People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I was university educated in a state-run and owned university and when I tore my ACL, I was operated on in a state-run and owned hospital at zero end user cost to me. The country I live in does not have poor education and poor healthcare; quite on the contrary.

I live in a country that also happens outrank the United States in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, quality-of-life index etc. The United States also happens to be the worst of the industrialised nations when it comes to infant mortality rates.



So then to summarise. Using your criteria: the country I live in is better at providing education and healthcare. Your position based on the free-market providing better outcomes is therefore bunk.

---

Then why do millions of people every year try to come to the USA and a significantly smaller amount try to go you yours?

Could it be those "Facts" are just more propaganda to further a socialist agenda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Then why do millions of people every year try to come to the USA and a significantly smaller amount try to go you yours?

Could it be those "Facts" are just more propaganda to further a socialist agenda?

---

One there from the 'My dad's tougher than your dad' school of debating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Then why do millions of people every year try to come to the USA and a significantly smaller amount try to go you yours?

---

Net migration for 2009/10:
USA - 2.25m on a population of 312m = 0.72115%
AUS - 177,600 on a population of 22.7m = 0.78238%

A "significantly smaller amount"? Proportionally it's 8% more than the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

---

How do you know? Seriously, isn't that a bit of a deaf statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

If we turned over the education and healthcare systems tomorrow to the pure free market system, there will be a period of time where designing men will deny access or otherwise rip people off. I am under no illusion that the system is completely perfect. However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

---

All was interesting and possible until thinking that something can be better and cheaper part.

Somehow the current industrial production that was moved to China based on the rules of the free market proves that wrong. Yes it got cheaper but quality is much worse and can't see it improve too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

The free market works in politics just as well as it does in economics. If there is so much demand for a particular voice (in this case one that isn't tied to corportations), then a candidate will eventually show up to fill that demand. Why doesn't one of the leaders/organizers of OWS step up and run for office?

---

There is no free-market in politics.

I'd now like to cite myself on this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Duverger's Law suggests that in a plurality voting system, over time it should produce a tendency towards two-party politics. Really the only way to upset the system is to form a new party with sufficient clout to upend one of the existing two.
Especially in the United States where there is no direct opposition to the President in the mechanics of government (because he doesn't sit in the congress), it means that the job itself will only be a revolving door between two parties.

---

Because politics produces a tendency towards two-party politics, over time the relative market power of those two parties increases. Over time, due to economies-of-scale and other factors like the ability to raise capital and advertising, politics moves towards a duopoly.

That is what exists in America and indeed a great deal of single-seat parliamentary democracies. It's exacerbated by the first-past-the-post voting system and the single-seat presidency.

Your conceit, that "The free market works in politics just as well as it does in economics" might very well be true but the free market fails for precisely the same reasons - hence Duverger's Law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

For education I would define "better" as smarter, getting higher marks on standardized tests, heck in the US I'd settle for everyone graduating High School to be able to read all at a lower cost.

---

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

ATo define "better" in the transportation market would mean getting me from point A to point B faster and at a lower cost.

---

Lower cost, lower cost, and again lower cost...
Let's not think only about the costs, we are talking about a world where the money wouldn't be anymore so unevenly distributed.
What about the quality of the service, don't they need to meet certain security standards? What about not only being fast but also on time?
Believe me, costs are not most important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Then why do millions of people every year try to come to the USA and a significantly smaller amount try to go you yours?

---

How do you know that?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

---

A very good post.

Thanks Ben.
I really enjoyed today's discussion. Time to go to bed now, my corporate job is waiting tomorrow morning! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

---

Is this before they can read, write and do advanced math skills?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I was university educated in a state-run and owned university and when I tore my ACL, I was operated on in a state-run and owned hospital at zero end user cost to me. The country I live in does not have poor education and poor healthcare; quite on the contrary.

