Sharing the Wealth (or not)

Economics people, economics!

Profit said:
Therefore, we can say that wealth re-distribution from the wealthy to the poor is obviously beneficial; those with $1,000,000 simply don't need another $10,000 as much as those with only $5,000 do. Bring in the Law of Diminishing Returns if you like. Once you're thinking about a Western country where effectively everyone is in the top 10% of the world's rich, the idea that the super-rich deserve more than those who are actually suffering merely because the richer ones 'earned' it (when their entire life is built on the system and infrastructure of a country which took earned money to build the hospitals and roads and security forces to allow them to dedicate their lives to making money) is preposterous.

I am an economist a I see that there are several problems which your analysis:

1- Interpersonal comparisons of utility cannot be made. Simple as that, you cannot say that you like 10 dollars more than anyone else.

2- Incentives exist. To redistribute wealth you need to tax people, and taxes generate economic distortions. In simple terms: Taxes distort the price system, distorted prices generate distorted allocations of factors, reducing the efficiency of the economic system.

3- There are also the non-economic consequences of massive wealth redistribution as can be seem in the decrepit continent of Europe, where society's basic values are being destroyed by the existence of millions of parasites that live off welfare.
 
Yes, I have witnessed the horrific, decimated wasteland of Europe, where good health, personal freedom, and order run rampant! The corrupting influence of the Europeans will destroy our values of squalor and greed! Young fry of villainy!

Oh, and 'interpersonal comparisons of ultility cannot be made' is obvious bullshit. If one person needs $10 to be able to eat, and another needs $10 to get a taxi to the airport for his trip to Andorra, one needs it more.
 
Re: Economics people, economics!

José Cruz said:
[...]as can be seem in the decrepit continent of Europe, where society's basic values are being destroyed by the existence of millions of parasites that live off welfare.

9/10 would rage again. U best be trollin' mate.
 
Re: Economics people, economics!

José Cruz said:
I am an economist a I see that there are several problems which your analysis:

1- Interpersonal comparisons of utility cannot be made. Simple as that, you cannot say that you like 10 dollars more than anyone else.

2- Incentives exist. To redistribute wealth you need to tax people, and taxes generate economic distortions. In simple terms: Taxes distort the price system, distorted prices generate distorted allocations of factors, reducing the efficiency of the economic system.

3- There are also the non-economic consequences of massive wealth redistribution as can be seem in the decrepit continent of Europe, where society's basic values are being destroyed by the existence of millions of parasites that live off welfare.

1: oh yes, no difference at all if someone who has 100000 dollars gets 100 and someone who has 200 dollars gets 100 dollars. :roll:
2:incorrect. No one will taxe THAT MUCH. Don't mix up socialism and taxes. Taxes are necessary, in order to any developed society to work.
3: Ookay..."decrepit continent of europe" ? Why do you assume that Europe's basic values are destroyed by good public healthcare, good welfare system that actually gives some security if you lose your job (atleast in Finland). Go troll somewhere else. Or was it sarcasm ?
 
Therefore, we can say that wealth re-distribution from the wealthy to the poor is obviously beneficial; those with $1,000,000 simply don't need another $10,000 as much as those with only $5,000 do. Bring in the Law of Diminishing Returns if you like. Once you're thinking about a Western country where effectively everyone is in the top 10% of the world's rich, the idea that the super-rich deserve more than those who are actually suffering merely because the richer ones 'earned' it (when their entire life is built on the system and infrastructure of a country which took earned money to build the hospitals and roads and security forces to allow them to dedicate their lives to making money) is preposterous.

reminds me of the stupid statement i've heard that was along the lines of "instead of giving the corporations the money in the 700 billion bailout give the average taxpayer a equal portion of the money". never mind that such an action would cause MASSIVE inflation that pretty much means that the "average taxpayer" is in worse condition then he was in the beginning. ya lets go to a socialist idealist system and destroy any future hope for an economy! yay socialism!

andrew carnage said it best when a socialist critic complained that he was spending money on projects rather then directly spreading it around. carnage did the math to figure out the man's share of wealth if carnage gave an equal portion to everyone in the us. then he sent that share and a letter. it basically ammounted to "here is five cents, do good with this". clearly demonstrated the failure in the socialist redistribution of wealth agenda.

