Michael Moore's - Sicko !!!

anabolicrhino said:
I can only speak for my girlfriend(when she lets me) who was born in Havana;

She receives US government assisted health care because she is a single mother. This will end when her children turn 18. This is paid for by state taxes.

If she were still living in Cuba she as well as her children would receive free health care for the rest of their lives, and of course there is no tax in Cuba!
Click to expand...

This is BS, AR, and you should know better. Someone pays or someone is a slave and is forced to deliver without pay. If it's so wonderful there, why did she leave and why is she staying here? Are you that good in bed?
 
Jayhawkk said:
Now were you making fun of my spelling error in the other thread? :)
Click to expand...

No idea what you're talking about actually.

I don't blindly believe anyone or anything. I also am aware enough to know that what I may think in one situation will not always work when you add other elements that were not in the previous situation. I think there should be government watchdogs and they should be accountable for their actions and my votes represent those beliefs that there should be gov't regulations but they should also be limited.
Click to expand...

No one currently in office or up for election believes in limiting the government. That's the problem. You can't limit the government by expanding it, which is what they always propose to do.

You and I have seen what happens when government does and doesn't step in to check markets. There is no clear cut and defined line.
Click to expand...

That is where we disagree. There is a line, it is between rights and empowerment. It lies between protecting people from others and using the wealth of others to empower a few. It lies between protecting property rights and taking property in the name of protecting people.

Since you referenced my other thread i'll so the same...Everyone always claims to have all the information and the solutions and the right answers and argue in ways to try and convince everyone else just isn't educated enough to follow along.
Click to expand...

I do not claim to have all the answers and all the solutions. I do claim the market is the best way to make sure the people who do have the answers and the solutions will make them available, and in quantities such that damn near everyone can afford them.

What is it exactly that is 'the way things are' that you agree with or are you just the average rage against the machine?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're asking here.
 
My fault then I assumed you were correcting my spelling in another thread because of the en masse. I was apparently wrong.


No, it is exactly the same. Theft is theft, period. There is no such thing as a little bit of robbery, or a smidgen or assault, or a sliver of rape.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you have this view based on our other conversations but I find it odd that you don't think or agree that there are degrees of those crimes which would constitute different penalties. Hate crime versus regular crime I can see but levels of those mentioned above should be observed and punished differently.
 
Jayhawkk said:
My fault then I assumed you were correcting my spelling in another thread because of the en masse. I was apparently wrong.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have noticed even if you did mispell it.

I'm surprised you have this view based on our other conversations but I find it odd that you don't think or agree that there are degrees of those crimes which would constitute different penalties. Hate crime versus regular crime I can see but levels of those mentioned above should be observed and punished differently.
Click to expand...

Different penalties perhaps, but under no circumstances do the actions become right or excusable. A starving man who steals food from you to survive might have his punishment mitigated to a degree when the circumstances are considered. But he is still guilty and under no circumstances should his behavior be considered right or excusable. The same goes for the state. Some level of theft of surplus productivity might be understood given most people want a justice system and rightly or wrongly don't see a private option as viable. That doesn't mean taxes are a good thing or even change their fundamental nature as theft. Just as herpes is no less a disease you'd be better off without but can only minimize once you've got it. Which is the best analogy I've honestly found. The government is herpes, a disease you can't get rid of. Live with it. Minimize it. Do not forget that you are better off without it, all things being equal, and that it is by nature and on net harmful, not helpful.
 
CDB said:
This is BS, AR, and you should know better. Someone pays or someone is a slave and is forced to deliver without pay. If it's so wonderful there, why did she leave and why is she staying here? Are you that good in bed?
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged your honor. I am her love slave !

My girlfriend came here when she was 2 years old. She wants to visit Cuba, but not for any geopolitical reasons!

My response was based on the topicality of the post to which I was responding. Castro did his land grab in the over 40 years ago.

You can't be a dictator without people to dictate.

I responded to a silly question with a silly answer!
 
