S
server
Guest
message unavailable
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
N
none
Guest
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable. Yet the postal system was run by the state, and
not noticeably expensive. Marx thought this was worth an explanation.
His reasoning goes like this. Postal systems are a natural
monopoly. Businesses do not want to be extorted by some other
business with respect to delivering goods. So they relegated that
to the state, being in Marx\'s the \"organized capitalist class\".
So the state acts in according with the best interest of the capitalists
*as a whole*, not as an oligarchy that allows certain
clans to extort other clans and the general population, while
upholding \"free competition\" principles.
The same reasoning explains why large, but modern, companies like
Apple and Microsoft are in favour of a universal health system in
the USA. USA society *as a whole* would run so much better.
Groetjes Albert
--
This is the first day of the end of your life.
It may not kill you, but it does make your weaker.
If you can\'t beat them, too bad.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable. Yet the postal system was run by the state, and
not noticeably expensive. Marx thought this was worth an explanation.
His reasoning goes like this. Postal systems are a natural
monopoly. Businesses do not want to be extorted by some other
business with respect to delivering goods. So they relegated that
to the state, being in Marx\'s the \"organized capitalist class\".
So the state acts in according with the best interest of the capitalists
*as a whole*, not as an oligarchy that allows certain
clans to extort other clans and the general population, while
upholding \"free competition\" principles.
The same reasoning explains why large, but modern, companies like
Apple and Microsoft are in favour of a universal health system in
the USA. USA society *as a whole* would run so much better.
Groetjes Albert
--
This is the first day of the end of your life.
It may not kill you, but it does make your weaker.
If you can\'t beat them, too bad.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
S
server
Guest
On 17 Aug 2020 11:19:23 GMT, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote:
And produced the most, and raised living standards for the world.
But UPS, FedEx, and Amazon have their own planes and trucks and
deliver most stuff now. The USPS mostly delivers junk mail at a loss.
If the providers had to compete, maybe so.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable.
And produced the most, and raised living standards for the world.
Yet the postal system was run by the state, and
not noticeably expensive. Marx thought this was worth an explanation.
His reasoning goes like this. Postal systems are a natural
monopoly. Businesses do not want to be extorted by some other
business with respect to delivering goods. So they relegated that
to the state, being in Marx\'s the \"organized capitalist class\".
So the state acts in according with the best interest of the capitalists
*as a whole*, not as an oligarchy that allows certain
clans to extort other clans and the general population, while
upholding \"free competition\" principles.
But UPS, FedEx, and Amazon have their own planes and trucks and
deliver most stuff now. The USPS mostly delivers junk mail at a loss.
The same reasoning explains why large, but modern, companies like
Apple and Microsoft are in favour of a universal health system in
the USA. USA society *as a whole* would run so much better.
If the providers had to compete, maybe so.
Groetjes Albert
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 17/08/20 15:21, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
From over here it also we are told it also delivers democracy,
albeit at a loss to some candidates.
On 17 Aug 2020 11:19:23 GMT, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable.
And produced the most, and raised living standards for the world.
Yet the postal system was run by the state, and
not noticeably expensive. Marx thought this was worth an explanation.
His reasoning goes like this. Postal systems are a natural
monopoly. Businesses do not want to be extorted by some other
business with respect to delivering goods. So they relegated that
to the state, being in Marx\'s the \"organized capitalist class\".
So the state acts in according with the best interest of the capitalists
*as a whole*, not as an oligarchy that allows certain
clans to extort other clans and the general population, while
upholding \"free competition\" principles.
But UPS, FedEx, and Amazon have their own planes and trucks and
deliver most stuff now. The USPS mostly delivers junk mail at a loss.
From over here it also we are told it also delivers democracy,
albeit at a loss to some candidates.
T
Tabby
Guest
On Monday, 17 August 2020 12:19:33 UTC+1, none albert wrote:
Did Marxism get anything right?
Government run organisations sometimes do deliver a good result, though mostly not. The problem is that when they don\'t there\'s very little we the people can do about it. Leaving enterprise in the hands of numerous independant people has so many upsides.
Take for example the Lada factory. The car was a huge success when released, a real win for commie Russia. It continued to be a success for many years.. But instead of updating it piecewise or designing a new car they kept making the things for 42 years!! Seriously, 1970-2012, by which time it was mockably outdated. Despite that it remained popular because it was about half the price of a fancier western car.