3: Ookay..."decrepit continent of europe" ? Why do you assume that Europe's basic values are destroyed by good public healthcare, good welfare system that actually gives some security if you lose your job (atleast in Finland). Go troll somewhere else. Or was it sarcasm ?

nevermind that european hospitals(save for germany) suck and generally dont contribute much to research and development in healthcare. oh never mind the fact that the developed european nation's gdp growth was(i say was as in before the global economic crash) on a level that its best described as economic stagnation. never mind the countless social problems brought on by intense liberalism such as ever increasing drug abuse and the shrinking number of productive families, much less families at all in developed europe. yay! foreward with socialism! a perfect world and an end to all growth, development and imagination whatsoever! boo to having to work!
 
Yes, those crappy European hospitals, where the poor don't have a third-world infant death rate and chronic medical conditions can't bankrupt a middle-class family.
 
ceacar99 said:
oh never mind the fact that the developed european nation's gdp growth was(i say was as in before the global economic crash) on a level that its best described as economic stagnation.

In times of globalisation this is actually a very good thing. Of course their are some people who think if we lower social standards we can compete against China or eastern europe, but those people have generally no idea about economy at all.

Oh and people saying that some european countries are forwarding socialism should take the time and the money to actually travel to europe. its worth it (except for germany maybe).
 
Profit said:
Yes, those crappy European hospitals, where the poor don't have a third-world infant death rate and chronic medical conditions can't bankrupt a middle-class family.

honestly, at least the "bankrupting of the middle class" through the hospital system we have is WAY overplayed in my experience. your an irresponsible MORON if you earn enough money to be considered middle class.

people talk about problems in the us like the fact that there are many people who have trouble getting healthcare and the poor quality of our students but they dont look at the real problems.

its easy in all the industrialized european nations. they dont have a very large income disparity. however its a fact that in the us we do. in some areas like colorado springs, colorado the population is predominantly middle class, however there are other areas that have a great deal of the poor. some of these areas are so large that they have developed their own culture which honestly isnt conclusive to the welfare on an infant or a student.

good examples of this are the "white trash" that live in lower scale living across the mid west. the most famous is the trailer park, and they are some of the biggest contributors to springer style drama. in some areas its the sort of culture that you drink and smoke while your pregnant, and its just a fact of life. other areas such as the famous "hood" or "ghetto" are similar in their effects on a wide range of topics including malnutrition, literacy levels, infant mortality rate, unemployment and drug addiction.

your little tiny knat of a nation whatever it may be doesnt even have HALF of the problems that the united states does. the developed eurpean nations save for a major war in the past 50 years has been one of the most stable places in the entire world, socially and otherwise. dont give me this crap that those nations made up predominantly of one group of people that refuses to even give everyone a fair chance in education is better then the us. yes we have our problems but we try our damn best to give everyone the opportunity they need to succeed.

failures in our educational system(something european socialist pigs throw at us a lot) are predominantly because of those income disparity problems(which also fuel racism, something that is new to most european schools where they didnt have any such problem before the arab immigrants started coming) and unlike the majority of those european nations a very low percentage of teenagers go to vocational schools instead of high school. while europe is content to give up on some "bad eggs' we do our best to give everyone a decent education. often our poor test scores are because we are trying to educate even bad students in the academic environment of high school where most european nations dont.

our healtcare system may have its flaws but it contributes more to research and development in medicine then any other system on earth. our only problem now is that people tend to think that they need a plasma screen tv, or need to replace that old rusty car instead of paying for health insurance. and dont tell me it costs too much, just because im in the military doesnt mean i havent looked at what it would cost me once i get out. also it should be noted that statistics like "40 million americans went without health insurance this year" are about people whom at ONE POINT durring the year were uninsured, not necessarily people who are continually uninsured or unable to afford insurance. people who complain it costs too much are more often then not lazy slobs who honestly dont want to work for it, then again who would?

i go on rants against european socialism because they ARE socialist. they started "back in the day" as merchantalist nations, its just natural that the system would develop into its modern incarnation, socialism. a system where the government takes up the vast majority of the 'social responsibility" thinking in the economy, and heavily regulates every action in your lives. a good example is high gas prices in france because the government uses tax to try to enforce people to have fuel efficient vehicles. they are socialist, and its evedent in the fact that they show that they think the government can solve everything.

i go on these rants against socialism because as i said im a "classical capitalist"(meaning i DO NOT want to be bundled with those morons who call themselves republicans) and i see my nation slipping down the same moronic road. i dont mean to insult european culture or anything like that, i insult their fundamental govenrmental system and economics. it destroys the productivity and imagination of the people of this earth. its what is causing modern european nations to stagnate and its why so many american business are leaving my nation to set up shop somewhere else.....
 
