|
What are your political ideologies? |
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
It's my belief that we shouldn't treat the sick even if they have money. We need to let natural selection do its work. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Matthew Leverton said: It's my belief that we shouldn't treat the sick even if they have money. We need to let natural selection do its work. You're not even trying any more are you? -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Matthew Leverton said: We need to let natural selection do its work.
It might help avoid this. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Speedo
Member #9,783
May 2008
|
Matthew Leverton said: Free market competition will give you the lowest costs. For many areas this is utter nonsense. There are more than a few things in the US in which the glorious free market has utterly failed us. Healthcare is one of them - we pay more than any other country for a lower quality of care. Infrastructure is another area of failure, particularly the power grid, wireless communications and viable rail transports. We've acknowledged in some areas that's we're better off having a central authority to regulate and coordinate systems, the interstates being a prime example, and it's time that we acknowledge that the free market isn't always the magical solution to every single problem that the right presents it as. |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Speedo said: the glorious free market has utterly failed us. Healthcare is one of them The USA heath care system hasn't been in the free market for 50+ years. That's why it's so expensive. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
There is a free market health care system in the US though. Why is that also so expensive? -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
It is cheaper, though, right? If the government supported system props prices up, why shouldn't they be fractionally lower? The first IBM PC's were ~$5000, and the first clones were maybe half that, not $400 as they are now, even if you adjust for They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
I have no idea if its cheaper, and I'd doubt it very much if the private hospitals were any cheaper than the govt hospitals. I'd assume they'd be much more expensive (because they can). -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Quote: because they can Why? Because they're assumed to have a competent staff? They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
|
Speedo said: For many areas this is utter nonsense. There are more than a few things in the US in which the glorious free market has utterly failed us. Healthcare is one of them US Governments on all levels fund ~45% of health-care costs in the US (total medical spending was $2.4 trillion in 2007; Medicare and Medicaid by themselves amounted to ~$800 billion, ignoring unfunded liabilities). Healthcare is also the second most regulated industry in the US, after financials. Quote: We've acknowledged in some areas that's we're better off having a central authority to regulate and coordinate systems Not really, no. See the Economic Calculation Problem. The only way to make centralization work is to have a dictator that is both omnicient and benevolent. With economies getting more complicated over time (not less!), the problem becomes ever more intractable. -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Bob said: Healthcare is also the second most regulated industry in the US, after financials. HAH! If only that were true. The reason why you're in such a mess is because the regulation on the financial industry was being systematically removed, and new forms of financial trickery were being ignored. Quote: Not really, no. Please do explain how well it'll work decentralized. -- |
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Tobias Dammers said: You can't have 1 and 2 at the same time. You can. An employer should not care or have anything to do with the social security of the employees. The state, i.e. the people themselves should decide if they want social security and up to what level they want social security. This simplifies the logistics of both the employer and the state. The employer has a simple account (X profits, Y salaries), and the state, i.e. the people design a social security system. |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
axilmar said: An employer should not care or have anything to do with the social security of the employees But the government doesn't look like such a bad guy if they make your employer match the social security payments. It effectively masks the true wage, i.e. if minimum wage is $6.50, the employer HAS to pay $6.50 + half the social security tax (~$1.00?) = $7.50. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
|
Quote: Not really, no. Hypothetically, I create a giant online poll which everyone fills out and sends to the central computer, which analyzes it. Clearly, this sort of stuff works already, see amazon, newegg, ebay etc. Online shopping's success is the refutation of that claim: all you have to do is make all shopping be online shopping, and then add a calculator to compute the prices. You don't have to make a very sophisticated calculator either: you could design the poll to reveal the true market price, and then just charge that price. Think that requires benevolency? Well, fine, make it a perfectly price discriminating monopoly then, the epitomy of selfishness. It by definition allocates the efficient amount of goods, while acting completely for its own benefit. The reason why command economies failed in the past is because they had no internet. Now, with internet, this sort of thing is perfectly possible to put in practice, and be as efficient, or more efficient than free market systems (and don't give me the lies that free market is perfectly efficient either, it is a local optimization algorithm, it does not find the global minimum all the time). "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18 |
Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
|
SiegeLord said: The reason why command economies failed in the past is because they had no internet. Hmm... Cuba has internet... yet its economic success is somewhat limited, considering the average living standard... I think the real reason why command economies failed is that someone has to control the resources, and whoever does has too much power to keep the system balanced. This kind of imbalance is destined to be abused, and when that happens, the whole thing goes down. --- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Tobias Dammers said: Cuba has internet... Just barely. From what I've heard its pretty well locked down. Your average person doesn't have regular access to it. -- |
alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: Just barely. From what I've heard its pretty well locked down. Your average person doesn't have regular access to it. That's not what SL was talking about. AFACT, he was talking about the existence of the Internet as a communications infrastructure available to the government, not to citizens. -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
alethiophile said: That's not what SL was talking about. AFACT, he was talking about the existence of the Internet as a communications infrastructure available to the government, not to citizens. Doesn't look that way to me. It would seem to require most/all citizens to have access and use it to take part in his poll. -- |
Timorg
Member #2,028
March 2002
|
Would they have a poll to decide what poll will be polled next? By manipulating what is polled, the population could be led in directions they don't want to go. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ |
SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: It would seem to require most/all citizens to have access and use it to take part in his poll. Yeah, that. Just do a thought experiment, how can you really know that Amazon/Newegg/etc are not some sort of giant computer that only pretends to be multiple companies to simulate a free market (perhaps for efficiency reasons). For all you know, you are already living in a command economy. I know some people buy most everything online, even including groceries. In retrospect I do see that that does require a measure of benevolency... so, yeah... 'tis flawed as long as you have a human up top. If you just had a computer, then you in principle should be good to go (as long as you somehow make it hard to tweak or destroy). Incidentally, here's an interesting article I saw recently: CyberSyn. "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18 |
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: But the government doesn't look like such a bad guy if they make your employer match the social security payments. It effectively masks the true wage, i.e. if minimum wage is $6.50, the employer HAS to pay $6.50 + half the social security tax (~$1.00?) = $7.50. That's if the employer is honest enough to pay the government the social security tax. In this crisis with the heavy unemployment, employers take advantage of the situation and don't pay social security taxes. I would be better if the employer was paid $7.50 and then he paid $1.00 to the social security (as well as all other taxes - direct taxation is great and minimizes beaurocracy). |
amber
Member #6,783
January 2006
|
SiegeLord said: If you just had a computer, then you in principle should be good to go Trust The Computer. The Computer is Your Friend. |
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
...continuing from the other thread that was wrongly locked... Quote: Furthermore, I can think of a decent justification for saying that the poor steal from the rich all the time. Not one that I really agree with, but a justification nonetheless. : Taxes. People who earn more money pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes. I'm not just saying they pay more money, but that they pay a greater proportion of their money. There are more poor people than rich people, so poor people have more voting power, and poor people vote to make sure that rich people always pay higher taxes - the money from which will go to the poor. The above makes the assumption that the profit of rich people is honest. But that is not true. There has never been a rich man that did not cheat in order to make his vast fortune. It also makes the assumption that poor people can vote poor people and so the taxes are designed by poor people. That's just wrong. Only wealthy people can get elected. The rich control who gets elected by their large donations to both political parties (in the US and elsewhere). Quote: Hmmmm, if you're allowed to make narrow-minded immature statements like "Diplomacy, machinations, politics and betrayal have no place in sci-fi," then why isn't Dustin allowed the same licence? But what I said is not immature at all. If you want, I can analyze it to you. Think about this for a minute: what are the lowest level of emotions we have? and then think why they should be in sci-fi? |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
axilmar said: There has never been a rich man that did not cheat in order to make his vast fortune Care to provide a comprehensive list? They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: Care to provide a comprehensive list? John D Rockfeller, Onasis, Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Abramovich, Berlusconi....the list is endless. Here is a first list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_wealthiest_people |
|
|