Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

 
spud100 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
The Wages of Socialism are Death!


http://news.trust.org/item/20180815120014-zxwh0

Image

The democrats (now democratic socialists) want to bring this !@#$ to the USA. We can have all the free goodies you want from Government. Yes you Can! IF and only If, you figure out a good way to accomplish this? But all the goodies you want have a price in electricity, in materials, in labor, etc.

I advance Engineering in energy, and materials science, to make everything cheaper-way cheaper. Then and only then, can you have all the goodies.
8/15/2018, 3:09 pm Link to this post PM spud100 Blog
 
greendocnowciv Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
The Wages of Socialism are Death!


Spud,

What I type here is not because I think you don't know it, but for any who might not. I ask any of them - or you! - to critique it.

I worked in a quasi-socialist medical system for 20 years, as most medical systems in the US have been now for some time.

I found it very personally rewarding to help people who had some medical problem. A very big part of that good feeling was that some patients gave back deep expressions of thanks.

You can read and hear lots of happy stuff about free medical care - specifically, the British National Health Service (NHS). Its very fair to say that the NHS is sort of like a "Medicaid for All." Worth considering as the Dems are pushing that now.

Our more "free market," "anti-socialist" history over here has resulted in the slogan "Tanstaafl."

Sadly, some here need that spelled out. So:

There aint no such thing as a free lunch.

Any lunch somebody got that "felt free" was paid for by somebody else.

In that sense, "no lunch is free."

In that sense, no "Medicaid for all" or any other "free medical care" is free.

Any "free medical," or any "free anything" is being paid by somebody.

Poisonously for all, if it feels free, many who interact in patient care don't concern themselves with the cost of care.

Think of that as poison.

To see the poison as it gets really bad, look at the Brit NHS comparison. The poison is deep in old Blighty, and there is truly no end in sight. Costs are always an issue in government, and thats where the poison seeps in.

Money is needed for new causes all the time! Anyone who champions some cause that has some Federal funding, realize - more and more "cause" programs are killed over time if you have an NHS or "Medicare for All."

Medical costs inexorably try to eat everything - finally its just that medical cost, then ongoing gov employee costs, some retirees and some military as the only things on the budget.

But we are not at that hard point yet. So hide the stresses as long as we can! You think that the UK faces problems from Islam? A possible Corbynite Socialist hell?

Avoid these, and thanks to the beloved NHS the UK will still face Dame Maggies' Dictum - "yer runnin' out of other peoples' money, mate."

The ever-rising cost of the NHS, due to that inexorable medical inflation problem has been at very problematic levels for some time over there.

We have a much stronger inherent Conservo base to oppose the lefty trend that is strangling the UK. Our Obamacare issue shows that we are similarly vulnerable - but we have a much larger bulwark of opposition to "free medical" than they ever did.

We must fix on and fight this newly fresh "Medicaid for All" issue. A main problem with the infamous "Medicare for All" idea is the "third party payer problem."

Medicare: You go the Doctor. The Doctor gives you medical care. A third party, some insurer, pays the bill. Ultimately, the Feds pay.

You and the Doctor feel no urgency to cut costs. If costs go up, someone else pays.

Many who supply the medical system enjoy that lack of concern about costs. They regulary "jack up" their costs as much as they can. Thus "medical inflation" rises "alarmingly."

Alarmingly is in quotes, because this has been going on for generations. Todays' generation of "news-actors" who voice the words barely remember to emote any mild discomfort, let alone alarm when they read that.

I remember TV discussions and magazine discussions about medical inflation in my youth. They argued and debated, and wrote contentious articles. The arguments defending "GovCare" always claimed that you could manage inflation by using what Nixon and "Jimmy Who" used so famously - price controls.

The ongoing NHS mess that has not been solvable with "price controls" allowes us to win that kind of argument easily if it happens today. We can let such an expert talk themselves hoarse. We can then throw up a PowerPoint or Prezi slide about that specific type of NHS failure.

