Ethelred_the_Unready

You are clearly Patrick Bateman, or you work for Morgan Stanley.

I can't write a long and boring response as I am limited to posting from a proletariat mobile device, but I will say this....the trickle-down economics you are inadvertently defending does not work if the desired result is a fair and balanced society. People in your position assume the very wealthy will be good enough to "invest" any extra money they receive via tax breaks, but this assumption is wrong. Humans are inherently greedy Mark.

None of this is borne out of jealousy. I have no desire to be Gordon Gecko or Patrick Bateman. I am the last person on earth to begrudge anyone from enjoying the benefits of legitimately earned money.

Just because something is done within the confines of the law at that time doesn't make it 1) right or 2) moral. I think that's where you're getting your wires crossed, plus I don't get why you continually accuse people of 1) jealousy and 2) not reading your posts. Bottom line is that you simply come across as a condescending, obnoxious twirp.

Ethelred_the_Unready

I wasn't trying to insult you. Remember, you butted in accusing the OP of jealousy in response to his post, which was more questio than actual "hey I'm some disgruntled socialist looking to rob the rich", so from my perspective, your position is pretty obvious.

I don't doubt that investment takes place, but I am not going to sit here like some blind shill assuming the free market is the solution to all and that all wealthy people are wealthy because they "earned it" and are decent enough to invest their so-called hard earned cash in order to create jobs.

Greed is just human nature. I am never surprised by it, but I do believe that one role my my (elected) government is to enact and enforce rules and regulations to lessen the damage it may cause, from a moral perspective. It's fine if you disagree. You are either American or an expat who has embraced what drives this country. At least respect the fact that I am neither of those things and never will be. I'll indentify with Rabb C. Nesbitt before I identify with Gordon Gecko, or before I choose to mastubate over the Wells Fargo logo.

Regardless of your opinions or mine, the statistically happiest nations with the highest levels of social mobility and lowest levels of income disparity are the Nordic cointries. Think about that one.

Michael

But the US market is highly distorted since AMA is nothing more than the worlds most powerful union designed to protect it's members and their profits. Prices for health care services (except optional services such as plastic surgery) are never quoted since this might cause doctors to compete based on price. Health insurance companies take so long to give a quote (always a higher cost than what is advertised on the internet) that a person is almost forced to accept the policy due to HIPAA regulations which only give you so long of a period of time to get health insurance. Then health insurance companies just keep raising prices so that profits will increase even if their subscriber base decreases.

Since the current free market can't solve those problems, it seems that the only way that the free market could possibly work would be to prohibit individuals from purchasing health care insurance, stop employers from providing health care insurance, and forbid government, hospitals, and doctors from providing free health care. When enough people die due to lack of health care and doctors can't find patients, prices will finally reflect the true value of health care and prices will finally reflect the correct value for treatment.

So the solution is to turn the country into a third world country (most people in third world countries can't afford health insurance and if the person can't pay, they don't get treated) since medical services in those countries are much cheaper than developed countries. However life expectancy is also very low.

Ethelred_the_Unready

Apologies in advance for any typos. I post from a primitive mobile device. Small screen, big hands, not so great eyesight. Do the maths.

JRG67

Forgiven Good points

JRG67

Excellent argument. It is difficult for doctors to do their job, as they are increasingly being forced to become business men thinking about profit-margins (which most of them do not wish to do)

HarryTheSpider

For me your post highlights the fundamental conflict about healthcare... Is it a basic right for all, or a privilege, available to those who can afford it?

If it is a right, then the question of its value in free market terms becomes moot - the value, in terms of what people pay, will be all but zero. There is still the supplier-side market, which probably would operate along more free-market lines...

There are some things that a free market cannot provide in practice - most infrastructure typically, elements of defence, space exploration, good schools for all, medicines needed by a relatively small group of patients, and so on...

Neither can it provide a reasonable level of economic activity when the economy tanks.

So if there is one reason for having government, it is surely to step in where free market economics can't or won't?

JRG67

Which comes back to my point that a benevolent dictatorship works best! See you in Texas

HarryTheSpider

I understand a number of politicians pay good money to be dictated to by someone 'suitably' dressed...

HarryTheSpider

Interesting perspective in this article, on tax breaks given by local governments to businesses in order to attract/keep those businesses. It seems the cost to local tax payers is $80Bn annually, the benefit in return being very questionable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us...ations.html?hp

I have no problem with businesses seeking good terms. I have a problem with local government officials not requiring anything concrete in return as an absolute minimum. I have a problem with officials who are in elected office for less than say, 6 years, accepting liabilities that may not kick in for 10+ years, without consequence. And I have a problem with the negotiations for these being effectively kept away from the public, who in the end are paying for them, on the grounds of commercial confidence (not letting competitors know the details etc).

markwm

I think calling me a 'condescending, obnoxious twirp' is pretty insulting - I am definitely not a twerp. I'd just like to know why you can say that but I can't respond?

Its a public forum: the notion of butting in is ridiculous.

