I'm not even going to touch Xenoc's argument, other than to say that $160 per week is not a living wage almost anywhere in the country.
I don't think he knows how much basic medical care costs. I work for a collections agency, so I've seen some of these bills. Without insurance, an hour in the OR costs about $2300. That doesn't include paying any of the doctors. That's just using the room and tools. An hour of general anesthetic costs $1000. You may only be under for 20 minutes, but they charge for all checkups, visits, post-op, etc. That cost doesn't include the anesthesiologist's time, either. Just equipment.
An emergency room visit costs about $400-500 without insurance, not matter what they do. An EKG is about $430, and a CAT scan can be as high as $1300.
The biggest reason cited for bankruptcy by individuals is medical expenses. $160 per week is nothing.
No...no, not really. It's pretty consistently been full of lose and fail.
I don’t think you have to mince words here; I would argue unanimously. Communism failed. It’s a bad system that is supported by people that do not have a full understanding of how economics work. Let alone the fundamental nature of human beings requiring reward to be motivated in most cases.
Back to the question of the states donating so little per capita for disasters being a bad thing. What amount is enough? Who decides what this amount is? Why does America have to match or exceed these amounts donated by others per capita to remain morally sound? What if America donated double the %GDP compared to other countries, does it make the other countries a bunch of pricks for not matching the USA? If an economic argument could be produced that X amount of dollars donated to X disaster would result in likely best outcomes for cost spent then I would be interested in the moral implications of the donation issue. As it stands right now this is completely arbitrary. I’m not saying no money should be donated at all; just that no one can say how much should be donated.
Back to the question of the states donating so little per capita for disasters being a bad thing. What amount is enough? Who decides what this amount is? Why does America have to match or exceed these amounts donated by others per capita to remain morally sound? What if America donated double the %GDP compared to other countries, does it make the other countries a bunch of pricks for not matching the USA? If an economic argument could be produced that X amount of dollars donated to X disaster would result in likely best outcomes for cost spent then I would be interested in the moral implications of the donation issue. As it stands right now this is completely arbitrary. I’m not saying no money should be donated at all; just that no one can say how much should be donated.
The argument wasn't that it was "bad," nor "not morally sound". Merely that it did not count as "generous".
The argument wasn't that it was "bad," nor "not morally sound". Merely that it did not count as "generous".
Ahh, ive been following this thread in the background for the week and it appears my memory has failed me. On rechecking it appears I forgot the beginning of the argument and only remembered A Lousy Forum Member/Must Flame Everyone lambasting gedavids for trying to make Americans look like saints and saying Americans donated squat. In context to how the argument actually started I must concede the point to you. Though I would argue that considering the scope of what America does internationally perhaps they are not in the financial situation to donate as large % GDP to disasters as others. So if you look at generosity as how much can be done vs. the resources available; what the states donated is still a considerable sum.
Though I would argue that considering the scope of what America does internationally perhaps they are not in the financial situation to donate as large % GDP to disasters as others. So if you look at generosity as how much can be done vs. the resources available; what the states donated is still a considerable sum.
Instead, we "donate" our national surplus to killing Arabs and destabilizing countries that are already angry at us! Isn't America great?
I never said Americans donated squat. I never said a thing about the US donation other than that it wasn't as generous as gedavids would've had you believe.
Though I would argue that considering the scope of what America does internationally perhaps they are not in the financial situation to donate as large % GDP to disasters as others. So if you look at generosity as how much can be done vs. the resources available; what the states donated is still a considerable sum.
This was about the 2004 Tsunami. I don't recall the US wasting all their money on the War for Oil back then.
Instead, we "donate" our national surplus to killing Arabs and destabilizing countries that are already angry at us! Isn't America great?
The green-ness, it is not even needed. But yes, America is great: it has a great number of people, a great amount of landmass, just like Russia and China.
This was about the 2004 Tsunami. I don't recall the US wasting all their money on the War for Oil back then.
War on terror started in 2001. Invasions of Afghanistan, Philippines, Liberia, and Iraq all occurred before or in 2003.
Liberia and the Philippines?
Ahh, ive been following this thread in the background for the week and it appears my memory has failed me. On rechecking it appears I forgot the beginning of the argument and only remembered A Lousy Forum Member/Must Flame Everyone lambasting gedavids for trying to make Americans look like saints and saying Americans donated squat.
This is a minor point. He started parroting the whole, "Americans are the most generous in the world" meme, and we said that that particular meme is false. Americans might be generous, but we need to stop believing our own propaganda that we're "the best in the world" in every category of human endeavor.
I would argue unanimously. Communism failed. It’s a bad system that is supported by people that do not have a full understanding of how economics work. Let alone the fundamental nature of human beings requiring reward to be motivated in most cases.
