Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

I rest my case.

Yeah. Take a breather. You've apparently convinced yourself that the only way someone can be 'open minded' is to agree with you.

You demonstrated rather clearly that you are not willing to look at the facts. You didn't even come close to talking about the health of people or any other facts related to the issue. You made some vague claims that only hinted at possible facts. You referenced politics and special interests to poison the well and then made a completely unsubstantiated claim that it has to be "divorced" from politics.

I can't express enough how completely and totally meaningless I consider your argument to be. It is not just that I disagree with your conclusion. It is that I consider the method in which you derived at your conclusion to be completely useless. You demonstrated the exact flaw I accused you of.

You don't even really see what's going on here, do you? You're insisting that because I don't agree with the premise of your argument, that my views are invalid. I'm saying I don't want to get the police mixed up in our health care, and you're frustrated because I'm not talking about the 'facts' of health care. We can chat about all the problems with health care, if you like, but it doesn't address my concerns with UHC - at all. So it seems rather pointless. It's like asking a vegetarian to tell you what they want on their hamburger, and being angry if they tell you they don't want a hamburger. You're just stomping your feet and pouting because I won't sing along.

 

[Bombur]

Yeah. Take a breather. You've apparently convinced yourself that the only way someone can be 'open minded' is to agree with you.

You demonstrated rather clearly that you are not willing to look at the facts. You didn't even come close to talking about the health of people or any other facts related to the issue. You made some vague claims that only hinted at possible facts. You referenced politics and special interests to poison the well and then made a completely unsubstantiated claim that it has to be "divorced" from politics.

I can't express enough how completely and totally meaningless I consider your argument to be. It is not just that I disagree with your conclusion. It is that I consider the method in which you derived at your conclusion to be completely useless. You demonstrated the exact flaw I accused you of.

You don't even really see what's going on here, do you? You're insisting that because I don't agree with the premise of your argument, that my views are invalid. I'm saying I don't want to get the police mixed up in our health care, and you're frustrated because I'm not talking about the 'facts' of health care. We can chat about all the problems with health care, if you like, but it doesn't address my concerns with UHC - at all. So it seems rather pointless. It's like asking a vegetarian to tell you what they want on their hamburger, and being angry if they tell you they don't want a hamburger. You're just stomping your feet and pouting because I won't sing along.

I am saying that when asked to make an argument based on facts and the values of the people of our nation you referenced neither. You resorted to logical fallacies and failed to make a meaningful argument. When this was pointed out to you, you made more logical fallacies and failed to address the deficiencies in your argument.

That is my scoring of the events so far.

 

[gnarlylove]

Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion.

This is demonstration of your unwavering ideology as opposed to allowing reality to suggest otherwise. At every turn your recourse is to say gov't is coercion or acts are based on it. This is patently false and there are plenty of citizens quite grateful for their government involvement in their lives. There are capitalists who depend on gov't to keep them safe and rich.

So your ideology is based on a half truth. Governments can and does harm but it also helps citizens by coercion but oftentimes coercion plays no role, rather, simply social beneficence flows from reallocation.

In fact, a capitalist class could not flourish like it has without government. So your repetition of free markets seem to favor government as a means for establishing authority over their property. I'm not saying capitalism is exactly the capitalists, but if it isn't, then the foible is the same as your equation of free markets to freedom.

 

[gnarlylove]

I also wanted to show you this as it relates to my views on how advertising affects the public in a corrosive way. For what its worth..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Are the privileged and powerful finally starting to get it? Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan said yesterday to the National Association of Business Economists: “I consider income inequality the most dangerous part of what’s going on in the United States. You can see the deteriorating impact of that on our current political system, and you cannot talk about politics without talking about its impact on the economy.”

Bill Gross, co-founder and co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Company, the biggest bond-trading firm in America, wrote in one of his recent investment letters that the share of total pretax income going to America’s top 1% more than doubled from 10% in the 1970s to 20% today, and that his wealthy clients did not “create that wave. You rode it. And now it’s time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes or reforming them to favor economic growth and labor, as opposed to corporate profits and individual gazillions.”

Is the business class beginning to understand that as long as 95% of the economy’s gains go to the top 1%, the rest of America doesn’t have the purchasing power to get the economy out of first gear? Or are they afraid that if prosperity isn’t more widely shared they'll face a political backlash against concentrated wealth, corporate power, free trade, and global capitalism?"

-Robert Riech, former Clinton Sec. of Labor

And now it’s time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes

Those mean 1%ers already pay higher taxes.