State my position if it's so obvious.

I never said it was the solution to everything - just pointed out what happens. They don't invest because they're nice/not nice, they invest because it reaps further rewards.

You are perfectly entitled to believe what you want and I would defend your right to do so. We can and should be encouraged to hold differing views which we can debate, however boisterously.

I am an ex-pat, btw and I do mostly embrace what drives this country (or why would I want to live here?) but I temper that with the notion that we do have a duty and obligation to help and protect those who can't do so for themselves.

I despise both of the characters you mention: neither are worthy and both are amoral in their own way: Gecko because he doesn't care whom he hurts in his quest to gather wealth and Nesbitt because he is utterly self-absorbed and driven to fulfill his own needs regardless of the cost to himself and those around him.

Sounds like you'd be happier living in a nanny state rather than one that rewards people who display initiative and tenacity and work hard. I accept that there will be people, in any society, who slip through the cracks but I'd rather be rewarded for my industry than taxed till it isn't worth while to make any more since it'll be taken from me and wasted by a government that thinks it knows best how I should live my life.

Ethelred_the_Unready

Say what you will about me or Gecko, but I disagree with your analysis of poor Rab. He's basically just an unfortunate guy born into poverty and is trying his best not to take life too seriously, fuelled by booze and cigarettes, with his ever loving wife beside him. If anything, Rab is a rebel, giving the establishment a one fingered salute and not degrading himself into taking jobs that don't pay enough for an adult to live on.

Whatever I said to you was largely said in jest. You took it to another level though, which seems to be the case as one of your posts were deleted before I had the chance to reply. People in glass houses and all that....anyway....

More assumptions about me and where I'd prefer to live. I don't like the term "nanny state". I do generally prefer countries that take care of the less fortunate and provide healhcare to every citizen. That also boils down to Harry's earlier point as to whether you believe such things to be "rights" or "entitlements".

Why can we not have a society that does both: rewards those who truly work hard, but also does its best to ensure that people do not fall into absolute poverty and do not have to go without basic healthcare? Many EU countries manage to do this; Germany being a classic example. It all depends on the size of the reward and the willingness of such a society to try to find a good balance between the two, because either in excess is bad.

I like many aspects of this country, but there is more that I am at odds with than agree with. If you're going to insist on a society where all must compete, then more should be done to try to ensure much more of a level playing field, e.g. by providing free healthcare, cutting tuition costs significantly and making a real effort to reach out to the inner cities, rather than dismiss such people as hopeless welfare frauds.

This is also a matter of opinion, but rich people do not create jobs, nether does pushing money around. Demand creates jobs and demand largely depends on having a strong middle class and high levels of social mobility. If a minority of very wealthy people control most of the wealth, all the investment in the world is not going to create demand. I'm no economist, but that seems like common sense to me.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...ch-create-jobs

I also don't buy into the paranoid delusions about government interference that some buy into here. I would rather have a government that I elect and whose politicians are at least somewhat accountable to the people rather than a society largely governed and controlled by corporations and the mega rich, serving their own interests and virtually untouchable.

It's all about....balance.

JRG67

Very well articulated.

JRG67

I think it is great that you seem to believe in the American dream. You are a true pioneer/frontierman. (How long have you been living in the States?)

However, the dream only exists for the privileged minority, and fewer and fewer people are able to better themselves economically. There is now a great working poor class in the States, relying on food stamps in order to live and work.
In addition, not everyone wants to become a business man/woman (something that Romney seems incapable of understanding). What about the people who want to enrich our lives? The teachers, healthcare workers, artists and writers. They do not work for profit (at least not when they start out in their chosen profession). Are they not entitled to good healthcare and schooling for their children.
Look at the art world, where now the artist has to be a business person- Warhol and Hirst are prime examples. Art is suffering.

Ethelred_the_Unready

Right.

Not only does not everyone want to become a businessman/woman, but not everyone is born with the attributes that would enable them to be successful in doing so. There is only so much room at the top; think of it as a humungous sized pyramid, which is what it is. There's only so much room at the top and the further up you get, the less room there is, so you get a bunch of people trying to compete at the middle / bottom with exactly the same business-related BA/MBA. Some will succeed, others will end up at Starbucks trying to pay off massive student loans.

There seems to be too much focus on business here and not enough focus on the arts or culture, which may not yield financial rewards, but does make for a more cultured and more creative society than one made up of corporate drones. It seems that such subjects are looked down upon by many here, but where would the world be without painters, sculptors, musicians and even teachers, who don't get the pay or the recognition that they deserve.

Some people also don't have the drive so succeed, for whatever reason. Some people are content with a menial career and don't want to be part of the rat race. Such people should not be punished for just wanting the basics, nor should they be looked down on. The problem in a country like this is the keeping up with the Joneses mentality that makes people feel inferior if they don't have the latest gadgets, nice cars and fancy clothes. The UK isn't much better in that regard, but it was at least at a tolerable level for me when I lived there, although that was almost 10 years ago.