---

Great. I'm glad to hear you got a good education, and good healthcare. I never said it couldn't be done in a state-run system, just that I believe a free market system to be better. Zero cost you say, really? So you don't pay taxes then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I live in a country that also happens outrank the United States in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, quality-of-life index etc. The United States also happens to be the worst of the industrialised nations when it comes to infant mortality rates.

---

We went over this a while ago. Most of those statistics are bunk, mainly because the reporting mechanisms are flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

So then to summarise. Using your criteria: the country I live in is better at providing education and healthcare. Your position based on the free-market providing better outcomes is therefore bunk.

---

Who has said that the education and healthcare in the US is free market? I surely haven't said that. Far from it. There are relatively few private schools, most are state run, but those that are private are mostly among the best in the world. And healthcare is FAAAAARRRR from being run in a free market system. There are currently very few ways to judge free markets vs state-run in those areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. The system will produce a more profitable system and totally neglect anything which does not turn a profit.

---

Yes and if a company does not provide what the market is demanding (ie quality healthcare, good education, etc.) the consumers will turn to other avenues, thus reducing the profit of the poorly run company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

How do you know? Seriously, isn't that a bit of a deaf statement?

---

Because humans are imperfect beings. We will never be able to solve every problem in every situation. To think otherwise is naive and foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

All was interesting and possible until thinking that something can be better and cheaper part.

---

Things can't be better and cheaper? Wow I guess I should have kept my 286 computer that cost me $2500 or whatever it was from 1989.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Somehow the current industrial production that was moved to China based on the rules of the free market proves that wrong. Yes it got cheaper but quality is much worse and can't see it improve too much.

---

I can not honestly say that everything produced in China is of lesser quality, can you really make that blanket statement? And even if something is of lesser quality when it comes from China, consumers have made that trade-off decision for themselves. If you do not think this is the case why don't you set up a company that provides higher quality goods than are produced in China for slightly higher costs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

There is no free-market in politics.

I'd now like to cite myself on this:


Because politics produces a tendency towards two-party politics, over time the relative market power of those two parties increases. Over time, due to economies-of-scale and other factors like the ability to raise capital and advertising, politics moves towards a duopoly.

That is what exists in America and indeed a great deal of single-seat parliamentary democracies. It's exacerbated by the first-past-the-post voting system and the single-seat presidency.

Your conceit, that "The free market works in politics just as well as it does in economics" might very well be true but the free market fails for precisely the same reasons - hence Duverger's Law.

---

No free market in politics? Tell that to the Federalists, the Democrat-Republicans, and the Whigs. And for that matter just because the two major parties haven't changed their names in over 100 years does not mean that they are static in their beliefs/platforms. Do you think Lincoln would be a Republican today? What about JFK? Just to name two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

---

Oh you must come from the everybody gets a trophy school of thought. Little Johnny can't add or subtract because he's too "creative" for that. Sorry but there aren't really any creative ways to read, or write with proper grammar, or add/subtract/etc. But yeah, let's let the kids be creative about things instead of teaching them what they need to know. That's what the public schools in this country have been doing for 30+ years, gotten us far hasn't it? There is a time and place for creativity, but that time is AFTER kids have learned the basics. We don't teach the basics in this country anymore, and I for one would like to get back to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Lower cost, lower cost, and again lower cost...
Let's not think only about the costs, we are talking about a world where the money wouldn't be anymore so unevenly distributed.
What about the quality of the service, don't they need to meet certain security standards? What about not only being fast but also on time?
Believe me, costs are not most important.

---

I've been getting lectured for only thinking of money for so long, I thought that others actually thought of other things than money.

Costs are not constrained to monetary issues. Poor quality is a cost. Security is a cost. Being late is a cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

No free market in politics? Tell that to the Federalists, the Democrat-Republicans, and the Whigs.

---

They'd agree with me for precisely the reasons I've stated. How many Federalists, the Democrat-Republicans and Whigs are there in Congress? ZERO.
How many Constitution, Green, Libertarian or Modern Whigs are there in Congress? ZERO.

