The demand wouldn't go down. Why would the number of people getting sick randomly drop for no apparent reason? You also forget that psychologically people believe that price = quality, but scratch that. It would take at least a year or two for prices to significantly drop, at which point it might be too late. It would probably take much more time in a country like the USA where the prices have reached the point where if I didnt know the situation and read about it, would've thought its some weird fantasy novel.
Also in this current system in most of the EU countries for example, I don't see how government funding drives the prices of the healthcare up. It's sole purpose is to make them affordable and have a safety net for people that have made the wrong step.
And also "reducing the entry barrier" argument I just noticed. Sounds like a good idea for 99% of topics, and an absolutely horrific one when it comes to medical care. I'm sure they could be "optimized" and that there is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy, but there should certainly be some sort of a central institution to regulate that, otherwise you reach the point where supply provokes demand, thats probably the only sector which could easily do that. (well that and drugs market)
On November 15 2018 00:06 Spitfiree wrote:
The demand wouldn't go down. Why would the number of people getting sick randomly drop for no apparent reason? You also forget that psychologically people believe that price = quality, but scratch that. It would take at least a year or two for prices to significantly drop, at which point it might be too late. It would probably take much more time in a country like the USA where the prices have reached the point where if I didnt know the situation and read about it, would've thought its some weird fantasy novel.
Demand would have a small fall because as I said "free" stuff generates wasteful use, for example if food were free you would probably overfill your cart.
People with minor health issues (which is by far the biggest spenditure in healthcare, not cancer and complex treatments) like a cold will stay home and eat a chiken soup instead of going to the doctor in a higher % than if it is free, but it's not that its relevant for any point, I was just mentioning it.
Also in this current system in most of the EU countries for example, I don't see how government funding drives the prices of the healthcare up. It's sole purpose is to make them affordable and have a safety net for people that have made the wrong step.
Ok, so lets say you are Pfizer and manufacture a diuretic, since your client isn't the public, but the government, how do you convince them? obviously through lobbying, so you legally bribe them to sign a contract to be the diuretic provider for the next 6 years and you tank up the price X times the real market value because that is the corrupt agreement you made with the state.
That is impossible to do in the free market because you sell directly to the public and you have to compete in prices to the all the other pharmaceutical companies.
And also "reducing the entry barrier" argument I just noticed. Sounds like a good idea for 99% of topics, and an absolutely horrific one when it comes to medical care. I'm sure they could be "optimized" and that there is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy, but there should certainly be some sort of a central institution to regulate that, otherwise you reach the point where supply provokes demand, thats probably the only sector which could easily do that. (well that and drugs market)
Reducing the barrier of entry means not forcing companies to jump through multi-million dollar hoops in order to get medicine approved, as I said it is statistically proven that the FDA has killed more people than it has saved just by delaying a single heart medicine already aproved for 10 years before in Europe, no oversight at all is dangerous (but oversight can be private) but we live in a world with rampart homeopathy and fake medicine so we get all the downsides of strong bureaucratic regulation with virtually none of its benefits.
I dont understand what do you mean with supply generates demand, are you talking about opiates or something? free-market healthcare doesn't mean uncontrolled substances, all controlled substances require a prescription from a doctor.
Supply creating demand is basically the definition of conducting illegal act. In the case of your example, it would mean that the FDA doesn't exist, and drugs that are addictive would be prescribed to patients thus creating demand out of supply. Same would happen with doctors giving out fake info, forcing patients into services which they dont need.
Regarding the example of lobbying in government and free market. There are rarely any drugs that are innovative and produced by a single company nowadays, 99% of drugs have competitors and the market is still free and it doesn't care about the money spent on lobbying. That theory should still be working today. I could see how it could be bad in a monopoly market, however if a drug doesnt have competition, case would be same even if government lobby wouldnt exist.
This comes at a time when Poroshenko and Putin are experiencing their lowest ever ratings in their respective countries, and we know what happens when people struggle to keep their power...
