Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everyone can afford health insurance. Especially if it's universal. Those that choose to spend their money on other stuff don't have their priorities straight.

Unemployed people (especially after they get kicked off unemployment payments).

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not in the US, apparently. Were also talking about s system where there's no such thing ad paid paternity leave and very limited holidays. How this s this show up on your life satisfaction statistics?

Like I said they don't have their priorities right. They'd rather have their disposable income than health insurance.

Zebra3

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

People are an economies biggest most important asset and resource, socialism retards them in the extreme.

People are human beings.

Not an asset or a resource unless they are slaves.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Like I said they don't have their priorities right. They'd rather have their disposable income than health insurance.

Disposable income includes paying for rent and food and such - your argument rests on the idea, that nobody is ever short of money; but even a brief look at any western society, especially during economic downturns, shows that this is false.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Unemployed people (especially after they get kicked off unemployment payments).

Can still afford insurance.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Can still afford insurance.

With what? Debt?

Karl Stein

KyussBishop wrote: »

With what?

Magic beans.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Disposable income includes paying for rent and food and such - your argument rests on the idea, that nobody is ever short of money; but even a brief look at any western society, especially during economic downturns, shows that this is false.

If rent is too expensive, move. If food is too expensive go to a cheaper supermarket. That's no reason not to afford insurance.

Legs.Eleven

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If rent is too expensive, move. If food is too expensive go to a cheaper supermarket. That's no reason not to afford insurance.

That's ridiculous.

Bedtimebaby

Zebra3 wrote: »

People are human beings.

Not an asset or a resource unless they are slaves.

People are human beings and assets and resources.

They are what creat products and services, like food and shelter. If you don't think people should produce these things I suggest revising your outlook.

Iwasfrozen

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

Claiming you cannot afford to safe guard your health while you still have a car is ridiculous.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If rent is too expensive, move. If food is too expensive go to a cheaper supermarket. That's no reason not to afford insurance.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Claiming you cannot afford to safe guard your health while you still have a car is ridiculous.

Sure nobody every goes homeless due to lack of money do they - they just move somewhere else; maybe to that deluxe penthouse cardboard box.

They might be on the streets, but by god, they'll make sure to have their insurance paid, lest they end up in a tough spot.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Claiming you cannot afford to safe guard your health while you still have a car is ridiculous.

Unless the govt purposely jack up prices, mess with policies, and throw on some levies

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sure nobody every goes homeless due to lack of money do they - they just move somewhere else; maybe to that deluxe penthouse cardboard box.

They might be on the streets, but by god, they'll make sure to have their insurance paid, lest they end up in a tough spot.

Homeless people in this country end up where they are due to addiction rather than lack of money.

Do you realise how cheap rent is in this country out in the sticks?

the_syco

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Claiming you cannot afford to safe guard your health while you still have a car is ridiculous.

What happens when your car (that is worth €200) is your home. Sure you can sell it, but you'll still be homeless, but without shelter.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you realise how cheap rent is in this country out in the sticks?

Do you know how many hours you'll have to walk to get to a shop in "the sticks"?

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everyone can afford it, those who can't just don't have their priorities in order.

60% of personal bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills. The US medical insurance free market model has resulted in the most expensive medical service on the planet. Oh and before anyone claims it's the best, take a look at longevity stats and medical outcome stats. Meds that cost under a tenner in Europe are many multiples of that in the US. Operations and the like are off the scale in price. The free market maximises profit(naturally) and when insurance companies get involved profits and costs go up and steadily so. Hell you can see it in microcosm with pet insurance, a new concept in Ireland. Look at the costs of simple vet treatments a decade ago and look at those same costs now. And look at the caveats included. Insurance and the suppliers of medical services get hand in hand to maximise their share of the pie and again prices go up. The other aspect is that the insurance companies fight to reduce the amount they pay out by exclusions and small print, so that cover isn't always cover. Never mind the lobbying power such big companies have over government policy. If you want to see free market medical care look no further than across the pond. Great if you're already rich, but not so great if you're not, or even if you're just another cubicle jockey with a company policy.

There are ways around it, he could get a scholarship or he could have his parents guarantee his loan.

