More evidence that capitalism is a big cod.

[waitasec]

Yeah, 44th economic freedom, low taxes and a universal health care system? As opposed to ranking 5th on the same list in 2006 and 14th just two years later in 2008 and now 44th 2 years later in 2010? Seems like they're going towards a controlled economy. Now as for their universal health care system having 'reletively low taxes' and being 'maintained' this is a result of flat taxes where America and I think even Europe impose progressive tax systems, which are the converse of a flat tax. This creates the idea of taking from one class and giving to another. Which makes the illusion of the poor being held of the backs of the rich.

what do you mean, should iceland start building projects for the poor?
do i understand you correctly?

maybe that's what the solution should be.
let the bottom bottom out...and the rich are the ones worthy to survive...
we all know money makes more money...

 

[waitasec]

Well then who gives a crap if a company wants to spend money on insurance so that if they're employee dies they get money from another company. What do you want to do, tell a company that they can't spend their moneyon a service from another company? YOU as an employee has the choice to work for that company.

nice set of principles you have there captain...



what you don't understand is that this disgusting practice is a result of capitalism...
people are worth more dead than alive.

 

[zer0]

nice set of principles you have there captain...

Your principles are that a company shouldn't be able to spend money on a service from another company which puts insurance on an employee given that if he die that company will insure the other company for their loss? The company loses money when an employee dies, now not to mention they also lose money when the employee lives while spending it on the insurance for when the employee dies. The employee is offering a capital, if they die the company loses that capital. Just like if a companies bulldozer is driven off of a cliff. They lose capital, but they have insurance on that capital. I think it is the choice of the company and the choice of the employer and the insurer to be participants in the system. I don't see how this is a moral dilemma. It requires the participation of all parties. And it is stealing from none of the parties.

Now, if a company starts killing off employees for the insurance benefits then yeah that's wrong but it is called insurance fraud.

I don't know if you edited your post or if I just missed the bottom part. It is not that they are worth more dead or alive. The company is insuring them because of the fact that they worth more when they are alive. Because when they die the company loses money. Why do you insure your car? Because it is worth more when it is totaled? Bull crap. Because it costs more when it is totaled. You're operating off of deluded presumptions. (A better analogy is why do you insure your house. Because it is worth more burned to the ground or because it costs more?)

 

[zer0]

what do you mean, should iceland start building projects for the poor?
do i understand you correctly?

maybe that's what the solution should be.
let the bottom bottom out...and the rich are the ones worthy to survive...
we all know money makes more money...

How did you draw any of that from what I had said?

 

[waitasec]

Your principles are that a company shouldn't be able to spend money on a service from another company which puts insurance on an employee given that if he die that company will insure the other company for their loss?

yes.

The company loses money when an employee dies,

so. are you saying employees are worth nothing more than the bottom line?
death as a commodity for employers...is disgusting

now not to mention they also lose money when the employee lives while spending it on the insurance for when the employee dies.

it 's not their life so they should stay out of it...
high risk employees are probably the best candidate...

The employee is offering a capital,

the employee offers their time...their services

if they die the company loses that capital. Just like if a companies bulldozer is driven off of a cliff.

disappointment.

the difference here is it's a human being we are talking about...

They lose capital, but they have insurance on that capital. I think it is the choice of the company and the choice of the employer and the insurer to be participants in the system. I don't see how this is a moral dilemma. It requires the participation of all parties. And it is stealing from none of the parties.

it lacks common decency...
but then again money has no regard for life...sort of like cancer, until it destroys the host

Now, if a company starts killing off employees for the insurance benefits then yeah that's wrong but it is called insurance fraud.

india settled that one...

I don't know if you edited your post or if I just missed the bottom part. It is not that they are worth more dead or alive. The company is insuring them because of the fact that they worth more when they are alive. Because when they die the company loses money. Why do you insure your car? Because it is worth more when it is totaled? Bull crap. Because it costs more when it is totaled. You're operating off of deluded presumptions. (A better analogy is why do you insure your house. Because it is worth more burned to the ground or because it costs more?)
[/COLOR]

insurance companies are the epitome of capitalism.
why would my australian friend who was a practicing optometrists in australia have to start his schooling all over again in the US?
why does my other friend who owned her own beauty school in england and was a practicing esthetician have to put in hours of schooling in the US when she clearly had credentials?
liability...

i will use one word that describes capitalism
more.

 

[waitasec]

How did you draw any of that from what I had said?

you said

This creates the idea of taking from one class and giving to another. Which makes the illusion of the poor being held of the backs of the rich.

did i mis understand you?