Then ask them to explain why the stellar, amazingly educated Brits haven't used their advised fix. Yes, that debate has been won for us over here, solidly, by Dame Maggie. Via Venezuala, the USSR, and sadly, that old, beloved "Crack habit," the NHS.

So far our "medicare for all" debates have only briefly touched any fiscal discussion in regular media. Conservo's toss up some horror story, PC-ites reply with "people want free medical care," and thats it.

Viewers who range from the stupid to the smart but inattentive will be persuaded by the "free care" argument.

For our debased academic elite, medical care policy conversation had degraded to this by the time of Obamacare: In speaking to a group of highly educated, "academic medical theorists" in a North Eastern University setting, one of the main architects of Obamacare admitted that the verbiage used to write that law was intentionally meant to be confusing.

He explained that the hope was that the American people would not "catch on" to what was simple and obvious to that speaker, and to you, and I, Spud, and most opponents of Obamacare. That there was no way that Ex President Obama could be telling the truth.

That the promise that even though we were already deeply in debt, we could provide tens of millions of additional people with great care and also save lots of money was obviously not possible.

That anyone who wanted to, could keep their current plan and Doctor. Obviously that was not true, not if we were not going to spend more.

To keep those who did not see that, from coming to see that, they intentionally wrote parts of the Obamacare law as confusingly as they could.

Incredibly, the guy actually phrased one of his explanatory sentences this way - and this is a very fair paraphrase:

"We counted on the stupidity of the American voter..."

They counted on some voters being too stupid to understand that it was impossible to keep the Obamacare promises - if they threw lots of double-talk at them.

It might not have worked - but all Dems, many Repubs, and most media went along to help it succeed.

Even today, many Repubs (including at least three Repub Senators) think Obamacare is good. They dont think its good in a long term fiscal sense, but they know that voters will be grateful from the "gift."

And by gaining voter support, it would be a political gift to themselves. To h*ll with future fiscal anything!

Thus is "free medical" a basic poison. Like crack or meth - its got great appeal to the stupidest among us and some of the smartest.

Even "kinda smart people" think its "kinda OK." Smarter ones are like that Obamacare Flim Flam Man - they are in on the con.

And like politicians and political pundits and other "players." They see "wins" for their side, and "to h*ll" with the costs.

So yes, Spud, you called it true - the wages of Socialism is death.

And we, over here, have a real chance to fight and beat it. Lord save them over there! It dunna look good!

8/16/2018, 12:58 pm Link to this post PM greendocnowciv Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: The Wages of Socialism are Death!


The NHS is said to be ‘free at the point of use’. In other words, we all pay for it through our taxes so that anyone who is a British citizen can have access to healthcare.

Now, it is true to say that the NHS has serious money problems but it is perhaps not true to blame all that on socialism.

Given capitalism's drive to seek out the most cost-effective commodities, it is perhaps not too surprising to find the private sector encroaching on the public sector. The NHS is a prime example. Given that it employs 1.2 million people, the National Health Service is one of the world's largest job creators. In fact, it is exceeded only by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Indian Railways and Wal-mart. The nation's sick presents a huge money-making opportunity, as shown by those pharmaceutical companies that secure exclusive rights to some drug and then ramp up its price to many times the development costs, flogged to ‘consumers’ who have little choice but to pay the exorbitant prices.

But there is a problem, which is that the British public won't stand for the privatisation of the NHS because they appreciate the benefits of having healthcare funded by the tax payer and free at the point of use, rather than leaving the sick and vulnerable open to exploitation by competitive interests looking to get wealthier by whatever method they can get away with. Therefore, neoliberalism has had to resort to such tactics as privatisation of services within the NHS itself, the deliberate loading of unsustainable debt onto hospital balance sheets, and multiple and costly reorganisations that make hospitals so hard to run that the private sector has to move in to 'rescue' the situation.