You've successfully demonstrated my point for me. Market Power is the ability to alter price (which in this case equates to votes) and in no way is the market perfectly competitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

They'd agree with me for precisely the reasons I've stated. How many Federalists, the Democrat-Republicans and Whigs are there in Congress? ZERO.
How many Constitution, Green, Libertarian or Modern Whigs are there in Congress? ZERO.

You've successfully demonstrated my point for me. Market Power is the ability to alter price (which in this case equates to votes) and in no way is the market perfectly competitive.

---

Um sorry no you are wrong. Perhaps it is simply because you do not know US political history. The Federalists, Democrat-Republicans, and the Whigs were all once dominant parties in our politics. Therfore they illustrate my point quite nicely, if you do not provide a product (political idea in this case) that enough people want to buy (vote for) then you go bankrupt (vanish from the political scene).

42 pages later, and this discussion/debate/issue seems about as organized as most of the OWS protests. Quite a bit of it is nothing short of comical with various people contradicting themselves page after page, switching their views, disallowing others to use the same reasonings they are using, etc, etc.

I've still yet to see any answers to this IMO delusion of greater equality. If people really want greater equality, then we all wouldn't be posting on this thread. The average wage worldwide is still less that $10,000 US dollars the last time I looked. Time to start spreading the wealth for those that seek equality.

Others claim it's not about money or material things. Take that money that you don't need and and use it to work on the issues you feel important... peace, security, education, whatever those issues might be. After all, who needs money?

Fair taxes and rights with no government? Who collects those taxes or makes sure rights are enforced and fair?


Much like Chuck I've seen a lot of talk and no real solutions. The overall productivity of this thread could easily be compared to the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And did you protest against apartheid?

---

I know exactly where you want to go with this. I was only 18 in 1994 when our democratic government was elected. I did not understand what Apartheid was as I was a child during its reign. I never voted to oppress anyone. I am now paying the dues for my father and his fathers mistakes. This side of our debate is over :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

That's not true anymore, and it hasn't been so for more than a decade.

---

I disagree, as I did it 8 years ago, which is less than a decade ago. A friend of mine also put everything he had on the line a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I know this isn't necessarily directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

Hell no, it's not fair. But it (going to bed hungry) sure is a d@mn good motivator. It motivated him to better himself through education and hard work, so that neither he nor his family ever had to go hungry again. What would his motivation be to improve himself if the government just gave him and his family food? He very well may have had some motivation, but to say that it would have been as strong as it is, is foolish.

---

You and I are on the same wave length :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

---

Education at school is designed to teach basic skills such as reading, writing, common sense, self discipline etc etc to prepare youngsters for the world when you become an adult. It serves no other purpose at all. You can flunk every test at school yet become a success, but being able to read and write and disciplined does help get that success ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Much like Chuck I've seen a lot of talk and no real solutions.

---

Because there is no solution. If people got off their ar$e and did things for themselves there would be no problems. Oh wait sorry...my bad... they are too busy washing the begging bowl to go out and make something of themselves :s arcastic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Because there is no solution. If people got off their ar$e and did things for themselves there would be no problems.

---

Either there are no problems that need solutions or there is a problem :crazy: :p

I think it was Chuck who made comparisons between the TEA Party & the Occupy movement so it was interesting to read this:

Quote:

---

"If we lived in a country that had a growing economy and where the middle class felt that they could make a good living and had a chance for advancement and a decent life, there would be no tea party or Occupy Wall Street."

---

New York Times financial writer Joe Nocera critiques Occupy movement | GazetteNET

Obviously this is talking about the situation in the US, but these are issues which are not confined to one country. A solution suggested in the article makes sense to me:

Quote:

---

Create a political movement that brings Wall Street back to being part of the economy that has some social utility instead of being part of the economy that's based on lining your own pockets.
I would argue that the regulators and Washington need to figure out a way to diminish the importance of lobbyists and the power of money in Washington, which is just overwhelming. Those are three things that are right off the top of my head that seem like they desperately need to be done.