Yes, I've been to Germany, and they certainly never had a problem with racism before the Arabs started coming, so very true.

Yes, I've been to Paris, where there certainly aren't riots every summer or so and wine-makers are certainly not turning to domestic terrorism, and Italy, where the government certainly doesn't collapse and re-form almost every year, and I can see that you're right about how super-stable Europe is.

Yes, I live in Regina, where we certainly don't have anywhere near the problems of America, which hasn't been given the dubious distinction of having 'the worst neighbourhood in Canada', the highest rate of Chlamydia in Canada, and always floats near the top of violent crimes lists, which has one of the largest proportions of First Nations people in the country, who lead the rest of Canada's demographics in terms of violence, substance abuse, short lifespans, poor education and illiteracy all the way to suicide rates.

Oh wait! My city actually doesn't have nearly the problems of America. Our murder rate is still about 1/7ths of Baltimore's relative to our respective populations, our students are better at math, science and nearly every other subject than America's youth, our ghetto-ized, oppressed, backwards minority is one that was effectively wiped out of existence in your country, and we're healthier than you guys too.

You think that this, us, your proudly socialist little brother, us EVOL liberals with our freedom for all loving couples to marry, our terrifying balanced budgets (up until last year), our free healthcare for everyone...

Might not have even a little to do with the fact that we don't embrace a disgusting economic system that disenfranchises millions, creates a wealth gap an ocean couldn't fill, leaves vast numbers without basic care or medicine, or re-inforces these ghettos and subcultures you seem to think are the cause, rather than the symptom?

But no, of course not. You can blow hot and cold about how socialism is destroying Europe, then that America and Europe can't be compared because America has so many problems with education and health and the wealth gap.

But of course, I wouldn't know. I'm just a socialist pig, after all. (Socialist pig? What is this, the 1860s?)
 
Profit said:
Yes, I've been to Germany, and they certainly never had a problem with racism before the Arabs started coming, so very true.

Uh..what?

Also the part about high french gas prices made me laugh hard. Go visit germany on a good day and forget about buying anything else, because gas will cost you everything.
 
I really can't understand how he thinks that i am socialist. I like market economy and capitalism. Why do you label me socialist, when all i want is my country's good healthcare, practicly free, and high quality education and good social security system to remain ?
Americans need to read more. Socialism means state ownership of all means of production. Capitalism is private ownership. European countries are not socialist. Maybe influenced by ideals of equality and social welfare, but not socialist.

And PISA has proved that american school system is awful. Americans performed BELOW PISA average. And thats bad.
And not to mention that i can go to university here, and i wont have to pay for the semesters, because it is FREE. All i need to worry about is living and books. And of course there is goverment help for students.

And im not even going to mention why american hospital system horrible. No insurance, and you just might not get quality treatment. That is stupid. Here, in Finland, the state gives you social insurance, at birth. I mean what about the peopel who have to work with minimum wages ? the minimum wages are horrific in the USA. People can barely make a living, and the way the world economy is going, a lot of people will have to work in minimum wage jobs. I bet that the jobless in my country make a lot better living than your jobless. People lose jobs due to many reasons, so please don't try to label people "lazy". I really can't understand americans and their insane love of social darwinism.

And European economy works fine, that cant be said from the American system. We had good situation, untill you yanks had to screw up the banking systems and the entire worlds economy.
 
Also the part about high french gas prices made me laugh hard. Go visit germany on a good day and forget about buying anything else, because gas will cost you everything.

i didnt comment on germany because with germany in particular its pretty hard to tack down a good average price for gas. lol, when researching the subject i found several webpages that dont even bother doing any such thing and try to tack gas prices by region and even then they had disclaimers saying that constant shifts may not make their information accurate.

Yes, I've been to Germany, and they certainly never had a problem with racism before the Arabs started coming, so very true.

if your referring to the racial agenda that lasted even past the second world war then you should know its not something unique to germany. hell russia was throwing all sorts of hissy fits over austrian agression in the balkans because russia thought many of the balkan nations had populations that were racially related to russia. that all caused germany to declare war on the franco russian alliance hoping to fight when they want to and not when that deadly alliance felt ready.