PFI

The Private Finance Initiative or PFI is a good example of privatisation by stealth. This scheme allows the government to use private finance, hence its description as a form of 'public private partnership'. Using PFI brings certain advantages for government and business. Governments benefit because the majority of PFI debt does not appear in government debt or deficit figures. In other words, it's a way for governments to get into more debt while hiding the true extent of the deficit from the voters.

As for private interests, the benefit PFI confers on them consists of interest set at least twice the rate of gilt-based borrowing. Furthermore, its being a public private partnership means corporations get to circumvent one of the things that is supposed to make free-market capitalism the most generally advantageous of systems: Choice. Think about it. PFI is a way for the private sector to develop the infrastructure to deliver national services, paid for by the taxpayer. While you can choose to shop at Wal-mart you have far less choice over whether you pay taxes. Not only that, but the risk is also transferred to the taxpayer, since they’re the ones who ultimately shoulder the costs.

As Mendoza explained, PFIs "create a conspiracy of mutual self-interest between private service providers eager to create new markets in publicly run services, and successive governments seeking to put a gloss on spending figures"...
8/17/2018, 4:18 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: The Wages of Socialism are Death!


Now, I am sure that privately-run healthcare provides top-quality service for the affluent. But we should never forget that all businesses within the capitalist system have an agenda above that of providing top-quality service. A hospital run by the private sector does not exist primarily to provide care; it exists to make profit for its owners. The more affluent members of society have the wealth and power to ensure standards of quality are kept at tip-top levels. But what about the poorer members? They have little choice but to accept the bare minimum level of care, because if they cannot look after themselves and cannot rely on their family (perhaps because they are too busy wage labouring to provide adequate care) then they have little choice other than to accept whatever is on offer. This makes them ripe for exploitation by firms seeking to maximise profits by reducing costs. At the same time, staff working in such places are likely to be so overworked and underpaid they cannot provide adequate care and may seem to act with what is lack of compassion for the patients. The ability to provide care for those who most need it is therefore often sacrificed in the name of profit, the only real purpose of any capitalist venture.
8/17/2018, 4:19 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
spud100 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: The Wages of Socialism are Death!


I am not saying that National Healthcare, is impossible or ridiculous, Ex, merely, that it can be very costly, and, whatever is being promised by progressives, is exaggerated.

You like my idea about funding THe Super Dole and Medical Service, from Wealth from Outer Space??

I always liked your Worgl, example from Austria, and it could have been a world changer, if applied worldwide.
8/17/2018, 12:57 pm Link to this post PM spud100 Blog
 
greendocnowciv Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: The Wages of Socialism are Death!


"Heartless capitalism."

Blame capitalism! Blame the devil. No matter what you folks do, Maggies' tragic dictum sits there. It's now a classic meme - "other peoples money."

Two tropes, one old and tired. One new, tried and true. Considering the pic in the top post, and the label of this thread - it's understandable if, having a good feeling, some "emotional tug" for socialism, you then toss out something like that old slur.

Spuds' pic and label for this thread are fairly used, of course, because Venezuela is indeed a socialist country. The collapse of the Venezuelan socialist medical system has been so devastatingly thorough under the management of that long beloved ideology.

So sure, we can tag Socialism for that particular "fail."

But in a Socialist country so much will fail!

Thats why I want to look away from Socialist-Land. Truly socialist countries are such thoroughgoing messes that it can confuse looking at any particular issue in one.

So here is a more close-to-home view: The US and the UK both have our own variant of "free medical" and variants on "low cost medical Gov guarantees."

The Brit NHS offers a stark example of budget growth over time. There are of course various tragic care failures or other issues anyone could use to criticize the NHS, but the NHS is certainly not close to being as bad as Venezuela.

So lets just focus on the fatal flaw for any modern democracy - the inevitable money crunch caused by "free medical."

That "money crunch problem" has been clear for years with the NHS.

We get from the UK Gov that they spent a little over 120 Billion Pounds in '17.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
~~~~~~

And the overall spending I find for '17 was £781 billion Pounds.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_2017UKbt_17bc5n

~~~~~

Thats two different sources, but the non-Gov one seems kosher. The comparison shows us that in '17 it was approx 15.4% of the total.