---

How exactly people shift the emphasis of such a well engrained, self-interested monolith will be quite a challenge, but Occupy have made a start by getting off their arses and doing something, even if it's only raising awareness of the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Either there are no problems that need solutions or there is a problem :crazy: :p

I think it was Chuck who made comparisons between the TEA Party & the Occupy movement so it was interesting to read this:

New York Times financial writer Joe Nocera critiques Occupy movement | GazetteNET

Obviously this is talking about the situation in the US, but these are issues which are not confined to one country. A solution suggested in the article makes sense to me:

How exactly people shift the emphasis of such a well engrained, self-interested monolith will be quite a challenge, but Occupy have made a start by getting off their arses and doing something, even if it's only raising awareness of the issues.

---

It's really a simple thing. There is a system that has been put in place and people either sink in it or they adapt to it and buy a boat.

I also disagree with Occupy's ideals. They are pipe dreams :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

It's really a simple thing. There is a system that has been put in place and people either sink in it or they adapt to it and buy a boat.

---

That's precisely the point of the people's uprising - we don't like the current system that has been put in place - the same way your black brothers of South Africa revolted and changed the system that was in place because they were tired of sinking in it, they didn't want to "adapt" to the system's injustices and also, they could not afford to buy a boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

I also disagree with Occupy's ideals.

---

Do you know their ideals?
Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who’s been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting–that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans–156 million people–combined.

And some say, "so what? get a job you lazy bums" - They say occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.

The fact is that anybody who’s looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren’t jobs out there. That’s a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings. And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago.

Another myth is that the biggest crisis facing our country (USA) is out of control government spending.
The two biggest drivers of our deficit–by far–are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts. We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work–rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies–it’ll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich–who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 1917–pay their fair share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

They are pipe dreams :(

---

Getting rid of apartheid (this being one of many injustices that have been defeated throughout our history) was a pipe dream for many and look at the reality now.

source:
Top 5 FOX Myths To Debunk This Thanksgiving | MoveOn.Org

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Is this before they can read, write and do advanced math skills?

---

yes, it's right from the beginning, they can learn to read, write and basic maths while they develop their strengths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Because humans are imperfect beings. We will never be able to solve every problem in every situation. To think otherwise is naive and foolish.

---

Again the defeatist attitude that you were accusing me of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Things can't be better and cheaper? Wow I guess I should have kept my 286 computer that cost me $2500 or whatever it was from 1989.

---

That's called evolution, and it's due to people using their brains, it has little to do with the free market.
Or do you believe that Benz did invent the automobile because he wanted to make better profit against coaches?!
What about the phone?
What about electricity?
What about the laws of physics? Are these a result of the free market? No they are not. They are the result of the knowledge thirst of bright people, something the corporations do not like unless said bright people work for them and make them rich.

I say give people the means and the power to be creative and to share their knowledge in an equitable way. Forget about corporations, they the brake of our society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Oh you must come from the everybody gets a trophy school of thought. Little Johnny can't add or subtract because he's too "creative" for that. Sorry but there aren't really any creative ways to read, or write with proper grammar, or add/subtract/etc. But yeah, let's let the kids be creative about things instead of teaching them what they need to know. That's what the public schools in this country have been doing for 30+ years, gotten us far hasn't it? There is a time and place for creativity, but that time is AFTER kids have learned the basics. We don't teach the basics in this country anymore, and I for one would like to get back to that.

---

The basics are not going to get you new ideas, they will mostly set the boundaries for most of the people's lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

42 pages later, and this discussion/debate/issue seems about as organized as most of the OWS protests. Quite a bit of it is nothing short of comical with various people contradicting themselves page after page, switching their views, disallowing others to use the same reasonings they are using, etc, etc.