I also don't understand why martial law still grants rights to a single person in almost every country in the world, thats so retarded. I get that its not really a good idea to have hundreds of people arguing over issues in times of crisis, but spreading the power between 3 to 5 people seems quite reasonable during times of martial law.
The last time Putin was this unliked was right before they took Crimea by force..
On November 15 2018 09:28 Spitfiree wrote:
Supply creating demand is basically the definition of conducting illegal act. In the case of your example, it would mean that the FDA doesn't exist, and drugs that are addictive would be prescribed to patients thus creating demand out of supply. Same would happen with doctors giving out fake info, forcing patients into services which they dont need.
Illegal drugs and controlled substances are not controlled/enforced by the FDA, nor is unethical behavior from doctors, depending on the severity those are handled by different governmental institutions.
99% of drugs have competitors and the market is still free and it doesn't care about the money spent on lobbying. That theory should still be working today. I could see how it could be bad in a monopoly market, however if a drug doesnt have competition, case would be same even if government lobby wouldnt exist. [/QUOTE]
Indeed most medicines have lost its patents and face competition, thats why over the counter medicine in the US is affordable and has the same price than the rest of the world, you dont see $400 cough syrups or antiacids do you?.
actually today I picked up some lab results for my dad, complete blood work, urine test, ECG and thorax X-rays the whole thing was under $150 and he didn't have to wait in line at all, the beauty of the free market my friend, an US insurance would probably bill taxpayers thousands for that.
Man I'm sure glad the corporate overlord is gonna protect me from things I don't want to hear. What would I do without him. We get it Tim, you're gay, you've been harassed in your early days, now grow balls and move past it.
Also on the medical topic @Baal, thats standard cost for such things here as well, and we have a universal healthcare system. In Western Europe it wouldn't be much more expensive if you have a medical insurance either. Anyway my idea is that, while universal healthcare is on a governmental level, the market could still be free, except this time, when someone finds a medicine through research, which might save thousands of lives, an adequate government wouldn't let them sell it for whatever amount of money they want and abuse people. Furthermore, due to the safety net policy, the company that has done research will still have the economic incentive to do such research, as everyone in need would be able to afford the medicine due to the universal healthcare. It's literally a win-win for everyone.
Obviously you have human nature factors coming in, incentive for corruption etc., but that would exist in both theories. Yours would work better if things like the patent didn't exist, thus removing the possibility of a monopoly. Removing patents, would remove the incentive of investment in research, which is a whole different problem and etc.
On December 06 2018 11:02 Spitfiree wrote:
Obviously you have human nature factors coming in, incentive for corruption etc., but that would exist in both theories. Yours would work better if things like the patent didn't exist, thus removing the possibility of a monopoly. Removing patents, would remove the incentive of investment in research, which is a whole different problem and etc.
The subject of pattents is complex because there are good arguments (rothbard) that patents actually hinder technological advancement since you cannot build upon or improve a patented intellectual property, thats the reason why Elon Musk gave away Teslas patents (as Nikolai Tesla also did).
However its also true that intellectual property needs protection or it removes incentives for creation and innovation.
But the problem with the FDA isn't patents, its the FDA's bureaocracy that stops innovation because companies have to jump jump through multi million dollar hoops for many years to get anything approved, which forces small companies to licence or sell to big pharma companies who have all the capital land legal power to do these things basically a system that fortifies these monopolies.
So 3 weeks ago Evo Morales was officially a leftist dictator who put his own judges in the supreme court and is reelecting himself now.
Today on christmas eve the governor of my city was assasinated (heli fell down) just 10 days after taking charge because she was the one of the couple governors that weren't from the leftist party who landslided this elections.
So our new leftist president in just 20 days in office has so far:
1 - Cancelled the new Mexico city airport who was half-way built just to show whos boss to rich investors (Carlos Slim), obviously killing any investors in the future who will be too scared to put money in signed projects
2 - Undermining the supreme court who is the last bastion against changing the constitution since he holds both chambers and he can reelect himself like Evo Moralez did 3 weeks ago.
