The end is in sight

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:36:57 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:46:56 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
It'll be interesting to see if all the wingnut paranoia about Obama ends
up being justified.

What, haven't you been paying attention?

He whines about the deficit he's "inherited", then proceeds to triple it?

He had to do that to fend off a depression.

He bails out the companies that were driven into bankruptcy by cowtowing
to the unions,

Personally, I agree that America would be better off in the long run, if
it let GM & the like collapse, but it'd be a vote-loser in the meantime.
I also believe that the taxpayers shouldn't be propping up farmers
either, but that's another surefire vote-loser.

and the banks that wrote mortgages that were _guaranteed_
to fail?

It was the commodification of mortgages that made it possible for
brokers to sell mortgages to people without jobs, etc. I'm not sure who
was responsible for that screwup, but it obviously wasn't Obama.

Not personally, that goes to Pelosi - Frank - Gramm (of Gramm - Leach
- Bliley infamy)

He's presiding over the biggest redistribution of money from the
productive to the unproductive in the entire history of the known
Universe, and you can't see that?

Like I said, he had to choose between that or a 1929-style depression.
This option sucks too, but not nearly as much as a depression would.

Sheesh - how long have you had your head in the sand?

Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? - I'd argue the same about
your views. ;^)

 

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:30:19 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

The end is in sight...

Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).

Pelosi promises gun control :-(

Tell her to use both hands.

Seriously, there isn't enough support (or willingness to incur the wrath
of the voters) in the Democratic party to push it through.

I am not so sure, some of their ideologues are just insane enough to

try to push it through at the literal point of a gun.

 

[JosephKK]

On 28 Apr 2009 22:53:46 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in
news:49F7756B.953EEF76@hovnanian.com:

Jim Thompson wrote:

The end is in sight...

Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party (an hour ago).

Pelosi promises gun control :-(

Tell her to use both hands.

Seriously, there isn't enough support (or willingness to incur the wrath
of the voters) in the Democratic party to push it through.


sorry,but Obama wants the US to ratify the UN's small arms control
treaty,and use that as the way to gun control without "violating" the
Constitution.Then the courts will require gun control to fit the Treaty.
Treaties override the Constitution.
Of course,IMO,that is the trigger for bad things to happen.

Obama has always been for gun control,never voted against any gun control
bill. And he's a evasive,sneaky,lying SOB weasel.

Why are you being so complimentary to Obama. And what do you have
against weasels?

 

[Joel Koltner]

Hey Flipper,

Good writeup. I just have a few comments...

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news:jicvv4ltl79l3loen1g2u2kn7t7gm346l9@4ax.com...

2. While people complain about 'HMOs' and 'insurance companies'
limiting what they'll 'pay for', the U.S, healthcare system is
strongly oriented to 'heroic effort' end of life care, which is the
most expensive. 'Socialized' medicine controls that cost by rationing.

Agreed, and rationing has to take place... but by getting the costs themselves
under control, those rationed dollars go a lot further. Most healthcare plans
in the U.S. are more restrictive in what they pay for at the "full" benefit
level than what most European-style socialized healthcare style plans provide.

If you're 92 then you aren't going to get a heart valve. It's just
'not worth it'. Nor are they going to pay for the untested,
experimental, wild haired last ditch hope the HMOs won't pay for.

Yep, and I don't think many rational people object to this concept.

3. The U.S. private sector is, in effect, paying the development cost
of medical innovation for the entire world because the 'socialized'
medicine 'fixed cost' won't pay for it.

This is a bit of a red herring put forth largely but the pharmaceutical
companies who have the most to lose (they are some of the most profitable
companies in the world after all...) It's certainly not entirely untrue, but
while regular socialized medicine "fixed cost" fees won't necessarily pay much
in the way of R&D costs, all governments spend hundreds of millions of tax
payer dollars directly funding medical research efforts anyway. This is often
preferable -- if society has a choice of getting a cure for cancer that was
developed by a publicly-funded research effort or by a private pharmaceutical
company, clearly the former is advantageous. The potential downside, of
course, is that tax payers would be unwilling to cough up the funds required
to find that cure, whereas pharmaceutical companies' profit motives might just
provide enough funds to pull it off.