For another example take Trabants. We can all laugh but in the 1950s those were as much as citizens could afford, so the design decisions were sensible enough for the country at the time. The design was updated once in the 1960s, but that was it. The vehicle had major issues that were simply never addressed, and the factory continued to apply huge profits until it shut down simply because it could.
NT
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable. Yet the postal system was run by the state, and
not noticeably expensive. Marx thought this was worth an explanation.
His reasoning goes like this. Postal systems are a natural
monopoly. Businesses do not want to be extorted by some other
business with respect to delivering goods. So they relegated that
to the state, being in Marx\'s the \"organized capitalist class\".
So the state acts in according with the best interest of the capitalists
*as a whole*, not as an oligarchy that allows certain
clans to extort other clans and the general population, while
upholding \"free competition\" principles.
The same reasoning explains why large, but modern, companies like
Apple and Microsoft are in favour of a universal health system in
the USA. USA society *as a whole* would run so much better.
Groetjes Albert
Did Marxism get anything right?
Government run organisations sometimes do deliver a good result, though mostly not. The problem is that when they don\'t there\'s very little we the people can do about it. Leaving enterprise in the hands of numerous independant people has so many upsides.
Take for example the Lada factory. The car was a huge success when released, a real win for commie Russia. It continued to be a success for many years.. But instead of updating it piecewise or designing a new car they kept making the things for 42 years!! Seriously, 1970-2012, by which time it was mockably outdated. Despite that it remained popular because it was about half the price of a fancier western car.
For another example take Trabants. We can all laugh but in the 1950s those were as much as citizens could afford, so the design decisions were sensible enough for the country at the time. The design was updated once in the 1960s, but that was it. The vehicle had major issues that were simply never addressed, and the factory continued to apply huge profits until it shut down simply because it could.
NT
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 7:27:20 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
And it rather ignores the fact that free markets have a tendency to degenerate into monopolies and cartels. Natural monopolies are particularly vulnerable to this - look at Microsoft and Windows. Linux subverted the free market and eventually provided a superior alternative, but Bill Gates has stayed very rich.
<snip>
> Did Marxism get anything right?
Quite a lot. Karl Marx\'s enthusiasm for the leading role of the party wasn\'t one of them. International Socialism recognised this as an error in 1871 and kicked him out in consequence, but that didn\'t stop the silly idea getting adopted by people who reason as poorly as NT does - there are quite a few of them - and it a century to demonstrate that it wasn\'t a particularly good idea. The Chinese Communist Party still hasn\'t got the message.
> Government run organisations sometimes do deliver a good result, though mostly not. The problem is that when they don\'t there\'s very little, we the people can do about it. Leaving enterprise in the hands of numerous independent people has so many upsides.
With democratic socialism you can always vote out an under-performing government. Sweden has been doing it for decades. The government has stayed more or less socialist for decades, but the people running the country have had significantly different ideas about what socialism means.
> Take for example the Lada factory. The car was a huge success when released, a real win for commie Russia. It continued to be a success for many years. But instead of updating it piecewise or designing a new car they kept making the things for 42 years!! Seriously, 1970-2012, by which time it was mockably outdated. Despite that it remained popular because it was about half the price of a fancier western car.
That\'s the problem with a one-party state. One Australian politician has said that if Australian capitalism was so much better than Swedish socialism, the Swedish parliamentary car park would be as full of Holdens (Australia\'s own car) as the Australian parliament\'s car park was full of Volvos.
> For another example take Trabants. We can all laugh but in the 1950s those were as much as citizens could afford, so the design decisions were sensible enough for the country at the time. The design was updated once in the 1960s, but that was it. The vehicle had major issues that were simply never addressed, and the factory continued to apply huge profits until it shut down simply because it could.
That\'s the defect of one party state. Karl Marx was silly enough to endorse that way of running a country but it was obviously a bad idea back in 1871, and it hasn\'t got any better since.
Right-wing nitwits do love to concentrate on the defects of the one party state as if were a valid criticism of the idea of running a country in a way that looks after the whole population, and do try to claim that looking after the whole population implies spending exactly the same amount of money on every citizen. To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities, does actually implying spending more on the more able so that they can develop their abilities to the full (amongst a whole lot of other inconvenient detail).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Monday, 17 August 2020 12:19:33 UTC+1, none albert wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967...@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <toms...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
And it rather ignores the fact that free markets have a tendency to degenerate into monopolies and cartels. Natural monopolies are particularly vulnerable to this - look at Microsoft and Windows. Linux subverted the free market and eventually provided a superior alternative, but Bill Gates has stayed very rich.