If the parents have any assets to do so. Given a choice between a free scholarship or a paid student ploughing tens of thousands into the university coffers how big a number of scholarships will be allocated?

Legs.Eleven

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Claiming you cannot afford to safe guard your health while you still have a car is ridiculous.

You're claiming nobody out there is on the brink of poverty or living in a state of poverty and that everyone has assets they can sell or sacrifice to pay for costly health insurance. I have no idea what planet you're living on but it ain't mine.



I just saw a woman outside my house rummaging through the bins in my street trying to find things to sell (bottles, shoes, old clothes). What do you think she should do to pay for health insurance, for example?

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The US medical insurance free market model

No, wibbs. It's not even remotely. At all.


http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/47302/third-highest-world-i-i-obamacare/avik-s-roy

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-myth-of-the-free-market-american-health-care-system/254210/

There's an unreal amount of govt interference in it, before and after obamacare.

snubbleste

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Homeless people in this country end up where they are due to addiction rather than lack of money.

That's quite an outrageous statement to make. Homelessness can and does happen to anyone.

Capt'n Midnight

http://asset-6.soup.io/asset/7130/1038_69b6.jpeg

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

Unless the govt purposely jack up prices, mess with policies, and throw on some levies

And free market insurance companies don't do this? Really? Eh no.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Homeless people in this country end up where they are due to addiction rather than lack of money.

Do you realise how cheap rent is in this country out in the sticks?

Not sure if serious or extremely naive/ill informed/troll[delete as applicable].

Iwasfrozen

the_syco wrote: »

What happens when your car (that is worth €200) is your home. Sure you can sell it, but you'll still be homeless, but without shelter.

Then you move out of your car.

Do you know how many hours you'll have to walk to get to a shop in "the sticks"?

A room in a two bedroom flat in my hometown is 50 euro. Supermarket is < 5 mins walk.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Homeless people in this country end up where they are due to addiction rather than lack of money.

Do you realise how cheap rent is in this country out in the sticks?

Even though I disagree with the addiction part (citation needed), lets assume that's true: Should addicted people with no money, be left without any healthcare?

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

No, wibbs. It's not even remotely. At all.

OK, then let's attack it from another angle. What is the bottom line of a free market health insurance system? Maximising profits for the companies involved. How does one go about this? By dropping prices? By paying health providers less? The Ryanair model can't be applied too easily to health insurance. For a start the need isn't elective(in the majority of cases). The customers don't plan to require health treatment. The other issue is that if you started with a blank slate. You would have lots of startups in the beginning, but over time mergers and takeovers would occur. Soon enough you would have two maybe three health insurance conglomerates. In an ideal, and idealistic world they would compete to drop costs, but let's get real, they'd be far more likely to share a no names, nudge nudge gentlemans agreements to keep all happy. Government regulation which the Libertarians would be agin anyway, would be largely toothless as their lobbying power would be enormous.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then you move out of your car.



A room in a two bedroom flat in my hometown is 50 euro. Supermarket is < 5 mins walk.

Iwasfrozen, I know from past experience, you sometimes like to debate a position that you don't even really believe yourself, as 'devils advocate' or such (you directly said this in a post, way back); this isn't so bad when it's directly stated, but when you don't state it, it kind of obstructs debate and comes off as winding people up.

I don't know if that is what you're doing here, but well, some of your latest posts here kind of come off like you could be doing that, or like they are facetious, or deliberately missing the point, or prolonging acknowledging something obvious...

If it's just devils advocate, grand - I don't mind - but c'mon, I don't want to spend then next page or two prolonging this one simple point (that sometimes, people just don't have the money...).

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

60% of personal bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills. The US medical insurance free market model has resulted in the most expensive medical service on the planet. Oh and before anyone claims it's the best, take a look at longevity stats and medical outcome stats. Meds that cost under a tenner in Europe are many multiples of that in the US. Operations and the like are off the scale in price. The free market maximises profit(naturally) and when insurance companies get involved profits and costs go up and steadily so. Hell you can see it in microcosm with pet insurance, a new concept in Ireland. Look at the costs of simple vet treatments a decade ago and look at those same costs now. And look at the caveats included. Insurance and the suppliers of medical services get hand in hand to maximise their share of the pie and again prices go up. The other aspect is that the insurance companies fight to reduce the amount they pay out by exclusions and small print, so that cover isn't always cover. Never mind the lobbying power such big companies have over government policy. If you want to see free market medical care look no further than across the pond. Great if you're already rich, but not so great if you're not, or even if you're just another cubicle jockey with a company policy.

