Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 18 Nov '11 14:57
    Here's an interesting article I came across on the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/17/we-are-all-occupiers-arundhati-roy?INTCMP=SRCH

    "Tuesday morning, the police cleared Zuccotti Park, but today the people are back. The police should know that this protest is not a battle for territory. We're not fighting for the right to occupy a park here or there. We are fighting for justice. Justice, not just for the people of the United States, but for everybody.

    What you have achieved since 17 September, when the Occupy movement began in the United States, is to introduce a new imagination, a new political language into the heart of empire. You have reintroduced the right to dream into a system that tried to turn everybody into zombies mesmerised into equating mindless consumerism with happiness and fulfilment.

    ...

    Today, we know that the "American way of life" – the model that the rest of the world is meant to aspire towards – has resulted in 400 people owning the wealth of half of the population of the United States. It has meant thousands of people being turned out of their homes and jobs while the US government bailed out banks and corporations – American International Group (AIG) alone was given $182bn.

    ...

    They (the 1 say that we don't have demands … they don't know, perhaps, that our anger alone would be enough to destroy them. But here are some things – a few "pre-revolutionary" thoughts I had – for us to think about together:
    We want to put a lid on this system that manufactures inequality. We want to put a cap on the unfettered accumulation of wealth and property by individuals as well as corporations. As "cap-ists" and "lid-ites", we demand:

    • An end to cross-ownership in businesses. For example, weapons manufacturers cannot own TV stations; mining corporations cannot run newspapers; business houses cannot fund universities; drug companies cannot control public health funds.

    • Natural resources and essential infrastructure – water supply, electricity, health, and education – cannot be privatised.

    • Everybody must have the right to shelter, education and healthcare.

    • The children of the rich cannot inherit their parents' wealth."

    Any thoughts on these proposals?
  2. 18 Nov '11 15:10
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Here's an interesting article I came across on the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/17/we-are-all-occupiers-arundhati-roy?INTCMP=SRCH

    "Tuesday morning, the police cleared Zuccotti Park, but today the people are back. The police should know that this protest is not a battle for territory. We're not fight ...[text shortened]... e rich cannot inherit their parents' wealth."

    Any thoughts on these proposals?
    #1: this is only necessary if there is a clear conflict of interest between different types of companies. So I would not favour it as a general rule.

    #2: this is a good idea, if only because it is more efficient. Need I say "Enron"?

    #3: of course.

    #4: this would be desirable from an economic perspective but in practise you cannot levy a 100% tax. Instead, an inheritance tax should be as high as possible without causing massive tax evasion (whatever level that may be).
  3. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    18 Nov '11 18:37
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    #1: this is only necessary if there is a clear conflict of interest between different types of companies. So I would not favour it as a general rule.

    #2: this is a good idea, if only because it is more efficient. Need I say "Enron"?

    #3: of course.

    #4: this would be desirable from an economic perspective but in practise you cannot levy a 100% ta ...[text shortened]... hould be as high as possible without causing massive tax evasion (whatever level that may be).
    #3: you forgot food, high-speed internet, iPhone, Lexus, and three bedroom house with swimming pool.

    NOW, if you work out how to pay for my gardener and regular oil changes -- THEN you'll be onto something!

    P.S. As part of the bargain, I will pay for cable TV myself, OK? Deal? (OK, actually I will cancel cable. But hey, I don't watch it that much anyway.)
  4. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    18 Nov '11 18:46
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Here's an interesting article I came across on the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/17/we-are-all-occupiers-arundhati-roy?INTCMP=SRCH

    "Tuesday morning, the police cleared Zuccotti Park, but today the people are back. The police should know that this protest is not a battle for territory. We're not fight ...[text shortened]... e rich cannot inherit their parents' wealth."

    Any thoughts on these proposals?
    We can easily hold a simple referendum in the coming weeks on whether or not having an iPhone is a right. I think we can easily get a majority of people to vote yes.

    Apple corp. can easily provide us all with an iPhone. They are a rich corporation.

