USA was 3 hrs away from Economic, Political Collapse... last Sept.
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 11:44
VIEWED: 42658
PAGE 12 of 16
An economy has purpose or effects. I think the difference is rather arbitrary, and not worth arguing about, personally. Whether you believe it just has effects, or effects dictated by an over arching purpose, it still has effects and those are what's important.
If an economy is functioning well, everyone will, or should be, benefiting from an increased standard of living. Whether you think this is the purpose or the effect of a well functioning economy, would seem to be largely irrelevant.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Come on, think in specific terms, how can the social welfare spending be directly responsible for any of the wealth generation? All it can ideally be is kind of a lubricant for the capitalist engine, which creates the wealth.
That's not an example of any purely capitalist economies.
Why, precisely, does it have to be directly responsible any way? That would seem to be a semantic trick in order to dismiss contribution made by socialist programs. Does a public school system have a direct effect on the economy? I don't know, you tell me if you think a high standard of education in the populace will have a positive effect on a nations economy.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
Exactly.
Universal health care - will it drag a society down, or will productivity actually INCREASE when people can easily get medical treatment and not have to either "walk it off" or sit around worrying a stressing about how to pay for their medicine?
Everyone here seems to agree that SOME "socialism" is a good thing. Where we fall apart is on the "how much?" question. Where does it end? What's the balance point? At what point do you take good enough care of your people that they're happy, healthy, and content to produce and generate capital and profit, and at what point do you tip over that point and start coddling them and encouraging laziness?
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought for a bit about economy and purpose. In one sense, Sarge is right: It's a mistake to impute "purpose" to processes which are purposeless. Like evolution. People commonly think "evolution" has a "purpose": survival of the fittest, or the creation of the ultimate species (us, usually)
HOWEVER, I believe that since economics is a human endeavor it HAS a "purpose". People engage in "economic activity" for a purpose. The way we organize and regulate our economic activity is for a group purpose. Maybe our purposes are unconscious or poorly thought-out but they exist. Equating economics to evolution (which seems to be what Sarge is doing) is simply a re-statement of the capitalist Darwinian assumption: if people behave in individual ways the invisible hand will create a balanced system. That assumption negates the possibility of collective learning and wisdom. Isn't there a statement about failing to learn from history?
I'm of a different school of thought: I believe that we have the possibility of defining our future. I guess it's a very existentialist viewpoint; WE decide what is "fair", WE create our purpose, WE take responsibility for our own meaning, instead of letting "god" or "nature" or "economics" do it for us.
That also means that we must recognize that systems develop which are LARGER than we are- memes, technologies, languages, societies, institutions, religions, businesses- which have their own "food", their own reproduction, evolution, lifespan. Its as if we are the "cells" to these "bodies". But we must understand them if we are to control them instead of them controlling us. That is one of the reason swhy I find the Funding Father's document to be so interesting: it is the first CONSCIOUS attempt that I know of to create a larger institution which is both reproductive AND deliberately self-balancing: People and state. Branches of government. Inalienable rights and change.
That is why I find anarchism somewhat naive. Trying to create freedom by simply insisting that we all behave individually denies the (VERY POWERFUL and seemingly inevitable) development of these "larger-than-individuals" interactions and systems. In order to CREATE freedom one must create a SYSTEM which constantly enhances it. Then one must keep an eye on that system to make sure that it it is doing its job, and then CHANGE THE SYSTEM if it fails to perform.
For example, I think the Founding Fathers' experiment was a bold experiment. They did their best, by god, but clearly the system has enough flaws in it to be corrupted by concentrated wealth and power.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Universal health care - will it drag a society down, or will productivity actually INCREASE when people can easily get medical treatment and not have to either "walk it off" or sit around worrying a stressing about how to pay for their medicine?
Or like my Girlfriend who's living in Missouri at the moment. She's had some health problems, but had to stop even getting tests because she can't afford the co-pay on any more until she's paid for the ones she's had. They haven't even done anything yet, and she can't afford any more treatment. I can't think that helps her 'economic productivity' any.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Everyone here seems to agree that SOME "socialism" is a good thing. Where we fall apart is on the "how much?" question. Where does it end? What's the balance point? At what point do you take good enough care of your people that they're happy, healthy, and content to produce and generate capital and profit, and at what point do you tip over that point and start coddling them and encouraging laziness
It's useful to point that out sometimes. Most people think some socialist programs are a good idea, be it market regulation, the police, or even a military.