If I want to watch fantasy, ill watch Lord of The Rings or Star Wars. Just like if a rich Canadian wants a critical surgery, they will come to America. America's health care costs are out of control, but saying Socialism or Communism does anything more efficiently than Capitalism is as absurd as saying Whoopi Goldberg is hotter than Halle Berry.
 
anabolicrhino said:
Invalid Link Removed

This is a must watch. It shows the reality of the American health cares system and the quality of life as opposed to France, Canada and Cuba !!!

It was ripped onto Bit Torrent site and is up on Google video right now, but I don't know for how long.

You can download it from Google but you need to download their their player first
-------------------------------------------------------------

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I'll tell you this much. Cuba better have a good health system because it's people are dyiing of starvation amongst other sicknesses. I was born here of Cuban parents ... my whole family is Cuban ... and the people of Cuba living in misery. Make not mistake about it. I have family and friends that go to Cuba often. It looks like Fidel wants them alive so that he can continue to make their lives miserable. Cuba's health system? These people want steaks, chicken, soda, milk ... hair conditoners, good TVs and TV show ... they want life. What good is it to have a "health system" if yo do not have a life, freedom ...???
 
rcarracedo said:
I'll tell you this much. Cuba better have a good health system because it's people are dyiing of starvation amongst other sicknesses. I was born here of Cuban parents ... my whole family is Cuban ... and the people of Cuba living in misery. Make not mistake about it. I have family and friends that go to Cuba often. It looks like Fidel wants them alive so that he can continue to make their lives miserable. Cuba's health system? These people want steaks, chicken, soda, milk ... hair conditoners, good TVs and TV show ... they want life. What good is it to have a "health system" if yo do not have a life, freedom ...???
Click to expand...

Most people do not see the contradiction and honestly think more government control can lead to more freedom, and that the same exact people they won't trust to interact with voluntarily in the market will somehow turn into angels when given the force of law, police and armies to enforce their will on others.
 
Canada does have many inadequcies when it comes to health care, yes. Honestly, this country is perfect for old people. Free health care and pension. Hell, I pay thousands a year into a pension plan that will be proven depleted by the time I retire. How's that for fair taxing?

I am lucky though, I work for a large company and have amazing health benefits, so I get free health care around the world :) If I ever did need critical surgery, they'd either pay the bill for an emergency surgery here in Canada, or fly me to the USA.

And please don't try to say the US is close to 65% tax. My father runs a business in the US, I pay more tax on my personal income than he does on his entire business.

I'm makin 6 figures a year, and my take home pay is damn near on par with someone earning 60% of what I make in the US.
 
moklepaul said:
And please don't try to say the US is close to 65% tax. My father runs a business in the US, I pay more tax on my personal income than he does on his entire business. I'm makin 6 figures a year, and my take home pay is damn near on par with someone earning 60% of what I make in the US.
Click to expand...

Income tax is not the only tax. The true way to determine the financial burden a government places on its people is to look at government spending and existing debt as relates to GDP or some other measure of national income/productivity. In that regard the US is slightly below, but still damn close to most European nations so far as I recall. Raw numbers on income tax or even what the government takes in taxes total each year do not account for inflationary debt loads/devalued currency and real wages, and do not tell the true story. A ten percent increase in the money supply is basically equivalent to a ten percent increase in taxes.
 
anabolicrhino said:
I can only speak for my girlfriend(when she lets me) who was born in Havana;

She receives US government assisted health care because she is a single mother. This will end when her children turn 18. This is paid for by state taxes.

If she were still living in Cuba she as well as her children would receive free health care for the rest of their lives, and of course there is no tax in Cuba!

She owned no property in Cuba and she owns no property in the USA.

She enjoys the "freedom of enterprise" here in the USA which is not available in Cuba, although she really hasn't taken full advantage of it yet!
Click to expand...

In Cuba ... all the medicine you want. What else is going to keep you living. There's no food. Meat Ha ha ah! Oh yeah, NO LIFE to go with it. Misery and Medicine. There ya go. That is what you have in Cuba.

Castro - Thief, Murderer, Torturer ... the list goes on.
 