3 - Assasinated a fucking governor.
"In Bolivia under Morales, poverty has declined from 60.6% of the population in 2005 to 38.6% in 2016. Extreme poverty (those living on less than $1.25 per day) fell from 38% to 16.8%. The real minimum wage has risen from 440 bolivars a month to 2,000 a month (from $57 to $287). Unemployment stands at under 4%, the lowest in Latin America, down from 8.5% in 2005.
Electricity has been brought to 66% of rural homes by 2015, up from 25% in 2001.
Over 127,000 homes have been created for low income Bolivians who lack housing. Another 23,000 homes will be built in 2018.
The Juancito Pinto program aims to increase school attendance and reduce child labor. It presently reaches 2 million children, who each receive $28 annually upon finishing their school year.
The Juana Azurduy program combats maternal and infant mortality, as well as malnutrition in children under two years old. Mothers can receive up to $266 from the program. UNICEF has pointed out the effectiveness of these social programs. Chronic undernourishment in children has sharply fallen from 27%, when the program started in 2009 to 16% now, and infant mortality has been cut in half just since 2008.
The Renta de la Dignidad is a payment to the 900,000 Bolivians over 60 years old, who would otherwise receive no pension. Incapacitated and disabled people now receive 250 bolivianos ($36) monthly and guaranteed job placement in public and private institutions.
Bolivia had an illiteracy rate of 13% when Evo Morales became president. After a mass literacy campaign that used Cuba’s YES I CAN program, 850,000 were educated and by 2008 Bolivia was declared free of illiteracy.
Life expectancy of Bolivians during Morales’ presidency has increased from 64 years to 71 years.
More than 4.8 million Bolivians – in a country of just over 10 million – today benefit from these programs, programs that not just combat poverty, but improve public health and education.
Meanwhile in the United States, the bottom 90% of households are poorer today than they were in 1987.
Bolivia has cut income inequality by two-thirds, with the share of income of the top 10% vis-à-vis the poorest 10% has dropped from 128 to 1 in 2005 to 37 to 1 in 2016.
In the United States, after years of neoliberal programs, we have the shocking fact that the three richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population." (Source.)
When I hear it from you he sounds like Mao, when I google him he seems pretty alright. A mixed economy is not socialism by the way, lol. It's even stated in the name of the party: movement for (towards) socialism, i.e. "this is not socialism now but we hope to get there".
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On December 26 2018 10:03 Loco wrote:
"In Bolivia under Morales, poverty has declined from 60.6% of the population in 2005 to 38.6% in 2016. Extreme poverty (those living on less than $1.25 per day) fell from 38% to 16.8%. The real minimum wage has risen from 440 bolivars a month to 2,000 a month (from $57 to $287). Unemployment stands at under 4%, the lowest in Latin America, down from 8.5% in 2005.
Electricity has been brought to 66% of rural homes by 2015, up from 25% in 2001.
Over 127,000 homes have been created for low income Bolivians who lack housing. Another 23,000 homes will be built in 2018.
The Juancito Pinto program aims to increase school attendance and reduce child labor. It presently reaches 2 million children, who each receive $28 annually upon finishing their school year.
The Juana Azurduy program combats maternal and infant mortality, as well as malnutrition in children under two years old. Mothers can receive up to $266 from the program. UNICEF has pointed out the effectiveness of these social programs. Chronic undernourishment in children has sharply fallen from 27%, when the program started in 2009 to 16% now, and infant mortality has been cut in half just since 2008.
The Renta de la Dignidad is a payment to the 900,000 Bolivians over 60 years old, who would otherwise receive no pension. Incapacitated and disabled people now receive 250 bolivianos ($36) monthly and guaranteed job placement in public and private institutions.
Bolivia had an illiteracy rate of 13% when Evo Morales became president. After a mass literacy campaign that used Cuba’s YES I CAN program, 850,000 were educated and by 2008 Bolivia was declared free of illiteracy.
