Doesn't their existing infrastructure, and social dependency on that infrastructure, give them a somewhat legitimate need for a bailout? If other, smaller, more efficient companies can replace everything the telecom behemoths do, then let the big boys suffer, but is that the case? Can smaller tech savvy companies do everything the large telecoms do or are we talking strictly about broadband internet?
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Like law enforcement? "I'm sorry, sir, but there's nothing we can do. You have not paid for our police services. We cannot dispatch officers even if there's a murderous psychopath banging on your door with a bloody knife in his hand."
Like rescue services? "I'm sorry to hear that your house is on fire, sir, but we are a business not a charity. You should remember to pay your bills next time."
And so on...
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved
You can't really prove anything in even hard sciences like physics. Saying that something has been proven in economics or sociology is just ridiculous. Like psychology, economics and sociology are not hard, predictive sciences (some would say that they're not science at all) in the same sense as physics or chemistry.
If capitalism were a scientific theory, it would have been dropped a long time ago because it has no real predictive power and often contradicts with the real world observations.
The primary reason most people advocate capitalism is ETHICAL, not scientific. It was liberals and their endless dreams of micromanaging the perfect society that gave birth to that study.
Capitalism is by its nature free, it is how human beings behave when they are not acquiesing to the restrictive, violence backed will of the government. It is one man, exchanging value for value.
The reason statist economic policies always fail is because they turn free humans into criminals, and pursues them as such. The problem is, under statist regimes, too many people are treated as criminals. The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
Capitalism will always win for this reason.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger.38 to do so. Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer. Even dialysis machines are hardly easily accessible.
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
You need to open your mind and realize that government is not the solution. You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
And I am happy to know that if I am burgled or mugged the criminal will rarely have a gun and that it's even rarer that the gun will be used. Regardless of whether the cops will catch the criminal, I can cope with losing some money or property.
Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
Well, you could say I've been to a socialist country: I was born in a one with mostly state controlled economy. I am currently living abroad in a Northern European country which has had a large socialist party in the government for the last twenty decades. And you know what? The living standards are excellent in both countries. Working public transportation, no people living under the poverty line (check out the US and UK stats in the CIA worldbook for comparison), free public schooling, public libraries and goverment subsidized university level education to allow even the low wage blue collar workers' kids to have an advanced degree if they so choose. Crime is low because the social "safety net" will provide you with basic necessities even you go completely bankcrupt.
As far as your medical care argument goes, you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to Northern Europe and Scandinavia (UK public health care is in real shambles, though). As I've pointed out in one of my recent posts, I've undergone several surgeries. The latest problem with the eye was diagnosed at a private clinic (you know, private clinics are allowed even if the public health care is run by the government!), I got a referral to the local hospital (state run university hospital) and was under the knife in a week. I spent another week in the ward and paid $200 for that - the $8000 operation itself was paid by the society. I pay the progressive 28% income tax gladly for a system like that that is accessible to all citizens regardless of their income (unlike insurances).
You should know more about practical socialism before your spout nonsense like that. That's the kind of black and white reasoning that's not realistic. There is a middle ground between dog-eat-dog capitalism and total commitment to a government run economy, you know.
I wonder...I'm in the US, middle class. I pay about 30-ish% federal income tax, probably (ballpark, not pulling out the figures to look) 10% state income tax, social security tax, medicate tax, sales tax (6.5%), personal property taxes, etc., etc., etc.
I would estimate that over half of my earned income goes back to the government in some way, shape, or form. Would over 50% taxation make the US a socialist nation?
I've got 28% income/social security tax, 0.5% state church tax and I pay a 5% - 28% sales tax depending on what I'm buying (books cheap, electronics expensive). If you're drinking a lot or drive a car a lot you end up paying a lot more as there's an outrageous tax on alcohol and gasoline. Property in general is not taxed unless you own several expensive apartments, stock worth of hunderds of thousands of Euros or luxury yachts.
You wouldn't have to. Only protestant christians get inducted to the state church upon their birth if the parents so wish. Only the members of the church pay that tax.