<snip>
> Did Marxism get anything right?
Quite a lot. Karl Marx\'s enthusiasm for the leading role of the party wasn\'t one of them. International Socialism recognised this as an error in 1871 and kicked him out in consequence, but that didn\'t stop the silly idea getting adopted by people who reason as poorly as NT does - there are quite a few of them - and it a century to demonstrate that it wasn\'t a particularly good idea. The Chinese Communist Party still hasn\'t got the message.
> Government run organisations sometimes do deliver a good result, though mostly not. The problem is that when they don\'t there\'s very little, we the people can do about it. Leaving enterprise in the hands of numerous independent people has so many upsides.
With democratic socialism you can always vote out an under-performing government. Sweden has been doing it for decades. The government has stayed more or less socialist for decades, but the people running the country have had significantly different ideas about what socialism means.
> Take for example the Lada factory. The car was a huge success when released, a real win for commie Russia. It continued to be a success for many years. But instead of updating it piecewise or designing a new car they kept making the things for 42 years!! Seriously, 1970-2012, by which time it was mockably outdated. Despite that it remained popular because it was about half the price of a fancier western car.
That\'s the problem with a one-party state. One Australian politician has said that if Australian capitalism was so much better than Swedish socialism, the Swedish parliamentary car park would be as full of Holdens (Australia\'s own car) as the Australian parliament\'s car park was full of Volvos.
> For another example take Trabants. We can all laugh but in the 1950s those were as much as citizens could afford, so the design decisions were sensible enough for the country at the time. The design was updated once in the 1960s, but that was it. The vehicle had major issues that were simply never addressed, and the factory continued to apply huge profits until it shut down simply because it could.
That\'s the defect of one party state. Karl Marx was silly enough to endorse that way of running a country but it was obviously a bad idea back in 1871, and it hasn\'t got any better since.
Right-wing nitwits do love to concentrate on the defects of the one party state as if were a valid criticism of the idea of running a country in a way that looks after the whole population, and do try to claim that looking after the whole population implies spending exactly the same amount of money on every citizen. To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities, does actually implying spending more on the more able so that they can develop their abilities to the full (amongst a whole lot of other inconvenient detail).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 9:57:16 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
Hardly, SL0W MAN - you use it because you DON\'T have a cogent rebuttal.
On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 2:23:11 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 10:24:16 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 10:40:37 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 4:53:09 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:58:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:33:49 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).
So why does every other advanced industrial country have universal health care, most paid for by a very tightly regulated health insurance industry, and cheaper costs per head?
If US health care worked better than anybody else, it might make sense to have it cost half as much again per head as the French, German and Dutch systems (which are relatively expensive by world standards) but it isn\'t.
James Arthur brought up a bunch of bogus statistic during the anti-Obamacare campaign claiming that it did better, but they all got knocked down as the cheats involved were exposed.
One explanation is the we pay for most of your drugs that you get at a HUGE discount compared to what we pay. That NEEDS to change.
Sure. The US pharmacy lobby managed to get a no-haggling clause written into some legislation or other. That is purely a US problem.
The drugs are developed and manufactured all around the world, and most drug distributions sets-ups haggle vigorously to get them from the cheapest reliable manufacturer. What I take keeps on coming from different manufacturers in different countries. Australia has a couple of big pharmaceutical manufacturers, but we import a lot of stuff too.
The US accounts for nearly half of the world\'s drug discovery, but even foreign drug companies can sell their products in the US at a higher price than permitted by countries with drug price controls. So, the US underwrites foreign drug research as well.
But it\'s consequence of the US being silly about it\'s drug buying policy. If you chose to be stupid, you can\'t complain about the consequences of that stupidity.
You do seem to be too stupid to realise this.
\"Stupid\" seems to be your favorite word - I think you closely identify with it.
It\'s more that you hear it a lot, and are peculiarly sensitive to it, since it is used - perfectly correctly - to label pretty much everything that you post. Including this comment, of course.
--
SL0W MAN, Sydney
Hardly, SL0W MAN - you use it because you DON\'T have a cogent rebuttal.