I have so little patience with people who say, "You (or whoever they're talking about at the time) don't understand how economics works." Do YOU understand how economics works? I'd hazard a guess that you don't have a degree in economics.
Yep, Philippines apparently had terrorist groups associated with al-Qaida. The Americans also helped oust Liberian president Charles Taylor. He was connected to terrorist activities in West Africa that were believed to be related to 9/11 at the time. It is now considered that this connection is dubious at best but that was the justification to place this act under the war on terror at the time.
*edit* Woops almost let a huge error slide. America didn’t invade Liberia they funded an army in west Africa and sent a peace keeping force.
I have so little patience with people who say, "You (or whoever they're talking about at the time) don't understand how economics works." Do YOU understand how economics works? I'd hazard a guess that you don't have a degree in economics.
I have taken a large amount of my electives in the field but that is not comparable to a degree. The thing is communism is so fundamentally flawed that you do not need masters in economics to explain why it doesn’t work. This is not like an argument on the pros and cons of heavy vs. light socialism or if the bail out of banks is necessary that may require a more in-depth knowledge of economic systems make educated and accurate statements. This is more equivalent to having such a lack of understanding of physics that you do not understand basic Newtonian physics. If you have any interest in physics and observe the world around you; you will have a base sense of how Newtonian physics works. Similarly, if you have any understanding of what is considered modern economics; or even any education to economic history that shows how communism economically destroyed every country that adopted it in the cold war era you should understand why communism is fundamentally flawed. It’s not just an inefficient system, it is a destructive system. I do not believe you need much formal education to grasp this. Conversely I would argue you would need a lack of education or education from dubious sources to argue for it.
Yep, Philippines apparently had terrorist groups associated with al-Qaida.
Bullshit.
The Americans also helped oust Liberian president Charles Taylor. He was connected to terrorist activities in West Africa that were believed to be related to 9/11 at the time. It is now considered that this connection is dubious at best but that was the justification to place this act under the war on terror at the time.
Also bullshit as you admit.
Furthermore, you said that the U.S invaded the Philippines and Liberia.
I have taken a large amount of my electives in the field but that is not comparable to a degree.
More bullshit. You wouldn't be on probation for bad grammar if you had taken "a large amount of your electives" in economics.
I do not believe you need much formal education to grasp this.
That's probably because you don't have much formal education.
The reasons why the actions occurred are not of any concern to me; or whether the actions are considered invasions, help, peace keeping, etc. The statements were made to show that America was stretching their budget at the time the hurricane in question occurred. If you want to argue that instead of kicking ass for no reason all over the world America could have instead been helping other countries. That is valid.
Bullshit. More bullshit. You wouldn't be on probation for bad grammar if you had taken "a large amount of your electives" in economics.
No you can get away just fine as long as you take time to review your work and get others to look at the more important papers before you submit them. My grammar is admittedly very weak but I have developed methods to compensate for this in academic settings. On the forums I was taking less care and now I have that red marker above me for this.
That's probably because you don't have much formal education.
Excellent rebuttal but I don’t believe it disproves the point I made about communism. Would you like to comment on why my view on communism is wrong? Or do you want to continue personally attacking me.
That's probably because you don't have much formal education.
Excellent rebuttal but I don’t believe it disproves the point I made about communism. Would you like to comment on why my view on communism is wrong? Or do you want to continue personally attacking me.
You started the personal attacks when you said those who supported communism "do not have a full understanding of how economics work". That statement begs the question of whether YOU have a full understanding of how economics works. I don't believe you do.
Bullshit. Also bullshit as you admit.
The reasons why the actions occurred are not of any concern to me; or whether the actions are considered invasions, help, peace keeping, etc. The statements were made to show that America was stretching their budget at the time the hurricane in question occurred. If you want to argue that instead of kicking ass for no reason all over the world America could have instead been helping other countries. That is valid.
U.S. involvement in Liberia and the Philippines as part of the "War on Terrorism" after 2001 was either non-existent or negligible. You said in your first post on the subject that the U.S. invaded Liberia and the Philippines after 2001. You just adnitted that you don't know what you're talking about.
This was about the 2004 Tsunami. I don't recall the US wasting all their money on the War for Oil back then.
War on terror started in 2001. Invasions of Afghanistan, Philippines, Liberia, and Iraq all occurred before or in 2003.
That is true, but note how I said "all their money". The big costs only started building up after 2004 to my knowledge. Do I really need to <em> and <strong> every crucial word I write? That would become rather tedious.
And could we please not discuss communism? Please? We all know that the majority of Americans get a seizure if the colours red and yellow even dare to get close, so please, don't turn this socialism thread into a communism thread. Perhaps then we might be able and make people understand that not all socialism is bad, and actually good for a person. Yes I know, communism is socialism, but not all socialism is communism.
I think some Americans have trouble separating the two. I may have socialist leanings, but I am against many of the things that are implied by "communism." I don't want North Korea. I want North Europe.