ALL of the powers until rather recently were racist, it was just a fact of life. its just that germany had leadership with both the audacity and the authority to act upon it in the 30's that we blame all of it on them when that simply quite wasnt true. eugenics and racism of the sort could be seen in EVERY nation on earth, even in the us clear up till the 60's. i will admit that many drugs did clear up a lot of issues but there is still a great deal under the surface.

dont test me on history, :P. history is really my best subject.

Yes, I've been to Paris, where there certainly aren't riots every summer or so and wine-makers are certainly not turning to domestic terrorism, and Italy, where the government certainly doesn't collapse and re-form almost every year, and I can see that you're right about how super-stable Europe is.

compared to a nation where the great become worthless and the worthless become great overnight europe IS stable. the united states is a constant shifting pot of social movement, not always positive. europe, well the statistics show that if your born middle class you will stay middle class and your children will stay middle class and nothing will change pretty much ever. solid, stable, boring. ya there are a few riots in france(and who can forget how pathetic the italian government has been even before the 20th century?) but honestly compared to the united states, its stable and dull all across the developed nations in europe(i used developed nations because there are quite a few undeveloped places like the balkans that are absolute hot spots of change and activity).

Oh wait! My city actually doesn't have nearly the problems of America. Our murder rate is still about 1/7ths of Baltimore's relative to our respective populations, our students are better at math, science and nearly every other subject than America's youth, our ghetto-ized, oppressed, backwards minority is one that was effectively wiped out of existence in your country, and we're healthier than you guys too.

the healthier remark reminded me of a fact of the middle ages. a great deal of malnutrition durring the high period wasn't caused by lack of food(it was absolutely warm then and europe bloomed) but rather by how they prepared food. sort of reminds you of modern american habits too huh? even our "health" is hideously bad for you. seriously who in their right mind thinks that food treated so it has "zero" values is healthy? even the idea of completely removing something from your diet(save for sugar) is utterly stupid but people round here do it.

one thing i do NOT recall in canadian history is mass immigrant waves of the poor and the destitute, nor a civil war that suddenly plopped millions of fresh destitute civilians in their lap. canada didnt have to figure out how to incorporate such a wide berth of people and figure out how to bring so many up from the depths of death by poverty.

im not racist and im not saying its symptomatic of black people but rather the wealth group that they are in. a good example of the troubles that millions of destitute people brought to our nation look at washington dc, or any of the other top most violent cities in my nation. they all have something in common. incredibly large tracts of poor people, places like washington and new york were hot spots for freed slaves to set up new lives. many stuck it out down south working practical slavery by having to rent everything in the entire world just to live and farm(often effectively putting them in a trap of poverty that would only grow as time goes on). the ones that made it to places like washington, new york or set up in new orleons were dead poor. these poor communities struck up, started massive influxes of violence and other issues and generally are one of the biggest issues today.

the thing is that canada(or any of the industrialized european nations for that matter) cant say that they did better because they never had the damned opportunity to do better in such a situation. this arab immigration thing is one of the few times in european history that they have experienced large waves of immigration, or people of a distinctly different wealth class then they are.

now canada doesnt use vocational schools to the degree that europe does which is a big plus, but it can be clearly said that they have better grades on average because they dont have titanic high schools full of people shooting each other over drugs, people who still are learning english and people so confused by the social stigma formed by the communities surrounded by poverty that they quite simply dont give a damn.

look at the private schools in the us. on average they do VERY well. however they still in teaching method function exactly the same as the public schools. the difference is that they keep out all the bad eggs because its bad for business. they are a perfect example of how well the american system of education can do if it isnt bogged down by countless external problems. and our system doesnt fail because we fail to try, the us puts more money per student into education then any other nation on earth. the us tries more types of schools then any other nation on earth, however the same problem starts up.

and dont tell me that the government can fix the poverty with silly things like welfare. in every nation that has tried such a system it has failed miserably. the systems that have worked best are exemplified in places such as bangladesh where it can be sink or swim and providing people with the means to excell if they have the courage. a good example is something that started there, micro loans to the poor. a loan of 500 dollars or less to someone may make 60 cents a day so that person can invest it in some sort of business plan. its amazing the sort of business this has created in bangladesh(and its also why bangladash has exploded into development and rising quality of life).

the socialist bleeding heart idealology to use the government to fix the problem, well its never gotten ANY results, it just got addicts sucking on the tits of big government.

