|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 07 2016 20:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 20:29 Godwrath wrote:
And then we have Finland, Norway or Denmark. Radical examples are just silly. Norway is well run but it has a population of only 5 million and vast natural resources relative to population allowing it to build up a future fund.USA has 330 million and imports a large amount of its oil and other resources.Norways debt/GDP is 30% or something, USA is well over 100% now, they are totally incomparable.
The point is flying over your head. You just don't take the oppossite side of the spectrum as an example when you got plenty more moderate approachs which are actually functional. They might not work for the US, but it is certainly far from far fetched as you try to make it seem when you use Venezuela as an example of Socialism.
|
On March 07 2016 21:05 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 20:07 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 07 2016 20:02 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 07 2016 15:26 Slaughter wrote:
People in the US talk such a big game when it comes to being friendly and open and the bastion of freedom of opportunity but really its just a country full of selfish people. Me me me, I must win and if someone else is winning then its my loss so no I don't want to pay for things that benefit other people because fuck them they all must be moochers who want everything given to them.
*meanwhile in Europe* Isn't it great that we have enriched our nation by investing in ourselves as a whole instead of being divided and letting some invisible hand work its magic?
Like there is 0 sense of community and unity in this country. Everyone is too individualistic and what groups do form are numerous with narrow goals and they all distrust each other (and also cut across cultural/racial/economic/religious lines).
We carved ourselves up into niches and everyone only wants their niche to win and thinks that they are 100% self reliant and every other group is just looking for hand outs on their dime.
No one actually wants to make America "great" again, they want to make whatever niche they are apart of to get theirs and who cares about the rest.
Fuck You. Got Mine is the motto of this country. Selfish? Like the people that want a cushy ride through life without having to work hard for it? That describes a huge chunk of Sanders supporters and socialist advocates in general. That's the most BS comment of this thread so far, and if you don't already know it you're off your head. Socialism is about creating a society where the poor and vulnerable are able to live a decent life. That's not selfish. I can't believe I have to explain that lol Whereas the right tends towards 'what's mine is mine, fuck everyone else'. This isn't only America though, I don't know why he would pick on a country that's consistently voted left recently. Take it away, Kasparov; ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xaquwl2.jpg) Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 20:29 Godwrath wrote:
And then we have Finland, Norway or Denmark. Radical examples are just silly. And for his encore ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OO2C8m5.jpg)
I agree with him, but the question wasn't whether it works, but whether its selfish.
The economic policy of those on the right (In America at least) relies on selfishness to make it work, arguably that's why it works so well because humans are naturally selfish.
I said nothing about the merits of either in practical terms.
Sometimes you have to look for a more subtle conclusion than left vs right or right vs wrong.
|
On March 07 2016 21:54 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 20:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 07 2016 20:29 Godwrath wrote:
And then we have Finland, Norway or Denmark. Radical examples are just silly. Norway is well run but it has a population of only 5 million and vast natural resources relative to population allowing it to build up a future fund.USA has 330 million and imports a large amount of its oil and other resources.Norways debt/GDP is 30% or something, USA is well over 100% now, they are totally incomparable. The point is flying over your head. You just don't take the oppossite side of the spectrum as an example when you got plenty more moderate approachs which are actually functional. They might not work for the US, but it is certainly far from far fetched as you try to make it seem when you use Venezuela as an example of Socialism.
USA is 19 trillion in the hole with 223 billion interest paid on the debt last year.The current level of spending is completely unsustainable never mind what you and Sanders are suggesting...
|
Kasparov is totally misconstruing the argument: noone is arguing that capitalistic elements are not a driver for enterprise, innovation and risk taking.
The US as is, is a mixed economy with growing wealth inequality and a perpetual underclass and superclass. No capitalistic mechanism can break this development appart. If one percieves this societal development as a problem, redistribution from the haves to the have nots is the only solution.
Some anarchocapitalists argue that the redistribution can be achived by every poor person just pulling themselfs up by their bootstrings, becoming corporate lawyers in mergers and acquisitions of a 3 jewish names firm in new york and getting paid money by current 1%ters to perform highly valuable labour (but not valuable in its output but only in its current (percived) difficulty to replace). Everyone not doing so is not worth of living and should die from starvation (or get exploited for 1$ a day in a sweatshop if he is even to dumb to realize his bargaining power of just refusing to eat till a higher price for his labour can be found)
Some others think that a stable equitable society can be achived by progressive taxation, regulation and welfare.
