Canada vs US (healthcare)

Originally posted by no1marauder
Companies are artificial entities permitted by the State and given preferential legal treatment. They should be regulated to enhance the common good not make CEOs and executives richer and workers poorer.

That a real libertarian position. Regulate free businesses, by State bureaucrats who don't know how to run government departments.

And I suppose the income equalization you propose would not alter the difference between your income, and that of Walmart staff. CEOs are not the only high income people. Lawyers are right up there.

Originally posted by quackquack
$5 is below minimum wage so you don't have to worry about that in the US. But they can buy more if product if we allow the opportunity to purchase cheaper goods even if they are produced elsewhere.

Even the minimum wage ($7.75) per hour, not per day, is misrepresented, because few earn that for more than a few months, in entry level jobs. Most are high school, and college kids, part time workers, not responsible as heads of households.

Originally posted by normbenign
That a real libertarian position. Regulate free businesses, by State bureaucrats who don't know how to run government departments.

And I suppose the income equalization you propose would not alter the difference between your income, and that of Walmart staff. CEOs are not the only high income people. Lawyers are right up there.

Since corporations and their privileges are entirely State created, a true libertarian would abolish them.

No one has argued for "income equalization", so put the Straw Man away.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A correct response for those who who don't understand Human Nature and the purpose of human society. It really isn't to just benefit a few while the great bulk suffer.

You obviously aren't aware that human conditions for the great majority of people in the US, and in capitalist western societies has tremendously improved during the 19th and 20th centuries, largely due to the capitalist system. The poor in America would be considered wealthy in many third world countries, but capitalism has improved conditions elsewhere, as well. If the market is left to function, all benefit.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since corporations and their privileges are entirely State created, a true libertarian would abolish them.

No one has argued for "income equalization", so put the Straw Man away.

Corporations are the creation of individuals who wish to act collectively, and who do so voluntarily, risking their capital, which may be too small for an individual endeavor, but which combined has accomplished near miracles.

The legal State provides the support, but doesn't or didn't create corporations.

Finnigan, has advocated income equalization, by being highly critical of executive salaries, and the income earned from investments of the 1%. You seem to favor his views, so it is no Straw Man.

Originally posted by normbenign
Corporations are the creation of individuals who wish to act collectively, and who do so voluntarily, risking their capital, which may be too small for an individual endeavor, but which combined has accomplished near miracles.

The legal State provides the support, but doesn't or didn't create corporations.

Finnigan, has advocated income equalizatio ...[text shortened]... he income earned from investments of the 1%. You seem to favor his views, so it is no Straw Man.

Your knowledge of history and law are, as usual, pathetic. Maybe this will help:

From the 1500s until the 1880s, corporations were considered the artificial creations of their owners and the state legislatures that authorized them. Because they were artificial legal entities, created only and exclusively by the states and referred to in the law as “artificial persons,” they were subject to control by the people of the state in which they were incorporated, who asserted their will through representative government.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/735:unequal-protection-the-early-role-of-corporations-in-america

Originally posted by normbenign
You obviously aren't aware that human conditions for the great majority of people in the US, and in capitalist western societies has tremendously improved during the 19th and 20th centuries, largely due to the capitalist system. The poor in America would be considered wealthy in many third world countries, but capitalism has improved conditions elsewhere, as well. If the market is left to function, all benefit.

Conditions for the vast majority did not significantly improve until the adoption of Progressive measures, virtually all of which you vehemently oppose. The market is a Man-made construction which left to its own devices favors those who already have the bulk of the wealth.

Originally posted by quackquack
Perhaps you don't foot your fair share of the tax bill and maybe you should voluntarily increase your tax burden. But I personally already pay plenty and will not let someone tell me that paying larger amounts for inferior care is a step in the right direction.

you pay for a military you don't use, you pay for subsidies for industries you don't work in, you pay for wars nobody wants.

but heaven forbid you pay that someone else gets to live.

the thing you must understand is that your taxes doesn't buy stuff for you. it buys stuff for everyone else. did you pay someone to build the road you use on your way to work? do you own it? no. but you get to drive on it. somebody else contributed to it as well.

and yes, i have noticed you used the "well taxes will go up if we have universal healthcare" argument. ignoring for a moment that they won't, i must ask "so?". paying one or two more dollars a year so that someone could live. my heart bloody breaks for you.

Originally posted by normbenign
Corporations are the creation of individuals who wish to act collectively, and who do so voluntarily, risking their capital, which may be too small for an individual endeavor, but which combined has accomplished near miracles.

The legal State provides the support, but doesn't or didn't create corporations.

Finnigan, has advocated income equalizatio ...[text shortened]... he income earned from investments of the 1%. You seem to favor his views, so it is no Straw Man.

Reducing the obscene inequality of wealth and income DOES NOT equal income equalization so your using the latter term remains a Straw Man argument.

Originally posted by normbenign
Piketty's "research" is inconclusive, as he repeatedly confirms in his book which I just finished.

