what economic system we should use to replace our capitalist model. A communist model like China. Well it is now the biggest CO2 producer out there and is likely to get a lot worse as their several hundred new coal powered energy plants come on line over the next 10 years.
The capitalist system under proper regulation is the most likely model to help us achieve our social objectives. An interesting observation of two economies before the cold war ended; West and East Germany. They both used GDP to measure economic growth. But the capitalist West Germany worked with the goal of maximising profit (the invisible hand) and the communist East Germany strove to simply maximise production. In relation to white goods, the East found one way to increase output was not to innovate and produce a more attractive market orientated product, but simply to increase the amount of metal in the particular white good product (as output was measure by weight). This is an example of two different economic models trying to achieve the same economic objective, but one doing it vastly more efficiently than the other. Compare the then West German Volkswagen with the East German Trabant for another perfect example.
Apart from capitalism providing the best economic model to achieve our social objectives if governed by a proper regulatory framework, it also has proven the best model that doesn't require some sort of dictatorial overseer. It can operate in a democratic system. Almost every other economic model requires restrictions on democracy. One only has to look at the social improvements (not only in general but say for specific groups like women and gays) in every capitalist economy over the past hundred years and compare to those non democratic economies to see why it is best (an exception being those capitalist economies under Islamic control, but to a large extent they are probably nominally capitalist or more likely plutocratic or still agrarian).
One might argue that as we increase regulatory control, we become less capitalist and perhaps "socialist". I think that is a wrong argument as it conflating the economic model with the state model (which I originally mentioned is three different systems). States using a capitalist model (US, Europe) in the early 20th century are vastly different from a social perspective than those today. The regulatory system then was almost non existent so the social system was largely primitive. But as regulations were strengthened, the capitalist model employed didn't really change philosophically or even practically, but instead through the regulation was able to allow a more sophisticated social system to evolve. So that is what is happening now. People may refer to Scandanavian countries as "socialist", but they are really just capitalist economies with a more advanced social system. Guiding the invisible hand through regulation.
We have got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.
The economic system can be capitalist, a command economy, plutocracy, communist, the very nebulous socialist and there are perhaps a few others that are combinations of these in different ways. The regulatory system is our laws and in particular in relation to this discussion, our taxation laws. Our Social System is our Health, Education, Employment, etc. and of most importance our general happiness.
Capitalism has proven itself to be the best economic system to achieve the highest output objective for the least cost. The problem is the definition of the output objective. If we look solely at GDP and not relate our objectives in anyway to the objectives of our Social System, we get something like the USA. That is where our regulatory system comes in.
Adam Smith used the term Invisible Hand of Capitalism and it can loosely be defined as a theory of economics that refers to the self-regulating nature of the marketplace in determining how resources are allocated based on individuals acting in their own self-interest.
The key here is own self interest. One's own self interest will, in general, be the maximisation of personal profit. We do not need to change that in a capitalist economy (let people, e.g. industry and its shareholders, continue to strive to maximise profit), but use the regulatory system to ensure that can only be achieved by meeting social objectives. So things like regulating the working week, prohibition of child labour, employee entitlements regarding sick leave etc. help ensure that the social objectives of employee wellbeing are met. Different taxation levels for different types of energy use, royalties on natural resources use etc. can help meet objectives regarding Climate Change etc. I don't need to list everything but you should know what I mean when I say that the regulatory system can direct the economic system to meet the objectives of the social system.
The gist of what I am getting at is essentially not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Capitalism has proven to be the best system at achieving the highest output objective for the least cost. Everything (with probably few, if any, exceptions) that we strive for under our social system can be best achieved by using the regulatory system to guide the invisible hand of capitalism so that self interest aligns with social objectives.
I recently watched a short video of George Monbiot (of The Guardian fame) saying we should throw out capitalism. Such stupidity in his arguments. For example, one reason he gave is that governments strive for economic growth and use GDP as the yardstick. He then states GDP is not a measure of human welfare. 100% correct. GDP is not a measure of human welfare. Neither is the Richter Scale. GDP is a measure of, wait for it, GDP. GDP has been used as a measure of economic growth under every economic system out there; capitalist, communist and even traditional agrarian economies such as Butan. If we want to measure human welfare then create a measurement tool for that and set our regulatory system so that our capitalist economy can help us achieve that. Butan uses a Happiness Index as one of its societal goals. We can do that and still use capitalism as the engine to achieve it.