From there it is just a question of morals, and since they are irreconcilable the discussion will just devolve to a shouting match about moochers or cold heartless selfish bastards.
|
Because capitalism does not corrode the economy and the human spirit itself, we all know. After all, the world right not is clearly not capitalist overall, and clearly not in a bad shape : everything is fine. It is not capitalist economies that lead to two world wars, don't worry !
And the USSR under stalin was clearly the best socialism can do, we all know.
|
On March 07 2016 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Because capitalism does not corrode the economy and the human spirit itself, we all know. After all, the world right not is clearly not capitalist overall, and clearly not in a bad shape : everything is fine. It is not capitalist economies that lead to two world wars, don't worry !
And the USSR under stalin was clearly the best socialism can do, we all know.
Makes you wonder whether its the ideology or the assholes in charge that are the problem...
|
On March 07 2016 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Because capitalism does not corrode the economy and the human spirit itself, we all know. After all, the world right not is clearly not capitalist overall, and clearly not in a bad shape : everything is fine. It is not capitalist economies that lead to two world wars, don't worry !
And the USSR under stalin was clearly the best socialism can do, we all know. Makes you wonder whether its the ideology or the assholes in charge that are the problem...
Maybe the assholes are the product of the ideology.
What I really dislike is that all that is clearly the result of an incapacity to think, and it is really dangerous if even someone like Kasparov is unable to do such thing as thinking. When you look at the USSR or China under Mao, clearly they were a failure and everybody should agree the communist hypothesis is dangerous as it is, but at the same time there were clear results in some aspects : what about the education and health in China and Russia that were marvelous for such poor countries, and that lead to China's recent economic success (according to none other than Amartia Sen) and that created - in a sense - great thinkers in Russia. Shouldn't a guy like Kasparov be able to think about what's good or bad instead of resuming something as complicated as "socialism" to an opposition to the "capitalism" (like capitalism is unified and the same all over the world and throughout history) ? Like, shouldn't he be able to think "Maybe the education and the health under soviet russia was better than under the tsar ?" or "Maybe I, a world known legend in chess, am a product of this soviet education ?".
|
The more competitive a system is the higher the propability that only brash selfish and (overly)selfconfident people make it through to the top.
|
I'd like to thank Kasparov for letting me know that Sanders supporters want to live in the Soviet Union. Here I was, discussing with Sanders supporters all this time, and they never said Soviet Union or communism. They must be uneducated about themselves, I guess I should tell them what they really want.
|
On March 07 2016 22:34 puerk wrote:
The more competitive a system is the higher the propability that only brash selfish and (overly)selfconfident people make it through to the top.
A competitive system is fine on its own, as long as it does not empower the successful party to hold down future competitors. Completely open ended competitive systems end with the most successful keeping resources away from other parties.
|
On March 07 2016 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Because capitalism does not corrode the economy and the human spirit itself, we all know. After all, the world right not is clearly not capitalist overall, and clearly not in a bad shape : everything is fine. It is not capitalist economies that lead to two world wars, don't worry !
And the USSR under stalin was clearly the best socialism can do, we all know.
1.Socialism & communism caused far more deaths last century than capitalism.Nazis = National Socialists.
2.Obama bailing out the banks (700 billion), Bailing out the big automakers, huge Agri subsidies paid by the US and EU.This is all very uncapitalist.Capitalism lets failed businesses collapse so healthy companies take their place.The world becomes less capitalist each year, the debt of bad/"too big to fail" companies is taken on by Govt.Again, corruption not capitalism.
3."The goal of socialism is communism" - V.Lenin
|
On March 07 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Because capitalism does not corrode the economy and the human spirit itself, we all know. After all, the world right not is clearly not capitalist overall, and clearly not in a bad shape : everything is fine. It is not capitalist economies that lead to two world wars, don't worry !