Although slightly cynical, it is true that pharmaceutical companies have a
larger profit motive in creating palliative products than actual cures as
well, which -- unlike government -- is at odds with the public's best
interests.

I've been in both 'private' and 'government' provided healthcare
systems and, IMO, anyone who thinks the 'government' approach is 'more
efficient' and (all around) 'better' is simply out of their mind.

Well, sure... the better comparison is between healthcare received by those
who are "uninsured" vs. those on "socialized" programs.

Besides, even with socialized medicine, one will always be able to pay out of
their own pocket for additional benefits (or faster treatment) if desired.

---Joel

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 21:48:27 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:30:42 -0600, qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:

On Sat, 02 May 2009 01:56:22 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



qrus19@mindspring.com wrote:

Try pre crusades Spain and the Moores, Islamic terrorists

No, not terrorists, they were just seeking to widen their influence. Spain has
adopted much Moorish architecture btw.

By your measure, the USA is currently a terrorist nation.

Graham


They murdered Christians in a Christian land. Not just soldiers
either. Yes and No, The US had no business going into Iraq but once
there we have to TRY and get it right. Personally I blame most of the
present problems in the middle east on the alied forces in WWI.
Destroying the central government of the region and then carving out
new borders rather like the Europeans did in Affrica and the Americas.

Kuurus

Western Europe has been carving and recarving middle eastern borders
for almost 500 years. But history gets lost and fades, then only hate
remains.

You're overly optimistic about Western Europe's prowess. They barely
stopped Islamic expansion at the Ottoman Empire, and that didn't fall
apart till WWI.

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 4 May 2009 23:19:41 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hey Flipper,

Good writeup.

Thank you.

I just have a few comments...

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message
news:jicvv4ltl79l3loen1g2u2kn7t7gm346l9@4ax.com...
2. While people complain about 'HMOs' and 'insurance companies'
limiting what they'll 'pay for', the U.S, healthcare system is
strongly oriented to 'heroic effort' end of life care, which is the
most expensive. 'Socialized' medicine controls that cost by rationing.

Agreed, and rationing has to take place...

Well, that rolled off the lips rather easily. I might even agree but
there's quite a few that don't.

but by getting the costs themselves
under control, those rationed dollars go a lot further.

Well, that's the magic trick, isn't it? Problem is it's looking at
only one side of a 12 sided coin.

Let me give a seemingly unrelated anecdotal story. Long time ago, back
when China was just 'opening up' to the West, I stayed at the Beijing
Hotel. It was a pre war British built thing, gorgeous if a bit worn,
and off to the side of the main entry was a huge room ringed with
glass display cases and another set down the middle. It had obviously
been a large tourist store at one time but when I was there everything
was totally empty and bare except for one lonely little book dead
center of the largest case up front, titled "Why There is No Inflation
in China."

I didn't purchase it but imagined there was just one page inside
emblazoned with "Because there's nothing to buy."

BUT, they sure as hell had 'cost' under control.

We're not talking about anything quite that extreme but I suggest you
don't get the same service from a 10 buck doctor as you do a 50 buck
doctor.

Most healthcare plans
in the U.S. are more restrictive in what they pay for at the "full" benefit
level than what most European-style socialized healthcare style plans provide.

I don't know how you arrive at that presumption unless you're talking
about co-pay. But then, insurance isn't intended to make 'everything
free' so your comparison fails.

If you're 92 then you aren't going to get a heart valve. It's just
'not worth it'. Nor are they going to pay for the untested,
experimental, wild haired last ditch hope the HMOs won't pay for.

Yep, and I don't think many rational people object to this concept.

I take it you're not including the 92 year old.