Of course the balance point will be different for different nations, but even so I think few get the balance right, either going to far one way or another. I think a failure in the balance will assert itself in numerous ways, say a high and growing gap between rich and poor, injustice, high crime rates.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually Siggy, someone apparently got around to doing a writeup on Proudhons mutualism theory of economics, which I've often tried, and usually failed badly, to explain here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) <-add manually.
It's well worth a look, and like most Anarchist schools of thought, isn't an all or nothing thing and can be adapted in any degree from lesser to larger, something well worth pondering as regards the usual problem of who controls the labor vs who controls the means of production and how the split goes.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit, I suppose I'm lucky because I *have* health insurance, albeit really shitty health insurance. Yet I still don't go to a doctor because of the paralyzing fear that they MIGHT find something that I won't be covered for.
So, as a result, I put it off, let it go, and then end up in a life-or-death situation, hoping to get by on treatment, and never mind a cure.
I'm not alone. In fact, the vast majority of people I know - rich and poor, insured or not - find themselves in the same boat. And given that so many small businesses find themselves shopping for employee health insurance every year or two, god forbid you DO get something listed on your records, because when your present company quadruples your rates and you go looking for a new company, your "pre-existing" condition is no longer covered. So you're screwed again.
Surely insurance companies could increase long-term profits by putting prevention and early detection higher on the priority list - but that would negatively affect their short-term profits, so they refuse to even consider it.
What I know is this: Our health care system doesn't work, period. Not even for the people it's supposed to be working for. The only people I know who have decent, uninterrupted health coverage that doesn't jerk them around consistently are those who work for the government - but we can't all be civil servants, can we?
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
If an economy is functioning well, everyone will, or should be, benefiting from an increased standard of living. Whether you think this is the purpose or the effect of a well functioning economy, would seem to be largely irrelevant.
See, I think the question is extremely relevant and gets to the real core of what we ought to doing about it through government. If you see it as a system with a clear purpose, then we can act in a deliberate way to achieve that purpose. But I, and I'd guess many of us with a laissez-faire bent, aren't seeing it this way.
Even if we accept your notion that the economy should produce a "higher standard of living", that goal is very subjective. Some of us might consider that to mean more material goods and services and traditional wealth. But others of us might think that more free time and an uncomplicated lifestyle represent a higher standard of living. Those two goals aren't exactly co-aligned, and to the extent that they aren't, people will have different notions about what policies are good for the economy.
I'm not sure if the desire to pursue large-scale social reform causes one to see such activities as a 'system', or if it's the other way around but I think they're definitely related. The same issue is at the core of the health care debate, and I think it offers the same dangers. In the economy, if some people think that the good life involves owning at little as possible and keeping life simple, they're going to feel the pinch from laws and policies designed to encourage people to drive economic growth. In health care, people who look to non-traditional medicine, or who want to experiment with novel ways of assuring their health, will be punished as outliers when we pass laws that treat health care as a consistent, unified system.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ayep, just like folks pay heinous sums for car insurance at Gov Gunpoint, theoretically for protections against injury or damage, but don't DARE actually file a claim if they can find any way around it.
It's bullshit, just like those "Unlimited" internet services that come down on you three months later screaming "HOW DARE YOU ACTUALLY *USE* WHAT WE'RE CHARGING YOU FOR!!".
(Talkin bout YOU, Comcast)
That brings to mind a funny thought...
I have an actual "doctor" whom I pay in cash or trade for something that needs "official" attention for legal/medical reasons, which is fairly rare.
And I have the guy who does scratch and dent work, which for me is all too common cause I tend to push physical limits, always have, and age and previous damage is starting to tell....
But he ain't a doctor, he's actually my Vet - I figure if it's good enough for my rotten spoiled cat, should be good enough for me, right ?
(insert ex's comment about how I adore that cat more than the past three women she's outlasted)
Anyhows, your commentary brought to mind something ya might find amusing Mikey - I was pondering just how FAR I would trust this guy to work on me if it came to cases, say a stab wound I didn't wanna have to explain, for example, since he's already done bruises, sprains, a broken finger, quite a few stitches and a concussion before...