I really want to see this movie, it looks great. He really addresses issues that many people are concerned about. The only difference is that they just talk about it and he stands up and takes action.
 
Something people dont mention about the Canadian system is that insurance is required for free prescription medications. I was paying ~$2000 dollars a month when I didn't have insurance for my arthritis meds - many people can't afford that.
 
rcarracedo said:
In Cuba ... all the medicine you want. What else is going to keep you living. There's no food. Meat Ha ha ah! Oh yeah, NO LIFE to go with it. Misery and Medicine. There ya go. That is what you have in Cuba.

Castro - Thief, Murderer, Torturer ... the list goes on.
Click to expand...

Ever been to Cuba? I went a few years ago for a 2 week vacation and travelled all over that island. Cant say it was different than my trip to Argentina.
 
rockhard_4eva said:
Ever been to Cuba? I went a few years ago for a 2 week vacation and travelled all over that island. Cant say it was different than my trip to Argentina.
Click to expand...

And many writers wrote wonderful travelogues about the Soviet Union when they went there. How beautiful it was, how industrious the people were, the buildings, the sites, etc.

How'd things work out there in the end? Didn't millions still die of starvation despite the huge 'success' of socialism? How many Cubans are in prison for political opinions? How many are dead for the same?

And what you guys don't seem to get is those things are part and parcel with socialism, because they are part and parcel with government control, because government power is always abused in the end. No matter what.
 
so i found this interesting. In the film hes said america ranks 37 in health care. so i went to find the data (i still have no idea what this number means). but anyways cuba is ranked 39th. so by his own statistics, America has better health care than cuba...

Invalid Link Removed

*i know the number is meaningless but its a contridiction in his own premise.
 
spunkles182 said:
so i found this interesting. In the film hes said america ranks 37 in health care. so i went to find the data (i still have no idea what this number means). but anyways cuba is ranked 39th. so by his own statistics, America has better health care than cuba...

Invalid Link Removed

*i know the number is meaningless but its a contridiction in his own premise.
Click to expand...

Here is the WHO guide for the statistics they used -

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

I think those are reliable parameters for judging a countries health care systems performance

Yes, the USA ranks 2 places ahead of Cuba.

If you consider that, there are 36 countries ahead of the USA, including Columbia, Morocco and the Dominican Republicand that Cuba's health care system is FREE !!!

It drives home the actual point of the movie which is not how great the Cuban health care system is compared to the USA, but how bad the USA health care system is compared to the rest of the world !!!
 
anabolicrhino said:
Here is the WHO guide for the statistics they used -

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).
Click to expand...

show me the data. if you can show me where and how they got the numbers for those indicators then ill give some validity to it. and i quote mark twain "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

An example, the statisitcs say that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than alot of countries. Yet many foreigners bring their very sick children here.why is that? is it that their country would certainly give up on because the cost is too high and the probablitly of them surviving is too low. In the United States, about two-thirds of infant deaths occur in the first month after birth and are due mostly to health problems of the infant or the pregnancy, such as preterm delivery or birth defects, I would assume cuba considers these "stillborn" and dont count towards this calculation. thus, this is infant mortality rate is higher.
 
anabolicrhino said:
Here is the WHO guide for the statistics they used -

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health;
Click to expand...

Which can be affected by a trillion other factors. For example available and prevelant diet.

health inequalities (or disparities) within the population;
Click to expand...

That's like ranking the health of our auto industry by measuring the difference between the best and worst cars on the road. It assumes there should be no disparity which begs the question of whether or not equal access to health care is indeed deserved, a right, necessary, etc.

overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts);
Click to expand...

Which is more than a little subjective. The outcomes are what should be measured.

distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system);
Click to expand...

Which once more begs the question.

and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).[/B]
Click to expand...

Which once more begs the question. They may as well have said "We are doing this study under the assumption that a socialized medical care system is better than a private one and ignoring specific metrics which could prove otherwise..."
 
