quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
So you're saying that the problem is, that it isn't communist enough there in Britain, despite the howler chorus constantly reminding us that the UK is FAR to the left of the USA

FAR to the left

So far to the left that Americans don't know what socialism is, according to you howler trolls

Yet it's too capitalist now, to handle it's citizen's healthcare?

Seriously?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Here's the system you're looking for, I think: You need a strong leader to make it all work out. Don't you...

China’s rising authoritarianism has a stark human cost

I Heping spent his career trying to hold Chinese Communist Party officials accountable for their darkest behavior. He believed in an authority higher than the party — China’s own legal system. And for that, he suffered tremendously.

Since the late ’90s, Li, a 46-year-old human rights lawyer, had defended China’s most persecuted groups: dissidents, petitioners, victims of land grabs and forced demolitions, church leaders, practitioners of the banned spiritual group Falun Gong. Then came the “709” crackdown — named for July 9, 2015, the night it began — when authorities detained or interrogated more than 300 lawyers and their associates, including Li. They held Li without charge for nearly two years. And this May, they let him go — on the condition he remain silent.

“What my husband has gone through during that 22 months in jail was relentless, inhuman, perverted and unthinkable,” said his wife, Wang Qiaoling, 44, who has emerged as an outspoken advocate for rule of law amid her husband’s enforced silence. “The police will torture you till the edge of death, both physically and mentally.”

Since Chinese President Xi Jinping ascended to power in 2012, he has both amassed extraordinary power — analysts routinely call him China’s strongest leader since Mao Tse-tung — and ratcheted up repression to its highest levels since the early 1990s.

Wang Qiaoling is the wife of human rights lawyer Li Heping. (Fred Dufour/ AFP / Getty Images)
This week, a twice-a-decade Communist Party congress is almost certain to grant him another five-year term. Yet beyond the congress’ displays of pageantry and protocol — its chandeliers, identical black suits and long, turgid speeches — Li’s experience is a vivid reminder of the party’s propensity for maintaining its grip on power through violence and fear.

The Communist Party, under Xi, has introduced new, draconian legislation tightening control over religion, foreign non-governmental organizations and the internet. Xi’s sweeping anti-corruption drive has “punished” more than a million officials and suppressed competing party factions. He has repeatedly vowed to preside over a “national rejuvenation” — one that categorically rejects “Western values” such as democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech. The media has been neutered. Scores of lawyers, activists and journalists have been jailed...

MORE

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Listen to all of this mindless, ignorant hysteria about the great British exodus of 2017!

'Doctors and nurses are fleeing!'
'The system is in shambles!'

Why not:
'Everyone in the UK has AIDS because of socialism!'
'Socialist doctors are sewing people's arms onto where their legs should be!'

Your posts are like headlines in a fucking supermarket tabloid, and contain about as much truth.
It is truly a wonder why anyone even lives in post-apocalyptic hellholes like Canada and the UK when they could be literally DYING because they can't afford privatized healthcare in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

FR.

As the healthcare in the UK has been free at point of service since 1948, almost 70 years. You can claim failure, all you like, it has saved millions of lives, and continues to do so.
Its been unravelling since the 80s, precisely because of the government cutting programs, inserting more managers, and less front line staff.
Privatising the hc system is something that has dragged it down. Its being worked on, not left to die. Its lagging, its far from perfect, but please dont say the US cant do it because of the population and logistics, that just proves how shitty your planners are....profit over care is one of the reasons they are all having problems.
And continues too as the rich fuck the poor over again, yay profit.
As they do, the whole world over.

So you're saying that the problem is, that it isn't communist enough there in Britain, despite the howler chorus constantly reminding us that the UK is FAR to the left of the USA

FAR to the left

So far to the left that Americans don't know what socialism is, according to you howler trolls

Yet it's too capitalist now, to handle it's citizen's healthcare?

Seriously?

Here's the system you're looking for, I think: You need a strong leader to make it all work out. Don't you...

China’s rising authoritarianism has a stark human cost

I Heping spent his career trying to hold Chinese Communist Party officials accountable for their darkest behavior. He believed in an authority higher than the party — China’s own legal system. And for that, he suffered tremendously.