I could avoid the tax just by leaving the church, but to save just 0.5% in my taxes isn't worth the effort of filling that form. I consider it as an advance payment for my place in the graveyard, so that my family (or whomever's left behind) doesn't have to pay for it.
0.5% of $40,000 a year (not that I know what you earn!) comes out as $8,000 over a 40 year career. Surely that's quite a lot of money for a hole in the ground?
What you should be asking isn't "how much of my money needs to go to taxes to make this a Socialist nation," but rather, "what am I getting for 50% of my income?" We probably *could* afford single-payer health care if we spent less on pork, questionable defense projects, etc. It's not a matter of how much money the government spends, as a matter of what we are spending it on.
As far as your medical care argument goes, you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to Northern Europe and Scandinavia (UK public health care is in real shambles, though)
I visited Norway recently, and while I was there heard several horror stories in the media about medical care that was slow and incompetent. My (native) host also believed that the system had significant problems in that regard. Granted, this is a very small dataset; I'd be interested in seeing a more scientific take on the subject.
There are problems such as shortage of nurses and doctors refusing to go and work in small communities in the rural areas.
The first one is a direct result from the necessary cuts in the public spending in the 1990s depression. Nurses get ridiculously small pay for the physically and mentally heavy work they do. Better pay could now be afforded but the conservative right wing section of the government would usually rather spend the available money on military hardware and law enforcement.
Second problem is a social one and in my mind cannot be addressed by economical means.
I just moved back to the states from the Uk, having lived there for 3 years and 1 year in Switzerland.
I found the health care in switzerland to be excelent, even though it was private. You had to have healthcare, to be registered in a city.. which you had to be to legally rent an apartment. The taxes where I was living was about 14% total, not including taxes on things like Garbage (yes,a stamp had to be put on every bag you take out.. at 1 dollar per bag, it encourages you to recycle everything you can).
My wife went to the doctor a few times, for this and that, and was quite happy with the modern clinic. The doctors seemed progressive and would offer medicine that was both herbal and western in nature. (No robotusin for a cold, but a herbal concoction you get at the pharmacy).
Anyway, I loved the swiss method of handling things, and at 1% un-employement, and guarding their borders in a way that would make the queen of england prooud, they don't seem to have a lot of the problems that other EU countries have with the poor and destitute.
Now, england is a complete flip-side. I have spent more hours sitting in a clinic waiting for the bloody doctor to just show up for work. (No appointment at my local surgery). When the doctor does show up, they seem to not give a damn about what the problem is. My wife sat waiting to be seen for almost 6 hours. No joke. A co-worker waited 7 months for status on a testicular lump that he was worried might be cancer. Yada yada.
When we found out we where having a baby, our first, we decided to pack our stuff up and move back to the states. Pretty scarry stuff. I can't speak for the rest of the EU, I am sure that they are in better shape than Uk. I was watching a debate on Brittish TV, and there is a statistic that if you get stomach cancer, your chance of survival is 6%. In the US your chance of survival is 61%. Fricken nuts.
And as for shoving people out the door. When we came back the US, we didn't have a job or much money. We immediately qualified for medicade and even after I got my new job, the state took care of the child birth and all the expenses including 6 months of birth control after the child birth for my wife and 3 follow up visits. Now we are back on private health care with my job, but to say that the hospital kicked me out is plain false.
I don't think that my case is special. I don't think that a lot of people realize is that in the US, there is help if you really need it. I am not a bum out on the street, but when we moved back to the US.. we did need some help, and I am glad we had it.
Private sector will always be better off than public, even in healthcare. What they need to do is put legislation in to keep the mall-practive law-suits under control and help keep the costs down so insurance isn't expensive for everyone. Look at the mortality rates across the board, you will be surprised what america's health care is churning out. It was a big enough difference for me to move across the world to have our baby.
You made the parent's point: America's medicine *is* socialized, albeit haphazardly. Do we want to release it into the free market?
If you look at the amount of money involved, the problem is not malpractice suits. It's health insurance that incourages both the patient and the doctor to over do it. Why don't people buy generic drugs? Because their insurance is paying for it. Why do OB/GYN run a test for Downs Syndrome in utero? There's nothing they can do about it, (except abortion). They run the test because it's a few extra bucks. The mother to be lets them because it's not her money.