 

[dblack]

Nope, I'm just pointing out that government is based on coercion.

This is demonstration of your unwavering ideology as opposed to allowing reality to suggest otherwise. At every turn your recourse is to say gov't is coercion or acts are based on it. This is patently false and there are plenty of citizens quite grateful for their government involvement in their lives. There are capitalists who depend on gov't to keep them safe and rich.

So your ideology is based on a half truth. Governments can and does harm but it also helps citizens by coercion but oftentimes coercion plays no role, rather, simply social beneficence flows from reallocation.

You seem confused about the definition of coercion. It doesn't necessarily mean harm, and it can most definitely be used properly toward righteous ends. I don't contend otherwise.

Coercion is simply the use of the threat of violence to compel behavior. All enforcement of all laws is backed by coercive threat. That's what makes laws different than 'suggestions'. And laws are the core mode of government. Government's use of coercion is what makes it different from all other social institutions. Not really sure how you can steer around that fact.

The use of force to achieve its ends doesn't make government bad. But it does make it fundamentally different than voluntary association, and potentially very dangerous if controlled by people with malicious, or badly misguided, intent.

In fact, a capitalist class could not flourish like it has without government.

Indeed. Capitalism depends on government to protect property at a bare minimum. I'm not sure why you keep insisting I'm some kind of anarchist or something. Have you never heard the reasoning behind Constitutionally limited government?

 

[gnarlylove]

Coercion is simply the use of the threat of violence to compel behavior. All enforcement of all laws is backed by coercive threat. That's what makes laws different than 'suggestions'. And laws are the core mode of government. Government's use of coercion is what makes it different from all other social institutions. Not really sure how you can steer around that fact.

The use of force to achieve its ends doesn't make government bad. But it does make it fundamentally different than voluntary association, and potentially very dangerous if controlled by people with malicious, or badly misguided, intent.

I contend that people don't think they must obey laws otherwise they will be beaten and tortured (or some other form of violence). Thinking this opens us up to whole realm of unperceived threats to our freedom that do not involve violence and ignores them as threats to our freedom as evinced on your spirited defense of advertising.

People voluntarily submit to drive speed limits and do not murder generally because its simple and common sensical. There is benefit to be had by obeying most laws and coercion never enters the scene. To impose this abstract concept onto each persons' decision making process is trite and Ockham's Razor cuts it clean off--that's not to say people are never motivated by threats of violence. Still other laws are never intended to threaten violence for not obeying it. These are financial regulations that are suggestions but no CEO is going to hit the slammer for breaking the "law." Period. Why? Government protects the capitalist class first and foremost.

So I am confused when you insist coercion involves a threat of violence. There are many other forms of coercion that do not involve violence; misinformation is a major contributor to daily submission to laws (it often equates the person's choice with their belief in complying). And I suggest these submissions are usually voluntary, not the result of threatened force.

Your ideology seems to evict common sense and replaces it with fear must be the prime motivator of all humans--a behavioralist sounding model. People do X because they fear the consequence of not doing X. This is not how people tend to think and yet governments are still effective without that threat lingering in ever decision. Hmmm. I'm not saying it isn't involved in people who are truly motivated by fear (often gun nuts) but I think people prefer to not be in fear all the time.

Indeed. Capitalism depends on government to protect property at a bare minimum. I'm not sure why you keep insisting I'm some kind of anarchist or something. Have you never heard the reasoning behind Constitutionally limited government?

I don't think I called you anarchist--retract if I do--but you are just about as anti-government as they come since your conclusion is reached based on a priori reasoning which is founded on this principle: You think government's capacity to get us to do things is solely derived from the threat of violence (aka coercion as you defined it). This is terribly misleading and false. But assuming this principle one can see why governments are last resort options.

But if people can actually assemble out of symbiosis, then we might acheive real progress and governments could play a foundational role in this. I'd say in fact governments could and have been used as great institutions for championing the public good over the private gain. Yet you seem to repeat: last resort. Are you someone who espouses the efficient market hypothesis and that's why you want to have no gov't?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When it comes to health care, here's my belief. It's a strange sort of product (because people don't know what they need, and currently care less about cost because insurance covers it) so there IS an argument that it can be a "government provided service" using the logic that the "government acts in our best interests". There are entire economics books written about this unique sector and how it's very dissimilar to say the buying market for televisions (for example).

But with that said, Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's the same f'cking system only now we're being forced to buy insurance. Private companies (who don't always act in OUR best interests) are still running the whole gig, and on top of that now must take on pre-existing conditions.

