Page 4 of 5 [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

04 Jun 2013, 11:12 am

eric76 wrote:
That point is valid to only a very limited extent.

Capitalism has done more to advance the welfare of everyone than anything else in history. Today's poor in the United States have it far better than did someone in the same circumstances a hundred or more years ago. If not for actions of the government created monopoly in health care, the prices of most things in health care would be drastically lower and affordable to pretty much everyone provided that the consumers would be willing to forgo other things to pay for them.

What is expensive is the most advanced newly discovered treatments. Over time, most of those treatments would likely be made affordable if not for the government created health care monopoly.

But if you are going to argue that the poor has better access to them in other countries, then think again. In many countries, expensive treatments are reserved for the few, are limited in such a way that it can take many months waiting for the treatment, or are, in some cases, done away with completely.

If you want everyone to be able to get the most advanced newly discovered treatments, then you are dreaming. It just isn't going to happen.

So answer me these questions please:

1) How many people in the United States who have AIDS or HIV do not receive treatment and drugs because they cannot afford them?

2) How many people in the United States who are bitten by rattlesnakes do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

3) How many people in the United States who are bitten by animals that have or are suspected of having rabies do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

For the last question, the only example I know of in the United States where someone was exposed to a rabid animal and did not receive the rabies vaccinations did not receive them because he did not want them. He couldn't afford them, but that didn't matter -- they were offered to him free of charge and the doctors tried hard to get him to accept the vaccinations, but he steadfastly refused.

Sure, the treatment for those of us without insurance may be less than we could get if we did have insurance or were independently wealthy, but all in all, we have it pretty good.


The United States has it good because it's not 100% Capitalist. Even the face of Capitalism protects workers with government intervention. If there were no minimum wage jobs would go to the people willing to work for nothing and nobody would make more than a few cents an hour. Even if it causes outsourcing there are still unskilled jobs available. I worked in a grocery store during high-school. That's an unskilled job that still exists. We also have welfare and disability support. These are the only reasons people who would be losers in a society that is 100% Capitalist are surviving. They are surviving and they can afford healthcare as long as they forgo food or rent or electricity to pay for it. Don't even think about internet, phone service or cable. That's a privilege.

Poor people have it better in North America. They wouldn't if we were 100% anything.

No system that is 100% works. Pure Communism doesn't work. Pure Capitalism turns a blind eye and lets people starve to death. Capitalism with Socialist elements works but arguing in favour of a pure system is ridiculous.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 11:56 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
Your Canadian economy is largely based upon Canada's natural resource advantage (e.g., timber, agricultural products, minerals), most of which is exported. And by the same token, it would be incredibly inefficient for a country like Canada to, say, try to grow its own tropical fruits, where Canada is at a distinct disadvantage. This is what the economists call comparative advantage, and is a good thing. Canadians can produce large quantities of timber better than Brits, so the Brits would be better off importing their timber from Canada and selling what they are good at to the Canadians.

The problem comes from absolute advantage. The distinction between comparative and absolute advantage is something that is in the best interests of the elite class to obfuscate, and they do. Absolute advantage is where products that could be produced at home are imported because of cheaper labor or other advantages, such as no environmental regulations. This kind of trade benefits nobody in the long run, not even the elite class. When the elite class succeeds in impoverishing enough people with unemployment and low wage jobs, these people can no longer afford to buy what the elites produce, and the whole system crashes.

Comparative advantage seems sensible; I think the absolute is harmful. Like seaturtleisland said, 100% is not the ideal.

I wish my province would legalize marijuana - that would be a great natural resource that could be exploited in lots of ways and create lots of jobs. And I would be able to find meaningful work!



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 12:14 pm

Ann, legalization of cannabis could be a job creator for Canadians, like any other business, but certain people have other ideas. The article below is yet another example of how the elite class structures things to their own advantage. This fellow wants to use Mexican cannabis and Mexican labor because both are cheaper, not to mention the almost complete lack of meaningful environmental regulations. If this fellow gets his way, about the only jobs Canadians and Americans would see out of cannabis legalization would be as low-wage sales clerks:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... ZE20130530

Again, the problem is the rules our societies play by. They need to be changed to be more equitable for everybody, and not just for the elite class.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,688
Location: Aux Arcs

04 Jun 2013, 12:27 pm

Why would anyone want to market ditch weed?Swag $ucks,it can have lead shavings in it to get more weight,and it's often "washed",soaked in formaldehyde to give it that extra punch,gross.And it's low quality to begin with.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 12:42 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann, legalization of cannabis could be a job creator for Canadians, like any other business, but certain people have other ideas. The article below is yet another example of how the elite class structures things to their own advantage. This fellow wants to use Mexican cannabis and Mexican labor because both are cheaper, not to mention the almost complete lack of meaningful environmental regulations. If this fellow gets his way, about the only jobs Canadians and Americans would see out of cannabis legalization would be as low-wage sales clerks:

So there may be a Starbucks of marijuana in my lifetime! 8)

You're right though, it would work the same way as any other business. However, if Canada decided to export, we'd probably do well. We have some pretty good stuff.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 12:51 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Why would anyone want to market ditch weed?Swag $ucks,it can have lead shavings in it to get more weight,and it's often "washed",soaked in formaldehyde to give it that extra punch,gross.And it's low quality to begin with.