And the USSR under stalin was clearly the best socialism can do, we all know. 1.Socialism & communism caused far more deaths last century than capitalism.Nazis = National Socialists. 2.Obama bailing out the banks (700 billion), Bailing out the big automakers, huge Agri subsidies paid by the US and EU.This is all very uncapitalist.Capitalism lets failed businesses collapse so healthy companies take their place.The world becomes less capitalist each year, the debt of bad/"too big to fail" companies is taken on by Govt.Again, corruption not capitalism. 3."The goal of socialism is communism" - V.Lenin
Obama didn't bail out the banks, he had not taken office at that time. If you are going to make arguments, please get the dates right. We were paid that money back too. And failure of the banking industry in the US would have lead to another great depression, so it was necessary. The part where we didn't send anyone to prison or even investigate who's fault it was is the real problem.
|
On March 07 2016 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 22:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Because capitalism does not corrode the economy and the human spirit itself, we all know. After all, the world right not is clearly not capitalist overall, and clearly not in a bad shape : everything is fine. It is not capitalist economies that lead to two world wars, don't worry !
And the USSR under stalin was clearly the best socialism can do, we all know. 1.Socialism & communism caused far more deaths last century than capitalism.Nazis = National Socialists. 2.Obama bailing out the banks (700 billion), Bailing out the big automakers, huge Agri subsidies paid by the US and EU.This is all very uncapitalist.Capitalism lets failed businesses collapse so healthy companies take their place.The world becomes less capitalist each year, the debt of bad/"too big to fail" companies is taken on by Govt.Again, corruption not capitalism. 3."The goal of socialism is communism" - V.Lenin
And Godwin'ed.
Congratulations you lost the argument.
ps.
Bush bailed out the banks and started the bailout of the auto industry. If your going to throw around bullshit arguments atleast try to get your dates somewhat correct.
|
On March 07 2016 15:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 15:42 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:35 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:26 Slaughter wrote:
People in the US talk such a big game when it comes to being friendly and open and the bastion of freedom of opportunity but really its just a country full of selfish people. Me me me, I must win and if someone else is winning then its my loss so no I don't want to pay for things that benefit other people because fuck them they all must be moochers who want everything given to them.
*meanwhile in Europe* Isn't it great that we have enriched our nation by investing in ourselves as a whole instead of being divided and letting some invisible hand work its magic?
Like there is 0 sense of community and unity in this country. Everyone is too individualistic and what groups do form are numerous with narrow goals and they all distrust each other (and also cut across cultural/racial/economic/religious lines).
We carved ourselves up into niches and everyone only wants their niche to win and thinks that they are 100% self reliant and every other group is just looking for hand outs on their dime.
No one actually wants to make America "great" again, they want to make whatever niche they are apart of to get theirs and who cares about the rest.
Fuck You. Got Mine is the motto of this country. Okay. We're going to making housing free for everybody. A domicile is more important than ever in this day and age. Especially with ballooning housing costs. Nobody will notice you without a place to live. And people who have housing pay taxes (homeless people pay less taxes) - so it all works out. If you're at all skeptical about the viability of the specifics of footing the bill for my rent, it means you hate helping people, are greedy, and just want to insult people by calling them moochers. What do you think? Is low-income housing not even a thing in the US? We're not talking about low-income housing or shelters. We're talking about free housing for everybody.What Bernie's pushing is not "adding to the myriad need-based scholarships and loan programs," it's "free college for everybody." Or have I missed something? Depends. I haven't actually read his plan (if that's even laid out yet), but free post-secondary education (or heavily subsidized education) usually leads to stricter qualifications for students and for the schools. So college may be free, but everyone still won't be going to college (whether its desire or aptitude). The biggest difference would be that the bottom colleges will actually have to start caring about academic output...which is why in most other countries going to a Community College doesn't really have a stigma to it, but it does probably mean you're receiving an education in a trade or applied skills for specific fields.
Same as healthcare, make it available to everyone and we get rationing.
|
On March 07 2016 23:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 15:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:42 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:35 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:26 Slaughter wrote:
People in the US talk such a big game when it comes to being friendly and open and the bastion of freedom of opportunity but really its just a country full of selfish people. Me me me, I must win and if someone else is winning then its my loss so no I don't want to pay for things that benefit other people because fuck them they all must be moochers who want everything given to them.
*meanwhile in Europe* Isn't it great that we have enriched our nation by investing in ourselves as a whole instead of being divided and letting some invisible hand work its magic?
