The subject of capitalism was taking over & it was suggested we start a new thread. Being the nature of the subject I decided to start it here. Besides this section of the Pool could stand a little shaking up ********************************************************************** 09-26-05, 09:29 AM Rakuchild Is this a safe place for a "danger to the country and the free world" to post? LOL Be careful LR, there are some that may accuse you of giving safe harbor to a threat. Big Grin
Anyway, you've titled the subject "the pro's & con's of capitalism" so I'm trying to think of pro's...one I can think of is it is supportive of innovation. People who come up with new products and services need to market them. These new items are primarily extras in life- things we don't need. They are things we want because we think they will make our lives easier, better or more fabulous. We all like our toys.
But when it comes to the basics we need to live-food, protection from the elements (a heated home in some parts of the country), clothing, medical care and education, those necessities aren't always best served by capitalism. We've corporatized our means of food production and it's not benefitted the quality of food available. Many of us working folks are debating how chilly we can keep our homes this winter.(My friend actually said to me yesterday that she wasn't sure she was even going to heat her home this winter because she knows she can't afford the gas bill.)
Millions are without health care. The section 8 program that provides housing to low income families is still thriving. Though public school get slammed a lot, we can't seem to come up with another way to teach our kids the basics. Public libraries (very socialist concept there Smile ) have proven to be the most beneficial means of educating people and nowdays, giving them access to the internet.(People don't sit in there and websurf, many of them are preparing resumes and applying for work or learning computer skills.)
Captialism keeps us hostage for basic needs like food, fuel and medical care. Labor is viewed as expendable and cheap. It's all about profits over people and environment. If people don't have to worry about being able to afford how they're going to feed, house and care for themselves and their families, that's a step toward them being able to develop into more productive and caring people.
There will never be a "classless" society. Factors from birth on will always determine a pecking order. But to social the life sustaining basics, which would give us a mixed economy, wouldn't be a bad idea.
09-26-05, 12:02 PM DorianGreyed Taking just one aspect of this subject, I would like to know if anyone in the UK, a country with socialized medicine, has to decide on a monthly basis which they are going to pay for, medicine necessary to stay alive, heat, rent or house payment, or food.
Cons- inequality, lack of a safety net, the risk of too much power falling into the hands of the wealthy.
I think capitalism in moderation is great, but I think every country should socialize the basics. It's one thing to have inequality in the kind of car we drive and the risk of losing it one day; it's another to have inequality in basic education or health care and the risk of losing them.
09-27-05, 07:53 AM frankvan Capitalism inevitably results in unequal wealth distribution. In actual practice it appears that as the ranks of the wealthy grow the ranks of the poor also increase. At least that seems to be what is happening in the United States. It also appears that wherever there are great disparities of wealth in an area crime increases dramatically.
Another negative result of unrestrained capitalism is that the wealthy have little need to spend all of their wealth, so that they keep a great deal of the total wealth of the country invested and growing more family fortunes. As a result they can send their children to better schools getting better educations, and creating an ever-increasing gap between classes. The poor have more need to spend all of their income on the necessities, therefore can save little and accumulate little or no capital growth.
In a capitalist society the wealthy have disproportionate power to influence legislation which inevitably favors themselves, often at the expense of the less affluent. This also, all too often, results in the corruption of government officials, and increase of white-collar crime.
Although the wealthy provide the means of developing the natural resources of a nation, they often contribute mightily to its pollution and degradation. I think it could be argued that the streams and forests and minerals of the country ought to belong to all of its citizens, not the wealthy who gain access to strip mine and deforest or drill at the expense of an environment that we all share.
Even though we may concede that capitalism is the most successful among the economic systems, we must recognize that it is not without negative aspects or that there is no room for improvements. The smug American attitude which assumes that we excel at everything overlooks areas in which we might benefit by studying how someone else does things. The complexity and chaos of a health care system which leaves 45 million citizens to the mercy of emergency room treatment for minor ailments, which costs the taxpayers a higher pecentage of gross national income than any other nation, might well benefit by adapting some of the methods of those countries which cover all of their citizens with lower costs and better results.
Socialist and communist countries have often outstripped us in such areas as education and health care, and it makes sense that we ought to imitate whatever aspect of their successes would prove advantageous to ourselves. We first need to acknowledge that there is room for improvement in our still imperfect society.
09-27-05, 10:15 AM DorianGreyed An excellent essay, Frank. The last sentence seems to be something that the rabid Right doesn't understand.
09-27-05, 12:53 PM Rakuchild Of all the things that don't seem correct to leave to the marketplace, access to medical care/medicines seems to be at the top of the list. I heard a caller tell Ed Schultz on his radio show yesterday that she's given up on the "American dream of a white picket fence" and would just like health insurance.
There is something wrong with the dream of home ownership being replaced by the dream of being able to obtain medical care when needed.
09-27-05, 02:05 PM Lighteningrodd Quite a nice assortment of opinions here. For a while I was wondering if this thread was going to be a dud.
In any type of system, Capitalism, Communism or whatever, there will always emerge the haves & the have nots. A.K.A. the upper class & lower class, the rich & poor. This will always seem to prevail reguardless of what type of system a respective people live under. And human nature being what it is the lower class resents the upper class because they wish they had what the rich people have. Yet I feel in many ways the upper class gets a bad rap. After all their investments drive the economy which in turn creates jobs for the working stiffs. Then too the rich really come through is in community involvement & giving to charities. Many rich people are very generous yet quiet in their giving.
Capitalism in a free society I feel probably does more than any other system offers more opportunity for someone in the lower class to elevate their economic situation. The U.S. is probably the best example of any country in history for this. How many times have we heard a story about immigrants comes to this country with nothing and does quite well for themselves.
Health care has brought up in the discussions. This could lend itself to a whole different topic but I will list a few thoughts. We hear about how over the years how health care costs have sky rocketed. Now why is this??? A few things come to mind.
(1) Look at what health care workers get paid. Many positions in the health care industry are high paying jobs. And it is not just the doctors who pull in the big bucks.
(2) Then there is research & development costs. New treatments & procedures, new medicines. It takes a lot of money & a lot of time to develop. Then there is no guarantee an R&D project will pan out. It takes money to develop new medical technology. In a capitalistic society it can better afford these costs.
(3) Government involvement in health care. When the government is paying for health care, the prices go up. The business side of the medical community knows how the government operates, they learn what is paid for. They learn how to take advantage of the government programs.
(4) If we want good health care when we are sick, lets face it, someone has to pay for it. None of this stuff comes free.
The subject of education has been brought up. While it is not my intention to degrade the value of an education, I often wonder if our concerns are overblown. An education does not guarantee prosperity. Many uneducated people have done well in business. I tend to think the nature of Capitalism lends itself quite well to people, educated or not. But we need to remember with any business. If it is not performing for its client or customer base, its not going to last.
Is capitalism perfect??? No, of course not. It is prone to scandal & fraud. But it also has a tendency to police itself too. The stock market is a perfect example. When corporate executives are caught going something underhanded, what happens??? The market punishes the company involved by making the stock price go down. Not to mention the legal consequences for the individuals involved.