CDB said:
If the majority of the people aren't responsible or caring enough to function without leaders, they likely aren't responsible or caring enough to trust to elect leaders either. The ethos of democracy, even in a democratic republic like the US, makes certain contradictions arise when you start talking about the incompetence or inadequecies of the people in managing themselves. Because, if they can't manage their own lives, they certainly can't be trusted to manage the lives of others even if it amounts to choosing leaders.
Click to expand...



1. People really shouldn't trust leaders

2. The only leaders people have a chance to elect are those who pass the litmus test of the corporate lenders and investors who are associated with both parties in the first place

3. The idea that if there's a massive potential famine or disaster, people will organize themselves with no assistance is a huge risk. Again, the Irish Potato Famine is a good example of this.





CDB said:
As for the rights violation, you're ignoring the fact that in order to enact and enforce the law the government has to take resources from people. And you're also ignoring the fact that punishment consists of the victim and the rest of society by and large paying for room and board for the assaulter or murderer during their stretch. The punishment is meant to instill respect for the authority of the law making body, protection of the rights of the injured is a secondary concern if at all, restitution of what was taken and/or reparations for what was done are often overlooked unless it is easy and obvious to do, such as returning stolen property.
Click to expand...


Yes, the government does have to take resources from people. That is my point. Would you be more trusting of citizens' arrest and vigilantism?




CDB said:
This is an expression of economic ignorance so vast it astounds. Please do tell, how much is any one person supposed to make? This is BS Ricardian rent theory which has been thoroughly debunked for well over a century.
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about? I didn't say anything about what someone is "supposed" to make. The actions of the government have a very clear effect on the economy. Most superpowers throughout history greatly enhanced their economies by stealing resources from conquered countries.




CDB said:
Again, economic ignorance that is astounding. The government is not the economy. The government at most sets up rules by which the economy must abide. It does not create opportunity, it does not create wealth, it does not serve any capitalist function, it does not serve any entrepreneurial function. The economy, or the market, is the interweaving system that is created by each and every voluntary exchange that takes place between people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...



Yeah, the government isn't remotely involved in creating currency, military and diplomatic projects that grant access to raw materials, business loans, or any of the things that allow various companies to exist. You could make just as much money in a place with no government horded resources and government-sponsored loans, huh?






CDB said:
They did not help you get the money because the government can only consume. Money is not wealth, it is a commodity used for exchange. Increased productivity leads to wealth, which is an increase in the available goods and services and a concurrent increase in buying power of whatever the money commodity happens to be. The government can not contribute to this process by definition, it can only distort it and/or live off a portion of the surplus after it has been created. Saying the government is the economy or an integral part of it completely turns the known structure of production on its head. The government can only exist on what has already been produced through productive activity. It can only reduce wealth by its very nature.
Click to expand...


You're ignoring the point. A lot of the raw materials that people need to start businesses are provided by government. If there was no government in the US, a lot of current business couldn't have gotten government loans when they were starting out, the resources taken from war would be gone, and then there's the matter of things like roads planned by the government. A lot of the opportunities in the US come from taking land and resources through military actions or other government-sponsored activites.









CDB said:
Actually they can't, and there's barely a modern economist left who doesn't know and acknowledge that wages are determined by marginal productivity. If someone tries to pay their workers less than MP they create profit conditions for other people to hire them and aquire their revenue stream. If they pay them more than MP then their profits and return margins get squeezed. If employers could pay their workers whatever they wanted wages would never go up, and indeed never would have gone up, and everyone except land owners would be living at or below subsitence levels. Perhaps you could look into economics post marginalist revolution. You know, after Menger and others figured this stuff out over a cenutry ago?
Click to expand...


What the hell does that have to do with what I said? I'm talking about for instance the tiny cost of materials to make shoes compared to how much they can be sold for, or how much a hard-working diamond miner may be paid compared to how much the diamond sells for. I'm not comparing the wages between different employers or employees.



CDB said:
No, it is exactly the same. Theft is theft, period. There is no such thing as a little bit of robbery, or a smidgen or assault, or a sliver of rape.
Click to expand...



So getting slapped in the face is the same thing as having your head chopped off? Okay ...