Like there is 0 sense of community and unity in this country. Everyone is too individualistic and what groups do form are numerous with narrow goals and they all distrust each other (and also cut across cultural/racial/economic/religious lines).
We carved ourselves up into niches and everyone only wants their niche to win and thinks that they are 100% self reliant and every other group is just looking for hand outs on their dime.
No one actually wants to make America "great" again, they want to make whatever niche they are apart of to get theirs and who cares about the rest.
Fuck You. Got Mine is the motto of this country. Okay. We're going to making housing free for everybody. A domicile is more important than ever in this day and age. Especially with ballooning housing costs. Nobody will notice you without a place to live. And people who have housing pay taxes (homeless people pay less taxes) - so it all works out. If you're at all skeptical about the viability of the specifics of footing the bill for my rent, it means you hate helping people, are greedy, and just want to insult people by calling them moochers. What do you think? Is low-income housing not even a thing in the US? We're not talking about low-income housing or shelters. We're talking about free housing for everybody.What Bernie's pushing is not "adding to the myriad need-based scholarships and loan programs," it's "free college for everybody." Or have I missed something? Depends. I haven't actually read his plan (if that's even laid out yet), but free post-secondary education (or heavily subsidized education) usually leads to stricter qualifications for students and for the schools. So college may be free, but everyone still won't be going to college (whether its desire or aptitude). The biggest difference would be that the bottom colleges will actually have to start caring about academic output...which is why in most other countries going to a Community College doesn't really have a stigma to it, but it does probably mean you're receiving an education in a trade or applied skills for specific fields. Same as healthcare, make it available to everyone and we get rationing.
please educate me. How is education a finite resource.
|
Kasparov - great at chess, terrible at politics. I really like him the most around the time of the world chess championship because he stops saying stupid things for a time.
I also remember the USSR, and guess what? It wasn't the soul-crushing dystopia Kasparov says it is. It had many issues (severe corruption, massive black market economy, a stigma against profit and against changing jobs, well known political issues). And yet at the same time it had free high quality education and healthcare for all. No one suffered in debt limbo for decades the way many do in the US because they made stupid decisions as an 18 year old student or because they got sick and went to the ER. There was certainly a lot that could be adapted to better effect in most of the developed world, and to varying success it has been done.
Overall, the biggest shortfalls seem to be that socialists tend to stigmatize and punish the rich, and that they tend to accept immigrants who would rather live off government benefits than earn their keep in society. The ability to become very rich, to be rewarded for putting in an exceptional effort with material gains, really does push people forward in a way that socialists often do not understand (and a monetary elite develops anyway - there was still an upper class in the USSR despite "communism"). Immigrants who don't work are an obvious issue, which is part of why this Syrian migration (and the postcolonial Africa migration) are going to be an economic mess (not just the political mess that Muslim populations inevitably end up being).
Second post of Kasparov is of course full of shit. It's easy to be the most successful country in the world when the rest of the world is actually fighting a war in their home countries and the most intelligent immigrants in the world flock to the country an ocean away from the war.
|
On March 07 2016 23:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 23:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 07 2016 15:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:42 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:35 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:26 Slaughter wrote:
People in the US talk such a big game when it comes to being friendly and open and the bastion of freedom of opportunity but really its just a country full of selfish people. Me me me, I must win and if someone else is winning then its my loss so no I don't want to pay for things that benefit other people because fuck them they all must be moochers who want everything given to them.
*meanwhile in Europe* Isn't it great that we have enriched our nation by investing in ourselves as a whole instead of being divided and letting some invisible hand work its magic?
Like there is 0 sense of community and unity in this country. Everyone is too individualistic and what groups do form are numerous with narrow goals and they all distrust each other (and also cut across cultural/racial/economic/religious lines).
We carved ourselves up into niches and everyone only wants their niche to win and thinks that they are 100% self reliant and every other group is just looking for hand outs on their dime.
No one actually wants to make America "great" again, they want to make whatever niche they are apart of to get theirs and who cares about the rest.