I've still yet to see any answers to this IMO delusion of greater equality. If people really want greater equality, then we all wouldn't be posting on this thread. The average wage worldwide is still less that $10,000 US dollars the last time I looked. Time to start spreading the wealth for those that seek equality.

Others claim it's not about money or material things. Take that money that you don't need and and use it to work on the issues you feel important... peace, security, education, whatever those issues might be. After all, who needs money?

Fair taxes and rights with no government? Who collects those taxes or makes sure rights are enforced and fair?


Much like Chuck I've seen a lot of talk and no real solutions. The overall productivity of this thread could easily be compared to the UN.

---

Talk about taking things out of context without reading attentively. :rolleyes:

For example, who said we should have Fair taxes and rights with no government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

I disagree, as I did it 8 years ago, which is less than a decade ago. A friend of mine also put everything he had on the line a few years ago.

---

Are you the CEO of one of the corporations that are pushing things their way?
I'm not sure we are talking about the same things and I do now understand why you are so committed to contradict us. Well I am not against the small to mid size business who are doing things as fair as they can, I am against corporations who influence the politics at state and global level.
In fact IMO one change that would help is to go back to a system where most people can have their own business and conduct it in a responsible way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

That's precisely the point of the people's uprising - we don't like the current system that has been put in place - the same way your black brothers of South Africa revolted and changed the system that was in place because they were tired of sinking in it, they didn't want to "adapt" to the system's injustices and also, they could not afford to buy a boat.



Do you know their ideals?
Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who’s been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting–that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans–156 million people–combined.

And some say, "so what? get a job you lazy bums" - They say occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.

The fact is that anybody who’s looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren’t jobs out there. That’s a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings. And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago.

Another myth is that the biggest crisis facing our country (USA) is out of control government spending.
The two biggest drivers of our deficit–by far–are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts. We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work–rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies–it’ll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich–who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 1917–pay their fair share.



Getting rid of apartheid (this being one of many injustices that have been defeated throughout our history) was a pipe dream for many and look at the reality now.

source:
Top 5 FOX Myths To Debunk This Thanksgiving | MoveOn.Org

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

That's called evolution, and it's due to people using their brains, it has little to do with the free market.
Or do you believe that Benz did invent the automobile because he wanted to make better profit against coaches?!
What about the phone?
What about electricity?
What about the laws of physics? Are these a result of the free market? No they are not. They are the result of the knowledge thirst of bright people, something the corporations do not like unless said bright people work for them and make them rich.

I say give people the means and the power to be creative and to share their knowledge in an equitable way. Forget about corporations, they the brake of our society.

---

What do you suppose Newton learned in school? How about Edison? Bell? The Wright Brothers? On and on. Did they learn math, science, and grammar, or did they learn "creativity"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

Another myth is that the biggest crisis facing our country (USA) is out of control government spending.
The two biggest drivers of our deficit–by far–are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts. We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work–rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies–it’ll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul.]

---

You do realize that revenues to the Federal government went UP after the '03 tax cuts. Also earlier I posted the statistics that show that you would have to tax those making over $250,000 a year (Obama's rich) at a rate where thy would have to pay something like $600,000 a year just to ballance the books. How do you propose they do this? And who do you propose will pick up the tab to just magically restart these factories? Or who will pay for all this research you propose?

And someone needs to explain to me how this deficit issue is a revenue problem. In 1999, when the budget was "balanced", we took in MUCH less revenue. So what would be wrong with cutting government spending to 99 levels, inflation adjusted?

You have some lofty ideals, I'll give you that, but you just aren't grounded in any sort of financial reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What do you suppose Newton learned in school? How about Edison? Bell? The Wright Brothers? On and on. Did they learn math, science, and grammar, or did they learn "creativity"

---

Not sure. maybe you have clear description of what they used to do in the school. Did they pass their standardized test with brio?