And on a cost/benefit analysis, actually thinking it over in detail, I was a bit surprised at just how far I would rely on someone who isn't an M.D. to avoid the hell of dealing with the established medical system.
Remember, I've survived one near-fatal accident, and the damage was horribly compounded, almost lethally so, by the greed and neglect of that system, and in addition improverished me to a long period of homelessness, costing me a relationship, my home, my job and everything else BUT my life, thanks in great part to the exact insurance-shopping model you just mentioned.
Risk of death VS lower risk of death with gauranteed financial destitution likely to have it's own risk of death and health failure attached ?
For anything less than a miracle, I'll take the vet, thanks - and for the real wacky shite, well, there's the folks that also build my prosthetics...
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cit, I suppose I'm lucky because I *have* health insurance, albeit really shitty health insurance. Yet I still don't go to a doctor because of the paralyzing fear that they MIGHT find something that I won't be covered for.
Oh, so does she, which is what makes me damn near apoplectic. She can't afford any more treatment, because she has to pay copay charges (which I assume are like the excess I have to pay on any claims on my house insurance). The point is, she pays her health insurance, and she still can't afford to get treatment. It's like a rapist charging you for their time. As far as I'm concerned, that isn't business, it's not even insurance, it's a confidence trick with government and legal approval.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What I know is this: Our health care system doesn't work, period. Not even for the people it's supposed to be working for. The only people I know who have decent, uninterrupted health coverage that doesn't jerk them around consistently are those who work for the government - but we can't all be civil servants, can we?
Especially not since the American government is so determined too seem small, that most US government jobs are out sourced to contractors (something like more than 10:1) despite the fact that, that, actually costs more, and makes the government bureaucracy even larger than it needs to be if they just admitted to it's real size.
But hey, the US government gets to say it's only a bureaucracy of 3 million civil servants, rather than over 30...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you see it as a system with a clear purpose, then we can act in a deliberate way to achieve that purpose.
I rather doubt you know how I see it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Those two goals aren't exactly co-aligned, and to the extent that they aren't, people will have different notions about what policies are good for the economy.
They're not mutually exclusive either. One is an economic goal, and one is a social goal. Any approach to economics is a material one. Economics is the study of materials, markets and the movement of money, I'm sure you'll accuse me of trying to enforce my views on others in some Machiavellian malfeasance, but if you think there's something non-material about economies, then you don't know what an economy is.
Trying to say that economics doesn't need to be about material things, is like saying religion doesn't have to have anything to do with the supernatural.
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
In the economy, if some people think that the good life involves owning at little as possible and keeping life simple, they're going to feel the pinch from laws and policies designed to encourage people to drive economic growth. In health care, people who look to non-traditional medicine, or who want to experiment with novel ways of assuring their health, will be punished as outliers when we pass laws that treat health care as a consistent, unified system.
Really? I'll tell the Chinese medicine place I walk past on my way to work they have to shut down, because we have the NHS and SergeantX says the two can't co-exist.
You're making wild claims about what will definitely happen if these situation occur in real life, without a mind to the fact that these situations do occur in real life, and what you say definitely will happen, doesn't.
You can talk all day long about what people might want to derive from an economy, but from outside that black box, economies are either doing well, or they're not. If an economy is doing well, people can derive from it what they want, if it is doing badly, they can't. Economies are a system, whether they have an overarching guiding hand, or purpose is irrelevant, they're still a system.
An economy is a river of money. Some people want to fish the river. Some people want to sail the river. Some people want to row the river. Some people want to lie in their boat and just drift. Regardless, they all need a healthy river, and the way of deriving that healthy river is the same for all, it's outside of any particular wants or needs placed on that river. The only people who might be curbed are those that want to use the river to shit in or dam, and really I don't see the problem in saying fuck them, the same way they say "fuck everyone else". The point is it doesn't matter whether you see the rivers purpose as flowing to the sea, or just to supply you with Fish, or that it just is, the actions taken to ensure everyone gets what they want out of it is the same.
So yes, whether you see the river as having an overarching purpose or not, is entirely irrelevant. Or we can play semantics, in which case I'll remind you that you see it having an overarching purpose, the purpose of giving people the opportunity to get what they want from it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME