Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then how come tobacco companies are still in business and making money? Who insisted on the warnings on the packets of ciggies? Marlboro? Maybe it was Camel Joe?

But why is it cheaper? Let's dig a little deeper into this question. The use of HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) as a sweetener derives from the sugar tariffs imposed by none other than the U.S. government. By artificially pushing up the price of sugar to protect domestic producers, government gave food manufacturers an incentive to switch to HFCS as an alternative. Lobbyists and politicians now collude to maintain the status quo, which benefits both sugar beet and corn farmers at taxpayers' expense.

1) again an example of bad governance, hardly an argument against good. 2) it's cheaper because fructose is significantly sweeter than sucrose, so adding less, means less cost and more profit. Take oversight out of the equation and the chemistry and economics would be exactly the same.

This is just one way in which government is happily contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemic while pretending to act impartially in the interest of public health.

Why are they, in this case the US gov, pretending? You've said it yourself, lobbying. And who pray tell is doing the lobbying?

No, I'm describing what is known in the literature as regulatory capture, whereby the government bodies that pretend to protect the consumer actually collude to further industry interests. The government has no incentive to actually protect people's health, because the Healthy Folks' Lobby is not filling politicians pockets with millions in lobbying dollars.

Again who is doing the lobbying? Removing any oversight, such as it is would simply mean that layer is removed and profits would go up. Which "interest" in public health would win in such an eventuality? "Government" particularly of the US kind is just a pain in the arse, another loss in the balance sheet measured against profit. OK remove them and then what happens?

Unfortunately, you spend so much of your time foaming at the mouth at evil corporations and their vile profit-seeking motives that you fail to see how politicians also strive to maximize their self-interest at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.

Jesus PB, maybe you're confusing me with another, but I don't see corporations as "evil". That's a moral call, one I wouldn't make. I see them, or at least the concept and practice of them as doing what I would do in their position to maximise my survival. To label "corporations" as "evil" would be just as daft as labeling "Government" as "evil". Both can differ along a scale.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Why do you say she was worthless? She had knowledge the tribe would obviously want to record in some way before she died and they'd need to keep for alive as long as possible to do that.

She was an adolescent, not an elder. Her worth would have been low enough in the general scale of things.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Eh no. Seriously? Way to twist a debate. TBH that's so beneath you that I'm actually gobsmacked.

No matter how you look at it, these things do have monetary value, because schools and hospitals don't build themselves and teachers, doctors, and Gardai don't work for free. You're well into lefty utopian la-la-land if you want to pretend that we can't or shouldn't assign a monetary value.

I'm simply ascribing a wider definition of value. I don't see every human transaction as a balance sheet. Thankfully, other better men like Jonas Salk thought similarly. He came up with a polio vaccine and what did he do? Patent it? Nope. He gave it away. As he said himself "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?". Volvo and the seatbelt another example. It's not always about the monetary value. There is more you know.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Seaneh

Wibbs wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're both wrong.

Coca-cola uses HFCS in the US because it's cheaper than sugar but they also have now started crystalline fructose which is even worse. Its more expensive than either Sugar or HFCS but they use it anyway, and I'll explain why below.

In (most) of the rest of the world it's not as cheap to use HFCS because there isn't a government subsidy for corn production, but they WILL start using Crystalline Fructose in other places if they can get away with it, despite it's (relatively) high production cost.

If we use sucrose as a base indicator of sweetness and call 1 sweetness point, regular HFCS would be 1.4 sweetness points.
Fructose would be 1.7 sweetness points.

HFCS is usually about 60% fructose to 40% glucose.
Sucrose is about 50/50.
Crystalline Fructose is 99% Fructose.

Fructose is a lot, lot sweeter than glucose, so in theory you *should* use less HFCS and much, much, much less Crystalline Fructose to achieve the same level of sweetness when compared to sucrose, this however is actually untrue of coca-cola.
They actually use MORE, a lot more HFCS and now Crystalline Fructose, than they used to when they used sugar.

They figured out that the more fructose they put into a drink they more of the drink people, especially kids, would drink in one sitting. So despite the slightly raised cost of sweetener (between it being a more expensive product and using more of it) they are selling even more of their product in even bigger servings and raking in ever growing profits.