Since the late ’90s, Li, a 46-year-old human rights lawyer, had defended China’s most persecuted groups: dissidents, petitioners, victims of land grabs and forced demolitions, church leaders, practitioners of the banned spiritual group Falun Gong. Then came the “709” crackdown — named for July 9, 2015, the night it began — when authorities detained or interrogated more than 300 lawyers and their associates, including Li. They held Li without charge for nearly two years. And this May, they let him go — on the condition he remain silent.

“What my husband has gone through during that 22 months in jail was relentless, inhuman, perverted and unthinkable,” said his wife, Wang Qiaoling, 44, who has emerged as an outspoken advocate for rule of law amid her husband’s enforced silence. “The police will torture you till the edge of death, both physically and mentally.”

Since Chinese President Xi Jinping ascended to power in 2012, he has both amassed extraordinary power — analysts routinely call him China’s strongest leader since Mao Tse-tung — and ratcheted up repression to its highest levels since the early 1990s.

Wang Qiaoling is the wife of human rights lawyer Li Heping. (Fred Dufour/ AFP / Getty Images)
This week, a twice-a-decade Communist Party congress is almost certain to grant him another five-year term. Yet beyond the congress’ displays of pageantry and protocol — its chandeliers, identical black suits and long, turgid speeches — Li’s experience is a vivid reminder of the party’s propensity for maintaining its grip on power through violence and fear.

The Communist Party, under Xi, has introduced new, draconian legislation tightening control over religion, foreign non-governmental organizations and the internet. Xi’s sweeping anti-corruption drive has “punished” more than a million officials and suppressed competing party factions. He has repeatedly vowed to preside over a “national rejuvenation” — one that categorically rejects “Western values” such as democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech. The media has been neutered. Scores of lawyers, activists and journalists have been jailed...

MORE

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Very few people disagree about W.

The problem with Bannon isn't that he can't identify the problems (for most politicians, this has never been the problem), it's that he comes up with clumsy, ineffective or ethically repulsive solutions.

Shutting everything down isn't a solution, it's an act of aggression.

Focusing on dealing with the people who are profiting the most from globalization/cheap overseas labor, taxing them, penalizing them, imprisoning them, etc... and then putting the money to good use in terms of education, social programs, job creation, etc. is the way to go.

Blaming everything on 'the dirty Chinese', 'the dirty Mexicans', 'the dirty Muslims', 'the whiny liberals' and 'the selfish Europeans' is a nice simplistic way to sum up all the US's problems, but it's also a good way to completely destroy the social fabric of the entire country, and also the rest of the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Canada, Germany, Australia, the UK, Scandinavia... none of these countries have political organizations as vile and backwards as the GOP, and are better for it.
If Trump leads to a stronger left, that would be the one good thing about his presidency, but I don't see it happening... all I see is the compromise party acting weaker than ever before and refusing to change.

I believe if you do some research on this, you find this not to be true. It just so happens that the "vile and backwards" folks in those countries don't have enough money and power right now.

My guess is that this is because the societies they are living in don't support them with donations or votes.
I am not saying it is impossible for them to become the GOP for their respective countries, just that they aren't the GOP... and I think the local cultures have something to do with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
All of those countries have more social programs than the U.S. They also have much smaller, much less diverse populations, which lend themselves to more manageable (from a cost and logistical perspective) programs.

Take healthcare in the UK for example. As the UK's population has grown and become more diverse (gee I sound like Steve Bannon, but more eloquent). the healthcare system is starting to show signs of unraveling. I spent 3 weeks there this summer, and the news stories were about a doctor shortage. (Docs were leaving the country, and new docs out of med school were only practicing a short time in the UK and then leaving)

Part of what has made the UK's healthcare system manageable in the past, is that providers, mid-levels, AND Rn's make a boatload less in the UK than they do in the U.S. while having to see many more patients.

And BTW: I have said in my whitepapers on the subject that PART of the problem of the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is the income expectations of providers.

quote:


I don't know how you can claim that England or Canada don't have diverse populations.

quote:


Canada actually has the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the world.

quote:



You will have to explain to me why diversity and population size make public health care unsustainable because it seems to me that if more people are there to pay in, there will be more money available for treatments.

quote:


Still, if it's a choice between health care that I can afford and doing without because it would bankrupt me or ruin my credit score, I would still choose the former.
And if you are sure the UK system is failing, are you going to argue that the US system is an unqualified success?

quote:


I get that the UK and other public health care systems aren't perfect, but the issue here isn't whether they are perfect or not, it's whether they are better than what the US has now.

quote:


I also don't know how you get from 'socialized health care has problems of its own' to agreeing with a vision that basically amounts to 'fuck the rest of the world'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
OK. You are making an assumption that there are always more people to pay in. Therein lies the problem. When you have a population that is generally unhealthy, unskilled, or otherwise NOT contributing to society, you have a threat to sustainability.
And no, I am NOT pointing to ANY group of people in particular. I am making a general statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
As I said earlier, I support the principles wholeheartedly. Does that mean high tariffs, xenophobic immigration policies, and isolationism? Maybe, if you're Steve Bannon. That is where he and I diverge.