09-27-05, 07:25 PM Rakuchild As far as capitalism being a system that offers opportunity for someone to improve his/her economic situation, I believe those days are pretty much over. If you don't have the money to make the money, you can't get a business going. Small businesses are crushed. Watch the turnover in the local strip mall where storefronts change as often as the seasons.
A person whose skill set is limited to say, manufacturing, is not going to be able to rise economically. Neither are people with office skills. If those jobs are available, the value on the labor is low. For example, I was an outsourced worker in a large legal firm whose practice was to hire temps in to cover their secretarial needs. Each person was told they were in a temp to hire situation and after 13 weeks they would be told if they had a permanent position. And every 13 weeks, there would be new faces to replace the others. New faces that would not be eligible for benefits for 13 weeks...if they were hired. I was there for a couple of years...no one was ever hired from the temp service.
When laborors are considered that expendable, there is very little chance that hard work and clean living will enable a person to rise to a higher economic level these days.
09-28-05, 08:27 AM aminator2002 Opportunity is the biggest advantage.
Capitalism tends to be pervasive. The capitalistic attitude gets into areas where it doesn't belong and people start to lack common sense and compassion. For instance, in a free market there have been many pockets of great poverty created in our real estate markets. In the 60's it was "white flight" due to fear that blacks moving in would destroy property values, which is self-fulfilling prophecy if everyone runs. Now it is rising property values that force less fortunate current residents out of their homes and into less desirable neighborhoods. This can be seen in any major city. These ghettos are created because people don't want to have their districts especially schools effected by disadvantaged people. The system of property taxes contributes greatly to this and it makes little sense for the common good to have a system like this. It makes much more sense to have evenly distributed areas of wealth so that no area becomes a haven for crime, welfare and lack of education... consider how little public school funding there is in areas where property taxes are almost nothing compared to wealthy districts. It's a system that perpetuates itself and is contrary to the great advantage of capitalism - opportunity.
09-28-05, 08:48 AM frankvan "It isn't so much a question of whether or not some poorer people have become successful under capitalism in this country, obviously the hope of duplicating those results is the reason most of the poor tolerate the system despite the odds against doing so. I would also remind that there have been vast fortunes made by initially poor individuals under communism, fascism, and every other ism imaginable. Not to ignore the fact that many have been able to do so by virtue of exploiting others, fraud, and other criminal activity".
You, LR, say: "(2) Then there is research & development costs. New treatments & procedures, new medicines. It takes a lot of money & a lot of time to develop. Then there is no guarantee an R&D project will pan out. It takes money to develop new medical technology. In a capitalistic society it can better afford these costs."
A communist or socialist society can also afford those costs, and probably a more focused effort. Isn't it a fact that, for instance, cholesterol lowering medications such as Lescol, Pravachol, Zocor, Vytorin, Crestor, and Lipitor etc. are virtual duplicates developed at very little actual cost in order to increase profits ? As soon as a drug has begun to run out its patent protection and becomes available as a generic, the drug company makes some minor change to the formula and obtains a renewed monopoly, consequently at higher price. I get my medications through the Veteran's Administration and they hold down the cost by NOT stocking all of these practically identical drugs in their formulary, and not in all sizes. Instead of stocking 10, 20, 40, 80 milligram sizes, they stock 20 and 80, if the doctor prescribes 10 you get half as many 20's and cut them in half, etc. The V.A also gets better prices from the manufacturer through the economy of scale. Couldn't a government single buyer do a better job of obtaining the best prices than the individual at the mercy of the "free market" ? Isn't that a big advantage for a single payer system. whether capitalist or other ?
You, LR, say: "The subject of education has been brought up. While it is not my intention to degrade the value of an education, I often wonder if our concerns are overblown. An education does not guarantee prosperity. Many uneducated people have done well in business. I tend to think the nature of Capitalism lends itself quite well to people, educated or not. But we need to remember with any business. If it is not performing for its client or customer base, its not going to last",
I mentioned the better educational opportunities of the wealthy in connection with the fact that there is an undeniable difference in the earning capacity of the college graduate over the high school graduate. While a degree doesn't guarantee the acquisition of wealth, it does provide an undeniable competitive advantage. In several of the more socialistic economies education is universally available. All that is required is the ability to profit from higher education. The Netherlands is a case in point, where medical care and education are available to everyone under a blend of capitalism and social programs which probably rate altruism above unrestrained capitalism.
09-28-05, 06:44 PM FredPuli Mystifying is the idea that free healthcare is some negation of capitalism.If you relied on capitalism , free enterprise, to provide 100% healthcare you'd end up with a lot of sick people with no treatment, I'd have thought. I assume that the USA does not suffer that, simply because it is such a rich capitalist country. Not sure why, therefore,it has free medical care for the elderly, which care is not apparently means-tested but open to all. Just why is that deemed necessary?. 09-28-05, 09:25 PM aminator2002 My theory on that Fred is that everyone has relatives and elderly friends of the family that have used up their money and nobody could possibly endure seeing old people dying in the streets from lack of healthcare. People in this country don't necessarily need to see the millions that are not getting healthcare because the poor are relegated to neighborhoods in large cities and most people can avoid these areas for their entire lives. They don't need to see children with horrible scars from burns that can't afford to have them treated, babies that die of the flu, people without orthopaedic devices to aid them, kids that can't breathe because they can't get treatment for the asthma... most people don't have to see this so they can act like it isn't a problem.
But you get one senior citizen who can't get a prescription filled and every politician in the world will jump on it like the other party is deliberately killing our loved ones. If the Democrats, who generally support some sort of socialized medicine, get one poor person then they are exploiting black people or using poor people or trying to ruin doctors lives. It's a disgrace and it's hilarious that people here still hold on to the idea that because people from other countries come here for some of our medical facilities that our healthcare system is empirically better. It's like people saying "America is the best - why else would so many people be trying to get here?" Not sure we've had many Swiss immigrants or Swedish immigrants in a very long time Wink
Our healthcare may have some of the best facilities and doctors in the world but explain how Americans are in nearly the worst health of a developed country? Obesity, heart disease, cancer... I think we are up there in all categories. The idea of insurance in our country is really bizarre to me... isn't the idea of insurance to let the many disperse the cost of medical treatment across the masses? Not here, it is clearly for the actuaries and the insurance companies to make profit by excluding people from their coverage thereby increasing their profit margins. Some people just can not get coverage... and that's just their problem and they likely live in an area that means that nobody will ever know because this is America and they must have done something wrong to end up there.
09-28-05, 09:46 PM aminator2002
quote: (3) Government involvement in health care. When the government is paying for health care, the prices go up. The business side of the medical community knows how the government operates, they learn what is paid for. They learn how to take advantage of the government programs.