You started the personal attacks when you said those who supported communism "do not have a full understanding of how economics work". That statement begs the question of whether YOU have a full understanding of how economics works. I don't believe you do.
I concede I should not have the word “full†but instead “baseâ€Â. I did not mean to imply I have knowledge of all economics or that anyone does. My subsequent argument also shows that I meant that with a basic understanding of economics you should be able to derive the reasons why communism is fundamentally flawed. I believe I do have an understanding of economics on a base level and that the arguments I have made relating to communism are valid. If you do not accept these arguments and think I lack a basic understanding of economics, and are also not willing to comment why my arguments are wrong, then we must agree to disagree on this point.
U.S. involvement in Liberia and the Philippines as part of the "War on Terrorism" after 2001 was either non-existent or negligible. You said in your first post on the subject that the U.S. invaded Liberiua and the Philippines after 2001. You just adnitted that you don't know what you're talking about.
I listed Afghanistan, Philippines, Liberia, and Iraq together to show that the economic investment on the war on terror had begun before 2004. They had troops on the ground and were spending large amounts of money on the war effort. Liberia and Philippines both involved a troop dedication and a monetary investment; though much less then Afghanistan or Iraq. I should not have used the word invasion in this context when grouping all four incidents but the point being made was that the monetary investment to the war effort was occurring at this time. If my overall point of monetary investment is not valid please elaborate why.
And could we please not discuss communism? Please?
*edit* This is true Must Flame Everyone. Joe and I have strayed far from the point of this thread. I will stop derailing the conversation.
I listed Afghanistan, Philippines, Liberia, and Iraq together to show that the economic investment on the war on terror had begun before 2004. They had troops on the ground and were spending large amounts of money on the war effort. Liberia and Philippines both involved a troop dedication and a monetary investment; though much less then Afghanistan or Iraq.
Please tell us how many "troops on the ground" the U.S. had in Liberia and the Philippines after 2001. Please tell us how many dollars the U.S. has spent on fighting the "War on Terrorism" in Liberia and the Phillipines.
This is more equivalent to having such a lack of understanding of physics that you do not understand basic Newtonian physics. If you have any interest in physics and observe the world around you; you will have a base sense of how Newtonian physics works. Similarly, if you have any understanding of what is considered modern economics; or even any education to economic history that shows how communism economically destroyed every country that adopted it in the cold war era you should understand why communism is fundamentally flawed. It’s not just an inefficient system, it is a destructive system. I do not believe you need much formal education to grasp this. Conversely I would argue you would need a lack of education or education from dubious sources to argue for it.
Although many bad things did happen in those countries, I don't see how you can justify saying that communism 'economically destroyed' the countries adopted it. China and Russia in particular took great steps in industrialization and modernization under communist rule. Do you consider China still to be communist? They're doing pretty well for themselves economically these days.
China and Russia in particular took great steps in industrialization and modernization under communist rule.
They also destroyed a lot of culture and hurt a lot of people.
I believe that was more the fault of the people in charge than the theoretical system. The "communism" of the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea was really just an excuse for totalitarianism, which can be the end result of systems on both the left and the right.
Yea, I never understood how people could call what specifically Russia was doing as Communism, If everyone is supposed to get equal pay and all, why was there a higher class of people who were above the law, and other people who were allowed to buy from "foreign stores" doesn't seem much like a true socialist/communist system to me. I've studied a bit of Russian history and it definitely just felt more like the feudal system they had before with the same corruption, only with Stalin they decided to purge as many people as they could first. The "Party" I.E. the upper class of people still ruled over all but this time with no oversight, since they were all the power in the government.
Communism in the pure sense of equal pay independent of value of work is the destructive mechanism. As soon as you do not have that the system is not inherently destructive. There are people in China that earn more then others. The farmers on the field do not get the same amount of money as factory owners. There are starving along with the well fed. This is not the kind of communism Marx dreamt of. In addition, China has so many people that as a country it is difficult for them not to have economic sway over the world. Russia is doing well now but they are no longer communist. At the time the cold war ended there economy was in pretty rough shape. Anyway if you want to speak about the merits and cons of communism open a communism thread. This is detracting from the purpose of this thread as pointed out above.
*edit* In the unique case of a country coming from a non industrialized world status to industrialization then, even under communism, they may see gains. But this is due to the merits of the technology being implemented not economic system. I would argue that under a socialist/capitalist system the gains would be much more rapid. Also, I would argue that any industrialized socialist/capitalist system that adopted true communism would degrade. Ok that’s all. Stop speaking of communism!
Communism in the pure sense of equal pay independent of value of work is the destructive mechanism.
Who determines the value of the work if there is no market? You? Who are you to say which work is more valuable than another?
As soon as you do not have that the system is not inherently destructive.