Generally speaking....
If we take our eye off the ball with regard to our own sustainability, our own society and social safety net start to erode.

If we maintain unfavorable trade policies, and do not restrict individuals who lack a potential to contribute to society, and instead simply draw from our social programs, we erode our ability to sustain these programs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
How did the Soviet Union last from WWI until Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev. Tear down this wall"??? (No I am not crediting Reagan) - Economic Nationalism. You could not get OUT of the Soviet Union, but you couldn't get IN either. In return, your government provided you with shitty housing and shitty healthcare for free.

Let's go back to the UK. Crappy income for providers and nurses is nothing new in the UK. It has been going on for decades. Still, the UK maintained its high quality healthcare system, and providers were more than happy to participate. The population was not very diverse, and was generally healthy. What changed? Lack of Economic Nationalism. Massive unvetted (from a merit (propensity to contribute) perspective, not a criminal one) immigration. First, from Eastern Europe, and then more recently from the Middle East. No, I am NOT saying anyone is a bad person. Nor am I blanketly saying that any group of people are bad. I am saying that, in addition to seeing patients that are generally healthy, providers now have to see extra patients who are not as healthy, and in some cases are unable to contribute very well to the tax base. All for the SAME low pay.

I am more than happy to debate what the optimal healthcare (or any other social) system should be in the U.S. in another thread. My point is... It makes no difference how far to the left or how far to the right it is. If we can't sustain it (i.e. More people are taking from it than contributing to it). It will fall apart.

I AM saying that we need to be mindful of our trade agreements and alliances (not blanketly withdraw from them).
AND
I AM saying that we need to build a merit-based immigration system (refugees exempted)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Face palm....

<rant>You ALL missed the point of my post. Every single time I try to have a discussion that is above ideological wars, it devolves into this. Bosco, I understand, but it's not just him. It is truly maddening. I enjoy the conversation with all of you, (Bosco, included), but the minute I walk away to spend time with my family, someone completely misses the point of my post and we are off into a left VS right bash war</rant>

I am on my phone and in the car now, but will try to clarify my post once I get to the central part of the state

smh

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

It seems to me the solution here would be to give them things like jobs, a clean environment, security, a good education, etc.

quote:


If you're not pointing to any specific group, then how does this connect to Economic Nationalism?

quote:


So the problem isn't that austerity has made local conditions more difficult for everyone, including the people who have lived there all their lives?

quote:


In times of economic hardship, everyone's health will suffer, and there will be fewer people paying into the system as well.

quote:


Economic Nationalism doesn't seem to concern itself with public vs private health care... it's more about blaming non-Americans for everything.

quote:


If the solution is to create jobs and stimulate the economy, Economic Nationalism is the LAST thing they need, as nothing destroys an economy faster than a trade war.

quote:


All I am seeing here is the argument that because times are tough, it's time to scream 'every man for himself!!'.

quote:


Who are these individuals who lack a potential to contribute to society?

quote:


Should we also do this for people who are already living in the country?

quote:


If there's a recession or even a depression because of all of this anti-globalist backlash, do we just start cutting people off because they can't get jobs or look after themselves properly?

quote:


How do you even determine someone's potential to contribute, seeing as they haven't actually proven themselves yet?

quote:


I know that Canada tends to favor high-skilled workers, but then after they arrive, they find their degrees are worthless, can't get jobs, and end up being pushed into low-skilled occupations.
I also know that Australia rejects potential immigrants who are obese.

I suppose you could say something along the lines of 'we already have more than enough dead weight here', and I'm not suggesting that criminals and terrorists and such be allowed in (though they might not be a drain on the health care system), but I also think that investing in immigrants can pay off in the following generations. It can't be a coincidence that a lot of successful entrepreneurs are immigrants-- they are less soft, more appreciative of the opportunities they've been given, often have a solid work ethic, etc.