What we have right now is even worse. We have insurance companies telling doctors how to treat patients. We have doctors who have to establish entire departments for their offices to handle the paperwork associated with insurance claims. My doctor for instance has 4 doctors in a general practice with him. He has been established for 10 years and I've been with him over that entire time. When I first started it was him, a nurse, a lab tech, 4 doctors and a receptionist. Now there are 4 administrative assistants at least and then a couple more people doing paperwork and billing. There is still the same number of staff doctors and technicians but the office had to be remodelled twice over the years to make the admin portion of the office nearly the size of the area for medical treatment.
These HMO's, EMO's, PPO's, PPO -Platinums, etc... are worse than anything. I had an HMO for a year once and went in with strep throat. The doctor came in and said "I think you have strep let me get a culture" Keep in mind this is the clinic that I had to go to. Then they came back in and said "Sorry we are out of cultures so we're just going to assume strep and give you antibiotics"... it's not good healthcare to prescribe antibiotics without knowing they are needed because your facility can't keep cultures stocked. It's sad and if we had any kind of government control then perhaps as a group we could do something about it. But explain what kind of control we have over this situation with the insurance companies lobbying their cause with millions of our dollars behind them. We have no real leverage as a group because the republicans are going to always stand on the insurance companies' side who will never give the people any say in their policies. Everything becomes uncontrollable "policy" and "common practice" so that all insurance companies can act as one whenever they decide on some other group of people that are heightened risks for standard rates. It's not really a free market because all we can do is choose to go with a different unsatisfactory product... unless we can afford the Platinum program that is. The companies all keep their top level customers (the healthy and wealthy ones) happy... that's even better than lobbying Congress.
09-29-05, 01:37 PM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: "It isn't so much a question of whether or not some poorer people have become successful under capitalism in this country, obviously the hope of duplicating those results is the reason most of the poor tolerate the system despite the odds against doing so. I would also remind that there have been vast fortunes made by initially poor individuals under communism, fascism, and every other ism imaginable. Not to ignore the fact that many have been able to do so by virtue of exploiting others, fraud, and other criminal activity".
You, LR, say: "(2) Then there is research & development costs. New treatments & procedures, new medicines. It takes a lot of money & a lot of time to develop. Then there is no guarantee an R&D project will pan out. It takes money to develop new medical technology. In a capitalistic society it can better afford these costs."
A communist or socialist society can also afford those costs, and probably a more focused effort. Isn't it a fact that, for instance, cholesterol lowering medications such as Lescol, Pravachol, Zocor, Vytorin, Crestor, and Lipitor etc. are virtual duplicates developed at very little actual cost in order to increase profits ? As soon as a drug has begun to run out its patent protection and becomes available as a generic, the drug company makes some minor change to the formula and obtains a renewed monopoly, consequently at higher price. I get my medications through the Veteran's Administration and they hold down the cost by NOT stocking all of these practically identical drugs in their formulary, and not in all sizes. Instead of stocking 10, 20, 40, 80 milligram sizes, they stock 20 and 80, if the doctor prescribes 10 you get half as many 20's and cut them in half, etc. The V.A also gets better prices from the manufacturer through the economy of scale. Couldn't a government single buyer do a better job of obtaining the best prices than the individual at the mercy of the "free market" ? Isn't that a big advantage for a single payer system. whether capitalist or other ?
You, LR, say: "The subject of education has been brought up. While it is not my intention to degrade the value of an education, I often wonder if our concerns are overblown. An education does not guarantee prosperity. Many uneducated people have done well in business. I tend to think the nature of Capitalism lends itself quite well to people, educated or not. But we need to remember with any business. If it is not performing for its client or customer base, its not going to last",
I mentioned the better educational opportunities of the wealthy in connection with the fact that there is an undeniable difference in the earning capacity of the college graduate over the high school graduate. While a degree doesn't guarantee the acquisition of wealth, it does provide an undeniable competitive advantage. In several of the more socialistic economies education is universally available. All that is required is the ability to profit from higher education. The Netherlands is a case in point, where medical care and education are available to everyone under a blend of capitalism and social programs which probably rate altruism above unrestrained capitalism.
In your beginning statement you point out how there have been individuals in Communist & Facist societies who have been able to rise up and become wealthy. I would venture to say the truth be known, in their rise, the concepts of Capitalism still apply. And even in today's Communist societies, they are constantly evolving towards Capitalism. And why is that??? Because that's where the money is!!!
You discus about obtaining your medicine from the VA. And I might add, a benefit you earned due to your military service. Of course not everybody has this going for them. And for those that don't I certainly hope we had a choice in the matter rather than having to rely on the Government. The biggest problem with any government program is efficiency or should I say a lack of it. While your set up with the VA works great for you, this doesn't guarantee that a different program for me or someone else through another government agency is going to work as well for me. At the very least I want some options to explore. In due time the best of the best will arise in the marketplace.
Your discussion about being an educated person in the corporate world. I will have to agree that an education is essential. However for the budding entrepeneur, I feel Capitalism offers opportunities even for those who simply have a high school education. Several years ago I do recall hearing of some college drop outs who started their own companies...
As I recall one guy was trying to start up some kind of a software business. The other started up a fruit company Big Grin
09-29-05, 01:53 PM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002:
quote: (3) Government involvement in health care. When the government is paying for health care, the prices go up. The business side of the medical community knows how the government operates, they learn what is paid for. They learn how to take advantage of the government programs.
What we have right now is even worse. We have insurance companies telling doctors how to treat patients. We have doctors who have to establish entire departments for their offices to handle the paperwork associated with insurance claims. My doctor for instance has 4 doctors in a general practice with him. He has been established for 10 years and I've been with him over that entire time. When I first started it was him, a nurse, a lab tech, 4 doctors and a receptionist. Now there are 4 administrative assistants at least and then a couple more people doing paperwork and billing. There is still the same number of staff doctors and technicians but the office had to be remodelled twice over the years to make the admin portion of the office nearly the size of the area for medical treatment.
These HMO's, EMO's, PPO's, PPO -Platinums, etc... are worse than anything. I had an HMO for a year once and went in with strep throat. The doctor came in and said "I think you have strep let me get a culture" Keep in mind this is the clinic that I had to go to. Then they came back in and said "Sorry we are out of cultures so we're just going to assume strep and give you antibiotics"... it's not good healthcare to prescribe antibiotics without knowing they are needed because your facility can't keep cultures stocked. It's sad and if we had any kind of government control then perhaps as a group we could do something about it. But explain what kind of control we have over this situation with the insurance companies lobbying their cause with millions of our dollars behind them. We have no real leverage as a group because the republicans are going to always stand on the insurance companies' side who will never give the people any say in their policies. Everything becomes uncontrollable "policy" and "common practice" so that all insurance companies can act as one whenever they decide on some other group of people that are heightened risks for standard rates. It's not really a free market because all we can do is choose to go with a different unsatisfactory product... unless we can afford the Platinum program that is. The companies all keep their top level customers (the healthy and wealthy ones) happy... that's even better than lobbying Congress.
What comes to mind when I read this is this scenario...how many times have we heard of someone going in to see a doctor. He finds out the patient has good insurance or on medicaid or medicare. Goes through a giant barrage of tests knowing good & well they are unnecessary but yet they can make a killing by what they charge for these tests.