Another problem with health costs? Everyone is guaranteed treatment...but only in an emergency. These emergencies are expensive and the cost is picked up buy those who can afford it. Much of the cost could be alleviated by guaranteeing cheaper preventive medicine to everyone.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0, Flamebait)
This is why we should seriously consider abolishing the government and leaving everything to the market forces.
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved that markets are the ultimate source of truth, at least in this world.
Though it is always funny to read how commie CEO's beg for state subsidies to help their mismanaged companies.
The market economy answer is of course: sell it if it doesn't work.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like health care? "Sorry, sir. I know there's a gaping wound in your skull and that it hurts, but your credit is no good here. Please go away and die outside in the gutter with all the other poor people."
Like law enforcement? "I'm sorry, sir, but there's nothing we can do. You have not paid for our police services. We cannot dispatch officers even if there's a murderous psychopath banging on your door with a bloody knife in his hand."
Like rescue services? "I'm sorry to hear that your house is on fire, sir, but we are a business not a charity. You should remember to pay your bills next time."
And so on...
People like Friedman and Hayek have proved
You can't really prove anything in even hard sciences like physics. Saying that something has been proven in economics or sociology is just ridiculous. Like psychology, economics and sociology are not hard, predictive sciences (some would say that they're not science at all) in the same sense as physics or chemistry.
If capitalism were a scientific theory, it would have been dropped a long time ago because it has no real predictive power and often contradicts with the real world observations.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:0)
Capitalism is by its nature free, it is how human beings behave when they are not acquiesing to the restrictive, violence backed will of the government. It is one man, exchanging value for value.
The reason statist economic policies always fail is because they turn free humans into criminals, and pursues them as such. The problem is, under statist regimes, too many people are treated as criminals. The end result is a society full of people who scoff at law, and refuse to participate in a corrupt system of government.
Capitalism will always win for this reason.
As far as your other statements, many of us wish there WAS no police force. I am perfectly capable of defending myself, and have a license to carry a Ruger
Socialism on paper provides these services, but in reality, it is plagued by shortages in materials, a dejected and lazy workforce, and a sense of entitlement that makes everyone not really want to work.
You need to open your mind and realize that government is not the solution. You need to think about more than one possibility. Chanting to yourself over and over again "Government can solve my problems, government can solve my problems" is not going to work.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
And I am happy to know that if I am burgled or mugged the criminal will rarely have a gun and that it's even rarer that the gun will be used. Regardless of whether the cops will catch the criminal, I can cope with losing some money or property.
Health care? You have only to go to a socialist country to see how that works. They won't throw you out in the gutter, but they will make you get in line, possibly for months to remedy serious ailments such as cancer.
Well, you could say I've been to a socialist country: I was born in a one with mostly state controlled economy. I am currently living abroad in a Northern European country which has had a large socialist party in the government for the last twenty decades. And you know what? The living standards are excellent in both countries. Working public transportation, no people living under the poverty line (check out the US and UK stats in the CIA worldbook for comparison), free public schooling, public libraries and goverment subsidized university level education to allow even the low wage blue collar workers' kids to have an advanced degree if they so choose. Crime is low because the social "safety net" will provide you with basic necessities even you go completely bankcrupt.
As far as your medical care argument goes, you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to Northern Europe and Scandinavia (UK public health care is in real shambles, though). As I've pointed out in one of my recent posts, I've undergone several surgeries. The latest problem with the eye was diagnosed at a private clinic (you know, private clinics are allowed even if the public health care is run by the government!), I got a referral to the local hospital (state run university hospital) and was under the knife in a week. I spent another week in the ward and paid $200 for that - the $8000 operation itself was paid by the society. I pay the progressive 28% income tax gladly for a system like that that is accessible to all citizens regardless of their income (unlike insurances).
You should know more about practical socialism before your spout nonsense like that. That's the kind of black and white reasoning that's not realistic. There is a middle ground between dog-eat-dog capitalism and total commitment to a government run economy, you know.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Doh... that's two decades, of course.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
I wonder...I'm in the US, middle class. I pay about 30-ish% federal income tax, probably (ballpark, not pulling out the figures to look) 10% state income tax, social security tax, medicate tax, sales tax (6.5%), personal property taxes, etc., etc., etc.