Fuck You. Got Mine is the motto of this country. Okay. We're going to making housing free for everybody. A domicile is more important than ever in this day and age. Especially with ballooning housing costs. Nobody will notice you without a place to live. And people who have housing pay taxes (homeless people pay less taxes) - so it all works out. If you're at all skeptical about the viability of the specifics of footing the bill for my rent, it means you hate helping people, are greedy, and just want to insult people by calling them moochers. What do you think? Is low-income housing not even a thing in the US? We're not talking about low-income housing or shelters. We're talking about free housing for everybody.What Bernie's pushing is not "adding to the myriad need-based scholarships and loan programs," it's "free college for everybody." Or have I missed something? Depends. I haven't actually read his plan (if that's even laid out yet), but free post-secondary education (or heavily subsidized education) usually leads to stricter qualifications for students and for the schools. So college may be free, but everyone still won't be going to college (whether its desire or aptitude). The biggest difference would be that the bottom colleges will actually have to start caring about academic output...which is why in most other countries going to a Community College doesn't really have a stigma to it, but it does probably mean you're receiving an education in a trade or applied skills for specific fields. Same as healthcare, make it available to everyone and we get rationing. please educate me. How is education a finite resource.
You have finite number of people to teach it. Finite classroom space. Finite books. Some form of selection or "rationing" is be necessary to make sure the people that attended higher education are in the right place. There is no reason to offer it to everyone and set people up to fail.
|
On March 07 2016 23:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 23:50 Gorsameth wrote:On March 07 2016 23:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 07 2016 15:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:42 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:35 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:26 Slaughter wrote:
People in the US talk such a big game when it comes to being friendly and open and the bastion of freedom of opportunity but really its just a country full of selfish people. Me me me, I must win and if someone else is winning then its my loss so no I don't want to pay for things that benefit other people because fuck them they all must be moochers who want everything given to them.
*meanwhile in Europe* Isn't it great that we have enriched our nation by investing in ourselves as a whole instead of being divided and letting some invisible hand work its magic?
Like there is 0 sense of community and unity in this country. Everyone is too individualistic and what groups do form are numerous with narrow goals and they all distrust each other (and also cut across cultural/racial/economic/religious lines).
We carved ourselves up into niches and everyone only wants their niche to win and thinks that they are 100% self reliant and every other group is just looking for hand outs on their dime.
No one actually wants to make America "great" again, they want to make whatever niche they are apart of to get theirs and who cares about the rest.
Fuck You. Got Mine is the motto of this country. Okay. We're going to making housing free for everybody. A domicile is more important than ever in this day and age. Especially with ballooning housing costs. Nobody will notice you without a place to live. And people who have housing pay taxes (homeless people pay less taxes) - so it all works out. If you're at all skeptical about the viability of the specifics of footing the bill for my rent, it means you hate helping people, are greedy, and just want to insult people by calling them moochers. What do you think? Is low-income housing not even a thing in the US? We're not talking about low-income housing or shelters. We're talking about free housing for everybody.What Bernie's pushing is not "adding to the myriad need-based scholarships and loan programs," it's "free college for everybody." Or have I missed something? Depends. I haven't actually read his plan (if that's even laid out yet), but free post-secondary education (or heavily subsidized education) usually leads to stricter qualifications for students and for the schools. So college may be free, but everyone still won't be going to college (whether its desire or aptitude). The biggest difference would be that the bottom colleges will actually have to start caring about academic output...which is why in most other countries going to a Community College doesn't really have a stigma to it, but it does probably mean you're receiving an education in a trade or applied skills for specific fields. Same as healthcare, make it available to everyone and we get rationing. please educate me. How is education a finite resource. You have finite number of people to teach it. Finite classroom space. Finite books. Some form of selection or "rationing" is be necessary to make sure the people that attended higher education are in the right place. There is no reason to offer it to everyone and set people up to fail.
I would totally agree with you if you could prove that having some people with higher education is better than having everybody with a certain degree of education. The USSR and China actually proved, in my opinion, that it is both morally and economically better for a country to give the best education it can to the entire population rather than just giving the best it can to a few selected and highly qualified individual (which is a form of aristocratic vision of the world, from top to bottom, very opposed to the ideal of the market were all agents are basically impossible to differenciate).
|
On March 07 2016 23:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 15:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:42 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:35 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:26 Slaughter wrote:
People in the US talk such a big game when it comes to being friendly and open and the bastion of freedom of opportunity but really its just a country full of selfish people. Me me me, I must win and if someone else is winning then its my loss so no I don't want to pay for things that benefit other people because fuck them they all must be moochers who want everything given to them.