Life expectancy of Bolivians during Morales’ presidency has increased from 64 years to 71 years.
More than 4.8 million Bolivians – in a country of just over 10 million – today benefit from these programs, programs that not just combat poverty, but improve public health and education.
Meanwhile in the United States, the bottom 90% of households are poorer today than they were in 1987.
Bolivia has cut income inequality by two-thirds, with the share of income of the top 10% vis-à-vis the poorest 10% has dropped from 128 to 1 in 2005 to 37 to 1 in 2016.
In the United States, after years of neoliberal programs, we have the shocking fact that the three richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population." (Source.)
When I hear it from you he sounds like Mao, when I google him he seems pretty alright. A mixed economy is not socialism by the way, lol. It's even stated in the name of the party: movement for (towards) socialism, i.e. "this is not socialism now but we hope to get there".
Huh so some positive economic data means you can stay in power and elections don't matter; good to know. Guess Augusto Pinochet was not a dictator after all
Why would you bring up Pinochet as an example of elections mattering when the only reason he took power is because the US helped him overthrow the democratically elected Allende, lol... you could not have a picked a worse example.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On December 26 2018 10:03 Loco wrote:
narrosighted stats about Bolivia
Of couse when you redistribute the wealth you reduce income inequality and improve the quality of life of the poor.. until the money fucking runs out, then everybody starves!
This is the second leftist dictator you praise, you think Huge mother fucking Chavez was good because of stats like these and that it was Maduro who brough it all down instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that the system is not sustainable.
If you lived in the early XX century you would be praising how the hanging of the farm owners lead to a decrease in income inequality and that unemployment was at an all time low.
Curiously enough I spent Christmas with 2 cubans who recently fled the country, they mentioned that if you put a christmas tree inyour home you would be sent to jail also as we had dinner news of the magnicide taking place came out we were concerned by one of them was terrified and said something along the lines of "I fled the horrors of the communists, I couldnt buy food or even underwear... please dont let this happen to your country too, I can't do that again[/b].
Sounds like bullshit but my grandfathers couple is a cuban woman in her 50s and our doorman is cuban and we invited them to christmas dinner.
And I'm not making arguments appealing to emotion, is not my style but what I'm trying to say is that you simply have no grasp of what you are talking about, you think because you read Cuba has no uneployment and stats like that you think its fine until you actually go there and see what a terrible place it is.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 27/12/2018 01:27
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Dec 27 2018 00:46. Posts 2225
he likes dictators who are good for the economy but hates trump
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Someone who thinks infinite growth on a finite planet is sustainable tells me I am clueless about sustainability! Your end game involves conditioning people to compete against each other for as long as possible to get as much money into as few people's hands as possible, so that billionaires get to go live on another planet after they've made this one inhabitable. I think I'll go elsewhere for lessons in sustainability. Also the way you think of money as a kind of finite natural resource that we can run out of baffles me.
I think I'll also stick with global stats instead of the usual right-wing "my grandmother", "I know a guy", "you can't know it until you're there" form of evidence. What's amazing is that the elite of this world doesn't even need to pay you to spread misinformation to help them stay in power, your laziness and capacity for self-deception is entirely sufficient. Your comments reveal no more than what I'm used to seeing on a regular basis from trolls and bot accounts on leftist youtube media. I know you can do better than that even though you're incredibly lazy.