3. The U.S. private sector is, in effect, paying the development cost
of medical innovation for the entire world because the 'socialized'
medicine 'fixed cost' won't pay for it.

This is a bit of a red herring

It's hardly a red herring when you half heartedly admit to it, at
least 'in part'.

put forth largely but the pharmaceutical
companies who have the most to lose (they are some of the most profitable
companies in the world after all...)

Poison well fallacy.

It's certainly not entirely untrue, but
while regular socialized medicine "fixed cost" fees won't necessarily pay much
in the way of R&D costs, all governments spend hundreds of millions of tax
payer dollars directly funding medical research efforts anyway.

Governments have a dismal record in 'directing' research and, with
very few exceptions, it's dominated by politics rather than science.

The exception are when something is 'so bad' that the government
simply dumps money at the problem and hopes the private sector finds
an answer. The other is when government funds something that's already
technically feasible but just needs resources to wring out the kinks.
Kennedy's 'go to the moon' program was like that.

The problem with 'directed' research is most discoveries come from
places unpredicted and seemingly 'useless' things almost magically
lead to something dramatic.

Ever see the British short series called "Connections?:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)

This is often
preferable -- if society has a choice of getting a cure for cancer that was
developed by a publicly-funded research effort or by a private pharmaceutical
company, clearly the former is advantageous.

You are presuming the government funded one with be 'royalty free'
and, therefore, cheaper. That's not always the case.

The problem is there's no performance incentive and what incentive
there is, political, doesn't follow the science. Which presumes you
knew 'what to invent' in the first place.

The potential downside, of
course, is that tax payers would be unwilling to cough up the funds required
to find that cure, whereas pharmaceutical companies' profit motives might just
provide enough funds to pull it off.

Especially when presented with "do we spend 100 billion on 'free' hip
replacements or on research for bed sores."

And they're unlikely to realize they're going to get bed sores while
waiting for the hip replacement.

Although slightly cynical, it is true that pharmaceutical companies have a
larger profit motive in creating palliative products than actual cures as
well, which -- unlike government -- is at odds with the public's best
interests.

Sometimes palliative is all that can be done and you've just written
it off. Not to mention in conjunction with cure.

Morphine is palliative but I assure you it was greatly appreciated
when getting a leg cut off.

I've been in both 'private' and 'government' provided healthcare
systems and, IMO, anyone who thinks the 'government' approach is 'more
efficient' and (all around) 'better' is simply out of their mind.

Well, sure... the better comparison is between healthcare received by those
who are "uninsured" vs. those on "socialized" programs.

Maybe, if the uninsured are the only ones you care about. "Equality of
misery," eh? Take everyone down to the lowest.

To answer your question, though, it depends on what the local facility
is. At the worst it's 'like socialized medicine',

Something needs to be done about that as we've got people using
ambulance services as blooming taxi cabs because they're 'required to
carry'.

Besides, even with socialized medicine, one will always be able to pay out of
their own pocket for additional benefits (or faster treatment) if desired.

Not necessarily and you're apparently making some assumption based on
a particular implementation but Hillary's plan, for example, was
riddled with hundreds of "prohibited" clauses that made it illegal for
anyone to provide fee for service healthcare. Her theory was that if
you could 'buy your own' then the folks with money would do so, the
'real doctors' would decide to do that business only, and her goal of
dictating costs would fall apart. Or, put another way, you'd have what
you have now but with the 'uninsured' added to the government program
that's already going bankrupt without them.

Frankly, I think she miscalculated her own theory but that's another
story.

---Joel

 

[TheM]

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:h1FLl.2352$fy.1574@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham



I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

We give you a list and you hand-pick the only one that might not fully qualify
and flatly forget about all the others...

M

 

[TheM]

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message news:v7cvv41qn7st6736fv4vn8ejl77u83pgk5@4ax.com...

On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:02:56 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

You should be nicer to us.

Today no country can succeed without the others.
US is no exception.