 

[Revoltingest]

insurance companies are the epitome of capitalism.
why would my australian friend who was a practicing optometrists in australia have to start his schooling all over again in the US?
why does my other friend who owned her own beauty school in england and was a practicing esthetician have to put in hours of schooling in the US when she clearly had credentials?
liability...

Liability is governed by the legal environment. It's hard to blame capitalism for that. But the insurance industry is what allows me to run a business.
Without insurance, I couldn't borrow money...insurance reduces the bank's risk. Moreover, the insurance industry has contributed to safety from the
outset, eg, requiring safe storage of fuels, regular safety inspections. My insurance companies are assets to me.

 

[waitasec]

Liability is governed by the legal environment. It's hard to blame capitalism for that. But the insurance industry is what allows me to run a business.
Without insurance, I couldn't borrow money...insurance reduces the bank's risk. Moreover, the insurance industry has contributed to safety from the
outset, eg, requiring safe storage of fuels, regular safety inspections. My insurance companies are assets to me.

exactly...without insurance you can't borrow money.
it's not about the idea or the business plan anymore, its about being low risk for the bank... not to say your business isn't a good one, but now any tom dick and harry can start one and if they don't succeed... file bankruptcy...easy.
it's a nice system we have
:sarcastic


post #4567

 

[Revoltingest]

exactly...without insurance you can't borrow money.
it's not about the idea or the business plan anymore, its about being low risk for the bank... not to say your business isn't a good one, but now any tom dick and harry can start one and if they don't succeed... file bankruptcy...easy.
it's a nice system we have:sarcasticpost #4567

The ease of bankruptcy has pretty much destroyed my business. I can't enforce judgments because the debt is just waived by the court.
It makes the difference between profit & loss. It might even put me in the position of needing such protection.

 

[zer0]

yes.


so. are you saying employees are worth nothing more than the bottom line?
death as a commodity for employers...is disgusting

It's like a farm. You have 12 farmers. 1 farmer is sick. That makes it harder on all the other farmers. That's because the farmer is more than a MAN he is CAPITAL he provides something which alleviates the labor of the other farmers.

it 's not their life so they should stay out of it...
high risk employees are probably the best candidate...

You're entitled to that opinion.

the employee offers their time...their services

Uhh... Capital?

disappointment.

the difference here is it's a human being we are talking about...

Yeah. Would you put a life insurance policy on your son, your daughter, your husband you brother, your mother? Why? Because it costs when they die. It is sad, but it is true, that death is costly.

it lacks common decency...
but then again money has no regard for life...sort of like cancer, until it destroys the host



india settled that one...


insurance companies are the epitome of capitalism.
why would my australian friend who was a practicing optometrists in australia have to start his schooling all over again in the US?
why does my other friend who owned her own beauty school in england and was a practicing esthetician have to put in hours of schooling in the US when she clearly had credentials?
liability...

i will use one word that describes capitalism
more.

>.< and socialism of course fixes that. Socialism which wants to give more people the grab for more resources regardless of how much they provide? Also, those are not inherently Capitalist ideas, the licensing of people for a profession is in its nature socialistic in that it requires people to be licensed by the society before they can practice. However, I do not disagree with it when the practice is dangerous as revoltingest mentioned. Such as licensing someone to control a nuclear powerplant.

 

[zer0]

you said
did i mis understand you?

You misunderstood me. I was praising Iceland for how they were taxing using a flat tax where everyone is taxed the same and condemning everyone else for the use of progressive tax where in the tax is higher for the amount of money which is made. That creates the image (not illusion sorry) that the rich are baring the poor on their back.

 

[waitasec]

>.< and socialism of course fixes that. Socialism which wants to give more people the grab for more resources regardless of how much they provide?

could you give me an example of this...

Also, those are not inherently Capitalist ideas, the licensing of people for a profession is in its nature socialistic in that it requires people to be licensed by the society before they can practice. However, I do not disagree with it when the practice is dangerous as revoltingest mentioned. Such as licensing someone to control a nuclear powerplant.
[/COLOR]

other countries do not adhere to that practice...
if i were a practicing optometrist in the US and wanted to move to sweden i would need to pass an exam in swedish (from what i understand)...no need to retake any courses i just have to learn the language (no easy task mind you).


i never said or implied that socialism was the answer...if you can show me where i said that i would appreciate it.

i am all for a solution that would include a socialistic principle...co-ops and the like, the ideoloy seems to fit my principles. i also adhere to the idea that the value we place on human life shouldn't be about money but from the common understanding we are all equal.

for instance...
i'm all for flat taxes i'm also of the opinion that my health care shouldn't be a privilege but a right...
everything is honky dory when we have a job and our health but if either or both turn to the worse the system isn't set up to assist those in need...
it's set up to keep people in a perpetual state of need...
would you agree?