There are so many more things wrong with the American healthcare model than optional insurance. Mandatory insurance is a solution doggedly fought against by Republicans.

Wibbs wrote: »

If the parents have any assets to do so. Given a choice between a free scholarship or a paid student ploughing tens of thousands into the university coffers how big a number of scholarships will be allocated?

Not many but then they are for the best students only. I mentioned scholarships as a counter to a poster who complained a poor student would not be able to attend uni no matter how gifted they were.

That's quite an outrageous statement to make. Homelessness can and does happen to anyone.

In what way? Social protection in this country is more than enough to house a person and cover their basic costs of living.

Even though I disagree with the addiction part (citation needed), lets assume that's true: Should addicted people with no money, be left without any healthcare?

No, I'm not calling for total withdrawal of social protection, just a lot less than we have now. Extremes on either side tend to be bad.

Wibbs

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even though I disagree with the addiction part (citation needed), lets assume that's true: Should addicted people with no money, be left without any healthcare?

Apparently so with some of the more loony libertarian types. Survival of the fittest, social darwinism*. It's seems to be an idea that they are fittest to thrive and those that aren't well... I personally know a type who thinks like this. What I find funny is that he's been in and out of hospitals since he was a baby. Without medical science and widespread healthcare he'd be a tombstone long ago. I like to wind him up by reminding him that unlike him I'd still be around so therefore he's the genetic weakling. Does not go down well. His BP is high too, so I don't wind him up too much.


The thing is though, all too often the dafter end of Libertarianism is hijacked by such thinking. Just like the loony leftists hijack socialism. Te daft of any ism is not a good reason to ignore or decry some of the tenets of the ism itself. Personally on many levels I'm more to the right than Attila the Hun(scourge of god) and see much value is some tenets of Libertarian thinking. Government can be wasteful. Very. And that does need to be curtailed in a big bloody way. However I'm not one for throwing the baby out with the bathwater either. I'm also not so naive to believe that the free market alone will solve our problems. Especially as more and more that free market has access to their customers information on a scale that would have been considered science fiction two decades ago. Both government and the market need oversight by the society at large or both will do exactly the same as the other in the absence of it.








*Interestingly social darwinism had a part to play in the philosophies of both communism and fascism. It was big in the US too and still is, though what saved them from both was the strong cultural ideal of the individual.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Iwasfrozen, I know from past experience, you sometimes like to debate a position that you don't even really believe yourself, as 'devils advocate' or such (you directly said this in a post, way back); this isn't so bad when it's directly stated, but when you don't state it, it kind of obstructs debate and comes off as winding people up.

I don't know if that is what you're doing here, but well, some of your latest posts here kind of come off like you could be doing that, or like they are facetious, or deliberately missing the point, or prolonging acknowledging something obvious...

If it's just devils advocate, grand - I don't mind - but c'mon, I don't want to spend then next page or two prolonging this one simple point (that sometimes, people just don't have the money...).

No I used to think more left wing in terms of healthcare but I'm beginning to see the benefits of mandatory health insurance as an alternative to government funded.

Once you minimise security loading and forbid selection bias on behalf of the company it's quite an eloquent system where yearly fluctuations of cost are absorbed by the private sector in exchange for a block payment from customers.

Unfotunately people here seem more interested in debating whether or not an addict on the corner of Abbey street can afford insurance than the actual system itself...

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Honestly, no I used to think more left wing in terms of healthcare but I'm beginning to see the benefits of mandatory health insurance as an alternative to government funded.

Once you minimise security loading and forbid selection bias on behalf of the company it's quite an eloquent system where yearly fluctuations of cost are absorbed by the private sector in exchange for a block payment from customers.

Unfotunately people here seem more interested in debating whether or not an addict on the corner of Abbey street can afford insurance than the actual system itself...