The only logical conclusion (knowing that costs were already rising under this system) is that they will continue to rise even more (due to the added expenses).

The whole thing is a sham. I'd have been fine with them just expanding medicare/medicaid if they wanted to insure a bunch of uninsured people but that's not what the Democrats decided to do.

This ACA bill is going to reek havoc. It sucks.

I agree, Obamacare is not a justifiable means to the end of having everyone insured. It has been corrupted by Obama's dismal of the public while his retained ties with Big Pharma and Big Insurance. The public was vehemently against this forced system, but it stands to reason the companies from which we are forced to buy are making bank.

I like how you denoted your agreement with having everyone insured, which generates a healthier society on the whole (we hope) but the way we are being forced into is is unfortunate to say the least.

I think the real discussion that's not on the table is preventive medicine. This is why our system is overburdened. People simply do not take care of themselves and haven't the slightest clue how to either--good job cheap food companies (a predictable result of profit over people).

Personally, I think the BEST thing we can do is move to a catastrophic based insurance model, where people can choose/pay for regular checkups and what not out of pocket - free market - and will use insurance only to cover unlikely events (like a major kidney surgery).

The model we currently have would be like using insurance to cover a flat tire, or an oil change - two very likely events. We pay that kind of stuff out of pocket..

This will force people to doctor-shop and will force doctors to lower their prices. In addition, we need the government to lift some of these insane regulations, etc, and loosen up on the patent laws so that an AIDs pill will cost $1 vs $50. Medicine is so much cheaper elsewhere in the world.

I think the most viable solution is adding more free market into healthcare. In a perfect utopia, maybe I'd be down for universal healthcare, but unfortunately I just don't trust these guys in Washington and feel the US is too large for a "blanket system".

and loosen up on the patent laws so that an AIDs pill will cost $1 vs $50. Medicine is so much cheaper elsewhere in the world.

You can make it cheaper when you steal the IP.

If they do that here, you can kiss new meds goodbye.

 

[gnarlylove]

And now it’s time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes

Those mean 1%ers already pay higher taxes.

I don't know why you'd think I could understand this: I'm dumber than you. Math is harder for me. You have the biggest cock in your city.

But despite not knowing math, I want to know if the top 1% know about the Tax Cuts they've had? Surely we'd like to consider this in analysis of taxes, but that's just me, I dwmb at maffs. There's a few more points I'd make but clearly you are right and I have no business questioning the success of billionaires. Nothing is suspicious about 95% of the income gains having gone to the 1%.

 

[dblack]

I don't think I called you anarchist--retract if I do--but you are just about as anti-government as they come since your conclusion is reached based on a priori reasoning which is founded on this principle: You think government's capacity to get us to do things is solely derived from the threat of violence (aka coercion as you defined it). This is terribly misleading and false. But assuming this principle one can see why governments are last resort options.

But if people can actually assemble out of symbiosis, then we might acheive real progress and governments could play a foundational role in this. I'd say in fact governments could and have been used as great institutions for championing the public good over the private gain. Yet you seem to repeat: last resort. Are you someone who espouses the efficient market hypothesis and that's why you want to have no gov't?

You can't even go two paragraphs without coming back to this. Listen man, have fun with your strawman. I'm tired of correcting you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And now it’s time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes

Those mean 1%ers already pay higher taxes.

I don't know why you'd think I could understand this: I'm dumber than you. Math is harder for me. You have the biggest cock in your city.

But despite not knowing math, I want to know if the top 1% know about the Tax Cuts they've had? Surely we'd like to consider this in analysis of taxes, but that's just me, I dwmb at maffs. There's a few more points I'd make but clearly you are right and I have no business questioning the success of billionaires. Nothing is suspicious about 95% of the income gains having gone to the 1%.

But despite not knowing math, I want to know if the top 1% know about the Tax Cuts they've had?

I'm sure they do. They also pay nearly 40% of total income tax, despite the cuts.

Nothing is suspicious about 95% of the income gains having gone to the 1%.

Measuring such a stat, as we come out of a recession is very suspicious. And meaningless.

 

[gnarlylove]

I don't think I called you anarchist--retract if I do--but you are just about as anti-government as they come since your conclusion is reached based on a priori reasoning which is founded on this principle: You think government's capacity to get us to do things is solely derived from the threat of violence (aka coercion as you defined it). This is terribly misleading and false. But assuming this principle one can see why governments are last resort options.

But if people can actually assemble out of symbiosis, then we might acheive real progress and governments could play a foundational role in this. I'd say in fact governments could and have been used as great institutions for championing the public good over the private gain. Yet you seem to repeat: last resort. Are you someone who espouses the efficient market hypothesis and that's why you want to have no gov't?