Coca-Cola started using HFCS because it was cheaper, they now use Crystalline Fructose because despite it being cheaper, and despite it being much, much, much worse for people to consume regularly, it drives their sales up.

osarusan

What a roundabout argument!




We don't need regulation because these companies will look after themselves. It would be bad business to do otherwise.

But what about all the myriad examples of companies not looking after themselves, which government regulation didn't manage to stop?

That's the government's fault then, isn't it.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Some do, some don't there is no libertarian hive mind.

Certainly, yes - it's just the trend that you tend to reliably encounter with Libertarians and free-market supporters online; it'd be interesting to hear the arguments, of a Libertarian that acknowledges the unlikelihood of 'spontaneous harmony' in markets.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well logically speaking how can a cartel exist in the long term? It can't, cartels are self-destructive because it is always in the interests of one or more of the companies to break the cartel and in the absence of legally binding contracts to enforce the cartel the agreements are by their nature unstable and self destructive.

That's the problem with Libertarians and free-market supporters: They spend too much time pontificating about theory, and less time looking at what actually happens in reality - there are plenty of historical examples of monpoly/oligopoly/cartels and such, so saying a variation of "but in theory that doesn't happen", doesn't apply to reality.

The whole problem with a lot of economic teaching and practice (the vast majority of it - this isn't limited to Libertarians), is that it is based upon pontificating about the psychology of people/organizations as 'rational agents', or that they all believe it's in their best interests to follow what economic theory says is the best way to run things; which is just batshít really.

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

Because the free market profit/loss system can hedge its bets on the balance sheets with a product that turns out to be unsafe. So if a fix, or withdrawal of a product loses more money than paying off the odd lawsuit(if they lose in the first place) they're likely to not withdraw or fix the product. An objective oversight is required.

That (even just on its own) is an extremely well put point.

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

The joke is in many respects I would be a "libertarian" with a small L. You want to take drugs, knock yourself out, you wanna love who you want to love, my blessings for ya, you don't want to lose half your wages for gombeen man white elephants, damn straight. However, I see those as aspects of societal fairness. Putting a monetary value on health, education, security, even housing and that's where I start drawing up lines. Yea it's great if we're all doing great and discussing our latest acquisition of expensive tat and we're alright Jack, but the last thing society needs as an ism is a codified notion of being more self centered, more selfish. I have held onto too much of that "there but for the grace of godism" in me.

Like I said earlier on I see the growth of human society as a rise to more fairness, the fairness that nature read in tooth and claw never adhered to. Humans were and are different, right from the get go. This short naked ape, toothless and clawless and weak. Who'd have bet on us? An unearthed skeleton from 1.9 million years ago showed a woman who ate too much carnivore liver and was dying from vitamin A poisoning. Slowly and in great pain. She lived on for over a month. Someone fed her and cared for her. On the balance sheet of survival and "worth" she was a dead loss, just one of life's unfair things, but someone or a group of someone's decided no, fcuk that, we'll take care of her, we'll share our resources even if we know it's futile. To us today those we call Homo Erectus would be "apemen", but they and that's what made us human, that's why one day we might make it to the stars and we'll do it as part of a group. A society should always be measured by how it treats its lesser people, not how it treats its greater. The latter will always treat themselves well. And fair enough.

Ya, see I am a Libertarian, as I support pretty much all the social side of that and a reduction of government where not absolutely necessary - I'm just a Left-Libertarian, which is a lot different to the US/Right/Austro-Libertarianism that has hijacked the term today, by tacking on economic policies even more extreme than NeoLiberalism

I'd say a lot of people in general would be supportive of aspects of Left-Libertarianism - the only problem is, it's not as well defined, because Left-Libertarians are willing to admit the faults and incompleteness of their views, rather than invent a God with an answer to everything, which is what the Free Market™ is to Right/Austro-Libertarians.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a myth - it's completely untrue. Shareholders don't come anywhere near the primary financial concerns of a company.

It's a myth perpetuated primarily by Milton Friedman, with a good breakdown here:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/05/guess-who-is-responsible-for-the-corporations-exist-to-maximize-shareholder-value-myth.html

It's worth reading in full (even though there's a bit of filler), but here's a snippet all the same:

You can see how incoherent this is. Shareholder are not bosses of corporate executives. They are diffuse and large in number, and if you got them all in a room to tell the corporate executive what to do, you’d be more likely to see fisticuffs than agreement.

Moreover, Friedman simply dismisses the corporate form, when that is precisely what is operative here. You can’t treat shareholders as being remotely the same as owners in a private, closely held business. A share in a public company is a very weak and ambiguous legal claim. You get dividends when the company has enough profits and is in the mood to pay them, and you have a vote on some limited matters, but the company has the right and ability to dilute that too. So Friedman has to utterly misrepresent the fundamental nature of ownership in public corporations to wage his war against big busseses serving broader social aims along with Mammon.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's a myth - it's completely untrue. Shareholders don't come anywhere near the primary financial concerns of a company.

If it's a myth maybe you can give a list of the primary financial concerns that come ahead of creating value for shareholders?

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's the core difference between free marker supporters and people who support government-provided services:
Free market supporters want to prioritize profits at the cost of public benefit, whereas people who recognize the benefit of government-provided services (in specific circumstances) want to prioritize public benefit at the cost of money.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Free market supporters want to prioritize profits at the cost of public benefit, whereas people who recognize the benefit of government-provided services (in specific circumstances) want to prioritize public benefit at the cost of money.

The fact that businesses pursue profit is in the public's benefit. They don't have to be contradictory. Close to 100% of the products in my house were produced by private profit seeking companies and I benefit.

That and profit can be objectively measured, the 'public benefit' is more subjective. Some say subsidizing a bus route that is rarely more than 10% full is in the 'public benefit', most see it as a waste of resources.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Citation needed - care to link to any of these studies? (claiming something, that seems tantamount to reading the minds of entire populations, seems an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof)

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, that's just the mind of your average free-market/Libertarian supporter - that doesn't generalize to the whole population, not everyone bases their beliefs on such warped economic theory.

Seaneh

Privatise healthcare and people are priced out and regional and especially rural services are scaled back or closed completely. Profits go up, but you can objectively say the the "public benefit" is not being served.
The US has the highest cost per capita of health care in the world, companies like Kaiser Permanente make billions of dollars in profit and yet over 40 million people are without insurance and almost half of the population go without regular medical care due to not being able to afford it.
The biggest example of privatised healthcare in the world and a stark warning of the failings of the privatisation of public services like healthcare and the fact that private companies WILL create a cartel and fix costs and serve nobody but themselves.

In Ireland we only have nation wide electricity and phone lines and are only aiming for nation wide broadband access because of government directives. It's not profitable for ESB to lay lines to the back arse of Donegal or the islands but the Government does it anyway. It makes no sense for ISP's to provide broadband to small villages in Leitrim but the Government through the DCNER are doing it anyway. The "Free Market" wouldn't provide these services, people need these services, it's in "The Public Interest" to provide people with these services.

There are countless other examples of this frankly obvious reality and to ignore it while pontificating about the "free market" (which does not, has not and will not ever exist) means you're either extremely naive or a liar.

A company unregulated will not try to benefit anyone besides the people being paid by that company, look at banking the US where the willingly lied about their appraisals to inflate their books so they could make stupid loans to further inflate their books so drive "record profits" so that senior management can make record bonuses all the while knowing that eventually the bank will eventually incur losses and share holders will lose massive amounts of money. There's a pretty good Ted talk about why this pattern is being repeated so often in the banking system.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

In Ireland we only have nation wide electricity and phone lines and are only aiming for nation wide broadband access because of government directives. It's not profitable for ESB to lay lines to the back arse of Donegal or the islands but the Government does it anyway. It makes no sense for ISP's to provide broadband to small villages in Leitrim but the Government through the DCNER are doing it anyway. The "Free Market" wouldn't provide these services, people need these services, it's in "The Public Interest" to provide people with these services.

Why is providing broadband in remote areas in "the public interest"? It is certainly in the interest of the people living in those areas at the expense of everyone else.

If better services can be made more widely available in areas of high population density why not let natural forces gradually encourage people to move to urban areas as they have done for the past couple of centuries?

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

If it's a myth maybe you can give a list of the primary financial concerns that come ahead of creating value for shareholders?

It's in the article:

Corporations are a legal structure and are subject to a number of government and contractual obligations and financial claims. Equity holders are the lowest level of financial claim. It’s one thing to make sure they are not cheated, misled, or abused, but quite another to take the position that the last should be first.
...
If you review any of the numerous guides prepared for directors of corporations prepared by law firms and other experts, you won’t find a stipulation for them to maximize shareholder value on the list of things they are supposed to do. It’s not a legal requirement. And there is a good reason for that.

Directors and officers, broadly speaking, have a duty of care and duty of loyalty to the corporation. From that flow more specific obligations under Federal and state law. But notice: those responsibilities are to the corporation, not to shareholders in particular…Shareholders are at the very back of the line. They get their piece only after everyone else is satisfied. If you read between the lines of the duties of directors and officers, the implicit “don’t go bankrupt” duty clearly trumps concerns about shareholders…
...
You can see how incoherent this is. Shareholder are not bosses of corporate executives. They are diffuse and large in number, and if you got them all in a room to tell the corporate executive what to do, you’d be more likely to see fisticuffs than agreement.

Moreover, Friedman simply dismisses the corporate form, when that is precisely what is operative here. You can’t treat shareholders as being remotely the same as owners in a private, closely held business. A share in a public company is a very weak and ambiguous legal claim. You get dividends when the company has enough profits and is in the mood to pay them, and you have a vote on some limited matters, but the company has the right and ability to dilute that too. So Friedman has to utterly misrepresent the fundamental nature of ownership in public corporations to wage his war against big busseses serving broader social aims along with Mammon.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Why is providing broadband in remote areas in "the public interest"? It is certainly in the interest of the people living in those areas at the expense of everyone else.

If better services can be made more widely available in areas of high population density why not let natural forces gradually encourage people to move to urban areas as they have done for the past couple of centuries?

They aren't "natural forces". There is nothing "natural" about it. If you think humanity is better served by everyone living in over populated cities you're out of your tiny mind. Ireland needs rural communities for reasons such as protecting our cultural heritage, our tourism industry, our agri industry and so on. This "free market" imaginary world where everyone is best served living in an urban area isn't even fantasy, it's idiocy. People don't want to live in shoe boxes in areas with **** air quality. Protecting standards of living is "in the public benefit".

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

The fact that businesses pursue profit is in the public's benefit. They don't have to be contradictory. Close to 100% of the products in my house were produced by private profit seeking companies and I benefit.

That and profit can be objectively measured, the 'public benefit' is more subjective. Some say subsidizing a bus route that is rarely more than 10% full is in the 'public benefit', most see it as a waste of resources.

Yes they do have to be contradictory: Sometimes *shock* the public benefit is more valuable than money - which is the entire point of public services, since they are often intended to run at a loss (compensated by taxes), for the public good.

Seaneh

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes they do have to be contradictory: Sometimes *shock* the public benefit is more valuable than money - which is the entire point of public services, since they are often intended to run at a loss (compensated by taxes), for the public good.

I wonder who's going to service our public parks, national parks, woodlands, waterways and wildlife sanctuaries in this "free market" utopia?

Never mind, they don't matter, we can make more money by ignoring it.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

They aren't "natural forces". There is nothing "natural" about it. If you think humanity is better served by everyone living in over populated cities you're out of your tiny mind. Ireland needs rural communities for reasons such as protecting our cultural heritage, our tourism industry, our agri industry and so on. This "free market" imaginary world where everyone is best served living in an urban area isn't even fantasy, it's idiocy. People don't want to live in shoe boxes in areas with **** air quality. Protecting standards of living is "in the public benefit".

Because that is all that cities offer? I have to wonder who has the tiny mind.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Because that is all that cities offer? I have to wonder who has the tiny mind.

Compared to living in a rural environment, yes.
Living spaces are smaller and air quality is sh*te, and would get worse and more cramped as the city gets more populated and more congested.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes they do have to be contradictory: Sometimes *shock* the public benefit is more valuable than money - which is the entire point of public services, since they are often intended to run at a loss (compensated by taxes), for the public good.

As I look around my room I see almost everything was produced by private companies seeking profit, most peoples rooms are the same, how has the profit seeking nature of these companies not been in the public benefit? If they supplied these products at a loss would that be better?

If a bus route is rarely more than 10% full how is that in the public benefit? At what % full is a bus route not in the public interest?

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

Compared to living in a rural environment, yes.
Living spaces are smaller and air quality is sh*te, and would get worse and more cramped as the city gets more populated and more congested.

If they only offer worse air quality and smaller space why do you think people move to cities?