The modern day insurance companies & HMO's are wise to this. Granted we have insurance to cover our health care costs but striving for efficiency is not such a bad thing either.
I can think back to when my Dad was still living. One day we took him to see a doctor at the clinic, he was using, that specialized in heart problems. They were recommending implanting a defribalator (having a hard time spelling that one Eek) He decided not to do iteven though it would have been totally covered by medicare. On later visits for check ups to the clinic, the doctor would make a big push that he have it done.
This was during the last year of his life. During that time there was not a time when it would have been advantageous to have it. Would have been a total waste. But since medicare would have covered it, the clinic was pushing it.
09-29-05, 06:37 PM frankvan LR: "At the very least I want some options to explore. In due time the best of the best will arise in the marketplace." I realize that is what the proponents of unrestrained capitalism believe, and that may well include yourself. I submit that may be true under ideal conditions but, as even the late Pope John Paul warned, abuses can and often do result. Monopolies, mergers, collusion and similar tactics all too often result in complete or partial elimination of competition. When there is only one giant producer of a commodity, having bought out or cannibalized all competitors, where does the expected benefits competition come in ? Where have all of the neighborhood merchants gone? Is the end result that there is only one giant retailer in the town, a WalMart that has drowned out all the smaller competitors. And are you so sure that the result of this unfettered capitalism is the survival of the BEST as opposed to the fittest or the greediest or the most unscrupulous?
LR:"In your beginning statement you point out how there have been individuals in Communist & Facist societies who have been able to rise up and become wealthy." I said that in response to your assertion that one of the benefits of capitalism is that it enables relatively poor individuals to acquire great wealth. Now, when I point out that communists, socialists etc. have been able to do the same, you claim they are practicing capitalism, or evolving toward capitalism. You can't have it both ways, LR!
LR: "Many uneducated people have done well in business. I tend to think the nature of Capitalism lends itself quite well to people, educated or not. But we need to remember with any business. If it is not performing for its client or customer base, its not going to last", I have pointed out that there any number of developed as well as third world countries who have outstripped us in the field of education. China, and India are turning out engineers and mathematicians at twice the rate the U.S is. As a result there is a steady stream of software and engineering design work that is being exported to India, and China. It is no longer only cheaper manual labor jobs that are being exported, but we are also losing many high technology and service jobs overseas.
If we don't like the way the government is handling a program, we have recourse at the ballot box. If some giant corporation is operating in an unsatisfactory manner and they happen to be the only game in town, what can we do about it? That shouldn't be the Hobson's choice we have in matters of health, in my humble opinion. I still haven't seen any argument against the economy of scale both Ami and I have raised?
09-30-05, 10:14 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: LR: "At the very least I want some options to explore. In due time the best of the best will arise in the marketplace." I realize that is what the proponents of unrestrained capitalism believe, and that may well include yourself. I submit that may be true under ideal conditions but, as even the late Pope John Paul warned, abuses can and often do result. Monopolies, mergers, collusion and similar tactics all too often result in complete or partial elimination of competition. When there is only one giant producer of a commodity, having bought out or cannibalized all competitors, where does the expected benefits competition come in ? Where have all of the neighborhood merchants gone? Is the end result that there is only one giant retailer in the town, a WalMart that has drowned out all the smaller competitors. And are you so sure that the result of this unfettered capitalism is the survival of the BEST as opposed to the fittest or the greediest or the most unscrupulous?
LR:"In your beginning statement you point out how there have been individuals in Communist & Facist societies who have been able to rise up and become wealthy." I said that in response to your assertion that one of the benefits of capitalism is that it enables relatively poor individuals to acquire great wealth. Now, when I point out that communists, socialists etc. have been able to do the same, you claim they are practicing capitalism, or evolving toward capitalism. You can't have it both ways, LR!
LR: "Many uneducated people have done well in business. I tend to think the nature of Capitalism lends itself quite well to people, educated or not. But we need to remember with any business. If it is not performing for its client or customer base, its not going to last", I have pointed out that there any number of developed as well as third world countries who have outstripped us in the field of education. China, and India are turning out engineers and mathematicians at twice the rate the U.S is. As a result there is a steady stream of software and engineering design work that is being exported to India, and China. It is no longer only cheaper manual labor jobs that are being exported, but we are also losing many high technology and service jobs overseas.
If we don't like the way the government is handling a program, we have recourse at the ballot box. If some giant corporation is operating in an unsatisfactory manner and they happen to be the only game in town, what can we do about it? That shouldn't be the Hobson's choice we have in matters of health, in my humble opinion. I still haven't seen any argument against the economy of scale both Ami and I have raised?
Mr Frank- Are you saying that big corporations are by nature, naturally ruthless & greedy??? If this is your point I might be inclined to agree with you Big Grin The evolution in amny industries seems to be when there are a lot of players participating, over time there is an eventual consolidation. Or some companies go out of business. The auto industry is a perfect example. There was a time we had several companies in just the U.S. building cars. Look at oil companies. Several mega-mergers have taken place over the years. We have been seeing it take place in the computer & software industry as well.
My point about Communism practicing Capitalism. It's not a matter of me having it both ways. I am pointing out the realities of what is taking place. After the fall of the former Soviet Union, this was a wake up call to all the other Communist countries on the planet. The leaderships of these countries decided if they are going to survive, their old ways of doing things economically were going to have to change. It's either that or crumble just like the Soviet Union did.
On education. There is no doubt that other countries are producing more mathimaticians & engineers. I think what is happening, as they develop their economic engines, they are putting more emphasis on education. Also the free trade agreements that have been enacted over the years are encouraging this trend. There was a time that educated foreign people came to to the United States to develop & advance their career. Now it is not unusual for Americans to go abroad for the same purpose. As other countries further develop their economies, we will see more of that.
On your last paragraph about how to deal with unsatisfactory corporations. Lets face it. When corporation is the economic lifeblood of a small community, it definitely puts that community at a disadvantage. Especially when the corporation always has the option of pulling out & taking their plant overseas. But remember. What are corporations made up of??? People. Get to know them. Get to know their strengths & weaknesses & what appeals to them. Everybody has his price. The bottom line is the bottom dollar.
09-30-05, 11:12 AM juanruiz A discussion of capitalism almost always includes the false dichotomy of the rich and poor. What is generally omitted is the middle class, which was made possible by capitalism. Compare medieval feudal Europe with its static and stratified society to the results nascient capitalism brought in the Renaissance. Further, it is not the rich who benefit. As one example, look at the different state workers' pension plans, they're worth billions if not more in investment portfolios. And who are the beneficiaries? Not the rich. And yes, there are poor in capitalist countries. But compare them to the poor of Ghana, Tanzania, Liberia, Rwanda.
As for health care, I can't speak to Great Britain, except to comment that Prime Minister question period always seems to reveal criticisms about it. I do know Canada's system, which is less than ideal. Sixteen Canadian doctors currently practice at the hospital/clinic in my town. Ask them, and the wave of nurses relocated to the US, why.