You can't even go two paragraphs without coming back to this. Listen man, have fun with your strawman. I'm tired of correcting you.

What is your ideal state of affairs? One with out government interference, right? You have talked about hypothetical scenarios as much as real ones. In your hypothetical world, you imagine governments as unnecessary and ultimately brutish, preventing progress.
Surely you agree, I've read enough posts to gather that from you. But even then, you treat the real question as irrelevant: do you trust the efficient market hypothesis?

 

[gnarlylove]

Nothing is suspicious about 95% of the income gains having gone to the 1%.

Measuring such a stat, as we come out of a recession is very suspicious. And meaningless.

Your insidious self-deciet knows no bounds. You can give a meaningful statistic the doesn't offer analysis of income distribution but you call my statistic meaningless. You are incredulous to the core. Can you see the dishonesty you present? Why are you suspicious? Because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of the world. This is intellectual fraud. But don't worry, I am dumber than you and we both know it. So despite your genuine lack of concern for reality, I am the stupid one because I offer a view that perplexes you and arises suspicion. Suspicion not based on anything but a threat to you fucked up hardcore ideologue interpretation of the world.

BTW, it's not a meaningless stat. It's well known fact that represents the income growth in the last 4 years have gone to the top 1%, leaving 5% of the gains to the rest.95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider
Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[georgephillip]

Are you high? Compare the poor in the us and other capitalistic countries (europe).

And i guess the ussr was better? What system do you prefer?

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.

 

[dblack]

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.

Food? Housing? Reproduction?

What else should be under democratic control?

 

[georgephillip]

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.

Food? Housing? Reproduction?

What else should be under democratic control?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[dblack]

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.

Food? Housing? Reproduction?

What else should be under democratic control?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

So, in your view, pretty much everything we need should be "under democratic control"?

 

[bripat9643]

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.

Food? Housing? Reproduction?

What else should be under democratic control?

The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.

 

[ret4andry]

The idea that redlining is "racists" or something, is just garbage. I've looked for evidence of that for a decade now. There is no solid evidence of anything 'racist' about redlining.

But why does redlining exist?

 

[RKMBrown]

Not true. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to address some medical issues. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to take an aspirin for a caffeine headache. You don't need 8years of medical schooling to know that a sharp pain is serious and needs to be looked at by an expert.

Maybe I didn’t make my point clear.

When you go to that expert for that sharp pain HE is going to tell YOU what you need to buy. You’re at his mercy, basically. When a car salesman says you “need” to upgrade to premium speakers, you can turn him down without hesitation. But when 3 different doctors tell you that you “need” to buy surgery A and use machine X or you will die, you usually have to take their word for it.

There’s a huge difference. This is why doctors take a Hippocratic Oath and car salesmen do not. We’re at their mercy in many cases.

You say we don't care about prices... I call BS we sure as hell do care about prices. I'm in an HSA, it's my money. If doctor A wants 2k to pull my tooth and doctor B wants 1k I'm probably gonna think it over. I'm not gonna just run off and spend the extra 1k of my money without having some valid reason that is worth 1k dollars to me.

Yes, HSA’s are great, and I like that idea but come on (you know this, I don’t have to explain) – obviously the majority of Americans today go the standard HMO/PPO route, pay their $20 co-pay and that’s it. Doctor A cost $20/visit, doctor B costs $20/visit; emergency room A costs $75/visit, emergency room B costs $75/visit. Price shopping is largely non-existent. This is WELL-documented; there’s no disputing it, dude.

And even considering the HSA, what happens when you have surgery and the major insurance kicks in after your deductible? Are you paying the $100,000 triple bypass surgery out of pocket? Are you comparing pricing then? No, it’s all covered by insurance; you shop ONLY for quality at that point.

Further, you can use insurance to buy TVs and it does not cost 3x more to do so.

I’m talking if the entire TV market was insurance based, costs would be higher overall. Obviously the TV market is not insurance based, lol.

I'm not sure how you missed my point. Consumers do have a choice. It is only through government mandates at the threat of gun that we LOOSE that choice.

Your point, may have been that some/most people CHOOSE to walk away from choices once the bill will be primarily shouldered someone else. To this I would tentatively agree but only regarding the some part. I've seen quite a few people CHOOSE the less expensive path, even though they don't have to. Some people, believe it or not, are actually frugal with other peoples money. Perhaps because they give a shit. Further, in my experience the best care is not necessarily the most expensive care.