Maybe it's more 'efficient' (a nebulous term which can mean anything to anyone), but it seems that it deliberately leaves people out (e.g. addicts), and then pretends they do not exist (which many of them probably won't soon after...).

That's a form of Social Darwinism, as Wibbs brought up; sacrificing entire sections of society, in order to take on an idealized system - one which doesn't serve all of society.

God help anyone who falls through the cracks in such a society, and gets left for dead - that's not a society I want to live in.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

OK, then let's attack it from another angle. What is the bottom line of a free market health insurance system? Maximising profits for the companies involved. How does one go about this?

Keeping customers who are happy with the service. And yes, competitive rates. Rates which would be lower if people could shop around for themselves, instead of govt-subsidised employer healthcare or govt-levied premiums.
Charging a fortune and refusing to pay out will lose you customers in a free market.

The customers don't plan to require health treatment.

Well yes, that's the point of insurance. People don't plan to require legal help, car fixing help, etc etc. It doesn't mean we can't shop around for either of those, compare experiences and prices. Those aren't govt-run either.
In the most extreme cases you might have an argument where you've just had a heart attack and aren't able to compare policies - but then you may have chosen those in advance when buying insurance in the first place.

The other issue is that if you started with a blank slate. You would have lots of startups in the beginning, but over time mergers and takeovers would occur. Soon enough you would have two maybe three health insurance conglomerates. In an ideal, and idealistic world they would compete to drop costs, but let's get real, they'd be far more likely to share a no names, nudge nudge gentlemans agreements to keep all happy. Government regulation which the Libertarians would be agin anyway, would be largely toothless as their lobbying power would be enormous.

People often threaten monopoly as a consequence of the free market (and usually follow it up with demanding government as a monopoly, who are guilty of exactly what you just wrote), and yet you have cases like this:
Another strategy, which Rockefeller probably did employ, is to buy out competitors. This is usually cheaper than
spending a fortune trying to drive them out—at least, it is cheaper in the short run. The trouble is that people soon
realize they can build a new refinery, threaten to drive down prices, and sell out to Rockefeller at a whopping profit.
David P. Reighard apparently made a sizable fortune by selling three consecutive refineries to Rockefeller. There was
a limit to how many refineries Rockefeller could use. Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business
organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitators in his
later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.

There's only so many start ups you can buy out, and another consequence of removing a lot of the bureaucracy is lower barriers to entry.

You argue that companies would want to maximise profits and then you argue that they wouldn't, that they'd collude to just get by. Can't have it both ways

Rail executives often got together to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months,
for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the
agreement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal
customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in. J. P. Morgan
committed his enormous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met with almost
unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for example, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association to
control rates among the western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where
it had been before he intervened


Singapore's health care system certainly sounds like an interesting compromise. Low govt spending, run it like private system, people are obliged to save for themselves and no third party payment system

PopePalpatine

the_syco wrote: »

What happens when your car (that is worth €200) is your home. Sure you can sell it, but you'll still be homeless, but without shelter.


Do you know how many hours you'll have to walk to get to a shop in "the sticks"?

Like I said, a laissez-faire society run by the adherents of the Church of Ayn Rand throws the poor under the bus. See: the Ayn Rand's Institute's and Cato Institute's opposition to net neutrality.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Like I said they don't have their priorities right. They'd rather have their disposable income than health insurance.

Ah, theold just world fallacy.

You know that's not the case. You know there are families o poverty who can not afford the luxary of health insurance due to circumstances beyond their control.

Tail Docker

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

KB will be telling us soon how the banks magically create money as if they have a money printer.

I'm guessing you get that they do and are just being ironic. Otherwise you need to bang a mo into the equation.

Precious flower

Always think of Parks and Recreation now when I heard anything about Venezuela

Sorry the quality is so bad!

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

Another strategy, which Rockefeller probably did employ, is to buy out competitors. This is usually cheaper than
spending a fortune trying to drive them out—at least, it is cheaper in the short run. The trouble is that people soon
realize they can build a new refinery, threaten to drive down prices, and sell out to Rockefeller at a whopping profit.
David P. Reighard apparently made a sizable fortune by selling three consecutive refineries to Rockefeller. There was
a limit to how many refineries Rockefeller could use. Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business
organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitators in his
later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.