CDB said:
And many writers wrote wonderful travelogues about the Soviet Union when they went there. How beautiful it was, how industrious the people were, the buildings, the sites, etc.

How'd things work out there in the end? Didn't millions still die of starvation despite the huge 'success' of socialism? How many Cubans are in prison for political opinions? How many are dead for the same?

And what you guys don't seem to get is those things are part and parcel with socialism, because they are part and parcel with government control, because government power is always abused in the end. No matter what.
Click to expand...



Socialism is flawed, but you're going a bit far here. The US was in many cases close to the corruption of the Soviet Union back then, at least on an international scale. You're also confusing socialists or Marxists with Leninists. Lenin's theories pretty much transformed Marx's ideas into an excuse for dictatorship.

Currently the #1 country for standard of living as I recall is Norway, a country that does not have a wealth gap between the rich and the poor as great as most Western countries. Canada is also ranked ahead of us.
 
CDB said:
They did not help you get the money because the government can only consume. Money is not wealth, it is a commodity used for exchange. Increased productivity leads to wealth, which is an increase in the available goods and services and a concurrent increase in buying power of whatever the money commodity happens to be. The government can not contribute to this process by definition, it can only distort it and/or live off a portion of the surplus after it has been created. Saying the government is the economy or an integral part of it completely turns the known structure of production on its head. The government can only exist on what has already been produced through productive activity. It can only reduce wealth by its very nature.
Click to expand...

:clap2: I wish more people understood this
 
spunkles182 said:
show me the data. if you can show me where and how they got the numbers for those indicators then ill give some validity to it. and i quote mark twain "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

An example, the statisitcs say that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than alot of countries. Yet many foreigners bring their very sick children here.why is that? is it that their country would certainly give up on because the cost is too high and the probablitly of them surviving is too low. In the United States, about two-thirds of infant deaths occur in the first month after birth and are due mostly to health problems of the infant or the pregnancy, such as preterm delivery or birth defects, I would assume cuba considers these "stillborn" and dont count towards this calculation. thus, this is infant mortality rate is higher.
Click to expand...

Gosh dude, I don't know where "they" got the statistic from...

But, I got the same statistics from the article that you posted to start this thread !!!...did you read it ???

I was not offering the statistics to make the WHO ranking any more valid. I was showing how these statistics if accepted as accurate would prove MIchael Moores objective in the movie "Sicko" and not disprove his message !

So, these statistics are not the best choice to prove your point!
 
Originally Posted by CDB
They did not help you get the money because the government can only consume. Money is not wealth, it is a commodity used for exchange. Increased productivity leads to wealth, which is an increase in the available goods and services and a concurrent increase in buying power of whatever the money commodity happens to be. The government can not contribute to this process by definition, it can only distort it and/or live off a portion of the surplus after it has been created. Saying the government is the economy or an integral part of it completely turns the known structure of production on its head. The government can only exist on what has already been produced through productive activity. It can only reduce wealth by its very nature.
Click to expand...

The United States government is still by the people for the people and of the people ! Government is a concept of control that is accepted by general consensus of the governed.

Money is only validated by its acceptance as a medium for exchange. It is the acceptance by the people of a certain "money' as a commodity which by the definition of commodity, means it can be valued and exchanged for equity.

This acceptance of what is commodity or capital by the people is what defines wealth in a capitalistic system!

You cannot observe government as separate from the people it is not a sentient being that makes choices for its own survival.

The wealth that the government consumes is created by the people and is given to the government of the people in order to create equal benefits for the people!

..at least that is how it is supposed to work!

This model can be compromised by the corruption of the participants!
 
anabolicrhino said:
Gosh dude, I don't know where "they" got the statistic from...

But, I got the same statistics from the article that you posted to start this thread !!!...did you read it ???

I was not offering the statistics to make the WHO ranking any more valid. I was showing how these statistics if accepted as accurate would prove MIchael Moores objective in the movie "Sicko" and not disprove his message !