At no point have I said that these people are good, yet you two immediately put those words in my mouth. I'm a left-libertarian, I believe in self-organization, not authoritarianism. It's also clear to me that only simple-minded people think in terms of there having good and bad people. People do what they do in order to survive and attempt to live full lives (also obeying to their death-denying impulse that's manifested in the desire to leave a legacy). What informs the way they go about it is the type of information they have access to, and how they come to be punished or rewarded for their use of it. Whatever behavioral outcome is often understandable and possible to sympathize with once you spend some time gathering enough information about a specific situation. I'm much more concerned with understanding the complexities surrounding why people do what they do, what information they used, what they missed (informational deficits) and what they were hoping to accomplish and find the errors and illusions in any given scenario than I am interested in praising or blaming people.
news of the magnicide taking place came out
I assumed that if you put it in bold it was because it had been confirmed through an independent investigation. Yet my research turned out negative. Investigation appears to be in progress. No matter how likely you think it is that it was an assassination due to the timing of it, it's lame to speak of it as if it were already an undeniable fact. Assuming it turns out to be the truth, I guess it's a shame they couldn't be living in an-cap pseudo-paradise Somalia where assassinations never happen between all the pirates and warlords enjoying their peaceful festivities. Oh wait, a governor was assassinated there recently, nvm.
On December 27 2018 02:42 VanDerMeyde wrote:
99 Good News Stories You Probably Didn’t Hear About in 2018
On December 27 2018 05:51 Loco wrote:
Someone who thinks infinite growth on a finite planet is sustainable tells me I am clueless about sustainability! Your end game involves conditioning people to compete against each other for as long as possible to get as much money into as few people's hands as possible, so that billionaires get to go live on another planet after they've made this one inhabitable.
This is such a pathetic strawman and you know it very well, you calling me lazy is the epitome of irony, look at this intellectually dishonest and lazy garbage you just spilled.
I think I'll also stick with global stats instead of the usual right-wing "my grandmother", "I know a guy", "you can't know it until you're there" form of evidence. What's amazing is that the elite of this world doesn't even need to pay you to spread misinformation to help them stay in power
Your stats are idiotic, short term wealth distribution and illiteracy are meaningless you dimwit... ofcourse you will get those numbers when you play robin hood, the problem comes when you run out of other's peoples money to splurge irresponsibly.
I mentioned cubans not because they are evidence but to show you that you are simply out of touch, you are are "champaign communist" that hasn't experienced any hardship in life besides self made problems in your little head and talk lightly of an ideology that has brough death and destruction no different than an edgy kid playing nazi.
I assumed that if you put it in bold it was because it had been confirmed through an independent investigation. Yet my research turned out negative. Investigation appears to be in progress. No matter how likely you think it is that it was an assassination due to the timing of it, it's lame to speak of it as if it were already an undeniable fact.
Example A of why you are a sheltered kid who doesnt have a grasp of the outside world.
Nobody in their right mind in Mexico thinks this was an accident, anybody who lives outisde of the US/Europe knows what I mean, but yeah... you just wait in your investigation lol dumbass.
Accidents like that happen to Russian and Turkish journalists and businessmen against Putin/Erdogan all the time. Except they usually feel the burden of beingness and kill themselves in odd manners.
Every positive outcome I point to = automatically meaningless
Conjecture and not relying on evidence "because the people who live there don't need it to know and they know best" = meaningful
It's a strawman to point out that "free market" capitalism is the most unsustainable system and leave it at that because I don't want to bother trying to educate someone whose inflexible mind has been so deeply colonized they can't do better than spout Thatcherist nonsense like “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money”. Fine. So tell me then, what am I getting wrong about your end game under this political system? How would it maintain itself in the next hundred years, say?
Yes, you are incredibly lazy. You've done next to no work whatsoever to understand the world around you outside of browsing the internet. You think that's sufficient. You can think whatever you want about me and say everything I've read offline is biased nonsense, but it remains that I have spent a lot more time reading and thinking about things and getting outside of my comfort zone than you. And unlike most of the stuff we can throw at each other, this is something we can prove to each other. Want to compare libraries, book highlights/notes and goodreads profiles just to make sure? I don't think you do.
talk lightly of an ideology that has brough death and destruction
You don't pay attention. That's why you should read more and turn the computer off more often. Your attention span has suffered a lot from these habits. I've mentioned more than once that the two people I've studied the most extensively are Emil Cioran and Edgar Morin. Cioran was a crypto-fascist in his youth in war torn Romania and praised Hitler. Morin was a communist of war, and he was personally deeply affected by both world wars. Both of these thinkers ended up renouncing their commitments and focused on the dangers of ideology and self-deception for the rest of their lives.