From David D. Friedman, Chicago School, son of Milton Friedman - don't know about David, but his father was known as being a pretty blatant propagandist.

Rockefeller's monopoly was broken up by the US Anti-Trust acts around the early 20th century - it took government to break his monopoly.

Highflyer13

How is the Venezuelan crisis getting so little media attention? Country is a basket case ready to explode. A true example of a badly managed country that had so much potential with tropical climate and massive natural resources. Socialism has ruined that country. 25000 murders a year and food rationing. Unbelievable in this day and age.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Highflyer13 wrote: »

How is the Venezuelan crisis getting so little media attention? Country is a basket case ready to explode. A true example of a badly managed country that had so much potential with tropical climate and massive natural resources. Socialism has ruined that country. 25000 murders a year and food rationing. Unbelievable in this day and age.

I know I;m never going to get a responce, but **** it: how is socialism responsible for 25000 murders and food tationing? And actual causation here, noy corellation.

Bedtimebaby

Tail Docker wrote: »

I'm guessing you get that they do and are just being ironic. Otherwise you need to bang a mo into the equation.

They don't create money. They take deposits and loan a percentage of the deposits out.

KyussBishop

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

They don't create money. They take deposits and loan a percentage of the deposits out.

Oh look, Bedtimebaby is pushing a fictional theory of banking into the thread - something he was attempting to pre-emptively criticize someone else for? :pac:

Johnny Cage

KyussBishop wrote: »

From David D. Friedman, Chicago School, son of Milton Friedman - don't know about David, but his father was known as being a pretty blatant propagandist.

Rockefeller's monopoly was broken up by the US Anti-Trust acts around the early 20th century - it took government to break his monopoly.

According to you anyone with a capitalist viewpoint is spouting propaganda yet i suppose when you post any links you aren't biased towards your socialist and MMT viewpoint?

KyussBishop

Johnny Cage wrote: »

According to you anyone with a capitalist viewpoint is spouting propaganda yet i suppose when you post any links you aren't biased towards your socialist and MMT viewpoint?

I can show a link to propaganda organizations with the criticisms I put forward, can you show any organizations/people I link to, who are associated with proven propagandists? (i.e. associated with people who have been shown to put out lies, such as anti-science global warming denial?)

I doubt you know 'MMT' as anything other than a label - the Bank of England supports my views on banking, and they most certainly don't support MMT.

Capt'n Midnight

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everyone can afford health insurance. Especially if it's universal. Those that choose to spend their money on other stuff don't have their priorities straight.

Sometimes it's hard to know if libertarians are serious or trolling.

Let's throw some numbers at that

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/vhi-price-hike-will-hit-thousands-of-customers-30125265.html

From next month a family of two adults and two children will face an annual bill of €3,245 for PMI 2612, up from €2,929. This is a rise of 11pc, or an increase of €318.

There's a good few call centre jobs out there paying a tenner an hour before tax and levies. So you are suggesting that one of the Adults should work for over two months per year just to cover a small families health insurance ?? That's a week more than last year. And add another week to cover the household charge. Next year there may be another week's work to pay for water.

Don't worry about about the extra weeks eating into your holidays, because you can't afford them anymore.

Iwasfrozen

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's a good few call centre jobs out there paying a tenner an hour before tax and levies. So you are suggesting that one of the Adults should work for over two months per year just to cover a small families health insurance ?? That's a week more than last year. And add another week to cover the household charge. Next year there may be another week's work to pay for water.

Don't worry about about the extra weeks eating into your holidays, because you can't afford them anymore.

(3,245*6) is €19470 who is earning €19470 before taxes? Very few people are earning that.

In 2012 at the height of the recession the average wage over all sectors was €35,767.68 source. So what you've done is taken a far below average wage and tried to pass this off as normal.