Who do you think is financing your trade deficit?

M

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 11:42:50 +0200, "TheM" <DontNeedSpam@test.com>
wrote:

"flipper" <flipper@fish.net> wrote in message news:v7cvv41qn7st6736fv4vn8ejl77u83pgk5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:02:56 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye aktsionernoye
obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and the
largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP, LSE: OGZD and
OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were less
socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather difficult.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

You should be nicer to us.

Today no country can succeed without the others.
US is no exception.

I didn't say they could but the issue was not "others," plural, it was
ONE in particular.

Fact of the matter is the Soviet Union pumped billions propping up
Cuba and just about every one in the world, except the U.S., has no
qualms about 'doing business' with them yet they can't get past
scratch farming.

Who do you think is financing your trade deficit?

Do you know what a trade deficit is? It means we BUY more of THEIR
stuff than we sell so 'they' are 'financing' their own business.

M

 

[Jim Yanik]

flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote in
news:v7cvv41qn7st6736fv4vn8ejl77u83pgk5@4ax.com:

On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:02:56 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



James Arthur wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where
socialism pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by,
say, a North Sea oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...

What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is
held by Russia ! The USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from
nationalizing their oilfields.

I thought they were privately owned now.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom

OAO Gazprom (English: Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, Otkrytoye
aktsionernoye obshchestvo "Gazprom")[1] is the largest extractor of
natural gas in the world and the largest Russian company.

Gazprom is publicly traded at stock exchanges as RTS:GAZP, MICEX:GAZP,
LSE: OGZD and OTC:OGZPY. It is the largest oil and gas company in the
world.


Whose people had the better standard-of-living, back when we were
less socialist, and communism reigned supreme?

How's that revolution-thing working out for Cuba? It's been what,
50 years? Are they a paragon of health, wealth, science, and
productivity?

Since you ceased any connection with them, that made it rather
difficult.

As if Cuba wasn't free to trade with all the other nations of the world.

So, no nation can succeed without the U.S.

You should be nicer to us.



I'm interested in examples where public ownership of the means
of production supports its own weight, outperforming alternatives.

There isn't anywhere like that.

Graham,you just proved his point.

You're afraid of shadows in the dark.

Graham

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[James Arthur]

TheM wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:h1FLl.2352$fy.1574@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

We give you a list and you hand-pick the only one that might not fully qualify
and flatly forget about all the others...

M

Well, you supplied one-liners, & I have to do the research & analysis.
You didn't provide facts or reasons why you think these countries'
socialism is a boon--self-supporting or accretive--rather than a burden
to them.

So, your unstated logic and rationale aren't clear to me, and, I'm
allowed to sleep, aren't I?

Perusing Sweden's figures, I s'pose my query has to be refined.

Obviously the productive segment of any country can provide a living
for a certain number of non-workers. And all countries do that.

So it's a question of degree, and who bears the burden, and whether
and how much of this is a good thing. And it's a question of at
what level it finally breaks society's back, when the productive
find productivity is no longer worth their while and either flee,
outsource, or become slackers themselves.

And there's a question of mechanism and freedom: whether and what
the State should dictate and control, and what shall be left of
their own lives for the People to control and decide.

I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[TheM]

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:NJYLl.4570$b11.2109@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

TheM wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:h1FLl.2352$fy.1574@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

We give you a list and you hand-pick the only one that might not fully qualify
and flatly forget about all the others...

M

Well, you supplied one-liners, & I have to do the research & analysis.
You didn't provide facts or reasons why you think these countries'
socialism is a boon--self-supporting or accretive--rather than a burden to them.

So, your unstated logic and rationale aren't clear to me, and, I'm
allowed to sleep, aren't I?

Perusing Sweden's figures, I s'pose my query has to be refined.

Obviously the productive segment of any country can provide a living
for a certain number of non-workers. And all countries do that.