What?
Russia is doing well now but they are no longer communist.
How "well" do you think they are doing? Oh, I forgot - they must have started doing great the minute that free market capitalism began to take hold.
Also, I would argue that any industrialized socialist/capitalist system that adopted true communism would degrade. Ok that’s all. Stop speaking of communism!
Do you have any clue at all as to what you are talking about or are you already drunk this morning?
Who determines the value of the work if there is no market? You? Who are you to say which work is more valuable than another?
As soon as you do not have that the system is not inherently destructive.
What?
What? That’s why it’s good to have a free market to determine the value of goods. Without a free market it is difficult if not impossible to determine how much goods and services are worth and how to efficiently distribute labor. When you have equal pay for all labor the method for determining what labor is worth falls apart these are related. Now Joe, I would like to think you know this. Are you asking questions because you disagree with me or just because you’re looking to pick a fight?
Ok you’re just suckering me into more and more posts. That’s it. I’m done with this thread. I’m sorry for derailing it into communism hour.
Who determines the value of the work if there is no market? You? Who are you to say which work is more valuable than another?
As soon as you do not have that the system is not inherently destructive.
What?
What? That’s why it’s good to have a free market to determine the value of goods. Without a free market it is difficult if not impossible to determine how much goods and services are worth and how to efficiently distribute labor. When you have equal pay for all labor the method for determining what labor is worth falls apart these are related. Now Joe, I would like to think you know this. Are you asking questions because you disagree with me or just because you’re looking to pick a fight?
I'm asking questions because you write so poorly that I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
I'm asking questions because you write so poorly that I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
While I'm normally annoyed when people constantly correct eachothers' grammar in the forum (Let the mods do their jobs: the people in question will either learn or get themselves banned), I have to say that this is QFT. I have no idea what you were trying to say.
Comments
I don't think he knows how much basic medical care costs. I work for a collections agency, so I've seen some of these bills. Without insurance, an hour in the OR costs about $2300. That doesn't include paying any of the doctors. That's just using the room and tools. An hour of general anesthetic costs $1000. You may only be under for 20 minutes, but they charge for all checkups, visits, post-op, etc. That cost doesn't include the anesthesiologist's time, either. Just equipment.
An emergency room visit costs about $400-500 without insurance, not matter what they do. An EKG is about $430, and a CAT scan can be as high as $1300.
The biggest reason cited for bankruptcy by individuals is medical expenses. $160 per week is nothing.
COMMUNISM FTW!!!
It's pretty consistently been full of lose and fail.
Back to the question of the states donating so little per capita for disasters being a bad thing. What amount is enough? Who decides what this amount is? Why does America have to match or exceed these amounts donated by others per capita to remain morally sound? What if America donated double the %GDP compared to other countries, does it make the other countries a bunch of pricks for not matching the USA? If an economic argument could be produced that X amount of dollars donated to X disaster would result in likely best outcomes for cost spent then I would be interested in the moral implications of the donation issue. As it stands right now this is completely arbitrary. I’m not saying no money should be donated at all; just that no one can say how much should be donated.
Merely that it did not count as "generous".
*edit* Woops almost let a huge error slide. America didn’t invade Liberia they funded an army in west Africa and sent a peace keeping force. I have taken a large amount of my electives in the field but that is not comparable to a degree. The thing is communism is so fundamentally flawed that you do not need masters in economics to explain why it doesn’t work. This is not like an argument on the pros and cons of heavy vs. light socialism or if the bail out of banks is necessary that may require a more in-depth knowledge of economic systems make educated and accurate statements. This is more equivalent to having such a lack of understanding of physics that you do not understand basic Newtonian physics. If you have any interest in physics and observe the world around you; you will have a base sense of how Newtonian physics works. Similarly, if you have any understanding of what is considered modern economics; or even any education to economic history that shows how communism economically destroyed every country that adopted it in the cold war era you should understand why communism is fundamentally flawed. It’s not just an inefficient system, it is a destructive system. I do not believe you need much formal education to grasp this. Conversely I would argue you would need a lack of education or education from dubious sources to argue for it.
Furthermore, you said that the U.S invaded the Philippines and Liberia. More bullshit. You wouldn't be on probation for bad grammar if you had taken "a large amount of your electives" in economics. That's probably because you don't have much formal education.
And could we please not discuss communism? Please? We all know that the majority of Americans get a seizure if the colours red and yellow even dare to get close, so please, don't turn this socialism thread into a communism thread. Perhaps then we might be able and make people understand that not all socialism is bad, and actually good for a person. Yes I know, communism is socialism, but not all socialism is communism.
Do you consider China still to be communist? They're doing pretty well for themselves economically these days.
Ok you’re just suckering me into more and more posts. That’s it. I’m done with this thread. I’m sorry for derailing it into communism hour.