Truth be known, I am at loss to understand why anyone would take comfort in any program run by federal governments. Social Security in the US, for example, is a boondoggle, a pyramid scheme. It began with the faulty premise that the average recipient's life span would be 68 years. We will eventually reach the point when more people are collecting than contributing. I look at what I've chipped in over the years and gag thinking what I could have made investing the money on my own. Politicians who strike an altruist position against that idea, are actually afraid there'd be less for them to pirate. How many billions of government IOUs are in the so-called trust fund? If the US ever repudiated its debt, they'd be worthless. And that just one program among many: Amtrak, Medicare, no child left behind....
09-30-05, 11:51 AM DorianGreyed "I look at what I've chipped in over the years and gag thinking what I could have made investing the money on my own."
This comparison, while possibly true for JR, does not hold true for the masses. It assumes that people would actually invest on their own, and that they would do so wisely. Neither assumption is true. When I sold life insurance, a main selling point that was repeatedly drilled into each agent were the two basic counters to the "If I would invest on my own..." reason to not buy life insurance. One was that, left on their own, people do not save. But they do regard life insurance as one of the monthly bills to pay. It is an "enforced savings plan." The other counter argument was that, left on their own, people would not necessarily chose wisely even if they did actually put aside money every month as an investmant. If getting rich through the stock market was so easily done, why don't we see more millionaires retiring at 30, 35, and 40? Yes, we read about them, but who actually counts among his acquaintances someone who has done so? The middle class, which you rightly point out was created by capitalism, is full of people who could create wealth even with social security payments taken out of their checks if they just invested wisely, yet how many lifted themselves out of that class, let alone do it at an earlier age? I don't like how the government borrows from social security funds either, but that they do so does not indicate that the social security concept is flawed.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 2346 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
The central difference, DG, is that buying a life insurance policy is voluntary, paying into SS isn't. Further, if its whole-life, at a certain time, you can turn it in for the cash value. Try doing that with SS. The thing is, capitalism forces you to be responsible for what you do. SS is the product of a paternalistic government which is implicitly saying "You don't know what to do, so we'll do it for you." SS was never meant to be THE pension, it was supposed to augment what you saved. Children of the depression knew how to save; nowadays people don't, thus consumer debt in the trillions. Should the government shelter them for their lousy decisions? **************************************************** 09-30-05, 12:56 PM aminator2002 "If getting rich through the stock market was so easily done, why don't we see more millionaires retiring at 30, 35, and 40? Yes, we read about them, but who actually counts among his acquaintances someone who has done so?"
I know plenty of millionaires who are anywhere from 30 and up. I don't know any who retire though.
" The middle class, which you rightly point out was created by capitalism, is full of people who could create wealth even with social security payments taken out of their checks if they just invested wisely, yet how many lifted themselves out of that class, let alone do it at an earlier age? "
What are you saying here? There are probably more of these people than you think... what is the standard for upper class?
I would like to take my money out of social security but I would like to make separate tax payments so that I don't ever have to give money to an elderly beggar anytime in my life. I would like SOcial Security to just provide 10% above poverty level to anyone who doesn't save money or runs out of retirement savings or gets a career ending injury. I don't want to be paid $1000 a month for my lifetime of contributions which will amount to probably what I could get $5000 a month with in 40 years if I invested that money now.
I also don't want my money in SS to be used to pay the outrageous debt that wars in foreign countries are piling up for us. Borrowing against our social security fund is like illegal taxation in my opinion.
09-30-05, 01:42 PM DorianGreyed "The central difference, DG, is that buying a life insurance policy is voluntary, paying into SS isn't."
You have a valid point here, although there are a few occupations that have opted out of the SS system. -------- "I know plenty of millionaires who are anywhere from 30 and up. I don't know any who retire though."
That's one of us. -------- "What are you saying here? There are probably more of these people than you think... what is the standard for upper class?"
Didn't the government define middle class as those whose income is less than $300,000 a year (But more than something, but that depends on family size. That information is available in another thread)? The fact that the mean family income in the US is less than $60,000 apparently doesn't figure into the formula*. The $300,000 was used by the government to show how much the middle class benefited from Bush's tax cuts.
10-01-05, 10:07 AM Sarai Thanks for the quiz, Juan! For me, it highlights the fact that I need to study economics more. Some of the questions (such as the value of the stock market or what, exactly, money is) were things I honestly haven't ever given much thought to, so I just chose the answer that struck me as most reasonable, but I must admit that I'm by no means sure about all of my answers.
Most of my answers were Keynesian/neo-classical, or when there was no Keynesian answer, I chose the historical school answer. However, I also had a healthy dose of the other 3 options- a little socialism, a little Chicago, a little Austrian. I don't know anything about Chicago or Austrian economic thinking, so now I've got something to read about.
My score was 46/100, which I guess means I'm not an Austrian. Since I'm not yet exactly what that means, I'll take that as a compliment. Big Grin
Interesting. Thanks, Juan.
10-01-05, 10:23 AM Sarai This answer strikes me as strange. The website says it is the socialist answer. Is this really what socialists believe? I would have thought this would be economic nationalism, not socialism. The question was, "What are the economic implications of national defense?" According to the website Juan gave us, the socialist answer is:
quote: National defense is desirable on its own terms, but the strongest economic impact, as with many public-sector programs, is that it creates jobs and boosts incomes to strengthen the economy. It is especially beneficial to the GDP because so much of military production involves heavy industry. The funding does more good for the nation overall if spent on large projects than if spent on small consumer goods. Moreover, public funding generates technological spin offs that assist all of society, and also employs many people who otherwise would lack the training and discipline to earn high wages in a market setting. The military, in fact, is a great example of government planning at work, serving all of society.
Yet in the question about the economic implications of warfare, the website gives the socialist answer as:
quote: Warfare exists to increase capitalist profits. As competition forces profit rates for domestic ventures down, capitalists go overseas to collect profits. This leads to conflicts between capitalists in different nations. Nations go to war over such competing imperial claims. Capitalism is the main force behind wars. Warfare will end with the end of Capitalism.
Don't these two ideas (that a strong military is a sign of great government planning but that war is an indication of capitalism at its worst) contradict each other? I would think that any society that holds a strong military as a sign of great government planning is destined for war, since that is basically what a military is for. It would be like saying that having many butchers is the ideal, but if you find that some people in your country do not keep a strict vegetarian diet, your culture is obviously sick.
Are these really both classic socialist answers?
