|
Sweetleaf
Metalhead
Joined: Jan 07, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 14828
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Oh, don't even get me started on the inefficiencies of capitalism......I could write a f*cking book on that and probably get it published, speaking of which that is a good idea.
But if I join this topic I'll be here all day so maybe next time 
_________________
It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9212
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | marshall wrote: |
I haven't seen evidence that a government plan would be any worse than what we have now. In most countries with public coverage people can still opt for private care if they want. The public option simply sets a bare minimum standard that is affordable to everyone. What happens now is people who can't afford insurance simply go without getting any preventive medical care until something major happens landing them in the ER, at which point they're up the wazoo in debt. Then they have the psychological trauma of being thrown in debt (for no fault of their own I might add) on top of trying to treat an illness. Then since they rarely can pay the entire amount of debt owed the hospital must recoup the cost by raising rates and thus people with insurance end up having to pay higher premiums. Meanwhile, if preventive care was made affordable the person's condition wouldn't have gotten so serious and costly in the first place. |
I think we're still agreeing though. Have a sliding income gradient for coverage and for those pressing issues where someone needs something done immediately and has the money not to wait several months there would be available markets for them as well. I still think in any public system though we'd need to focus heavily on minimizing bureaucratic influence and have as much as possible taken away from overhead and given essentially back to the taxpayers or those who the taxpayers were meant to benefit. |
Okay. I think the problem is finding a way to create more incentive for a really basic level of preventive care and make it affordable for all. If there was a way for private insurance to do this I'd be all for it. One thing would be to separate insurance for catastrophic emergencies (i.e. expensive ER visits, expensive tests, major surgeries, etc.) from general care. Having the two come out of the same pool is a big problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AceOfSpades
Deeds not words
Joined: Feb 12, 2006
Posts: 3647
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enrico_dandolo wrote: | | AceOfSpades wrote: | | Here's the biggest flaw of capitalism. It isn't that capitalism is greedy and evil, but that capitalism is based on the underlying assumption that human beings are rational long-term thinkers when it comes to their decision making. In reality, we are short sighted and irrational. This means that both buyers and sellers are prone to making short sighted decisions. People don't tend to take all the necessary measures they need to inform themselves and this is what makes short term profiteering profitable. However, this human flaw is even more problematic in socialism than capitalism. This flaw means that central planning is inherently doomed to failure since no elitist is capable of the insane amount of foresight that central planning demands nor are they above this human flaw. It's like having a General passing orders down to every individual soldier on the battlefield. |
More fundamentally, they cannot. There is simply too much information to take into account. Individuals cannot research fully into the various qualities of different goods every time. Central planning is better at that, but turns the dilemma around: it cannot know the needs (in the broader meaning) of the population. This is why we have mixt systems. I do not know any country where there wasn't, in the end (or in practice), a compromise between full laissez-faire or full planned economy. |
Depends what market you're talking about. Can you provide an example? I agree with having a mixed system (personally I lean a lot more towards capitalism than socialism) and the fact that central planning can't account for more specific needs.
| Sweetleaf wrote: | Oh, don't even get me started on the inefficiencies of capitalism......I could write a f*cking book on that and probably get it published, speaking of which that is a good idea.
But if I join this topic I'll be here all day so maybe next time |
Can you explain how a stateless and classless society without currency is more efficient? |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AceOfSpades wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | Oh, don't even get me started on the inefficiencies of capitalism......I could write a f*cking book on that and probably get it published, speaking of which that is a good idea.
But if I join this topic I'll be here all day so maybe next time |
Can you explain how a stateless and classless society without currency is more efficient? |
Just because someone thinks that there are inefficiencies in capitalism doesn't mean he or she believes in Marxist communism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
its a shame these threads are destroyed by absolutist thinking,
we all use mixed systems for a reason.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AceOfSpades
Deeds not words
Joined: Feb 12, 2006
Posts: 3647
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AstroGeek wrote: | | AceOfSpades wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | Oh, don't even get me started on the inefficiencies of capitalism......I could write a f*cking book on that and probably get it published, speaking of which that is a good idea.
But if I join this topic I'll be here all day so maybe next time |
Can you explain how a stateless and classless society without currency is more efficient? |
Just because someone thinks that there are inefficiencies in capitalism doesn't mean he or she believes in Marxist communism. |
She said so herself. Which is why I took the effort to specifically say "stateless and classless society without currency" rather than just resorting to a knee jerk "ZOMG socialist!!!1111" response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AceOfSpades wrote: | | AstroGeek wrote: | | AceOfSpades wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | Oh, don't even get me started on the inefficiencies of capitalism......I could write a f*cking book on that and probably get it published, speaking of which that is a good idea.