*meanwhile in Europe* Isn't it great that we have enriched our nation by investing in ourselves as a whole instead of being divided and letting some invisible hand work its magic?
Like there is 0 sense of community and unity in this country. Everyone is too individualistic and what groups do form are numerous with narrow goals and they all distrust each other (and also cut across cultural/racial/economic/religious lines).
We carved ourselves up into niches and everyone only wants their niche to win and thinks that they are 100% self reliant and every other group is just looking for hand outs on their dime.
No one actually wants to make America "great" again, they want to make whatever niche they are apart of to get theirs and who cares about the rest.
Fuck You. Got Mine is the motto of this country. Okay. We're going to making housing free for everybody. A domicile is more important than ever in this day and age. Especially with ballooning housing costs. Nobody will notice you without a place to live. And people who have housing pay taxes (homeless people pay less taxes) - so it all works out. If you're at all skeptical about the viability of the specifics of footing the bill for my rent, it means you hate helping people, are greedy, and just want to insult people by calling them moochers. What do you think? Is low-income housing not even a thing in the US? We're not talking about low-income housing or shelters. We're talking about free housing for everybody.What Bernie's pushing is not "adding to the myriad need-based scholarships and loan programs," it's "free college for everybody." Or have I missed something? Depends. I haven't actually read his plan (if that's even laid out yet), but free post-secondary education (or heavily subsidized education) usually leads to stricter qualifications for students and for the schools. So college may be free, but everyone still won't be going to college (whether its desire or aptitude). The biggest difference would be that the bottom colleges will actually have to start caring about academic output...which is why in most other countries going to a Community College doesn't really have a stigma to it, but it does probably mean you're receiving an education in a trade or applied skills for specific fields. Same as healthcare, make it available to everyone and we get rationing.
One of the major issues in US healthcare is just how bad it is at encouraging preventative healthcare because it's not profitable for healthcare providers. Quite a lot of major medical procedures could be avoided if people would go to the doctor the moment they feel poorly so that their issues could be looked at and fixed on the cheap. That is because healthcare is designed to maximize profit rather than ensure people are healthy.
On March 08 2016 00:00 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 23:54 Plansix wrote:On March 07 2016 23:50 Gorsameth wrote:On March 07 2016 23:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 07 2016 15:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:42 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:35 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:26 Slaughter wrote:
People in the US talk such a big game when it comes to being friendly and open and the bastion of freedom of opportunity but really its just a country full of selfish people. Me me me, I must win and if someone else is winning then its my loss so no I don't want to pay for things that benefit other people because fuck them they all must be moochers who want everything given to them.
*meanwhile in Europe* Isn't it great that we have enriched our nation by investing in ourselves as a whole instead of being divided and letting some invisible hand work its magic?
Like there is 0 sense of community and unity in this country. Everyone is too individualistic and what groups do form are numerous with narrow goals and they all distrust each other (and also cut across cultural/racial/economic/religious lines).
We carved ourselves up into niches and everyone only wants their niche to win and thinks that they are 100% self reliant and every other group is just looking for hand outs on their dime.
No one actually wants to make America "great" again, they want to make whatever niche they are apart of to get theirs and who cares about the rest.