I would estimate that over half of my earned income goes back to the government in some way, shape, or form. Would over 50% taxation make the US a socialist nation?
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
I could avoid the tax just by leaving the church, but to save just 0.5% in my taxes isn't worth the effort of filling that form. I consider it as an advance payment for my place in the graveyard, so that my family (or whomever's left behind) doesn't have to pay for it.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:2)
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
I visited Norway recently, and while I was there heard several horror stories in the media about medical care that was slow and incompetent. My (native) host also believed that the system had significant problems in that regard. Granted, this is a very small dataset; I'd be interested in seeing a more scientific take on the subject.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
The first one is a direct result from the necessary cuts in the public spending in the 1990s depression. Nurses get ridiculously small pay for the physically and mentally heavy work they do. Better pay could now be afforded but the conservative right wing section of the government would usually rather spend the available money on military hardware and law enforcement.
Second problem is a social one and in my mind cannot be addressed by economical means.
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just moved back to the states from the Uk, having lived there for 3 years and 1 year in Switzerland.
I found the health care in switzerland to be excelent, even though it was private. You had to have healthcare, to be registered in a city.. which you had to be to legally rent an apartment. The taxes where I was living was about 14% total, not including taxes on things like Garbage (yes,a stamp had to be put on every bag you take out.. at 1 dollar per bag, it encourages you to recycle everything you can).
My wife went to the doctor a few times, for this and that, and was quite happy with the modern clinic. The doctors seemed progressive and would offer medicine that was both herbal and western in nature. (No robotusin for a cold, but a herbal concoction you get at the pharmacy).
Anyway, I loved the swiss method of handling things, and at 1% un-employement, and guarding their borders in a way that would make the queen of england prooud, they don't seem to have a lot of the problems that other EU countries have with the poor and destitute.
Now, england is a complete flip-side. I have spent more hours sitting in a clinic waiting for the bloody doctor to just show up for work. (No appointment at my local surgery). When the doctor does show up, they seem to not give a damn about what the problem is. My wife sat waiting to be seen for almost 6 hours. No joke. A co-worker waited 7 months for status on a testicular lump that he was worried might be cancer. Yada yada.
When we found out we where having a baby, our first, we decided to pack our stuff up and move back to the states. Pretty scarry stuff. I can't speak for the rest of the EU, I am sure that they are in better shape than Uk. I was watching a debate on Brittish TV, and there is a statistic that if you get stomach cancer, your chance of survival is 6%. In the US your chance of survival is 61%. Fricken nuts.
And as for shoving people out the door. When we came back the US, we didn't have a job or much money. We immediately qualified for medicade and even after I got my new job, the state took care of the child birth and all the expenses including 6 months of birth control after the child birth for my wife and 3 follow up visits. Now we are back on private health care with my job, but to say that the hospital kicked me out is plain false.
I don't think that my case is special. I don't think that a lot of people realize is that in the US, there is help if you really need it. I am not a bum out on the street, but when we moved back to the US.. we did need some help, and I am glad we had it.
Private sector will always be better off than public, even in healthcare. What they need to do is put legislation in to keep the mall-practive law-suits under control and help keep the costs down so insurance isn't expensive for everyone. Look at the mortality rates across the board, you will be surprised what america's health care is churning out. It was a big enough difference for me to move across the world to have our baby.
Cheers
Re:Legitimate reason for bailout? (Score:1)
If you look at the amount of money involved, the problem is not malpractice suits. It's health insurance that incourages both the patient and the doctor to over do it. Why don't people buy generic drugs? Because their insurance is paying for it. Why do OB/GYN run a test for Downs Syndrome in utero? There's nothing they can do about it, (except abortion). They run the test because it's a few extra bucks. The mother to be lets them because it's not her money.
Another problem with health costs? Everyone is guaranteed treatment...but only in an emergency. These emergencies are expensive and the cost is picked up buy those who can afford it. Much of the cost could be alleviated by guaranteeing cheaper preventive medicine to everyone.