Everything else in his video related to environmental goals of sorts and even though I do not agree with some of his remedies, each remedy can be incorporated in our overall system by using the regulatory framework to do so and that can include the "massive rewilding" that Monbiot talks about in the video below.
And interestingly, he does not say what economic system we should use to replace our capitalist model. A communist model like China. Well it is now the biggest CO2 producer out there and is likely to get a lot worse as their several hundred new coal powered energy plants come on line over the next 10 years.
The capitalist system under proper regulation is the most likely model to help us achieve our social objectives. An interesting observation of two economies before the cold war ended; West and East Germany. They both used GDP to measure economic growth. But the capitalist West Germany worked with the goal of maximising profit (the invisible hand) and the communist East Germany strove to simply maximise production. In relation to white goods, the East found one way to increase output was not to innovate and produce a more attractive market orientated product, but simply to increase the amount of metal in the particular white good product (as output was measure by weight). This is an example of two different economic models trying to achieve the same economic objective, but one doing it vastly more efficiently than the other. Compare the then West German Volkswagen with the East German Trabant for another perfect example.
Apart from capitalism providing the best economic model to achieve our social objectives if governed by a proper regulatory framework, it also has proven the best model that doesn't require some sort of dictatorial overseer. It can operate in a democratic system. Almost every other economic model requires restrictions on democracy. One only has to look at the social improvements (not only in general but say for specific groups like women and gays) in every capitalist economy over the past hundred years and compare to those non democratic economies to see why it is best (an exception being those capitalist economies under Islamic control, but to a large extent they are probably nominally capitalist or more likely plutocratic or still agrarian).
One might argue that as we increase regulatory control, we become less capitalist and perhaps "socialist". I think that is a wrong argument as it conflating the economic model with the state model (which I originally mentioned is three different systems). States using a capitalist model (US, Europe) in the early 20th century are vastly different from a social perspective than those today. The regulatory system then was almost non existent so the social system was largely primitive. But as regulations were strengthened, the capitalist model employed didn't really change philosophically or even practically, but instead through the regulation was able to allow a more sophisticated social system to evolve. So that is what is happening now. People may refer to Scandanavian countries as "socialist", but they are really just capitalist economies with a more advanced social system. Guiding the invisible hand through regulation.
We have got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
Similar to the leftist disappointment at the American economy going really well
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,331
- Reactions
- 2,446
Maybe they're looking at the American debt bill 
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
Pffffttt just buy gold dudeMaybe they're looking at the American debt bill
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,331
- Reactions
- 2,446
With what ?Pffffttt just buy gold dude
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
Fiat
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
Good God!
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,331
- Reactions
- 2,446
You mean Rubles right ?Fiat
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
Shekels, Rupiahs, Pacific Pesos, whatever
All essentially worthless and potentially quantitatively, Weimaresquely(sic) more so.
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,331
- Reactions
- 2,446
Which makes the gold equally worthless as the papiermark, thus kinda defeating the purposeShekels, Rupiahs, Pacific Pesos, whatever
All essentially worthless and potentially quantitatively, Weimaresquely(sic) more so.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
Gold is not without it's challenges especially of the non-physical variety.Which makes the gold equally worthless as the papiermark, thus kinda defeating the purpose
Which is why I bought a few sheckels worth of physical around $1,200 USD recently, security problems notwithstanding... I do really get your point.
I am 99.999999% certain that I will never have to buy a loaf of bread or a Kalashnikov witha few filings from a gold coin, but who the hell knows?
But meanwhile, the gold bugs will go on one of their apocalypse parties eventually; and if I am super arsey, I might be able to flog it at somewhere near the top.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
From Guido Fawkes in London:
"Shocking scenes in Parliament Square, as a co-conspirator passed on photos of Winston Churchill’s statue – facing the Palace of Westminster – being boarded up. Similar photos have also emerged of the Cenotaph having to be protected from expected protests.
A few years ago in a BBC poll of a million people he was voted Britain’s greatest Briton. Now he is being boarded up to protect him from the mob. Something has gone very wrong."
"Shocking scenes in Parliament Square, as a co-conspirator passed on photos of Winston Churchill’s statue – facing the Palace of Westminster – being boarded up. Similar photos have also emerged of the Cenotaph having to be protected from expected protests.
A few years ago in a BBC poll of a million people he was voted Britain’s greatest Briton. Now he is being boarded up to protect him from the mob. Something has gone very wrong."
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,965
- Reactions
- 13,272
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,100
- Reactions
- 12,707
- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
You'll be right. But your kids won't be.
Similar threads