And European economy works fine, that cant be said from the American system. We had good situation, untill you yanks had to screw up the banking systems and the entire worlds economy.

yes, the stable unchanging european economy. a system that under the heavy watchful eye of the european govenments really didnt go anywhere or do much of anything until our poisen spread across the sea to infect you too.

the banking issue is something that is just a fact of the natural order. in evolution dont you think a few kinds of animals tried things in evolution that didnt work? we see CLEARLY the things that did work but the fact is that there had to be a lot of mutant babies that honestly were nature's way of trying but failed utterly and miserably. we see that in human beings too, such as rare conditions of people growing long hair across their whole body, someone who for some reason the webbing in their fingers didnt die out before they were born and other anomolies.

if we are to have a free adaptive and creative economy we have to be prepared for when its mutant offspring fail to meet expectations. its utterly STUPID to think that in an economy that is essentially based on darwinism there isnt going to be a mutation, an attempt at the next big thing that just fails completely. you cant have it both ways. you can either remain a putrit ameoba or you can take chances and try to evolve in something better and realize that some ideas just aren't going to peter out. and dont give me this bullshit that those loans could make no sense in any context. maybe they were inspired by the upstart bangladeshi banker's sucess in dealing with the ultra poor?

this is getting kinda long so i wont go on a rant about how darwinism is not dead and it still applies to human beings and the environment we have created.

i think your socialist because you preach ideals that are for more governmental control. the two poles are socialism where the government controls things and regulates the lives of people and there is capitalism that believes that the natural order can provide the most productive economy and the businesses will create what the people need and the government need only set up the most basic platform such as infrastructure, police and so on.

now this in itself could be a rant but lets just say this. the modern basic needs of a person are clothes, food/water, shelter and healthcare. why is it that its deemed acceptable for someone to be expected to work and pay for EVERYTHING but healthcare? you have to work to feed your fat face why is it too much to ask that you work to live with the diabetes that you earned?

the more you go down the roads the more exeptions you make. the more people who get handouts and the less people work. its a circular process and eventually everyone starts living with a sense of entitlement and productivity plumits. its a worthless piece of shit system. even if you arent socialist to the degree of the soviet union it still happens. socialist activites are strangleing businesses like gm, they strangle the effectiveness of our government to do what really matters, and in genral they destroy everything that is for the common good and create an environment and society that is NOT looking at developing or advancing itself. after all, why worry when everything is on the government's tab right?
 
Not a bad rant but the truth of it is you can't use economics to argue against socialism. Any socialist worth his salt won't fall into that trap. Some will still argue but they are the ones without even an inkling of economic theory.

Then keep in mind you are probably arguing with young people who don't make significant money and haven't experienced the joy of paying out half of what they earn.

And finally remember that you are arguing on the internet. And thus pointlessly.
 
Hold on and jump of your shitty arrogant academic high walls of books there.

Vocational schools are bad? If you think vocational schools are for loosers and dropouts then you are totally wrong or you are talking about something simply american. Vocational schools are great.

Sure there is a tendency for certain people to apply for vocational school instead of the liberal arts, but that does not in any way mean they are losers. I have lots of smart friends that decided that they would not persue an academic career. They wanted to be anything from mechanics to chefs. And guess what. They are damned good at it.

Now one is soon a leading ship mechanic, he got a damned nice house, a job, a small but growing fortune and no debt whatsoever. Me? I choose liberal arts and now have a growing student debt, and I will probably end upp in a job where I will make as much as him anyway. I do it this way because I am gunning for the job I want and that I like. He does the same.

Not everyone are bookworms or readers. Vocational schools are great for people that cannot bloody well stand such things as damned boring math, while at the same time it ensures that the people that goes to work at the end of it have very good training in what they are doing.

Think of it like this. We give our students the freedom to be whatever they feel like being. And we are going to teach them how to do it before they even enter a workplace. Ever considered that the high dropout rates in the US may be related to the fact that students does not feel that they will need what they are learning?

Vocational training also does not limit people from moving to higher levels of education. They can still do this through two ways in Norway. One if they have accumulated enough work experience they can jump straight onto university courses or two they can retake the lost classes in several ways.