10-02-05, 01:41 PM newnickname A quirky little story on 'the limitations of the market': www.guardian.co.uk
10-02-05, 07:14 PM frankvan "The central difference, DG, is that buying a life insurance policy is voluntary, paying into SS isn't. Further, if its whole-life, at a certain time, you can turn it in for the cash value. Try doing that with SS. The thing is, capitalism forces you to be responsible for what you do. SS is the product of a paternalistic government which is implicitly saying "You don't know what to do, so we'll do it for you." SS was never meant to be THE pension, it was supposed to augment what you saved. Children of the depression knew how to save; nowadays people don't, thus consumer debt in the trillions. Should the government shelter them for their lousy decisions?" Juan Ruiz.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't pay taxes, for instance, because they are not voluntary? Should we all independentlty provide for our own defense, police protection, schools, courts, etc. ? Why is it not equally desirable that we be protected against crushing poverty in our old age? Because you may have been fortunate in some of your investment isn't it possible that many of your fellow citizens are less than smart enough, or lucky enough to have done the same? I think you are doing what many fortunate people do, claiming to be smarter, harder-working, and more deserving than most of your fellow men. Candor forces me to admit that most of the intelligent choices I have made in my lifetime were at least 50 percent luck. I survived the depression. My parents didn't save because there wasn't anything left to save after they paid the rent and put food on the table. Without social security, they would have been an expense to me that would have eventually put me in a similarly dependent dituation. I submit that it is in the interest of the majority of citizens of this country, and Canada, to provide a safety net for all of us. If we are lucky enough not to need it we oughtn't begrudge it, or our contribution to it, for those who may. Of course, Government says "You don't know what to do, so we'll do it for you". Look around you. How many of us are arrogant enough, unrealistic enough, to believe that we actually KNOW what will happen to us throughout our lives, sufficient to avoid instances when we may well need help of some sort? The government should shelter us from whatever and to whatever extent, the majority of us decide. I, for one, would like to live in a society where the majority are not the go-it-alone, rugged individualist, greed-driven types. I hope and believe we haven't reached that condition yet!
10-04-05, 09:23 AM juanruiz I am saying that, as with most federal programs, SS is a boondoggle. It's central premise, that the average mortality rate for recipients was 68, could not take into account the technology and pharmacology which would push that age far beyond, and assure that people would be collecting for many more years. As I also stated, it was meant to be a form of additional income, not the sole pension retirees were to live on. That people do not plan ahead, or invest, or refrain from spending all of their disposible income in the present, running up in the process a multi-trillion dollar consumer debt, generates little sympathy from me. Further, SS benefits were extrended beyond their original purpose. A friend of mine went to college on SS, thanks to the fact his father was collecting benefits. Moreover the "trust fund" (which doesn't exist) has become more and more a pool to be pirated by Congress. Clinton's so-called balanced budget was only achieved by including SS in the figures.
As for taxes, I have no complaint when they go to pay for services the government is supposed to supply: military, roads, and the like. When taxes are used to redistribute the wealth, based on the premise that need is a legitimate claim, and people are actually punished for being successful in the name of a "progressive" tax system, I do object.
10-04-05, 10:16 AM Dwight "When taxes are used to redistribute the wealth, based on the premise that need is a legitimate claim, and people are actually punished for being successful in the name of a "progressive" tax system, I do object." juanruiz
These people became successful because the economic system created the opportunity. If someone doesn't need the Social Security benefits, good for them! They are economically successful despite the S. S. payments they made.
But what about the victims of corporate crime? Greedy executives have mastered the game of enriching themselves with little regard for the long-term viability of their companies, the interests of shareholders, employees, and other affected stakeholders. Executives and directors fudge profits, hide debt, and make misleading predictions, all of which cause the stock to rise so that they can cash out on their massive stock options. This leaves ordinary investors and workers, who have no knowledge of these shenanigans, to suffer tremendous losses when the stock inevitably tumbles and the company falls apart. We cannot accuse these victims of not working hard and trying to create wealth, but these people need the safety net called Social Security.
If Social Security did not exist, would people be as willing to risk their money in the stock market? If they don't invest in the market, how would companies get the investment capital they require? The economy is a system that works only when all components are in place including, I think, safety nets like Social Security.
Dwight
10-04-05, 10:59 AM juanruiz I would have a higher opinion of SS if the government would fix it to reflect the here and now, not the 1930s. Instead, it simply ups the mandatory contribution and, eventually, will set the retirement age at 75. The system simply doesn't work.
As for investment, most people already are in the market, either personally, or through pension plans. And if one does not want to go it alone, mutual funds will do all the work for them, at a return significantly higher than SS would ever bring.
But the most troublesome aspect of the whole thing can be put in the form of a question "When is my money not my money?" I'm sure everyone knows the answer.
10-04-05, 11:51 AM frankvan Those time-worn complaints about "redistribution of wealth" strike me as being completelly phony. The people who make such complaints simply prefer that they be the ones who decide on how the redistribution is to be made. At the present time and with the present administration we are witnessing a redistribution of wealth which results in the ranks of the multi-rich growing at the expense of the infra-poor.
I agree that Social Security needs to be adjusted to the changed conditions that have taken place since its inception, but a program that has been as successful for as long as SS has, doesn't deserve to be butchered for the sake of the selfish and greed-driven. The deserving poor are citizens too, and they are OUR responsibility, whether or not we choose to label them all as free-loaders. Some of us are willing to share the bounty of our good fortune. If you are not, get your own country somewhere else! Razz
10-04-05, 12:25 PM frankvan "But the most troublesome aspect of the whole thing can be put in the form of a question "When is my money not my money?" I'm sure everyone knows the answer".juanruiz
This is an answer that occurs to me, juan. Your money is OUR money when we need it to protect you and your wealthy friends. You must realize that the poor guy living in the slums doesn't get (or demand) the services and protection that his wealthy fellow-citizens do. You build your mansion on the hill which we have to protect from the wildfires your area is prone to. You build your summer get-away on the sand which needs to be replenished every few years at considerable state expense because the ocean constantly reclaims it. A major share of the police protection WE provide goes to protect the minority population that have so much more that NEEDS protecting. And last but not least, a small fraction of US cheat, steal, and hire others to help us cheat, steal. and avoid paying our fair share of running this economy. The overwhelming majority of US are in no position to swindle the government of millions, WE don't require watching.. Isn't a progressive tax fully justified?? IMHO, it is. Smile
10-04-05, 01:19 PM juanruiz I'm not sure on what information you are drawing your inferences. I certainly am not wealthy, not do I have wealthy friends. But I have over the years attempted to assure that I do not have to depend on federal largesse to live out my retirement years. This has mainly occurred by foregoing things in the present, a policy which too many people eschew.
But that is not the point. As I said before, reducing the question to a dichtomy of rich and poor oversimplifies the whole issue and takes it off track. The question is not whether being poor is virtuous and rich sinful. This makes for good rhetoric, sure, particularly when you serve up healthy doses of argumentum ad misericordiam and ad hominems.
As I said, I have no arguments with paying taxes for essential services. But that is not the case anymore. You may not like the term "redistribution of the wealth;" maybe the govt can come up with a slick euphemism as it did with "friendly fire, revenue enhancement," and "collateral damage." But that is what the govt is doing, taking from me and giving to someone else.
Nor would it bother me so much if it weren't clear the govt not only taxes us, but hopelessly wastes what it brings in, so much so that it will be in hock up through my great-great-great grandson's days.