Two adults earning the average wage of 35,767.68*2 = 71,535.36 a year household income. the cost is €3,245 for the family so 3,245/71,535.36 = 0.04536218172. 0.04536218172*12 = 0.54434618064 months a year or 2.17738472256 weeks for the family to cover their healthcare.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Maybe it's more 'efficient' (a nebulous term which can mean anything to anyone), but it seems that it deliberately leaves people out (e.g. addicts), and then pretends they do not exist (which many of them probably won't soon after...).

That's a form of Social Darwinism, as Wibbs brought up; sacrificing entire sections of society, in order to take on an idealized system - one which doesn't serve all of society.

God help anyone who falls through the cracks in such a society, and gets left for dead - that's not a society I want to live in.

But then you have to ask yourself why should society help a person who is not willing to help himself? Why does society have an obligation to him, we don't owe him anything, he has no right to free healthcare.

Bringing in mandatory health insurance will make private insurance available for millions of people who previously couldn't afford it.

It's not perfect and some people will fall through the cracks but it's better than what we have.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

(3,245*6) is €19470 who is earning €19470 before taxes? Very few people are earning that.

In 2012 at the height of the recession the average wage over all sectors was €35,767.68 source. So what you've done is taken a far below average wage and tried to pass this off as normal.

Two adults earning the average wage of 35,767.68*2 = 71,535.36 a year household income. the cost is €3,245 for the family so 3,245/71,535.36 = 0.04536218172. 0.04536218172*12 = 0.54434618064 months a year or 2.17738472256 weeks for the family to cover their healthcare.

You your point was that EVERYONE could afford health insurance. Run the figures again but this time use minimum wage instead of average.

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You your point was that EVERYONE could afford health insurance. Run the figures again but this time use minimum wage instead of average.

Using both parents on bare minimum wage with two children, 1.11 months.

Shakespeare's Sister

stankratz wrote: »

This 'thank your lucky stars you weren't born in Nicaragua' attitude sickens me.

Sometimes it's relevant though - e.g. when Ireland is compared to Nicaragua. I wouldn't use it in a general sense when examining examples of social inequality in Ireland, but when people say Ireland is as bad as Venezuela, then it's pretty reasonable in my opinion.

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

I think it can be safely said that there is not such thing as a Socialist paradise. The sooner people give up on the idea of far left wing and indeed far right wing politics the better off the world will be.

lol

diveout wrote: »

To compare Scandinavian nations to Venezuela is not going to get you anywhere.

I think people were just saying Scandinavian nations are examples of countries where socialism works - in response to people who claim socialism is always a bad thing.

Calibos wrote: »

The Catholic/Protestant work ethic divide is a myth.

Could you elaborate? I don't know myself, but anecdotally it does seem that historically protestant societies seem to have less poverty and more industriousness.

Idbatterim

Were not doing much better and were a capitalist paradise. top 1% have 10% of the wealth.

Dont worry, I'm sure the taxes they pay and those that some of them may employ keep the benefits gravy train going in the "best little country in the world to be on benefits" scratch that, the best country full stop! You are given everything on a plate here, as good as free primary and secondary school education, a dirt cheap 3rd level one, short of taking the kids from waster parents and getting middle or upper classes to adopt them etc, what do people propose?

That is the whole problem here with the system, it doesnt create self sufficiency, dont worry, stay where you are, sure you could work, but you wont be much better, if any better off, unless you really push yourself... and why bother when other gob****es are queuing up to pay over 52c in the euro over E33,000, let the wealthy pay, and anyone earning over 33,000 must be wealthy if the government deem it appropriate to confiscate over half of their earnings!

In relation to the health argument, there are two ways I see it, you have the private sector who are profit driven or you have the public sector delivering it where its a black hole, you get screwed either way...

Karl Stein

bluewolf wrote: »

Unless the govt purposely jack up prices, mess with policies, and throw on some levies

Because none of that would ever happen in the absence of Govt (self interested human beings). Religious devotion to fantasy libertarianism is quite the embarrassment of the post-Enlightenment world.

'The damn gubbermint causes all ills'. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Iwasfrozen ... kind of obstructs debate and comes off as winding people up.

That's how some people get their kicks.

jank

Zebra3 wrote: »

Has a capitalist country ever succeeded?

If you mean by succeed not having people queue up to buy basic food stuff in government run shops then yes. By all means you can answer my one question.