Miss, I haven't used cannabis in quite some time, but you do have something of a point. The Mexican stuff that was available when I was in high school could be scary. But if this fellow gets his way, he will grow cannabis in Mexico the same way it is done here.

Food is a prime example. Every time I've gone to Mexico I have managed to poison myself on their food and water. But if you go down to a grocery store and buy, say, a can of something made in Mexico it will be made to our standards.

The name of the game is to get the cheapest labor possible, and that shuts out a lot of good people.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,688
Location: Aux Arcs

04 Jun 2013, 12:59 pm

I would never smoke ditch weed,it's also soaked in the blood of all the victims of the cartels.
They would be in charge of production in Mexico,now the murderers would have a free pass to operate a legit business.They would be rewarded for their crimes.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 1:00 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann, legalization of cannabis could be a job creator for Canadians, like any other business, but certain people have other ideas. The article below is yet another example of how the elite class structures things to their own advantage. This fellow wants to use Mexican cannabis and Mexican labor because both are cheaper, not to mention the almost complete lack of meaningful environmental regulations. If this fellow gets his way, about the only jobs Canadians and Americans would see out of cannabis legalization would be as low-wage sales clerks:

So there may be a Starbucks of marijuana in my lifetime! 8)

You're right though, it would work the same way as any other business. However, if Canada decided to export, we'd probably do well. We have some pretty good stuff.


I used to use cannabis some for its relaxing effects until I discovered kava. Kava is even more relaxing and it doesn't fog my head up the way cannabis does. Plus, kava is legal, which is a big deal down here in Texas, especially rural Texas, which is where I live.

Some poor fellow from Austin decided he was going to drive to California to pick himself up some medical marijuana. Well, on the way back he got stopped in my area, they found the dope, and he's now doing five years. Otherwise, I don't have anything against cannabis or the people who like it.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 1:06 pm

Misslizard wrote:
I would never smoke ditch weed,it's also soaked in the blood of all the victims of the cartels.
They would be in charge of production in Mexico,now the murderers would have a free pass to operate a legit business.They would be rewarded for their crimes.

That's awful! I've gotten some with chemical spray before but not anyone's blood.

Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann, legalization of cannabis could be a job creator for Canadians, like any other business, but certain people have other ideas. The article below is yet another example of how the elite class structures things to their own advantage. This fellow wants to use Mexican cannabis and Mexican labor because both are cheaper, not to mention the almost complete lack of meaningful environmental regulations. If this fellow gets his way, about the only jobs Canadians and Americans would see out of cannabis legalization would be as low-wage sales clerks:

So there may be a Starbucks of marijuana in my lifetime! 8)

You're right though, it would work the same way as any other business. However, if Canada decided to export, we'd probably do well. We have some pretty good stuff.


I used to use cannabis some for its relaxing effects until I discovered kava. Kava is even more relaxing and it doesn't fog my head up the way cannabis does. Plus, kava is legal, which is a big deal down here in Texas, especially rural Texas, which is where I live.

I've tried kava, it didn't do much for me. Everyone is different.

Quote:
Some poor fellow from Austin decided he was going to drive to California to pick himself up some medical marijuana. Well, on the way back he got stopped in my area, they found the dope, and he's now doing five years.

That is so wrong. I view the illegality of marijuana as an infringement on my personal liberty.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 1:08 pm

Misslizard wrote:
I would never smoke ditch weed,it's also soaked in the blood of all the victims of the cartels.
They would be in charge of production in Mexico,now the murderers would have a free pass to operate a legit business.They would be rewarded for their crimes.


Miss, I agree completely. Because I don't like the way China treats its workers, I won't buy anything from China or Mexico unless I absolutely have to have it, which I must say saves me a lot of money. Walmart hates me :lol:



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 1:13 pm

I've tried kava, it didn't do much for me. Everyone is different.

Actually, the first time I tried it some years back, it didn't do anything for me, and I never thought about it until I was visiting a fancy health-type grocery store in Houston about a year ago. I saw it, tried it again, and am glad I did.

The only thing I don't like about kava is that it can upset my stomach.

Kava is also expensive, but so is good quality cannabis--or at least it is around here.