And other sites give annual 3-4 % rises for years, slowing to less than 2% recently.

And sure enough, troubled PM May has dangled a promise to pop that number back up! To jeers. Nobody really thinks she will. But that really shows my point about that temptation. See the article linked here -
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/theresa-mays-nhs-funding-promise-unrealistic/ - for details on that.

And occasional budgent embarrassments have hit. A new pay scale was tried a few years ago for newly imported "cheaper immigrant doctors."

We are not even at 20% of the pie and the fighting over the scraps is heating up!

The NHS has to regularly appear in the news when periodic budget debates occur. Now that the NHS has so much of your budget, nobody questions its regular appearance.

"I offer medical care, he denies it" is with both US and UK politics. For both countries, by fits and starts - medical budget growth will always be a tempting lever for a new up and coming demagogue to pull.

Which party will be first to buck the recent move to drop the 3-4% trend? To make waves with "I promise an (x) rise!" To be met with x+1, etc. Above, I noted that the current very desperate PM has already at least dangled that idea.

Strictly from a budgetary view, the use of the total budget for "free medical" can be compared to crack use on the street. The comparison of the US and UK on this issue is two guys in a bad neighborhood.

One has been using crack regularly, and lowered his use recently. He seems tempted to increase it back up. The other used to just use it on weekends, but recently increased his use, and is trying to drop his use back down.

We can easily say that neither guy is on the right track - but dont be surprised if both are sure that they can handle it "for now."

Sadly for any defenders of the beloved "Crack Habit" of free medical, too much time has passed, too many commissions, too many scandals, to many "new starts with pilot projects."

Too much of all of that to believe that "we just need more time to fix this capitalist issue we found. Just give me another decade!"

Just like a real person you care about who tragically develops a crack habit, meth habit, maybe Oxy these days - any one of us may be able to note the slow degradation of a person we value.

With a person we know, we could show them pictures, newspaper clippings of some accomplishment...we could reach out and say "look, look at this track in time - the downhill track - do you not see?"

It can be so much harder to see "Big Gov" problems. Especially if it is some philosophically central issue for socialism, like "free medical."

So hard when you really want to believe in, well - socialism itself.

And how can anyone expect you Brits to do it in todays weird "Political-Social" climate. The "PC-SJW" fights! Preferred Pronuns and Count Dankula!

The UK lets ISIS fighters back into the country, and gives them extra benefits - and bans a Canadian holder of a Commonwealth Passport because she is very conservo and anti-Muslim.

In this "heated" political time, and even in cooler times, arguing "free benefits" is a well known demagogues tool in politics.

It's really hard to see how anybody in the UK is gonna convince you-all to peel this particular crack habit off your backs.

We can, over here. It will be a horribly difficult fight - but we can. Theoretically, you-all can as well, but it is almost unbelievable that you will. There is no whisper of anyone suggesting it.

If we succeed, you will hear us loudly call out:

"We loved you, free medical - but you're not good for us. Economically - you're no good!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bj_32QeAaU



8/17/2018, 1:41 pm Link to this post PM greendocnowciv Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: The Wages of Socialism are Death!


>You like my idea about funding THe Super Dole and Medical Service, from Wealth from Outer Space??<

Yeah it makes a great deal of sense. There is plenty of material out there not being put to any good use and it would be preferable to gain access to it and turn it into value-increasing products.

I would also hope our endeavour to unlock the wealth of outer space would coincide with a focus on technical efficiency, of making the most efficient use of the resources at our disposal. We don’t apply technical efficiency in contemporary markets, we apply market efficiency. Market efficiency is based on a throwaway culture, of designing products to fail at the earliest opportunity so they will be discarded and replaced, generating repeat sales. In some ways producing stuff with an eye to market efficiency is more skilful because you don’t want people to think ‘this product failed already? What junk, I’m not buying from this company again’, you want them to think ‘oh well time to go out and spend more money’.