So, these statistics are not the best choice to prove your point!
Click to expand...

you didnt offer any statisitcs. The WHO article didnt offer any statisitics. its just a bunch of arbitrary numbers if there is no data to support their rankings.
 
anabolicrhino said:
The United States government is still by the people for the people and of the people ! Government is a concept of control that is accepted by general consensus of the governed.

Money is only validated by its acceptance as a medium for exchange. It is the acceptance by the people of a certain "money' as a commodity which by the definition of commodity, means it can be valued and exchanged for equity.

This acceptance of what is commodity or capital by the people is what defines wealth in a capitalistic system!

You cannot observe government as separate from the people it is not a sentient being that makes choices for its own survival.

The wealth that the government consumes is created by the people and is given to the government of the people in order to create equal benefits for the people!

..at least that is how it is supposed to work!

This model can be compromised by the corruption of the participants!
Click to expand...

:wtf:
 
anabolicrhino said:
The United States government is still by the people for the people and of the people ! Government is a concept of control that is accepted by general consensus of the governed.

Money is only validated by its acceptance as a medium for exchange. It is the acceptance by the people of a certain "money' as a commodity which by the definition of commodity, means it can be valued and exchanged for equity.

This acceptance of what is commodity or capital by the people is what defines wealth in a capitalistic system!
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Increases in real goods and services are what constitute wealth. If money were wealth all the government would need to do is print up a few trillion dollars and we'd all be rich. It doesn't work that way.

You cannot observe government as separate from the people it is not a sentient being that makes choices for its own survival.

The wealth that the government consumes is created by the people and is given to the government of the people in order to create equal benefits for the people!
Click to expand...

That's about as naive a view of government as I've ever read, even with the proviso of 'supposed'.

..at least that is how it is supposed to work!

This model can be compromised by the corruption of the participants!
Click to expand...

No, the model is corrupt and unsustainable no matter who participates. That's what you don't seem to get. The Soviets were always putting people on trial on the assumption that the system worked and it was just the people here and there who screwed it up. That's simply not the case.
 
Rufio said:
1. People really shouldn't trust leaders

2. The only leaders people have a chance to elect are those who pass the litmus test of the corporate lenders and investors who are associated with both parties in the first place

3. The idea that if there's a massive potential famine or disaster, people will organize themselves with no assistance is a huge risk. Again, the Irish Potato Famine is a good example of this.
Click to expand...

By your own reasoning then both anarchy and government are unworkable and flawed. So by which criteria do you choose one over the other?

Yes, the government does have to take resources from people. That is my point. Would you be more trusting of citizens' arrest and vigilantism?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's also not the only option.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't say anything about what someone is "supposed" to make. The actions of the government have a very clear effect on the economy. Most superpowers throughout history greatly enhanced their economies by stealing resources from conquered countries.
Click to expand...

Your original statement:

That's not what I'm implying at all. You're missing the point. Wanting to change the system is fine, but what I'm saying is that the society you're in sets up systems which allow you to make more money than you could otherwise, and taxes are part of the conditions of that system.
Click to expand...

So let me word it this way, after you place turbin on head and gaze into your crystal ball what is the actual process you use to determine how much people would have made otherwise? Once more, since the government is a net consumer of resources it's impossible for it to add to aggregate wealth. That's a mere matter of fact by nature of its function. The government can't add to overall wealth or social utility, it can only take from some and give to others and increase the 'wealth' of some at the expense of others.

Yeah, the government isn't remotely involved in creating currency, military and diplomatic projects that grant access to raw materials, business loans, or any of the things that allow various companies to exist. You could make just as much money in a place with no government horded resources and government-sponsored loans, huh?
Click to expand...

Currency is not wealth. In fact most government issued currencies destroy wealth through inflation. The government may engage in those other activities, that does not mean they are necessary however. At most it means the government has imposed itself on the process of trade and demanded payment for 'services' involuntarily rendered.

A good example of how such infringements end up destroying wealth is current subsidization of oil transport with military protection. All well and good to have cheap oil and gas until it becomes unsustainable, at which point thanks to the government 'help' we're dependent on an energy resource which, if it had been priced honestly and not subsidized through taxes, we likely would not be so dependent on. All the 'wealth' that was created in the interim will either become obsolete and/or be wiped out once the price of oil spikes due to political instability or, if as some people claim, it starts to run out.