 

[waitasec]

You misunderstood me. I was praising Iceland for how they were taxing using a flat tax where everyone is taxed the same and condemning everyone else for the use of progressive tax where in the tax is higher for the amount of money which is made. That creates the image (not illusion sorry) that the rich are baring the poor on their back.

gotcha...
my bad.

 

[zer0]

could you give me an example of this...

In socialism there is a strive for equality, everyone is given the same resources. So you want everyone to be give the same amount of resources. And everyone who wants more than what they have says "yeah, that's a great idea" instead of going out and working to get it. And by work I don't mean simple labor. I mean working towards getting that.

other countries do not adhere to that practice...
if i were a practicing optometrist in the US and wanted to move to sweden i would need to pass an exam in swedish (from what i understand)...no need to retake any courses i just have to learn the language (no easy task mind you).

Oh, so it's the courses. I see. Well in America you can go to a college, and if you can prove you have the knowledge, by taking the exam(s), from what I understand you can gain credit for the course. However, if you fail the exam, you do not gain credit. I think this is rather an offspring of Government control. Again, this is not inherently a Capitalist idea.

i never said or implied that socialism was the answer...if you can show me where i said that i would appreciate it.

Well I apologize for my assumption on the matter.

i am all for a solution that would include a socialistic principle...co-ops and the like, the ideoloy seems to fit my principles. i also adhere to the idea that the value we place on human life shouldn't be about money but from the common understanding we are all equal.

Well I adhere to the idea that we all come into this world as equals. And the choices we make thereafter decide how we retain that equality. The philosophy that 'we are all equal' comes from the misunderstanding of the philosophy that 'we are all created equal'

for instance...
i'm all for flat taxes i'm also of the opinion that my health care shouldn't be a privilege but a right...
everything is honky dory when we have a job and our health but if either or both turn to the worse the system isn't set up to assist those in need...
it's set up to keep people in a perpetual state of need...
would you agree?

Only if you allow it to keep you in that state. People lose them selves through their greed. Look at Warren Buffet. One of the richest people in the world, but lives in a small home and lives a humble life. Look at Bill Gates, who gives a whole lot of his money to various charities. In the capitalist system people are provided with the right to choose how they want to screw their lives up. As far as I am concerned, any other system merely tells you how you can screw your life up or screws it up for you.


Also, not calling you a socialist or communist but just saying, look what happens to people who can't work in a socialist or communist society. I'm not sure how it is in Denmark or Sweden. But I know it's not good in other places.

 

[zer0]

Pertaining to my statement: Well I adhere to the idea that we all come into this world as equals. And the choices we make thereafter decide how we retain that equality. The philosophy that 'we are all equal' comes from the misunderstanding of the philosophy that 'we are all created equal'

Consider a murderer. Society says that due to the choices which the murderer has made he or she no longer deserves the rights and privileges of an ordinary citizen and should be locked away. Now I have my issues with the prison system and it being a public institution but I do believe that if a person wishes to kill another person they should understand that they are risking their rights and privileges as a citizen. Now is this person socially equal to you and I? No, they are not. My question for you is should they be?

 

[Bill-Gatin']

Consider a murderer. Society says that due to the choices which the murderer has made he or she no longer deserves the rights and privileges of an ordinary citizen and should be locked away. Now I have my issues with the prison system and it being a public institution but I do believe that if a person wishes to kill another person they should understand that they are risking their rights and privileges as a citizen. Now is this person socially equal to you and I? No, they are not. My question for you is should they be?

According to the United States government, when someone is incarcerated, for any crime, they lose many of their rights and privileges. They should not be considered socially equal, for it is a part of their punishment. Prison would not be an effective form of punishment if those inside were able to have the freedoms they had outside of the prison. Therefore, zer0, I concur with your statement.

 

[zer0]

More intellectual bashing.

Okay, time to quote from Wikipedia: "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." Socialism is both an economic system and a political ideology.

And, for the record, I read a lot about economics. I will probably do a Ph.D. in Political Science, but study political economy. So, do not try to tell me that I am ignorant of economics, and blinded by my political science education.

I apologize, I believe I missed your reply because it was at the end of a page. I did not deny the fact that Socialism was a political theory. I did however say something very similar to that Socialism and Capitalism have nothing to do with politics. See politics has made Socialism and Capitalism a part of politics. However, socialism and capitalism can exists without politics.

Furthermore, I merely stated that it is subjective when it is political theory and objective when it is economic theory. Politics changes. Economics does not. There are things that work in economics and there are things that don't. As for me telling you that you're ignorant of economics and blinded by political science teachings, maybe you should have mentioned "I read this" instead of "My professor or my textbook says this". Just saying. I respect your stance on the subject but your definitions were exactly what I said they were subjective.