10-04-05, 03:21 PM frankvan I didn't infer that you or your friends were wealthy, only that the arguments concerning the evils of wealth redistribution are typical of those who are financially secure and determined to fight any threat to remaining so. I too, am reasonably secure in the expectation that I will, with luck, outlive my money. But if those of us who are financially secure are unwilling to contribute to the security of the less fortunate, what hope is there ? While I can assure myself against grinding poverty at the end of life by purchase of an annuity, I have the resposibility to do what I can for those who are living without a safety net of any kind. To my way of thinking, that includes trying to preserve social security, as opposed to 'privatization'.
I agree that "poor" isn't necessarily virtuous, nor "rich" sinful, but the latter is certainly more comfortable than the former and both do occur, do they not? Suppose, rather than taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor in order to eliminate hunger and deprivation, it were possible to provide the quality of education, training, and opportunities that unemployment and poverty could be eliminated entirely. If this could be accomplished by a universal infusion of altruistic largesse, making government regulation unnecessary, who could possibly object?? This thread was ostensibly and originally to discuss the pros and cons of capitalism. My argument is simply that unadulterated capitalism, just like unadulterated communism, socialism, or theism is not without its flaws.
Much as I share your concern about the growth of debt that will undoubtedly burden our grand- and great-grand children as far as the eye can see. I envision savings being made by the elimination of unnecessary and unwinnable wars, rather than by the dilution or elimination of social programs that benefit the poor and/or elderly. We all share responsiblity for the imperfect government we rail against, and whether or not we want to move it in one direction or 180 degrees in another.
10-04-05, 03:57 PM juanruiz I'm no fan of war, nor the amount of money spent by the govt on the military-industrial complex. Nor am I fan of the maxim "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." The thing is, though, the wealthy can protect their holdings through all sorts of means. Frankly, they aren't the ones getting hit on a percentage basis. Two-income families making less than anyone would ever call riches, are the real victims. And they are two-income families because they have to be. Which gets back to my comment about the middle class, its importance, and its omission from much of this discussion.
10-04-05, 07:52 PM Dwight "As for investment, most people already are in the market, either personally, or through pension plans. And if one does not want to go it alone, mutual funds will do all the work for them, at a return significantly higher than SS would ever bring." juanruiz
But my point is that these people may not be willing to invest in the market if there wasn't some sort of safety net in place if their investments are lost. That is what I meant by a "system". If you remove the Social Security (and other social programs) will our economic system still work? My feeling is that it would not work as well as it is now.
And yes, I agree there are many areas where the social programs need fixing. But I believe we should fix it, not junk it.
Dwight
10-04-05, 08:18 PM juanruiz Safety is a savings account at 2% or a CD at 4%. Risk/reward is how it works. However, there is a wide range from blue chip stock to junk bonds and derivatives. What is the return on SS? Over the years I've been paying in, the market has always had higher highs and higher lows. If SS is so great a deal, why is it mandatory? How many would opt out if given the chance?
10-05-05, 08:39 AM Lighteningrodd The two things I would like to see the government change are our tax system & the Social Security system.
I like the idea of doing away with our income tax system & going to a National sales tax. It would make life simpler for all of us. No more of scrambling trying to get paperwork in by April 15. Especially on a tax code that even the best of CPA's don't agree on the interpetation.
On Social Security, go to private accounts. The people already drawing Social Security would not benefit but the younger people paying in could potentially be millionaires by the time they retire. By doing away with the Social Security slush fund, our elected officials would have to become more accountable on the public debt.
10-05-05, 09:23 AM juanruiz What makes you think a national sales tax would replace the income tax? Canada currently has both. I can envision Congress instituting a VAT while temporarily suspending the income tax, and then at a later date reestablishing it. The other problem is that Congress could always up the % whenever it wanted to.
As for SS and privatization: forget it. Congress is too used to the luxury of dipping into those funds; they now cannot do without them.
10-05-05, 10:11 AM Lighteningrodd
quote:
Originally posted by juanruiz: What makes you think a national sales tax would replace the income tax? Canada currently has both. I can envision Congress instituting a VAT while temporarily suspending the income tax, and then at a later date reestablishing it. The other problem is that Congress could always up the % whenever it wanted to.
As for SS and privatization: forget it. Congress is too used to the luxury of dipping into those funds; they now cannot do without them.
Because right now there is a proposal in Congress to do just that. To do away with our current income tax system & replace it with a National Sales Tax. I had discussed the subject here:
Having read what the idea behind it is, I think this is the way to go. It would simplify the tax system & I feel it would be a boom to our economy.
As for the Social Security system being changed, we can blame the Democrats that it hasn't been done already. In Bill Clinton's 1999 State of the Union address, he proposed this:
"Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years."
The part about investing a small portion in the private sector is basically what President Bush had proposed. Now at President Clinton's State of the Union address, the Democrats in Congress gave him a standing ovation on this suggestion. Yet nothing ever become of it. President Bush makes the same proposal yet the Democrats do everything & tell every lie conceivable to de-rail this idea. And our Republican legislators, lacking the backbone to stand up & fight the Democratic lies & rhetoric do nothing & let it die on the vine. So here we are, still stuck with the same old system that will probably go bankrupt by the time many of us are ready to retire. Hopefully a time will come down the road that the Social Security issue will be back in the lime light again. Hopefully the debate will rise again & maybe....just maybe...some badly needed overhaul will take place.
10-05-05, 10:26 AM juanruiz Call me a cynic, but I have seen over many years just how incompetent the Federal Govt is. If the private sector practiced its modus operandi no business would survive. But the govt is not accountable to anyone for its myriad of failures, and thus is never concerned with consequences. As to SS and the income tax, there are just too many vested interests in the status quo, both in the public and private sectors, for any serious change, let alone elimination, to take place. All kinds of proposals float through Congress, that's nothing new; if a VAT does pass, it will not signal the end of the income tax.
10-05-05, 11:20 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: Call me a cynic, but I have seen over many years just how incompetent the Federal Govt is. If the private sector practiced its modus operandi no business would survive. But the govt is not accountable to anyone for its myriad of failures, and thus is never concerned with consequences. As to SS and the income tax, there are just too many vested interests in the status quo, both in the public and private sectors, for any serious change, let alone elimination, to take place. All kinds of proposals float through Congress, that's nothing new; if a VAT does pass, it will not signal the end of the income tax.
I am not talking about installing a VAT (Value Added Tax). That would certainly be a step backward & in many ways counter-productive to our economy. Although I do recall Bill Clinton had considered the idea when he was President. Fact of the matter is we already have enough hidden taxes in our system we are not aware of.
As for vested interests in the status quo, yes you're right. They fight hard to prevent needed change. Especially when it potentially disrupts their gravy train. But when issues are fought & debated on long & hard enough, eventually changes can take place.
10-05-05, 12:02 PM juanruiz
quote: But when issues are fought & debated on long & hard enough, eventually changes can take place.
The last one I remember is the 64 Civil Rights Act.
10-05-05, 01:02 PM frankvan " What is the return on SS? Over the years I've been paying in, the market has always had higher highs and higher lows. If SS is so great a deal, why is it mandatory? How many would opt out if given the chance?" JR
I think it obvious that those who feel secure in the size of their nest eggs, or begrudge contributing anything to the security of others, would opt out if "given the chance". Those who realizee that they are susceptible to the vicissitudes of life and the temporal acquisition or durability of wealth, would opt in! I, having lived through the great depression, feel the small sacrifice entailed is well worth it.
