|
|
#132
10-09-2007, 11:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
I've often been told that Americans have no sense of irony, but I never believed it before. [/ QUOTE ] UUummm, Irony: [ QUOTE ] I'm a medical statistician with a first degree in politics and economics. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#133
10-09-2007, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
So anyway, is profit evil? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Not profit nate, but money itself. thx for the softball
|
|
#134
10-09-2007, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
Must try harder. LOL. [/ QUOTE ] Try harder to do what? Strange indeed. Anyway if Clinton is on your right it tells me where you're at politically which is part of the reason I asked the question. [ QUOTE ] Stiglitz is a free-marketeer and pro-globalisationist; that's right-wing for anyone outside of the US. [/ QUOTE ] Actually this is not true.
|
|
#135
10-09-2007, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Also regarding unemployment you realize that full employment does not mean an unemployment rate of 0. NATURAL RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT "Full employment" does not mean 100 percent employment. For various reasons, the unemployment rate cannot be reduced to zero, if only because people are always being fired, laid off or moving between jobs. But even granting that unemployment can never be completely eliminated, it still might be possible to ensure that anyone searching for a job can find one reasonably quickly. Economists call this happy state of affairs "full employment." [/ QUOTE ] Yah. That would be why I referred to a "certain level of unemployment" (3-7% according to most right-wing theorists, IIRC) for optimum profitability. I did not refer to unemployment itself. Keep trying... [/ QUOTE ] Here's what you wrote about unemployment: [ QUOTE ] That's the central contradiction that US policy-makers are running into now, because of their reliance on an economic theory that can only explain unemployment as laziness (LOL). [/ QUOTE ] What I pointed out to you was that the economic theory states that unemployment is not explained by laziness.
|
|
#136
10-09-2007, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
pvn, you do realize that you're using the word "socialist" in a very unusual manner, yes? And that every time you use it in that way, you're going to have to stop and explain what you mean if you want be understood? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I'm using it in a way that clearly doesn't fit with the distorted "US propaganda lexicon" that ymu accused me of using.
|
|
#137
10-09-2007, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So anyway, is profit evil? natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Not profit nate, but money itself. thx for the softball [/ QUOTE ] Well, he did use the term "obscene profits" and that usually gives away how much the user understands about anything to do with commerce and economics. In fact, I may compile a fun list of all the standard socialist buzzwords and talking points that he has thrown out just in this thread. It's pretty amusing. he's covered a lot of territory. Enron! Drug companies! CEO's are overpaid! Education! China's debt holdings! Exponential growth! Rich get richer! Lifespan chart! This has all been in response to my OP which is about an entitlement program that was vetoed because it was going to expand from serving the poor to serving the not-so-well-off. I have no idea how Enron got thrown into this. natedogg
|
|
#138
10-09-2007, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Stiglitz is a free-marketeer and pro-globalisationist; that's right-wing for anyone outside of the US. [/ QUOTE ] Actually this is not true. [/ QUOTE ] Well, he does come across like a social democrat struggling to express his ideas in the wrong terminology, but he self-describes as a free-marketeer and pro-globalisationist; his criticism is of the laughably bad economics at the IMF and the effect this has had at the World Bank. It's in the first few pages of Globalisation and its Discontents. I realise "socialism" in the US is often assumed (incorrectly) to mean "recognition that taxation is necessary", but a no tax economy can rarely achieve democracy. In large parts of the ME there is little to no tax because state oil revenues are used to fund state projects; it lends itself to dictatorship. So I start from that fundamentally American principle of "no taxation without representation". If you allow private interests excessive financial influence over public elections, you immediately disenfranchise huge swathes of the voters because anyone not making enormous campaign donations has no power to influence the policies of those who can afford to achieve power. Taxation is necessary in a democracy and business profits from it because it is used to create a stable economic infrastructure that they can operate within. Roads and telecommunications to enable business to operate, schools and hospitals to provide a healthy educated pool of workers, security services to protect your right to operate. I see nothing "socialist" about common provision of basic services that can be purchased more cheaply collectively and where "choice" is not a key issue because everyone needs at least basic provision within a fixed locality (near where they live/work); economies of scale make competition a nonsense in this situation. It doesn't stop anyone buying better services for themselves, but basic provision is fundamental to a healthy economy and quality of life/personal safety* in general. It benefits the rich, let alone the poor. Taxation which is proportional to what an individual takes out of the economy is not unreasonable, surely? It can't be right that someone who is struggling to get by pays more tax than a multi-millionaire who is making full use of services paid for by the state to keep vacancies filled and sickpay to a minimum. It's not socialism, by any stretch of the imagination. Nate - profit is evil? How come? It's kind of necessary as a safety net. You can hardly claim that the "safety net" for the Pharmaceutical Industry is flimsy when they're amongst the most profitable corporations on the planet. It's profiteering that is, not evil, but just plain stupid for Americans to put up with when they're paying $3k/year to make it thus. Drug discovery happens in the universities mostly and public sector drug trials are generally much higher scientific quality than industry ones, so it'd make a lot more sense to pump that $3k/year into independent scientists instead of trusting the industry to be honest when they tell you how wonderfully effective and not at all poisonous their product is. You're paying through the nose to be lied to with impunity. It ain't good value. And yeah, I never said I got a good (undergraduate) degree first time around [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] and it was 20 years ago...that would be why I've been quoting proper grown-up economists. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You'll still have a hard time proving to anyone that medics and the Pharmaceutical Industry would kill/maim fewer people at a lower cost if left to their own devices. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] *check the countries with a higher murder rate than the US; not a decent democracy amongst them. The lowest rates of crime, violent or otherwise, are concentrated in Scandinavia and parts of Northern Europe which have socially responsible policies; note that these are also the countries which have a comparable per capita income to the US. They're also not running a deficit that relies on the now precarious hegemony of the dollar as the international trading currency. The US is only a good market for ASEAN whilst they need dollars for trade. That won't last forever; Japan have already agreed to pay Iran in Yen and the states with big reserves are divesting from the dollar very rapidly as it nosedives in value. The US people have been taken in by self-defeating propaganda.
|
|
#139
10-09-2007, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Stiglitz is a free-marketeer and pro-globalisationist; that's right-wing for anyone outside of the US. [/ QUOTE ] Actually this is not true. [/ QUOTE ] Well, he does come across like a social democrat struggling to express his ideas in the wrong terminology, but he self-describes as a free-marketeer and pro-globalisationist; his criticism is of the laughably bad economics at the IMF and the effect this has had at the World Bank. It's in the first few pages of Globalisation and its Discontents. I realise "socialism" in the US is often assumed (incorrectly) to mean "recognition that taxation is necessary", but a no tax economy can rarely achieve democracy. In large parts of the ME there is little to no tax because state oil revenues are used to fund state projects; it lends itself to dictatorship. So I start from that fundamentally American principle of "no taxation without representation". If you allow private interests excessive financial influence over public elections, you immediately disenfranchise huge swathes of the voters because anyone not making enormous campaign donations has no power to influence the policies of those who can afford to achieve power. Taxation is necessary in a democracy and business profits from it because it is used to create a stable economic infrastructure that they can operate within. Roads and telecommunications to enable business to operate, schools and hospitals to provide a healthy educated pool of workers, security services to protect your right to operate. I see nothing "socialist" about common provision of basic services that can be purchased more cheaply collectively and where "choice" is not a key issue because everyone needs at least basic provision within a fixed locality (near where they live/work); economies of scale make competition a nonsense in this situation. It doesn't stop anyone buying better services for themselves, but basic provision is fundamental to a healthy economy and quality of life/personal safety* in general. It benefits the rich, let alone the poor. Taxation which is proportional to what an individual takes out of the economy is not unreasonable, surely? It can't be right that someone who is struggling to get by pays more tax than a multi-millionaire who is making full use of services paid for by the state to keep vacancies filled and sickpay to a minimum. It's not socialism, by any stretch of the imagination. Nate - profit is evil? How come? It's kind of necessary as a safety net. You can hardly claim that the "safety net" for the Pharmaceutical Industry is flimsy when they're amongst the most profitable corporations on the planet. It's profiteering that is, not evil, but just plain stupid for Americans to put up with when they're paying $3k/year to make it thus. Drug discovery happens in the universities mostly and public sector drug trials are generally much higher scientific quality than industry ones, so it'd make a lot more sense to pump that $3k/year into independent scientists instead of trusting the industry to be honest when they tell you how wonderfully effective and not at all poisonous their product is. You're paying through the nose to be lied to with impunity. It ain't good value. And yeah, I never said I got a good (undergraduate) degree first time around [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] and it was 20 years ago...that would be why I've been quoting proper grown-up economists. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You'll still have a hard time proving to anyone that medics and the Pharmaceutical Industry would kill/maim fewer people at a lower cost if left to their own devices. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] *check the countries with a higher murder rate than the US; not a decent democracy amongst them. The lowest rates of crime, violent or otherwise, are concentrated in Scandinavia and parts of Northern Europe which have socially responsible policies; note that these are also the countries which have a comparable per capita income to the US. They're also not running a deficit that relies on the now precarious hegemony of the dollar as the international trading currency. The US is only a good market for ASEAN whilst they need dollars for trade. That won't last forever; Japan have already agreed to pay Iran in Yen and the states with big reserves are divesting from the dollar very rapidly as it nosedives in value. The US people have been taken in by self-defeating propaganda. [/ QUOTE ] WTF??