So it's a question of degree, and who bears the burden, and whether
and how much of this is a good thing. And it's a question of at
what level it finally breaks society's back, when the productive
find productivity is no longer worth their while and either flee,
outsource, or become slackers themselves.

And there's a question of mechanism and freedom: whether and what
the State should dictate and control, and what shall be left of
their own lives for the People to control and decide.

I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?

Cheers,
James Arthur

I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.
The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.

M

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sun, 03 May 2009 03:44:40 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Nobody wants cradle-to-grave nannying, but there does seem to be an
argument for damping down the consequences of the obvious defects in
the way our minds are constructed, including boom and bust cycles in
the economy.

Hah - when Nu-Labour came to power in the UK, Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of
the Exchequer promised to end 'boom-bust' ! Oops, the 'free market' slipped
through his fingers and did it anyway.

Imagine walking up to a working PID controller, and want to change its

output by sticking a signal in there somewhere among a bunch of different
nodes - if you don't pick _exactly_ the right node, it goes wild!

That's what happens in a command-and-control economy.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sat, 02 May 2009 18:38:33 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 17:01:32 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
Why are you so addicted to regulation? What makes you think that some
Washington bureaucrat can manage _your_ money better than you can?
Without negative feedback in the form of regulation, the amplifier of
capitalism tends to oscillate destructively.

Oh, feh! You refuse to acknowledte that this destructive oscillation is
CAUSED by government overregulation - it interferes with the natural
"invisible hand" of the Free Market, which naturally has negative feedback.

Rubbish. Market bubbles are a perfect example of positive feedback
occurring in the Free Market, & when they collapse, everyone suffers to
some degree.

In a command-and-control economy EVERYONE suffers to a GREATER degree.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sat, 02 May 2009 00:31:16 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Why are you so addicted to regulation? What makes you think that some
Washington bureaucrat can manage _your_ money better than you can?

Without negative feedback in the form of regulation, the amplifier of
capitalism tends to oscillate destructively.

Oh, feh! You refuse to acknowledte that this destructive oscillation is
CAUSED by government overregulation - it interferes with the natural
"invisible hand" of the Free Market, which naturally has negative feedback.

You forget that 'the market' influences policy via lobbying and less savoury
means too, so they only have themselves to blame. Get too greedy and look what
happens.

We need to 'overhaul' government entirely. The Swiss seem to get it right. Look
up how they do it on Wikipedia.

Do you mean, look up Wiki's government? >:->

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sat, 02 May 2009 00:36:52 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:59:21 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:54:13 -0700, Bob Eld wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
And Clinton was pushing for bank deregulation even before he was
elected President. I wonder why.
I doubt that most people believe you that make it out to be Clinton's fault.
In truth Democrats are about 20% culpable and Republicans 80% culpable.
Deregulation was primarily a republican thing you cannot spin it any other
way.

Democrats and Republicans are essentially indistinguishable these days -
they're just the two wings of the same Statist bird.

To someone outside the USA, they both look very right-wing.

Try the World's Smallest Political Quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

About on the outside border between Liberal and Libertarian.

" According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles. "

Not so sure I agree with " significant government control of the economy ". Some
control is required but as I said earlier it should be both light but effective and
stop fraudulent bankers / 'investors'.

They left out the part about hating and fearing guns, and wanting to
disarm everyone, leaving us defenseless against crooks and a tyrannical
government.

Oddly, I haven't been able to find gun control in the Communist Manifesto:
http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/06/ten-planks-of-communist-manifesto.html

but I do find it chilling that the government these days is already doing
several of these things, and working really hard to implement the rest.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sat, 02 May 2009 00:40:45 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:14:13 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Socialism is the root cause of most of the United States woes.

Yeah - both the "People's" socialists, who want to take your earnings away
to pay the bills of the lazy, negligent, and stupid poor people, and the
"National" Socialists, who want to take your earnings away to pay the
bills of the lazy, negligent, and stupid _rich_ people.

Why are people called Jim in this group so DUMB ?