You're ignoring the point. A lot of the raw materials that people need to start businesses are provided by government. If there was no government in the US, a lot of current business couldn't have gotten government loans when they were starting out, the resources taken from war would be gone, and then there's the matter of things like roads planned by the government. A lot of the opportunities in the US come from taking land and resources through military actions or other government-sponsored activites.
Click to expand...

Money is not wealth. The government 'creates' business at huge opportunity cost. It is rather strange to see one so enlightened as you to fall for such a simple fallacy of reasoning as the broken window.

What the hell does that have to do with what I said? I'm talking about for instance the tiny cost of materials to make shoes compared to how much they can be sold for, or how much a hard-working diamond miner may be paid compared to how much the diamond sells for. I'm not comparing the wages between different employers or employees.
Click to expand...

Once more, your original statement:

That's an interesting theory, but you're ignoring the fact that merely having a job or being a consumer makes you dependent upon the government. They can sell things for many times what they cost to make while paying the workers who made the products a micro-fraction of the money their work produces.
Click to expand...

So to be as to the point as possible: wages are determined by marginal productivity. The only people who deny that at this point are outright Marxists. Once more, you might want to key yourself into the last hundred or so years of economics education.

So getting slapped in the face is the same thing as having your head chopped off? Okay ...
Click to expand...

No, one is assault and the other is murder. Theft is theft.

Socialism is flawed, but you're going a bit far here. The US was in many cases close to the corruption of the Soviet Union back then, at least on an international scale. You're also confusing socialists or Marxists with Leninists. Lenin's theories pretty much transformed Marx's ideas into an excuse for dictatorship.
Click to expand...

No, Marx's ideas lead inevitably to oligarchy and/or dictatorship.

Currently the #1 country for standard of living as I recall is Norway, a country that does not have a wealth gap between the rich and the poor as great as most Western countries. Canada is also ranked ahead of us.
Click to expand...

And such 'rankings' are usually done by orgs that lean so far to the left they can look right and see Marx. They are also based on hedonically manipulated meaningless and subjective statistical artifacts, and ignore metrics which might contradict their predetermined conclusions while at the same time ignoring possible causes for relevant metrics they do use.
 
CDB said:
So to be as to the point as possible: wages are determined by marginal productivity. The only people who deny that at this point are outright Marxists. Once more, you might want to key yourself into the last hundred or so years of economics education.
Click to expand...

I ask you this as a serious question becuase you seem to have a better understanding of According to MRP theory, it is a workers marginal productivity that determines wages. and if we say, in general, that womens wages are less then men. then does that mean that women are less productive then men?
 
Incorrect. Increases in real goods and services are what constitute wealth. If money were wealth all the government would need to do is print up a few trillion dollars and we'd all be rich. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

Then please tell me why a 5 dollar bill is worth more than a one dollar bill?


No, the model is corrupt and unsustainable no matter who participates. That's what you don't seem to get. The Soviets were always putting people on trial on the assumption that the system worked and it was just the people here and there who screwed it up. That's simply not the case.
Click to expand...

CDB are you sayings that(gasp) the capitalist model is corrupt?

I am shocked! You have always been a defender of the faith

I never read a post from you that did not espouse the virtues of Capitalism?

Wow, I am telling Lou Mises!
 
If money were wealth all the government would need to do is print up a few trillion dollars and we'd all be rich. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

I do agree that true wealth is not created this way.

But This is how our banking system works and It is exactly why we are not all rich! It is our banking system that is corrupt not capitalism.

The banking system will always be corrupt as long as the practice of fractional reserve margins are allowed to exist

The banking system is manipulated by the central banks(federal reserve) to create debt instead of wealth. That debt is created with each new Federal reserve note and the obligation to pay it back with interest.

The interest obligation makes the end user return "real" wealth in the form of goods, property and labor to repay the non existent
(not real wealth) debt built into each Fed note!