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 8:59:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
Hey SL0W MAN,
Sweden ISN\'T \"socialist\" - just ask them! Socialism is a FAILED model because it is self-poisoning.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 7:27:20 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2020 12:19:33 UTC+1, none albert wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967...@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <toms...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
And it rather ignores the fact that free markets have a tendency to degenerate into monopolies and cartels. Natural monopolies are particularly vulnerable to this - look at Microsoft and Windows. Linux subverted the free market and eventually provided a superior alternative, but Bill Gates has stayed very rich.
snip
Did Marxism get anything right?
Quite a lot. Karl Marx\'s enthusiasm for the leading role of the party wasn\'t one of them. International Socialism recognised this as an error in 1871 and kicked him out in consequence, but that didn\'t stop the silly idea getting adopted by people who reason as poorly as NT does - there are quite a few of them - and it a century to demonstrate that it wasn\'t a particularly good idea. The Chinese Communist Party still hasn\'t got the message.
Government run organisations sometimes do deliver a good result, though mostly not. The problem is that when they don\'t there\'s very little, we the people can do about it. Leaving enterprise in the hands of numerous independent people has so many upsides.
With democratic socialism you can always vote out an under-performing government. Sweden has been doing it for decades. The government has stayed more or less socialist for decades, but the people running the country have had significantly different ideas about what socialism means.
Take for example the Lada factory. The car was a huge success when released, a real win for commie Russia. It continued to be a success for many years. But instead of updating it piecewise or designing a new car they kept making the things for 42 years!! Seriously, 1970-2012, by which time it was mockably outdated. Despite that it remained popular because it was about half the price of a fancier western car.
That\'s the problem with a one-party state. One Australian politician has said that if Australian capitalism was so much better than Swedish socialism, the Swedish parliamentary car park would be as full of Holdens (Australia\'s own car) as the Australian parliament\'s car park was full of Volvos.
For another example take Trabants. We can all laugh but in the 1950s those were as much as citizens could afford, so the design decisions were sensible enough for the country at the time. The design was updated once in the 1960s, but that was it. The vehicle had major issues that were simply never addressed, and the factory continued to apply huge profits until it shut down simply because it could.
That\'s the defect of one party state. Karl Marx was silly enough to endorse that way of running a country but it was obviously a bad idea back in 1871, and it hasn\'t got any better since.
Right-wing nitwits do love to concentrate on the defects of the one party state as if were a valid criticism of the idea of running a country in a way that looks after the whole population, and do try to claim that looking after the whole population implies spending exactly the same amount of money on every citizen. To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities, does actually implying spending more on the more able so that they can develop their abilities to the full (amongst a whole lot of other inconvenient detail).
--
SL0W MAN, Sydney
Hey SL0W MAN,
Sweden ISN\'T \"socialist\" - just ask them! Socialism is a FAILED model because it is self-poisoning.
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2020-08-17, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
Those that it didn\'t starve to death perhaps.
--
Jasen.
On 17 Aug 2020 11:19:23 GMT, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable.
And produced the most, and raised living standards for the world.
Those that it didn\'t starve to death perhaps.
--
Jasen.
S
server
Guest
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-children-younger-than-5-who-are-underweight-for-their-age
https://capx.co/how-we-are-beating-hunger-in-5-graphs/
Technology and ag science - mostly Western achievements - have vastly
improved the food supply of the world. Morons from Malthus to Erlich
predicted mass starvation and were wrong.
Of course we can expect a few years of setbacks from the crazy
lockdowns.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-27/covid-19-threatens-to-starve-africa
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2020-08-17, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2020 11:19:23 GMT, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable.
And produced the most, and raised living standards for the world.
Those that it didn\'t starve to death perhaps.
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-children-younger-than-5-who-are-underweight-for-their-age
https://capx.co/how-we-are-beating-hunger-in-5-graphs/
Technology and ag science - mostly Western achievements - have vastly
improved the food supply of the world. Morons from Malthus to Erlich
predicted mass starvation and were wrong.
Of course we can expect a few years of setbacks from the crazy
lockdowns.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-27/covid-19-threatens-to-starve-africa
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
J
Jasen Betts
Guest
On 2020-08-18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
Are you changing the subject because you know that you are wrong, or
would you like an example?
--
Jasen.
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2020-08-17, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2020 11:19:23 GMT, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable.
And produced the most, and raised living standards for the world.
Those that it didn\'t starve to death perhaps.
Technology and ag science - mostly Western achievements - have vastly
improved the food supply of the world. Morons from Malthus to Erlich
predicted mass starvation and were wrong.
Are you changing the subject because you know that you are wrong, or
would you like an example?