Vocational training for "bad eggs" my ass. Seriously not everyone wants to be an academic. And guss what that does not make them "bad eggs"
 
Yes, I'm not sure what is exactly wrong with vocational schools. Does a diesel mechanic need to read Hamlet?
 
ceacar99 said:
.

And European economy works fine, that cant be said from the American system. We had good situation, untill you yanks had to screw up the banking systems and the entire worlds economy.

yes, the stable unchanging european economy. a system that under the heavy watchful eye of the european govenments really didnt go anywhere or do much of anything until our poisen spread across the sea to infect you too.

the banking issue is something that is just a fact of the natural order. in evolution dont you think a few kinds of animals tried things in evolution that didnt work? we see CLEARLY the things that did work but the fact is that there had to be a lot of mutant babies that honestly were nature's way of trying but failed utterly and miserably. we see that in human beings too, such as rare conditions of people growing long hair across their whole body, someone who for some reason the webbing in their fingers didnt die out before they were born and other anomolies.

if we are to have a free adaptive and creative economy we have to be prepared for when its mutant offspring fail to meet expectations. its utterly STUPID to think that in an economy that is essentially based on darwinism there isnt going to be a mutation, an attempt at the next big thing that just fails completely. you cant have it both ways. you can either remain a putrit ameoba or you can take chances and try to evolve in something better and realize that some ideas just aren't going to peter out. and dont give me this bullshit that those loans could make no sense in any context. maybe they were inspired by the upstart bangladeshi banker's sucess in dealing with the ultra poor?

this is getting kinda long so i wont go on a rant about how darwinism is not dead and it still applies to human beings and the environment we have created.

i think your socialist because you preach ideals that are for more governmental control. the two poles are socialism where the government controls things and regulates the lives of people and there is capitalism that believes that the natural order can provide the most productive economy and the businesses will create what the people need and the government need only set up the most basic platform such as infrastructure, police and so on.

now this in itself could be a rant but lets just say this. the modern basic needs of a person are clothes, food/water, shelter and healthcare. why is it that its deemed acceptable for someone to be expected to work and pay for EVERYTHING but healthcare? you have to work to feed your fat face why is it too much to ask that you work to live with the diabetes that you earned?

the more you go down the roads the more exeptions you make. the more people who get handouts and the less people work. its a circular process and eventually everyone starts living with a sense of entitlement and productivity plumits. its a worthless piece of shit system. even if you arent socialist to the degree of the soviet union it still happens. socialist activites are strangleing businesses like gm, they strangle the effectiveness of our government to do what really matters, and in genral they destroy everything that is for the common good and create an environment and society that is NOT looking at developing or advancing itself. after all, why worry when everything is on the government's tab right?

Okay, european economy WAS GROWING. Slowly, perhaps, but growing. You might like fast growth, but i prefer slow STEADY growth.
And so, just because you say so, we should let our economy go unstable, and let companies do what they want, and when they go down just say: "its evolution!" It can't work like that. There is a difference between normal economic fluxyations, and outright crisis. We should avoid crisises, but not normal ups and downs.

Giving loans to people whos ability to pay back is uncertain is idiotic, as most loans are given long term, so what do you do if someone was given a loan without proper insurances that the person can pay it back ? As inside a 10 ,even 20 year timeframe, it is only natural that the economy will slow down, to almost zero growth for example, and go back growing soon again. If you have given large amount of unsafe loans, and suprise , suprise the economy slows down, and then what ? People cant pay loans back and this happens. Goverments need to get a grip of reality. Legistlation needs to PARTLY limit what corporations and banks can do. Is that socialism in your black and white world ? Socialist wants insane amounts of goverment control. I want some control, only the necessary amount. Or do you want that we go back to the ages of insdustrial revolution ? Let corporations do what ever they want, no matter the consequences.
You are a social darwinist, aren't you ? I cant even start ranting about that. Social darwinism isn't going to work in reality, not when applied as much as you want it to be applied. And we pay for our healthcare, thats why we have taxes. We get great public education, good healthcare and social security from birth. So is that so wrong ? We pay for it, but of course, some people get it, even if in other countries they could't afford it. Equality in reality.