I don’t want to see space turned into a rubbish-polluted environment like our oceans have become, so I hope we abandon our throwaway culture and adopt true technical efficiency.

On the socialism/capitalism debate I think we can all agree that there are worse systems to live under than the capitalist one. There is a good reason why folks tended to be fleeing from East to West Germany rather than vice versa!
8/18/2018, 1:05 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
spud100 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: The Wages of Socialism are Death!


If you guys can uncover a super way of recycling materials, or using the Earth's regolith (deep stones) as raw material for human use-Superb!!! This would abrogate the need for much space importation.

On socialism, the monster needs feeding and that is through tax dollars. My spaced-out space idea says, socialists you get the cash off the top. for your "good" works (eyes rolling).

Baring this, Doc, you may want to inquire about Ex's Worgl example, on how currency is fungible. Milton Friedman must be nodding propitiously, from another galaxy, at her learnings.
8/18/2018, 11:30 am Link to this post PM spud100 Blog
 
greendocnowciv Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
The Wages of Socialism are Death


Spud,

"Exties' got Worgls!"

Yes, I recall the Worgl from you discussing it on KAI as well as here, before now.

Back then, that prompted me to explore Exties writing at her MindChild site.

I was very informed and impressed by various things she has there, mostly economic stuff.

Her writing about various types of money experiments beyond the Worgl and the Worgl itself were very interesting.

Our current explorations of world fiat currencies from multi-trillion dollar GNP countries, first one then more mingling those currencies internally.

Then making "loans" via sending electronic signals from within one countries entities to another of its own entities, and then more countries doing that, and then many more of them doing it between each other...

For anyone today to insist that some ancient verity, or some pre-now econ idea that used to be solid must obtain for big countries is not realistic.

Some historical trends do still make some things more or less likely.

For instance, metals prices very much would be impacted if suddenly thousands or millions of tons of some refined metal landed in some safe ocean or desert impact area, in staged impacts that were small enough not to create any human-felt risks.

That kind of economic disruption can cause wars, and also turn countries into "failed States" - what Ex President Obama and France did to Libya with our combined military efforts. Think of the same thing happening to many countries, except due to economic factors rather than French and US attacks.

To avoid such disasters, space development of metals and lots else will probably be left up there to a very great degree. Which I think is great!

More up there the better, to me. Lets get an off-Earth civ started and running strong.

That can be motivated by terrestrial economic competition. Development up there can certainly mean lots of strong economic impact to the Earth economy. Power beamed down can provide new, less stinky development planet-side.

Various space-manufactured items may be much more expensive to make in the deep, "1G" gravity-well of Earth. Thats just two from old retired dude. Hot-charging young, eager capitalists will pile up ideas.

Today -

For our modern finances, all of the major Western World countries, and less seriously the rest are trying to make the system as regular and steady as possible.

Thus more investors will invest, more business will do more business.

So I hope more think of worgls and the rest. Yet another bennie we will get from AI mind augments - a much larger number of smart people applying themselves to all of this.
8/18/2018, 1:11 pm Link to this post PM greendocnowciv Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: The Wages of Socialism are Death!


>you may want to inquire about Ex's Worgl example, on how currency is fungible<

I think the most important thing to bare in mind when it comes to money, is something I learned from Mike Maloney who has some excellent videos about money on YouTube.

He believes that there is a difference between currency and money. The difference is that money is a store of value that retains that value over long periods of time. In practical terms, this means that you can buy as much or more with your money than you could in previous years.

Currency, on the other hand, leaks value. That is to say its purchasing power diminishes and so you can buy less with your money over time.

Maloney makes a big deal about gold being the ideal form of money because it is intrinsically precious and finite and cannot be printed into oblivion like paper currency. I think it is more important that money is designed to fall into the hands of those who will invest in ways that will increase prosperity, the ‘makers’ of this world rather than the ‘takers’. This would encourage healthy competition that raises living standards overall and would result in the purchasing power of the money in your pocket remaining steady or increasing over time.

8/19/2018, 1:13 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top