--
Jasen.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 2:48:06 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
Your idea is that if you don\'t understand the rebuttal, it isn\'t cogent. This happens to be just as wrong as the rest of your silly idea.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 9:57:16 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 2:23:11 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 10:24:16 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2020 at 10:40:37 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 6:22:07 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 4:53:09 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 10:58:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:33:49 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more (instead of going out of business).
So why does every other advanced industrial country have universal health care, most paid for by a very tightly regulated health insurance industry, and cheaper costs per head?
If US health care worked better than anybody else, it might make sense to have it cost half as much again per head as the French, German and Dutch systems (which are relatively expensive by world standards) but it isn\'t.
James Arthur brought up a bunch of bogus statistic during the anti-Obamacare campaign claiming that it did better, but they all got knocked down as the cheats involved were exposed.
One explanation is the we pay for most of your drugs that you get at a HUGE discount compared to what we pay. That NEEDS to change.
Sure. The US pharmacy lobby managed to get a no-haggling clause written into some legislation or other. That is purely a US problem.
The drugs are developed and manufactured all around the world, and most drug distributions sets-ups haggle vigorously to get them from the cheapest reliable manufacturer. What I take keeps on coming from different manufacturers in different countries. Australia has a couple of big pharmaceutical manufacturers, but we import a lot of stuff too.
The US accounts for nearly half of the world\'s drug discovery, but even foreign drug companies can sell their products in the US at a higher price than permitted by countries with drug price controls. So, the US underwrites foreign drug research as well.
But it\'s consequence of the US being silly about it\'s drug buying policy. If you chose to be stupid, you can\'t complain about the consequences of that stupidity.
You do seem to be too stupid to realise this.
\"Stupid\" seems to be your favorite word - I think you closely identify with it.
It\'s more that you hear it a lot, and are peculiarly sensitive to it, since it is used - perfectly correctly - to label pretty much everything that you post. Including this comment, of course.
Hardly, Sloman - you use it because you DON\'T have a cogent rebuttal.
Your idea is that if you don\'t understand the rebuttal, it isn\'t cogent. This happens to be just as wrong as the rest of your silly idea.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 2:56:06 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
<snip>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6fven_II_Cabinet
The current Swedish administration is a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Green Party. The social democrats are socialist, and the Green Party is based on the decidedly socialist idea that we should shouldn\'t wreck the planet, and make life difficult for the whole of the next generation.
What bizarre interpretation of reality might lead you to the idea that Sweden wasn\'t socialist escapes me. They aren\'t communist, but that\'s something else - it professes to be socialist but doesn\'t deliver. Twits like you do tend to confuse socialism with communism - the American media have been trying to make this equation for the past century (and longer), but it\'s politically motivated nonsense.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 8:59:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 7:27:20 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2020 12:19:33 UTC+1, none albert wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967...@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <toms...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
And it rather ignores the fact that free markets have a tendency to degenerate into monopolies and cartels. Natural monopolies are particularly vulnerable to this - look at Microsoft and Windows. Linux subverted the free market and eventually provided a superior alternative, but Bill Gates has stayed very rich.
<snip>
With democratic socialism you can always vote out an under-performing government. Sweden has been doing it for decades. The government has stayed more or less socialist for decades, but the people running the country have had significantly different ideas about what socialism means.
Take for example the Lada factory. The car was a huge success when released, a real win for commie Russia. It continued to be a success for many years. But instead of updating it piecewise or designing a new car they kept making the things for 42 years!! Seriously, 1970-2012, by which time it was mockably outdated. Despite that it remained popular because it was about half the price of a fancier western car.
That\'s the problem with a one-party state. One Australian politician has said that if Australian capitalism was so much better than Swedish socialism, the Swedish parliamentary car park would be as full of Holdens (Australia\'s own car) as the Australian parliament\'s car park was full of Volvos.
For another example take Trabants. We can all laugh but in the 1950s those were as much as citizens could afford, so the design decisions were sensible enough for the country at the time. The design was updated once in the 1960s, but that was it. The vehicle had major issues that were simply never addressed, and the factory continued to apply huge profits until it shut down simply because it could.
That\'s the defect of one party state. Karl Marx was silly enough to endorse that way of running a country but it was obviously a bad idea back in 1871, and it hasn\'t got any better since.