And why do you think that people will stop working ? It is not like we give free money to people. It comes from the taxes. There are requirements for the money too. You need to be either jobless, a single mother, have a child or be uncapable of working etc. And the amount of money you get depends on several factors. We aren't having great problems here. People work. Sun sets. Economy grows(normallyy, when the economy is not in crisis). You are trying to make a welfare state looks like hell on earth, the next seed for soviet union. When it is, in my opinion, much more HUMANE system.
We can't force you to change to this. We aren't going to destroy your way of life.
And again, this is teh interwebz. No real point arguing about this, im just arguing because i like arguing.
@ herr mike
And why do you think that i don't know how the welfare state taxes ? I am well aware of its small bad sides, but they are greatly overwhelmed by the large good sides.
-------------------------------------------
In the end, it is the matter of what you value. Money, or other Humans.
 
Loyalists fleeing the American Revolution. The Underground Railroad. The Irish exodus. The Somalian exodus. East Asian waves.

There. That's 5 "mass immigrant waves of the poor and the destitute". And your precious Civil War? How about 1776? How about 1812, when we were fighting for our very survival against your invasions? How about Newfoundland losing 1/4 of its men in World War I?

And your attempted lecturing me about how all of Europe was racist is particularly racist, considering how a few posts ago you said,
...racism, something that is new to most european schools where they didnt have any such problem before the arab immigrants started coming

So which is it? Is Racism new to Europe or not?

And the way you smoothly say 'Oh Socialism has never worked for economies' is even funnier! Why, I look around me, and I'm living in a Socialist Welfare state. Guess what? Our banks are doing better than your thanks to Chretien's regulations, our people have a higher standard of living, we live longer and more happily than Americans.

Truly, Socialism has failed us and left us wailing and gnashing our teeth.

To continue: "Oh, European nations haven't had any problems with stability other than that World War". What the fuck? 9% of Germany's entire population was destroyed by the war. Britain finished re-paying its lend-lease debt this year.

As far as 'Oh there's no social mobility in Socialism'? Canada's Head of State is a black Haitian woman. Our last one was a Chinese woman. The man voted 'Greatest Canadian' and the founder of our Medicare system was a Scottish-born minister.

So take your idiotic 'America is where you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' bullshit and use it to plug the vast gaps in your healthcare system that has let millions suffer and die. Oh wait! You can't!
 
Anyone arguing free market for the healthcare system and claiming it works better doesn't understand how free markets work.

In order for a free market to function, there must be choice on the part of the consumer. Any aspect of the market, whether legal or inherent, which removes choice will damage the market. The less choice, the less people with choice, the less efficient that market will be. Eventually it reaches a breaking point where prices spiral completely out of control.

This has happened with healthcare. Why? Because there's virtually no choice in the system. I explained it before. The following problems remove choice:

1) Hospitals must treat a person BEFORE determining whether or not a person is capable of paying in the event of an emergency. This is absolutely necessary in order for healthcare to work at all because in many emergencies, the time taken to determine whether someone can pay will likely result in their death or at least severe worsening of their condition. Thus, hospitals do not have the choice to treat or not treat emergencies.

2) Incapacitated people brought to the hospital do not have a choice of whether or not they want to receive treatment. They are treated whether they want to be or not. Thus, incapacitated people have no choice.

3) Many people are under-insured and don't know it. Actually nearly the entire country is due to insurance companies being permitted to "deny by default" as well as the very very loose qualifications needed to deems something a "previously existing condition" and thus ineligible for coverage. The end result is someone choosing to receive treatment under the understandable belief they can afford it (by means of insurance coverage), only to have their claim rejected and be unable to pay the hospital. This isn't so much an issue of choice as an issue of inaccurate price information for the product/service being offered. Not just any inaccuracy, though, but an inaccuracy that in many cases goes from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars. This is akin to going to buy a car with the advertised price of $500, paying the $500, signing the contract that says it is $500, only for the contract to then get mailed to you with a new bill saying you owe $30,000 and may not return the vehicle. Thus it is a form of removal of choice since you are unable to chose whether or not to purchase a service based on actual price (since the pricing information given to you is false). Interestingly enough, in every single other market, such a practice is considered fraud and is grossly illegal.


These 3 factors combined result in a market that simply does not in any way shape or form respond to traditional supply and demand principles.


Every single other modern nation in the world realized this a long time ago and nationalized their healthcare as a result. The USA is the ONLY nation that hasn't. The only one, and as expected US residents pay orders of magnitude more for less service.
 
Back
Top