This debt obligation system redistributes the wealth into the hands of the credit system lenders, the federal reserve banks!

You quite correct that this system does not create real wealth!

It creates the illusion of wealth by way of inflation on a money system that is based on debt lending!
 
spunkles182 said:
you didnt offer any statisitcs. The WHO article didnt offer any statisitics. its just a bunch of arbitrary numbers if there is no data to support their rankings.
Click to expand...

The why did you post it ???:wtf:

...was this supposed to be disinformation ???:wtf:

I mean you actually used that link post to bump this thread, I would just expect that this was intentional to prove or disprove a point.:wtf:

Now you are invalidating your own post to prove that Michael Moore is wrong? :wtf:

remember way back when you posted this ???

so i found this interesting. In the film hes said america ranks 37 in health care. so i went to find the data (i still have no idea what this number means). but anyways cuba is ranked 39th. so by his own statistics, America has better health care than cuba...

Invalid Link Removed

*i know the number is meaningless but its a contridiction in his own premise.
Click to expand...
 
anabolicrhino said:
The why did you post it ???:wtf:

...was this supposed to be disinformation ???:wtf:

I mean you actually used that link post to bump this thread, I would just expect that this was intentional to prove or disprove a point.:wtf:

Now you are invalidating your own post to prove that Michael Moore is wrong? :wtf:
Click to expand...

Michael Moore said in the film the US was 37th. this didnt make any sence so i looked it up and saw that cuba was worse on the list then the US. I dont see how he can make the point of the US having bad health care when what he compares it to (by his own information in the film) is worse.

btw nice use of the WTF smiley face :thumbsup:
 
spunkles182 said:
I ask you this as a serious question becuase you seem to have a better understanding of According to MRP theory, it is a workers marginal productivity that determines wages. and if we say, in general, that womens wages are less then men. then does that mean that women are less productive then men?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking yes. Whether this is an inherrent difference between men and women or due to other factors is arguable and likely differs in specific cases. And there is little to no wage gap between men and women when you compare similar people in similar careers with similar experience. There are more women in part time and lower paying jobs which leads to their avergae wages across the whole market being lower. That's not the same thing though.
 
anabolicrhino said:
Then please tell me why a 5 dollar bill is worth more than a one dollar bill?
Click to expand...

Because it represents a claim to five times as much money property than the one. This is irrelevant. Buying power per unit of money is the issue, and buying power is increased with an increase in real goods and services.

CDB are you sayings that(gasp) the capitalist model is corrupt?
Click to expand...

No, the capitalist model is not corrupt. The capitalist model has nothing to do with government. The socialist model incorporates government as the owner of the means of production.

I am shocked! You have always been a defender of the faith

I never read a post from you that did not espouse the virtues of Capitalism?

Wow, I am telling Lou Mises!
Click to expand...

Mises knew the difference between neomercantilism and capitalism.
 
Rufio said:
I would prefer a healthcare system more like Canada's.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too...I want to see the healthcare system normalize downward. This is what happens with socialism on a large scale. When the benefits of working hard and achieing success are removed, what incentive is left? (other the supporting the lazy ****s that are taking advantage of the system).
 
Real goods and services are not wealth, CDB. If you think that then you don't know how our money system works. Wealth is the ownership of money and the control of other people's debts.
 
rockhard_4eva said:
Ever been to Cuba? I went a few years ago for a 2 week vacation and travelled all over that island. Cant say it was different than my trip to Argentina.
Click to expand...

Yeah .... that's why we have so many Argentinians here in the US with expired Visas. They stay or else they'd starve over in their country.
 
rcarracedo said:
Yeah .... that's why we have so many Argentinians here in the US with expired Visas. They stay or else they'd starve over in their country.
Click to expand...


Forgot to add ... I have a good friend who goes twice a year every year ... he has family there. Misery and little food ... that is what Cuba has to offer it's people. I am so fortunate that my father was a US resident before Castro and my mother came here to the US less than one year after Castro took power. Castro is a murderous theiving thug who ruined the gem of the caribiean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top