Clearly, Piketty starts with a viewpoint and tries to make large number support his beliefs. Piketty's research proves nothing.

You should not be allowed out unaccompanied. Of course his evidence is "inconclusive" and of course he repeatedly points out both the limitations (which you seize on) and the value (which you run a mile from) of his research to date.

What you are not grasping is that he is basing his work on empirical research which other economists, and notably your pal Mises, patently fail to attempt. Far from accepting the need for such evidence, most economists tolerate even direct empirical refutations of their claims without batting an ideological eyelid.

You are also not grasping that his provisional and incomplete findings are devastating for traditional economics. An increasing number of economics students recognise the importance of this development and are demanding that they be taught economic theory in a more scientific manner, recognizing at last the relevance of the methods of social science. And before you open your gob, Mises' psychological theories are not an example of social science - they are an example of an idiot talking through his proverbial.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/09/university-economics-teaching-lobotomy-non-mainstream

One thing you need to get into your mind is that no theorist working fifty years ago had access to the quantity and quality of information now available. Another is that, quite simply, stuff has happened over the past 50 years which any currently relevant theory must account for and explain. So it is absolutely impossible that their theories can have been empirically based - the evidence did not exist for that to happen. If you believe that any economist - let alone a minority taste comedian like Mises - captured the truth in economics without requiring any access to evidence, then you are away with the fairies.

Let us get this one thing clear about the scientific method. It is based on falsifiability. Piketty understands this. Mises did not. You don't. Piketty points to the limitations of the empirical evidence base and does a lot of work to overcome those limitations. Mises claims that he is the second coming of the messiah and you believe him. Mises is not just wrong. He is irrelevant. He has nothing useful to contribute. Neither do you. You are not sufficiently educated to understand the first basics about empirical research.

Originally posted by normbenign
Corporations are the creation of individuals who wish to act collectively, and who do so voluntarily, risking their capital, which may be too small for an individual endeavor, but which combined has accomplished near miracles.

The legal State provides the support, but doesn't or didn't create corporations.

Finnigan, has advocated income equalizatio ...[text shortened]... he income earned from investments of the 1%. You seem to favor his views, so it is no Straw Man.

"Finnigan, has advocated income equalization, by being highly critical of executive salaries, and the income earned from investments of the 1%"

First of all, the Financial Times article cited does not argue for income equalization. It argues that CEOs are being overpaid at the expense of shareholders. Many responsible CAPITALIST commentators take the same view. Their concern is not income equalization, their concern is shareholder value. I might add that whatever my politics, I have a masters in business administration from a leading university and business school and sufficient education in business theory to write you a book on this subject if you want. That does not make me right and you wrong. It just makes your attempts to put me down pathetic.

Secondly, my point regarding investment income of the 1% was that Piketty's research shows income from work of every type is declining while unearned income from passive investments and inherited wealth is growing - to the detriment of our economies. Again, that is not a socialist argument, it is the argument of an economist concerned with the policies required to get capitalism to avoid eating itself through the type of stupidity which you exemplify so clearly.

Originally posted by normbenign
Not quite true. When I had cataract surgery in Canada a few years ago, the wait for Canadians under their system was 6 to 9 months. As an American, Medicare would have got me in in about a month, but alas I was too young, but cash got me an appointment the very next week.

how is what you said in any way contradicted by my post?

if you have the money, you get the surgery earlier.
if you don't have the money, you get it later. in canada. in the US you get it never.

it is funny that every argument comes back to "i can afford medical care, screw the other guy".
it is sad that you people still don't get it. universal healthcare doesn't prevent you from getting private healthcare if you can afford it.

Originally posted by normbenign
Even the minimum wage ($7.75) per hour, not per day, is misrepresented, because few earn that for more than a few months, in entry level jobs. Most are high school, and college kids, part time workers, not responsible as heads of households.

"Even the minimum wage ($7.75) per hour, not per day, is misrepresented, because few
earn that for more than a few months, in entry level jobs"
how about you prove it.


"Most are high school, and college kids, part time workers, not responsible as heads of households."
perhaps in the 60's. we are living in a different century now.
http://www.epi.org/publication/low-wage-workers-are-older-than-you-think/

the average age of minimum wage worker in america is 36

Originally posted by normbenign
You obviously aren't aware that human conditions for the great majority of people in the US, and in capitalist western societies has tremendously improved during the 19th and 20th centuries, largely due to the capitalist system. The poor in America would be considered wealthy in many third world countries, but capitalism has improved conditions elsewhere, as well. If the market is left to function, all benefit.

"The poor in America would be considered wealthy in many third world countries"
the poor in america don't live in third world countries. they don't raise families in third world countries, they don't pay bills in third world countries.

the poor in america, surprisingly, live in america. america is responsible for them, not zimbabwe.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You look at words, but you are unable to understand any concepts that stray from your narrow preconceived ideological biases. Wherever we discuss anything that does so, your misunderstandings of such material evoke one of two responses: 1) Laughter and/or 2)Head shaking in pity.

In my experience snickering is more common.