Fuck You. Got Mine is the motto of this country. Okay. We're going to making housing free for everybody. A domicile is more important than ever in this day and age. Especially with ballooning housing costs. Nobody will notice you without a place to live. And people who have housing pay taxes (homeless people pay less taxes) - so it all works out. If you're at all skeptical about the viability of the specifics of footing the bill for my rent, it means you hate helping people, are greedy, and just want to insult people by calling them moochers. What do you think? Is low-income housing not even a thing in the US? We're not talking about low-income housing or shelters. We're talking about free housing for everybody.What Bernie's pushing is not "adding to the myriad need-based scholarships and loan programs," it's "free college for everybody." Or have I missed something? Depends. I haven't actually read his plan (if that's even laid out yet), but free post-secondary education (or heavily subsidized education) usually leads to stricter qualifications for students and for the schools. So college may be free, but everyone still won't be going to college (whether its desire or aptitude). The biggest difference would be that the bottom colleges will actually have to start caring about academic output...which is why in most other countries going to a Community College doesn't really have a stigma to it, but it does probably mean you're receiving an education in a trade or applied skills for specific fields. Same as healthcare, make it available to everyone and we get rationing. please educate me. How is education a finite resource. You have finite number of people to teach it. Finite classroom space. Finite books. Some form of selection or "rationing" is be necessary to make sure the people that attended higher education are in the right place. There is no reason to offer it to everyone and set people up to fail. I would totally agree with you if you could prove that having some people with higher education is better than having everybody with a certain degree of education. The USSR and China actually proved, in my opinion, that it is both morally and economically better for a country to give the best education it can to the entire population rather than just giving the best it can to a few selected and highly qualified individual (which is a form of aristocratic vision of the world, from top to bottom, very opposed to the ideal of the market were all agents are basically impossible to differenciate).
In a sense the USSR did ration education in that the highest level of education was saved for those that could actually prosper in that environment. There were basically three paths through the system:
1. Finish all but 2 years of high school, go to a trade school to learn a blue collar trade.
2. Finish high school, go to a 3 year vocational school (on par with a Bachelors degree).
3 Finish high school, go to a university program (generally equivalent to a masters degree).
Anyone from (1) or (2) could go to university if they, in their later years, had the time and put in the effort.
It was a success in that it tended to educate people to the best of their abilities but not make them flunk out by putting them where they don't belong. It was not without its faults like anything in the real world. It also provided a great education while being nowhere near as expensive to society as the current university system in the US.
|
On March 07 2016 23:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 23:50 Gorsameth wrote:On March 07 2016 23:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 07 2016 15:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:42 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 07 2016 15:35 oBlade wrote:On March 07 2016 15:26 Slaughter wrote:
People in the US talk such a big game when it comes to being friendly and open and the bastion of freedom of opportunity but really its just a country full of selfish people. Me me me, I must win and if someone else is winning then its my loss so no I don't want to pay for things that benefit other people because fuck them they all must be moochers who want everything given to them.
*meanwhile in Europe* Isn't it great that we have enriched our nation by investing in ourselves as a whole instead of being divided and letting some invisible hand work its magic?
Like there is 0 sense of community and unity in this country. Everyone is too individualistic and what groups do form are numerous with narrow goals and they all distrust each other (and also cut across cultural/racial/economic/religious lines).
We carved ourselves up into niches and everyone only wants their niche to win and thinks that they are 100% self reliant and every other group is just looking for hand outs on their dime.
No one actually wants to make America "great" again, they want to make whatever niche they are apart of to get theirs and who cares about the rest.
Fuck You. Got Mine is the motto of this country. Okay. We're going to making housing free for everybody. A domicile is more important than ever in this day and age. Especially with ballooning housing costs. Nobody will notice you without a place to live. And people who have housing pay taxes (homeless people pay less taxes) - so it all works out. If you're at all skeptical about the viability of the specifics of footing the bill for my rent, it means you hate helping people, are greedy, and just want to insult people by calling them moochers. What do you think? Is low-income housing not even a thing in the US? We're not talking about low-income housing or shelters. We're talking about free housing for everybody.What Bernie's pushing is not "adding to the myriad need-based scholarships and loan programs," it's "free college for everybody." Or have I missed something? Depends. I haven't actually read his plan (if that's even laid out yet), but free post-secondary education (or heavily subsidized education) usually leads to stricter qualifications for students and for the schools. So college may be free, but everyone still won't be going to college (whether its desire or aptitude). The biggest difference would be that the bottom colleges will actually have to start caring about academic output...which is why in most other countries going to a Community College doesn't really have a stigma to it, but it does probably mean you're receiving an education in a trade or applied skills for specific fields. Same as healthcare, make it available to everyone and we get rationing. please educate me. How is education a finite resource. You have finite number of people to teach it. Finite classroom space. Finite books. Some form of selection or "rationing" is be necessary to make sure the people that attended higher education are in the right place. There is no reason to offer it to everyone and set people up to fail.
Which is no different from how it is already being done. There is already a selection process for studies to ensure you have the required foundation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