"Call me a cynic, but I have seen over many years just how incompetent the Federal Govt is. If the private sector practiced its modus operandi no business would survive. But the govt is not accountable to anyone for its myriad of failures, and thus is never concerned with consequences".JR
Isn't the government accountable to the voters?? Do you prefer the accountability of Ken Lay or Dennis Kozlowski., et al?? Would this qualify as one of the "cons" or the "pros"of capitalism.?
"The part about investing a small portion in the private sector is basically what President Bush had proposed. Now at President Clinton's State of the Union address, the Democrats in Congress gave him a standing ovation on this suggestion. Yet nothing ever become of it. President Bush makes the same proposal yet the Democrats do everything & tell every lie conceivable to de-rail this idea". LR.
I seem to recall a rather considerable difference in the state of the federal budget in 1999 vs 2005, and everybody floated ideas in 1999 about how to spend the surplus which has since morphed into a sizeable deficit. Also, weren't we supposed to be discussing the Pros and Cons of capitalism, rather than the pros and cons of SS and the evil obstructionist Dems? Confused
10-05-05, 01:14 PM juanruiz
quote: Isn't the government accountable to the voters??
Frank, you have shown time and time again that you are not naïve. The president and Congress may be somewhat accountable, although not to much of an extent. But it is not they who run the government. How many thousands of nameless, faceless bureaucrats are actually making the day to day decisions which affect us? They are the ones with the true power.
10-05-05, 03:24 PM frankvan Juan, call me naive or a cockeyed optimist, but I still hold out hope that when the CEO is threatened, some of his cronies at the top will get the old heave-ho and take a few of the tenured bureaucrats with them I only have one vote, but a big mouth - and until I go to my just (?) reward, I will continue to vote the rascals out in every local, state and federal election, including the primaries.I have great grandchildren to look out for. Wink
10-05-05, 04:16 PM juanruiz
quote: a cockeyed optimist
I guess that's the difference between you and me: I wish there were a "none of the above" on the ballot.
10-06-05, 09:06 AM Lighteningrodd
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: "The part about investing a small portion in the private sector is basically what President Bush had proposed. Now at President Clinton's State of the Union address, the Democrats in Congress gave him a standing ovation on this suggestion. Yet nothing ever become of it. President Bush makes the same proposal yet the Democrats do everything & tell every lie conceivable to de-rail this idea". LR.
I seem to recall a rather considerable difference in the state of the federal budget in 1999 vs 2005, and everybody floated ideas in 1999 about how to spend the surplus which has since morphed into a sizeable deficit. Also, weren't we supposed to be discussing the Pros and Cons of capitalism, rather than the pros and cons of SS and the evil obstructionist Dems? Confused
Mr Frank-This is what I consider another of the Bill Clinton failures. A great idea, that was within his powers of persuasion, he could have accomplished, but did nothing.
So what should the state of the Federal Budget have to do with the proposed idea??? It should have no bearing whatsoever. This practice of cloaking the deficit behind the SS trust fund needs to come to a complete stop.
President Bush proposed 2% go towards a private account. Personally I'd rather see it higher than that. Like 100%.
As for the direction of this thread, I do not have a problem branching off on discussion. Anyone at any time can post something to get it back to the original topic.
10-06-05, 12:03 PM juanruiz
quote: I do not have a problem branching off on discussion.
Actually SS is relevant, as it shows the consequences of not being allowed to exercise capitalism with a part of one's income.
10-06-05, 03:04 PM frankvan
quote: So what should the state of the Federal Budget have to do with the proposed idea??? It should have no bearing whatsoever. This practice of cloaking the deficit behind the SS trust fund needs to come to a complete stop.
"In my view, if the budget forecasts hold, we need to meet our goals of paying down the debt and saving Social Security" . Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) January 29, 1999
OMB and CBO(1) project significant "off-budget" surpluses over the next 15 years. OMB, for example, estimates a $776 billion surplus over the next five years, $1.8 trillion over the next ten years, and $3.1 trillion over the next 15 years. The President wants to use these funds to reduce the federal debt and re-pay money that has been borrowed from Social Security.
10-06-05, 03:19 PM frankvan
quote: Actually SS is relevant, as it shows the consequences of not being allowed to exercise capitalism with a part of one's income.
You neglect to venture an opinion as to whether that constitutes a "pro" or a "con". In my view it is a very socialist limit to unfettered capitalism; therefore a definite "con"
10-06-05, 03:24 PM FredPuli How would 100% private be any better? Take the UK. As at end 2004 the top 350 companies in the Stock Exchange list were in the position that they collectively had pension promises which stood at £75 billion ( $135 billion) more than the value of their pension fund assets.
Our oldest mutual assurance company,Equitable Life, founded in 1762, has had to cease trading because it was so incompetently managed that it could not meet its future obligations
At a guess there is not a country in the Western world that has a state pension which is covered by the payments towards it. In Britain there has never been a separate 'pension fund'; the government just treats the contributions to the pension as part of the revenue pot, though it has always continued the pretence by levying a separate charge for this 'National Insurance'. The only 'good' thing about that is that there is no fund being invested in what proves to be a long 'bear market' on the Stock Exchange. On the other hand, it too has the problem of the ratio of earners to pensioners. This is increasingly skewed to having more and more claimant pensioners and fewer contributing earners paying the taxes. Britain's cynical short term answers include welcoming countries such as Poland into the European Union. They export very high numbers of workers to the UK; nearly all the workers are quite young and so they'll contribute for years to come and help redress the balance Wink
10-08-05, 10:51 AM frankvan This from current events seems to deserve a place here:
Originally posted by Rakuchild: Yesterday I woke up with an earache painful enough to cause me to call the clinic I used to go when I had medical insurance. The perky receptionist told me it would be $50 for an office visit (and that wouldn't include the antibiotics for the ear infection.) Also, the doctor was out of town for the next two days so they wouldn't be open until Monday.
So I called the Health Dept. and asked for the number of the city sponsored clinic in my area. They would be glad to see me in November unless I was pregnant, then I could get in sometime this month. I'm not sure what the cost would be since they operate on a sliding scale payment structure.
My only other options were to go to the nearest hospital emergency room or drive out to the suburbs to an urgent care office or to continue with the home remedies I'd been using. The ER would probably cost around $300-500 and the urgent care would probably be a little less, not counting the cost of prescriptions.
I'm getting a bit tired of the taste of garlic and the smell of Vicks but thank gawd I don't live in some awful country with SOCIALIZED medicine because we know that sort of thing leads to all out godless communism and the fall of civilization. I may have an earache and the world sounds like it's under water but at least I live in a Democracy driven by capitalism!! Perhaps if I pick up a fourth parttime job, I'll be a worthy enough citizen to afford a visit to the doctor
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 8175 | Location: On Vacation | Registered: 06-06-02