When I was in the Navy, the first overseas port I ever went to was Halifax. My first night there we went to a nightclub. It blew my mind to see people casually sitting in the lobby and elsewhere smoking pot, with police all around. It's sure not that way around here, although lots of people do use the stuff. Just ask Willie Nelson :D



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,688
Location: Aux Arcs

04 Jun 2013, 1:52 pm

Ann2011, sorry I meant that as a figure of speech,referring to the victims of the cartels,not literally.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Jun 2013, 1:52 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:
eric76 wrote:
That point is valid to only a very limited extent.

Capitalism has done more to advance the welfare of everyone than anything else in history. Today's poor in the United States have it far better than did someone in the same circumstances a hundred or more years ago. If not for actions of the government created monopoly in health care, the prices of most things in health care would be drastically lower and affordable to pretty much everyone provided that the consumers would be willing to forgo other things to pay for them.

What is expensive is the most advanced newly discovered treatments. Over time, most of those treatments would likely be made affordable if not for the government created health care monopoly.

But if you are going to argue that the poor has better access to them in other countries, then think again. In many countries, expensive treatments are reserved for the few, are limited in such a way that it can take many months waiting for the treatment, or are, in some cases, done away with completely.

If you want everyone to be able to get the most advanced newly discovered treatments, then you are dreaming. It just isn't going to happen.

So answer me these questions please:

1) How many people in the United States who have AIDS or HIV do not receive treatment and drugs because they cannot afford them?

2) How many people in the United States who are bitten by rattlesnakes do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

3) How many people in the United States who are bitten by animals that have or are suspected of having rabies do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

For the last question, the only example I know of in the United States where someone was exposed to a rabid animal and did not receive the rabies vaccinations did not receive them because he did not want them. He couldn't afford them, but that didn't matter -- they were offered to him free of charge and the doctors tried hard to get him to accept the vaccinations, but he steadfastly refused.

Sure, the treatment for those of us without insurance may be less than we could get if we did have insurance or were independently wealthy, but all in all, we have it pretty good.


The United States has it good because it's not 100% Capitalist. Even the face of Capitalism protects workers with government intervention. If there were no minimum wage jobs would go to the people willing to work for nothing and nobody would make more than a few cents an hour.


Where do you get these ideas!

Think about it a second. If what you are saying was correct, than nobody would make more than minimum wage. And that is clearly not the case.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 1:54 pm

Misslizard wrote:
Ann2011, sorry I meant that as a figure of speech,referring to the victims of the cartels,not literally.


:lol: I guess I am a literal thinker.



seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

04 Jun 2013, 2:18 pm

eric76 wrote:
seaturtleisland wrote:
eric76 wrote:
That point is valid to only a very limited extent.

Capitalism has done more to advance the welfare of everyone than anything else in history. Today's poor in the United States have it far better than did someone in the same circumstances a hundred or more years ago. If not for actions of the government created monopoly in health care, the prices of most things in health care would be drastically lower and affordable to pretty much everyone provided that the consumers would be willing to forgo other things to pay for them.

What is expensive is the most advanced newly discovered treatments. Over time, most of those treatments would likely be made affordable if not for the government created health care monopoly.

But if you are going to argue that the poor has better access to them in other countries, then think again. In many countries, expensive treatments are reserved for the few, are limited in such a way that it can take many months waiting for the treatment, or are, in some cases, done away with completely.

If you want everyone to be able to get the most advanced newly discovered treatments, then you are dreaming. It just isn't going to happen.

So answer me these questions please:

1) How many people in the United States who have AIDS or HIV do not receive treatment and drugs because they cannot afford them?

2) How many people in the United States who are bitten by rattlesnakes do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

3) How many people in the United States who are bitten by animals that have or are suspected of having rabies do not receive treatment because they cannot afford it?

For the last question, the only example I know of in the United States where someone was exposed to a rabid animal and did not receive the rabies vaccinations did not receive them because he did not want them. He couldn't afford them, but that didn't matter -- they were offered to him free of charge and the doctors tried hard to get him to accept the vaccinations, but he steadfastly refused.

Sure, the treatment for those of us without insurance may be less than we could get if we did have insurance or were independently wealthy, but all in all, we have it pretty good.


The United States has it good because it's not 100% Capitalist. Even the face of Capitalism protects workers with government intervention. If there were no minimum wage jobs would go to the people willing to work for nothing and nobody would make more than a few cents an hour.


Where do you get these ideas!

Think about it a second. If what you are saying was correct, than nobody would make more than minimum wage. And that is clearly not the case.


What I meant was almost nobody would make more than minimum wage. People make more than minimum wage in third world countries. They do it by only paying people extremely low wages. No unskilled employee would make more than minimum wage. Employers would.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

04 Jun 2013, 2:42 pm

Wages basically go by supply and demand. In a really terrible economy with far more jobs than workers, that might be the case to some extent. In a healthy economy, it is pure nonsense.

It seems to me that the places with the best economies are those that are the more Capitalist with the least government interference.