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

As I look around my room I see almost everything was produced by private companies seeking profit, most peoples rooms are the same, how has the profit seeking nature of these companies not been in the public benefit? If they supplied these products at a loss would that be better?

If a bus route is rarely more than 10% full how is that in the public benefit? At what % full is a bus route not in the public interest?

You seem the be unable to even realise the difference in the nature between companies who provide public services and companies who produce consumer electronics and goods and thus can't see why different approaches are needed for both areas.

And this is a massive mental block for "free market" fanboys.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

If they only offer worse air quality and smaller space why do you think people move to cities?

Why do you think many people don't?

I didn't say they only offer those things, I said not everyone wants to or should live in urban areas. Are you really saying you think everyone should live in urban areas and humanity would be better served by it?

That's frankly ridiculous thinking.

Also, way to go on nitpicking on the least relevant point in a post in an effort to dodge the pertinent points raised.
Quality deflection tactics there.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

You seem the be unable to even realise the difference in the nature between companies who provide public services and companies who produce consumer electronics and goods and thus can't see why different approaches are needed for both areas.

The discussion started on 'public benefit' and 'public interest' and how profit seeking companies contradict these, they don't have to.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

The discussion started on 'public benefit' and 'public interest' and how profit seeking companies contradict these, they don't have to.

In terms of providing public services. Not in terms of producing consumer electronics.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

I didn't say they only offer those things, I said not everyone wants to or should live in urban areas. Are you really saying you think everyone should live in urban areas and humanity would be better served by it?

I'm saying more people would move to urban areas if rural areas were not subsidized to the extent they are now.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

No. I'm saying more people would move to urban areas if rural areas were not subsidized to the extent they are now.

And you think that's a good thing? Forcing an exodus from rural areas and creating ghost towns and villages across the island?

SupaNova2

Can any of the socialists answer this:

If a bus route is rarely more than 10% full how is that in the public benefit? At what % full is a bus route not in the public interest?

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

And you think that's a good thing? Forcing an exodus from rural areas and creating ghost towns and villages across the island?

I don't think it is a good thing to force urban populations to support rural dwellers, do you?

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

As I look around my room I see almost everything was produced by private companies seeking profit, most peoples rooms are the same, how has the profit seeking nature of these companies not been in the public benefit? If they supplied these products at a loss would that be better?

If a bus route is rarely more than 10% full how is that in the public benefit? At what % full is a bus route not in the public interest?

Not one of those companies would exist, without the limited liability and legal system + police protection, provided by the state.

This black and white "public bad, private good" type argument, is extremely stale and boring - Libertarians have been through this argument so many times, with the obvious benefit of state support highlighted each and every time, that denying those benefits just comes off as membership of a cult that denies reality.


It's not so controversial, it's a pretty rational compromise in views: Both the state and private enterprise are beneficial, so minimizing the benefits/losses of one, while maximizing the benefits/losses of the other, just highlights to people that there is a pretty epic amount of cognitive-dissonance/delusion going on.

I don't care if private business and/or profit motive, did something beneficial to the world at some time or another (I'm not surprised that it did either, so I don't deny it) - I just recognize the benefits of both private business and state-services/prioritizing-public-benefit.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Can any of the socialists answer this:

When is is 0% full, it stops service the public interest and long as members of the public are using it, it should be provided to them. Maybe the frequency needs to be scaled back or the route slightly altered to make it more efficient but even if it never turns a profit and it's needed to service a community, it should run.
Maximum occupancy is ideal, but if the services is needed, even by a minority, then it should be provided and subsidised.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I don't think it is a good thing to force urban populations to support rural dwellers, do you?

Yes, actually I do. I think it's a good thing for society as a whole to support society as a whole and not for one section of society to support itself and let the rest rot.
Should Belgium split in two because one region is subsidising the other? Should Italy kick the south out because the North makes more money every year? Should we give the aaran islands back to the UK because they have no commercial benefit to us as a country?

There is more to "benefit" than just commercial or economic benefit.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

When is is 0% full, it stops service the public interest and long as members of the public are using it, it should be provided to them.

We operate under a system of limited resources and you are happy to have a bus 1% full in service, using fuel, human labour, and adding to traffic congestion.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Can any of the socialists answer this:

Can you provide an example more fitting of the real world, ta.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

Yes, actually I do. I think it's a good thing for society as a whole to support society as a whole and not for one section of society to support itself and let the rest rot.