 

[Darkness]

Because a burning house and a bucket of water is scarcely an analogy for a modern day economy with billions of participants and smaller state/provincial economies the use of one house, just doesn't cut it. Instead I prefer the analogy below.

In the early 1900s the US Forest Service implemented a new policy to aggressively suppress all forest fires. Citizens didn’t like to see trees burn and the lumber companies saw profits going up in smoke. Over the years they obtained equipment, trained men, and worked out elaborate plans. With a lot of time and money they reduced fire damage considerably.

Over the years the forest management experts began to notice problems. Without periodic small fires the undergrowth became thick. It ignited easier, acted as additional fuel making the fire hotter, and sent it up into the crowns of the mature trees. This spread the fire faster and farther, killing more of the forest.
With further study they found that in the pasts forest experienced periodic small fires which cleared the undergrowth and burned up the deadwood. They usually did not reach the crowns and burned themselves out without doing great damage. They triggered the tree seeds to sprout and start a healthy new generation. The mature trees also grew better. The old policy of trying to manage nature was counter productive. The policy was changed to allow the natural cycle to return.

Keynesian School -- All recessions are bad and must be suppressed by government actions. This protects established businesses and jobs. The methods are elaborate and costly, but a benefit to the public overall.

Austrian School -- When markets stray too far from reality they must be purged by adversity. This clears unneeded or failing enterprises so capital is not allocated wastefully, and new businesses can emerge. Periodic small recessions are the price of a healthy economy.

Recent Situation -- Unfortunately, after decades of total suppression many forests were overgrown tinder boxes. At Yellowstone National park the “hands off” policy let a fire get completely out of control before they used aggressive suppression. 36% of the park burned and much of this area is still black 20 years later. At Los Alamos a “controlled burn” to clear undergrowth ran away from them and destroyed 400 houses.

(Keynesian vs. Austrian economics made simple)

The faults that Keynesian economics creates is that it doesn't allow for the fair participation which is natural to the Capitalist system. Instead it creates what stephenw refers to as the 'evil capitalist' who hoards all the power and all the money and when fire comes barking up his tree we run out there and put it out. As a result new businesses are not allowed to spring with new ideas. The entrepreneurship of the next generation is not allowed to thrive as healthily as the past creating a sensation of the "lost generation" and the high complacency rates among economic participants. People feel that they have no place among these great trees which are protected from above. I know economics. And you may know economics as well but it is my opinion that the practices of the Keynesian school of thought are radical, dangerous, selfish and greedy and that they create an evil system out of capitalism which is eventually turned into a non-traditional socialist system where the protected rich are at the top. I much rather prefer the Austrian school of thought.

However, if you hold to the Keynesian thought, have knowledge of what it is, and came to the conclusion that it is right, then I do not wish to argue with you because it is literally impossible to change your perspective unless you have a direct negative experience related to that school of thought. I will not engage in debate with that which is set in stone. I'm trying to get to people who have not yet sold their souls to the school of Keynesian economics.

It is impossible to debate an Austrian, because Austrians stand against empirical data on principal. It is more of a religion than a social science discipline.

 

[zer0]

According to the United States government, when someone is incarcerated, for any crime, they lose many of their rights and privileges. They should not be considered socially equal, for it is a part of their punishment. Prison would not be an effective form of punishment if those inside were able to have the freedoms they had outside of the prison. Therefore, zer0, I concur with your statement.

Well dear sir, who concurs with my statement yet depicts his agreement in a color which contrasts mine, thank you; for your rather untimely and strange agreement on a matter which was not entirely imperative to the discussion of this thread. But nevertheless, thank you.

 

[waitasec]

Only if you allow it to keep you in that state. People lose them selves through their greed. Look at Warren Buffet. One of the richest people in the world, but lives in a small home and lives a humble life. Look at Bill Gates, who gives a whole lot of his money to various charities. In the capitalist system people are provided with the right to choose how they want to screw their lives up.

i think the credit card companies count on people living irresponsibility...

As far as I am concerned, any other system merely tells you how you can screw your life up or screws it up for you.

from what i have experienced in sweden, it's not like that at all...
but then again sweden has been around for a very long time and have developed a solidarity that the US has not even come close to.

Also, not calling you a socialist or communist but just saying, look what happens to people who can't work in a socialist or communist society. I'm not sure how it is in Denmark or Sweden.[/COLOR] But I know it's not good in other places.

i am also cuban so i know what happens to people who do not work in that type of gov't. it is terrible...it's the opposite of what i call progress.
sweden isn't a socialist country neither is denmark or norway
they're gov't is a unitary parliamentary democracy...they do lean towards the left while having capitalistic ideals


i'm curious zero, do you live in the states? if you do, have you traveled abroad?
just wondering....