But if I join this topic I'll be here all day so maybe next time |
Can you explain how a stateless and classless society without currency is more efficient? |
Just because someone thinks that there are inefficiencies in capitalism doesn't mean he or she believes in Marxist communism. |
She said so herself. Which is why I took the effort to specifically say "stateless and classless society without currency" rather than just resorting to a knee jerk "ZOMG socialist!!!1111" response. |
Well, I've been away from these forums for several months, so I can't remember Sweetleaf saying that on any other threads. If she has then I apologize for my incorrect correction. I was basing it off of what was said here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AceOfSpades
Deeds not words
Joined: Feb 12, 2006
Posts: 3647
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AstroGeek wrote: | | AceOfSpades wrote: | | AstroGeek wrote: | | AceOfSpades wrote: | | Sweetleaf wrote: | Oh, don't even get me started on the inefficiencies of capitalism......I could write a f*cking book on that and probably get it published, speaking of which that is a good idea.
But if I join this topic I'll be here all day so maybe next time |
Can you explain how a stateless and classless society without currency is more efficient? |
Just because someone thinks that there are inefficiencies in capitalism doesn't mean he or she believes in Marxist communism. |
She said so herself. Which is why I took the effort to specifically say "stateless and classless society without currency" rather than just resorting to a knee jerk "ZOMG socialist!!!1111" response. |
Well, I've been away from these forums for several months, so I can't remember Sweetleaf saying that on any other threads. If she has then I apologize for my incorrect correction. I was basing it off of what was said here. |
No worries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
enrico_dandolo
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 21, 2011
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AceOfSpades wrote: | | enrico_dandolo wrote: | | AceOfSpades wrote: | | Here's the biggest flaw of capitalism. It isn't that capitalism is greedy and evil, but that capitalism is based on the underlying assumption that human beings are rational long-term thinkers when it comes to their decision making. In reality, we are short sighted and irrational. This means that both buyers and sellers are prone to making short sighted decisions. People don't tend to take all the necessary measures they need to inform themselves and this is what makes short term profiteering profitable. However, this human flaw is even more problematic in socialism than capitalism. This flaw means that central planning is inherently doomed to failure since no elitist is capable of the insane amount of foresight that central planning demands nor are they above this human flaw. It's like having a General passing orders down to every individual soldier on the battlefield. |
More fundamentally, they cannot. There is simply too much information to take into account. Individuals cannot research fully into the various qualities of different goods every time. Central planning is better at that, but turns the dilemma around: it cannot know the needs (in the broader meaning) of the population. This is why we have mixt systems. I do not know any country where there wasn't, in the end (or in practice), a compromise between full laissez-faire or full planned economy. |
Depends what market you're talking about. Can you provide an example? I agree with having a mixed system (personally I lean a lot more towards capitalism than socialism) and the fact that central planning can't account for more specific needs. |
What do you mean? I didn't talk about any market.
What I meant was that there is simply too much information to take into account on the whole. It is impossible to research fully into a field for every single decision. Say, if one wanted to buy a stereo system, to correctly compare different models before making the decision, one would need full understanding of audioelectronics and access to how each system is built, then check for quality control of individual units, possibly even look for the working conditions of the factory staff and the ecological standards of each company -- then repeat the process for bread, computer screens, living room furniture, milk, cars and dentists. Impossible for an individual, but plausible for governmental institutions, in a limited fashion -- even though, as I said, a central decision wouldn't necessarly match the needs of the population.
Of course, that is an exageration, but even on a smaller scale, it is unrealistic in the long run. Actual experience with a product is unreliable, limited and only applicable for recurring purchases. Reading reviews is only sensible for major decisions, and even then, it is still biased and partial; "reputation" is even worst. In the end, a minute spent agonizing over a decision is still a minute lost for anything else, including being an economic actor and enjoying the decisions actually taken. A short but "bad" decision can very well be a better deal than a "good" but long decision, especially when there are so many decisions to make.
Government regulations at least allow to shut several of the questions that would otherwise exist and shorten the full theoretical decision making processus. At the very least, one can be certain that products will not be blatantly dangerous, that they are actually what they are claimed to be and that they should work for a reasonable time -- which is not the case with entirely unregulated markets, such as the drugs market. In the case of food, there is also plenty of nutritional information available on the product, which is much better than having to do the chemical research oneself.
This doesn't answer the "socialism"/"capitalism" question at all, but then it is a flawed debate since both terms are loosely defined, so... yeah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