You think it is good for one group to force another to support it. Fine. We disagree.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

We operate under a system of limited resources and you are happy to have a bus 1% full in service, using fuel, human labour, and adding to traffic congestion.

IF the bus is 1% full I'd imagine traffic congestion isn't going to be an issue in that specific area. Facetious argument is facetious.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Can you provide an example more fitting of the real world, ta.

Bus routes often around the 10% full mark are quite common in Ireland.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

You think it is good for one group to force another to support it. Fine. We disagree.

Good luck living in your free-market utopia, which has not, does not and will not ever exist.

Meanwhile in reality land, the happiest people in the world are living in socialist Denmark.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Bus routes often around the 10% full mark are quite common in Ireland.

Then it shouldn't be hard to provide examples.

KyussBishop

Seaneh wrote: »

Yes, actually I do. I think it's a good thing for society as a whole to support society as a whole and not for one section of society to support itself and let the rest rot.
Should Belgium split in two because one region is subsidising the other? Should Italy kick the south out because the North makes more money every year? Should we give the aaran islands back to the UK because they have no commercial benefit to us as a country?

There is more to "benefit" than just commercial or economic benefit.

Indeed - it's a silly proposition: "What use does the city full of people have, for the rural areas where all the food is grown? Pff."

Apply that logic to the entire planet, and have everyone move into cities - lets forget about feeding ourselves for the moment, that doesn't make any economic sense dose it?


What benefits society, isn't measured purely in terms of money.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

Good luck living in your free-market utopia, which has not, does not and will not ever exist.

I don't have to live in a free market utopia for services to be privatized and market solutions to be promoted. Privatizing postal and bus services will do for now, and that might not be far away.

Seaneh

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I don't have to live in a free market utopia for services to be privatized and market solutions to be promoted. Privatizing postal and bus services will do for now, and that might not be far away.

If healthcare in this country is totally privatised, we are f*cked as a society.
If transport is privatised entire communities will be decimated.

Privatised healthcare is a failed idea, the biggest example on the world scale is a farce and a travesty of a healthy system.

Using the US as a model for any economic or public service system (besides maybe their parks, funnily enough they do those rather well) is one of the stupidest things any rational person could attempt to do.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Indeed - it's a silly proposition: "What use does the city full of people have, for the rural areas where all the food is grown? Pff."

Apply that logic to the entire planet, and have everyone move into cities - lets forget about feeding ourselves for the moment, that doesn't make any economic sense dose it?

Lets see you are saying if urban populations stopped supporting rural ones everyone would move to the city and those silly urban populations who didn't support the rural ones would starve because who would be left to produce the food. Hmm. Logical conclusion?

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Lets see you are saying if urban populations stopped supporting rural ones everyone would move to the city and those silly urban populations who didn't support the rural ones would starve because who would be left to produce the food. Hmm. Logical conclusion?

Where's the money going to come from then, to produce the food? You think by cutting support to rural areas, they are magically going to keep producing the same amount of food? (EDIT: Anyway, belated bedtime for me)

Seaneh

KyussBishop wrote: »

Where's the money going to come from then, to produce the food? You think by cutting support to rural areas, they are magically going to keep producing the same amount of food? (EDIT: Anyway, belated bedtime for me)

And does he think that if entire communities are forced from rural into urban areas that farmers will stay behind just to grow vegetables and rare cattle without the communities and benefits of these communities such as local shops, pubs, friends, sports clubs, markets and so on, to keep them there?

We'll just have a load of farmers sitting in offaly and Tipp growing turnips by themselves for us city slickers.

:rolleyes:

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Where's the money going to come from then, to produce the food? You think by cutting support to rural areas, they are magically going to keep producing the same amount of food?

Really did you just ask that? And this years prize for economic illiteracy goes to KyussBishop.

SupaNova2

Seaneh wrote: »

And does he think that if entire communities are forced from rural into urban areas that farmers will stay behind just to grow vegetables and rare cattle without the communities and benefits of these communities such as local shops, pubs, friends, sports clubs, markets and so on, to keep them there?

The economic illiteracy really has reached new heights. You are bending over backwards to defend an idea that absent subsidization people would move to cities in a manner that would leave nobody in rural areas to produce food.