The things I believe today I largely believe because of them. That is to say, my reasons for opposing authoritarianism whether from the left or the right are a lot more nuanced than yours, they are based on extensive study, and that's why you can never engage me on it and rely on pathetic insults and constantly try to paint me as a communist apologist. You don't know what I believe because you haven't studied it, so when I oppose your low-effort propaganda, you automatically assume I am on the other extreme, which I am not. I don't call it out because I defend those people, I just don't like to sit silently when people spread polarizing bullshit and pretend they know more than they do. And by the way, I don't know very much myself. That's why I'm always reading. To learn more from people who know infinitely more. I'm not satisfied with myself, unlike you.
edgy kid playing nazi
Speaking of which, why don't we focus on the person who has laid the foundation for your political views... White nationalism would never bring death and destruction, right?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On December 27 2018 10:25 Spitfiree wrote:
Accidents like that happen to Russian and Turkish journalists and businessmen against Putin/Erdogan all the time. Except they usually feel the burden of beingness and kill themselves in odd manners.
Wait for the Russian investigation bro... I'm sure they will find Putin guilty and send him to prison.
Also that journalist that died in Saudi Arabia, lets wait for an investigation, CSI is all over it enhancing pictures and shit.
On December 27 2018 23:22 Loco wrote:
Every positive outcome I point to = automatically meaningless
stats on wealth distribution and short term stats on welfare of the poor = meaningless when a socialist dictator changes policies.
If you liquidated the assets of all US rich you would get the same result for a while and then people would literally eat their children.
Conjecture and not relying on evidence "because the people who live there don't need it to know and they know best" = meaningful
I never cited them as a proof of anything besides that you are a champaign armchair socialist who are out of touch with what that entails especially in 3rd world countries.
It's a strawman to point out that "free market" capitalism is the most unsustainable system
No political system in history has been more unstable and unsustainable than socialism fucking period, the irony of this statement lol.
I don't want to bother trying to educate someone whose inflexible mind has been so deeply colonized
Colonized LOL, you have the intellect and language of a buzzfeed writer
Thatcherist nonsense like “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money”. Fine. So tell me then, what am I getting wrong about your end game under this political system? How would it maintain itself in the next hundred years, say?
On the terms of sustainability population must be adressed under any economical and political model, that is far more crucial lthan how the avg human consumes.
The free market will gravitate to ecological sustainability, in fact it already started people willingly chose products that are more environmentally conscious, free-range meat over factory, renewable plastics, organic etc, all these are growing markets, so ecological sustainability is archieved through consumer choice.
You can think whatever you want about me and say everything I've read offline is biased nonsense, but it remains that I have spent a lot more time reading and thinking about things and getting outside of my comfort zone than you. And unlike most of the stuff we can throw at each other, this is something we can prove to each other. Want to compare libraries, book highlights/notes and goodreads profiles just to make sure? I don't think you do.
You've certainly read more books than me, your average achorite priest have read 10 times what you have yet they seem unable to escape their delusions, so do you.
you can never engage me on it and rely on pathetic insults and constantly try to paint me as a communist apologist.
When I mentioned the dangers of leftist dictators in latin america you go and post as some kind of rebuttal the "good stuff" they do, you cant bitch about being called an apologist when you do that.
Also you complain about being attacked with strawmans when its your favourite fallacy that you do constantly with me.
Speaking of which, why don't we focus on the person who has laid the foundation for your political views... White nationalism would never bring death and destruction, right?
As I've said before, Molyneux turned out to be a maniac, indeed I discovered anarcho capitalism through his early videos, then many years later he went full 180 and now supports some ethno-nationalism with a strong leader, obviously I dont agree with that at all, you keep mentioning him over and over, you can stop now.