    As a back-up plan, if there were some minor hitch, money could easily be redistributed from millionaires and billionaires to fund production.

    It is all so ridiculously simple and easy -- and perfectly legal because it was implemented by a vote.

    What are we waiting for, brothers? Vote today!

    Sincerely,

    The iPhonesforEveryone Party
  5. 18 Nov '11 18:48
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    We can easily hold a simple referendum in the coming weeks on whether or not having an iPhone is a right. I think we can easily get a majority of people to vote yes.

    Apple corp. can easily provide us all with an iPhone. They are a rich corporation.

    As a back-up plan, if there were some minor hitch, money could easily be redistributed from milliona ...[text shortened]...

    What are we waiting for, brothers? Vote today!

    Sincerely,

    The iPhonesforEveryone Party
    It would be far cheaper than giving everyone healthcare.
  6. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    18 Nov '11 18:54
    Originally posted by quackquack
    It would be far cheaper than giving everyone healthcare.
    We can easily hold a simple referendum in the coming weeks on whether or not having healthcare is a right. I think we can easily get a majority of people to vote yes.

    Hospitals can easily provide us all with healthcare. They are rich corporations.

    As a back-up plan, if there were some minor hitch, money could easily be redistributed from millionaires and billionaires to fund services.

    It is all so ridiculously simple and easy -- and perfectly legal because it was implemented by a vote.

    What are we waiting for, brothers? Vote today!

    Sincerely,

    The HealthcareandiPhonesforEveryone Party
  7. 18 Nov '11 18:56
    Originally posted by quackquack
    It would be far cheaper than giving everyone healthcare.
    Actually, as is well known by anyone with factual knowledge on the subject, nationalized health care is significantly cheaper. The UK for example pays approximately 60% less per person for health care.
  8. 18 Nov '11 19:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Actually, as is well known by anyone with factual knowledge on the subject, nationalized health care is significantly cheaper. The UK for example pays approximately 60% less per person for health care.
    Is Greece a good example of the efficiencies of the government providing benefits?
  9. 18 Nov '11 19:12
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Is Greece a good example of the efficiencies of the government providing benefits?
    Greece doesn't have particularly generous benefits. Income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient is above the EU average.

    Perhaps you ought to look up the health care cost figures after this colossal non sequitur.
  10. 18 Nov '11 19:23
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Greece doesn't have particularly generous benefits. Income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient is above the EU average.

    Perhaps you ought to look up the health care cost figures after this colossal non sequitur.
    If government control really decreased costs than medicare and medicaid and would control costs. Their budgets are many multiples of what was projected.

    Even though the government underpays medical providers and therefore force the private sector to pay more than their fair share they do not control costs either. This is not unique to healthcare virtually all government projects are overbudget and completely untimely. Expansion of government may lead to many things but it is very far fetched to argue efficiency is one of the results.
  11. 18 Nov '11 19:28
    Originally posted by quackquack
    If government control really decreased costs than medicare and medicaid and would control costs. Their budgets are many multiples of what was projected.

    Even though the government underpays medical providers and therefore force the private sector to pay more than their fair share they do not control costs either. This is not unique to healthcare vir ...[text shortened]... nt may lead to many things but it is very far fetched to argue efficiency is one of the results.
    Sure, if you call facts far-fetched.
  12. 18 Nov '11 19:41
    OWS people are nothing more than a small group of squeaky wheels.

    Much to do about nothing.
  13. 18 Nov '11 20:06
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Sure, if you call facts far-fetched.
    You are right, more entitlement and more government spending will solve all of our ills.
  14. 18 Nov '11 20:18
    Originally posted by quackquack
    You are right, more entitlement and more government spending will solve all of our ills.
    Nice straw man.
  15. 18 Nov '11 20:30
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Nice straw man.
    There is no strawman. You raised the issue that healthcare would be cheaper if the government paid for it. Experience seems to show that the governemnt is often not even interested in efficiency and even more often does not deliver of its promises of savings. We can see in the healthcare sector that the government imposes extra costs on everyone else yet still does not deliver savings.