|
|
#140
10-09-2007, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Stiglitz is a free-marketeer and pro-globalisationist; that's right-wing for anyone outside of the US. [/ QUOTE ] Actually this is not true. [/ QUOTE ] Well, he does come across like a social democrat struggling to express his ideas in the wrong terminology, but he self-describes as a free-marketeer and pro-globalisationist; his criticism is of the laughably bad economics at the IMF and the effect this has had at the World Bank. It's in the first few pages of Globalisation and its Discontents. I realise "socialism" in the US is often assumed (incorrectly) to mean "recognition that taxation is necessary", but a no tax economy can rarely achieve democracy. In large parts of the ME there is little to no tax because state oil revenues are used to fund state projects; it lends itself to dictatorship. So I start from that fundamentally American principle of "no taxation without representation". If you allow private interests excessive financial influence over public elections, you immediately disenfranchise huge swathes of the voters because anyone not making enormous campaign donations has no power to influence the policies of those who can afford to achieve power. Taxation is necessary in a democracy and business profits from it because it is used to create a stable economic infrastructure that they can operate within. Roads and telecommunications to enable business to operate, schools and hospitals to provide a healthy educated pool of workers, security services to protect your right to operate. I see nothing "socialist" about common provision of basic services that can be purchased more cheaply collectively and where "choice" is not a key issue because everyone needs at least basic provision within a fixed locality (near where they live/work); economies of scale make competition a nonsense in this situation. It doesn't stop anyone buying better services for themselves, but basic provision is fundamental to a healthy economy and quality of life/personal safety* in general. It benefits the rich, let alone the poor. Taxation which is proportional to what an individual takes out of the economy is not unreasonable, surely? It can't be right that someone who is struggling to get by pays more tax than a multi-millionaire who is making full use of services paid for by the state to keep vacancies filled and sickpay to a minimum. It's not socialism, by any stretch of the imagination. Nate - profit is evil? How come? It's kind of necessary as a safety net. You can hardly claim that the "safety net" for the Pharmaceutical Industry is flimsy when they're amongst the most profitable corporations on the planet. It's profiteering that is, not evil, but just plain stupid for Americans to put up with when they're paying $3k/year to make it thus. Drug discovery happens in the universities mostly and public sector drug trials are generally much higher scientific quality than industry ones, so it'd make a lot more sense to pump that $3k/year into independent scientists instead of trusting the industry to be honest when they tell you how wonderfully effective and not at all poisonous their product is. You're paying through the nose to be lied to with impunity. It ain't good value. And yeah, I never said I got a good (undergraduate) degree first time around [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] and it was 20 years ago...that would be why I've been quoting proper grown-up economists. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You'll still have a hard time proving to anyone that medics and the Pharmaceutical Industry would kill/maim fewer people at a lower cost if left to their own devices. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] *check the countries with a higher murder rate than the US; not a decent democracy amongst them. The lowest rates of crime, violent or otherwise, are concentrated in Scandinavia and parts of Northern Europe which have socially responsible policies; note that these are also the countries which have a comparable per capita income to the US. They're also not running a deficit that relies on the now precarious hegemony of the dollar as the international trading currency. The US is only a good market for ASEAN whilst they need dollars for trade. That won't last forever; Japan have already agreed to pay Iran in Yen and the states with big reserves are divesting from the dollar very rapidly as it nosedives in value. The US people have been taken in by self-defeating propaganda. [/ QUOTE ] Free help! http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp1/coherent.htm
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