Right-wing nitwits do love to concentrate on the defects of the one party state as if were a valid criticism of the idea of running a country in a way that looks after the whole population, and do try to claim that looking after the whole population implies spending exactly the same amount of money on every citizen. To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities, does actually implying spending more on the more able so that they can develop their abilities to the full (amongst a whole lot of other inconvenient detail).
Sweden ISN\'T \"socialist\" - just ask them! Socialism is a FAILED model because it is self-poisoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6fven_II_Cabinet
The current Swedish administration is a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Green Party. The social democrats are socialist, and the Green Party is based on the decidedly socialist idea that we should shouldn\'t wreck the planet, and make life difficult for the whole of the next generation.
What bizarre interpretation of reality might lead you to the idea that Sweden wasn\'t socialist escapes me. They aren\'t communist, but that\'s something else - it professes to be socialist but doesn\'t deliver. Twits like you do tend to confuse socialism with communism - the American media have been trying to make this equation for the past century (and longer), but it\'s politically motivated nonsense.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
S
server
Guest
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:09:52 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
I thought the subject here was electronic design, and the history and
effects of technology are relevant.
You don\'t think that telephones, electric lighting, education, farm
machinery, and transport have improved lives all over the world? I do.
Britain\'s \"brutal capitalist system\" has fed and educated and
medicated a lot of people all over the world. About the best thing
that could happen to a poor, backwards country was to be a subjugated
colony of Britain. Not so much a colony of Portugal, Spain, Germany,
Belguim, China, Japan, Iran, or the Netherlands. The Brits are, on a
relative scale, pretty decent people.
The de-Anglify movement isn\'t feeding a lot of Africans right now.
Don\'t be shy, present your examples of my wrongness.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2020-08-18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2020-08-17, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2020 11:19:23 GMT, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable.
And produced the most, and raised living standards for the world.
Those that it didn\'t starve to death perhaps.
Technology and ag science - mostly Western achievements - have vastly
improved the food supply of the world. Morons from Malthus to Erlich
predicted mass starvation and were wrong.
Are you changing the subject because you know that you are wrong, or
would you like an example?
I thought the subject here was electronic design, and the history and
effects of technology are relevant.
You don\'t think that telephones, electric lighting, education, farm
machinery, and transport have improved lives all over the world? I do.
Britain\'s \"brutal capitalist system\" has fed and educated and
medicated a lot of people all over the world. About the best thing
that could happen to a poor, backwards country was to be a subjugated
colony of Britain. Not so much a colony of Portugal, Spain, Germany,
Belguim, China, Japan, Iran, or the Netherlands. The Brits are, on a
relative scale, pretty decent people.
The de-Anglify movement isn\'t feeding a lot of Africans right now.
Don\'t be shy, present your examples of my wrongness.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
S
server
Guest
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:51:51 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
And Britain was a colony of the Roman Empire.
Progress.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 06:09:52 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2020-08-18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:13:11 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
On 2020-08-17, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2020 11:19:23 GMT, albert@cherry.(none) (albert) wrote:
In article <bf6a837d-cbf5-4967-9fb0-fe1bd2a29b2f@googlegroups.com>,
Flyguy <tomseim2g@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian study put most of the extra cost into huge administrative
expenses.
\"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it costs when it\'s free.\" --P.J. O\'Rourke, May 6, 1993
An unreliable prediction from a political satirist.
There is more truth than not in that: if you want to make anything
expensive have the government do it. That is because government does not
obey the laws of economics: if it costs more, they just tax you more
(instead of going out of business).
An interesting example is the British postal system in the
19th century. Brittan was the most brutal capitalist system
imaginable.
And produced the most, and raised living standards for the world.
Those that it didn\'t starve to death perhaps.
Technology and ag science - mostly Western achievements - have vastly
improved the food supply of the world. Morons from Malthus to Erlich
predicted mass starvation and were wrong.
Are you changing the subject because you know that you are wrong, or
would you like an example?
I thought the subject here was electronic design, and the history and
effects of technology are relevant.
You don\'t think that telephones, electric lighting, education, farm
machinery, and transport have improved lives all over the world? I do.
Britain\'s \"brutal capitalist system\" has fed and educated and
medicated a lot of people all over the world. About the best thing
that could happen to a poor, backwards country was to be a subjugated
colony of Britain. Not so much a colony of Portugal, Spain, Germany,
Belguim, China, Japan, Iran, or the Netherlands. The Brits are, on a
relative scale, pretty decent people.
And Britain was a colony of the Roman Empire.
Progress.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
Science teaches us to doubt.
Claude Bernard