What's dumb about noticing that socialism is the cause of most of the US's
problems? It _is_ true, but I guess as a nice little obedient socialist
subject, you blind yourself to that fact.

Albeit, I'd go one deeper - the Income Tax is absolutely the worst thing
that ever happened to the US -it's what enabled the power-trippers to
do all of the evil they're doing now.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sat, 02 May 2009 18:16:45 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:47:27 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

free universal health care that excludes nobody.

But it does confiscate the wages of the productive.

You're *already* paying more for your crappy health system than we do in
countries with free, universal healthcare. Don't take my word it - look
it up yourself.

That's because of government interference with the Free Market principles
that would have kept prices sane.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[flipper]

On Tue, 5 May 2009 18:07:21 +0200, "TheM" <DontNeedSpam@test.com>
wrote:

"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:NJYLl.4570$b11.2109@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
TheM wrote:
"James Arthur" <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote in message news:h1FLl.2352$fy.1574@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Eeyore wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

James Arthur <bogusabd...@verizon.net> wrote:

Show me a country not fitting that description, one where socialism
pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea
oil bonanza--and you'll have my attention.

China's the only one that pops to mind...
You need a new mind, or at least a second hadn midn taht actually
works. Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands ...
What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia ! The
USA's is over TEN times more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

Graham


I specified self-supporting. Russia's surplus comes from nationalizing
their oilfields.

We give you a list and you hand-pick the only one that might not fully qualify
and flatly forget about all the others...

M

Well, you supplied one-liners, & I have to do the research & analysis.
You didn't provide facts or reasons why you think these countries'
socialism is a boon--self-supporting or accretive--rather than a burden to them.

So, your unstated logic and rationale aren't clear to me, and, I'm
allowed to sleep, aren't I?

Perusing Sweden's figures, I s'pose my query has to be refined.

Obviously the productive segment of any country can provide a living
for a certain number of non-workers. And all countries do that.

So it's a question of degree, and who bears the burden, and whether
and how much of this is a good thing. And it's a question of at
what level it finally breaks society's back, when the productive
find productivity is no longer worth their while and either flee,
outsource, or become slackers themselves.

And there's a question of mechanism and freedom: whether and what
the State should dictate and control, and what shall be left of
their own lives for the People to control and decide.

I'm glad that life in Sweden is agreeable to Swedes. They've got a
total population smaller than a big city here, distributed over a
land mass roughly the size of one of our largest states.

Revenue to the State is almost exactly 50% of GDP. That's a pretty
high burden on the taxpayers.

So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that
revenue? How many illegal (or legal) alien births do they pay
for? How many poor, elderly, and disabled live on the State?
Is it sustainable for the long term, or not? And lastly, what's
the judgement of others--how many people are flocking to Sweden,
to benefit?

Cheers,
James Arthur

I do not advocate socialistic approach, in fact I would put myself on the
right (although not as extremely as JT), but I find it ridiculous how violently
Americans react whenever a term "socialistic" is used.

To be fair about it you need to say 'some' Americans because there are
others who seem rather fond of 'socialism' and there's a fair number
of them in government right now.

I find it surprising you find it ridiculous because you're talking
about core, fundamental, principles of government. Would you be so
cavalier about mangling a few Bill of Rights principles?

Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary.

You'd have to define what you mean by 'subsidizing' and how 'necessity
is determined.

Do you call building roads a 'subsidy'? Because that doesn't take from
one and give to another based on class or status. It's of mutual
benefit.

The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country
to country.

I think you may have just explained why those who oppose socialism do
so with such zeal. Because you've explained that, once started, it
becomes a, ho hum, 'matter of degree', no big deal.

If the Swedes are happy with it and obviously keep confirming this at elections
than who are we to call them loosers? They seem to be supporting themselves.

I don't think anyone really cares what the Swedes do in their own
country. It only becomes an issue when one is instructed to 'copy' it.

M