I think the big problem is the wealth gap and general lack of economic mobility/opportunity.
'Economic Nationalism' will only exacerbate that problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
How did the Soviet Union last from WWI until Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev. Tear down this wall"??? (No I am not crediting Reagan) - Economic Nationalism. You could not get OUT of the Soviet Union, but you couldn't get IN either. In return, your government provided you with shitty housing and shitty healthcare for free.

Let's go back to the UK. Crappy income for providers and nurses is nothing new in the UK. It has been going on for decades. Still, the UK maintained its high quality healthcare system, and providers were more than happy to participate. The population was not very diverse, and was generally healthy. What changed? Lack of Economic Nationalism. Massive unvetted (from a merit (propensity to contribute) perspective, not a criminal one) immigration. First, from Eastern Europe, and then more recently from the Middle East. No, I am NOT saying anyone is a bad person. Nor am I blanketly saying that any group of people are bad. I am saying that, in addition to seeing patients that are generally healthy, providers now have to see extra patients who are not as healthy, and in some cases are unable to contribute very well to the tax base. All for the SAME low pay.

I am more than happy to debate what the optimal healthcare (or any other social) system should be in the U.S. in another thread. My point is... It makes no difference how far to the left or how far to the right it is. If we can't sustain it (i.e. More people are taking from it than contributing to it). It will fall apart.

I AM saying that we need to be mindful of our trade agreements and alliances (not blanketly withdraw from them).
AND
I AM saying that we need to build a merit-based immigration system (refugees exempted)

Canada, Australia, etc... already have a merit-based immigration system. I don't know about the UK.
However it doesn't make sense to me to have a merit-based immigration system while also slashing public services and making health care even less socialized.
So he is going to avoid letting the deadbeats in so they won't be able to get crap educations, work shitty jobs, eat junk food or go without a doctor?

And yes, updating trade agreements isn't something that I would ever argue against, but you can't just focus on your losses and proclaim a trade agreement a disaster.
The TPP might have resulted in manufacturing taking a hit, but the US also would have gained a significant foothold in an area that China will now probably come to dominate.

The worst of it is all of this 'the most powerful nation on Earth is a victim of the outside world' bullshit-- it's that fascist sense of persecution that the American right specializes in, especially when it comes to guns, immigrants, librul policies, racism, sexism, etc... only with the outside world as the enemy. I don't know how anyone can't hear echoes of pre-WWII Germany in such rhetoric.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

~FR~

Somebody here needs to get out more. Seriously.

If national healthcare is so inferior, then why are 30 out of 33 OECD countries doing it, and been at it for decades? And why is the that the cost of healthcare is 50% higher in the US than in any other country? And why, after that, do health outcomes in the US rank lower than in 5-12 other countries, depending on particular ailments treated? It's all in OECD and other national accounts data, as I have posted several times. Not that anybody was interested. Ideological saber rattling is the order of the day.

In other news, nobody else cares about "economic nationalism" because it makes no sense for them, fuck whatever political idiots in the US think. Do you think any other country is going to entertain the notion of mollycoddling the richest nation in the world? Please. BTW, the US is the richest nation in the world due to combination of size and a legal/regulatory regime which emphasizes channeling of wealth produced by the many to bank accounts of the few.

Everybody thinks of China when it comes to export/import, but the fact is that the US ranks second in total exports, and Germany is close behind in third place (and is a net exporter), -with only 27% of US population-. Why is that? It's because their education system is far superior in training those destined for the lower echelon jobs (thereby garnering a decent wage), and then having much lower cost higher education for the others. Across the board, they do a much better job in providing what economists call "human capital" to society than does the US, and it's not even close.

Did I just mention 'Society'? Something the US hasn't half a clue about? Well, there's that. A serious problem before we even get out of the blocks.

The conundrum comes about when we have all this noise, and more noise, about "nationalism" of any sort, economic or otherwise, --- from a nation (as these same protagonists would have it) of "rugged individuals."

Yeah, right.

Pay attention to the canyon-sized ideological discrepancy in play, here.

Carrying on; the US also ranks lowest or near-lowest in ratio of wages of the the lowest two percentiles to per capita GDP, -of all OECD countries-. That would be a surprise to 99% because the so-called "liberal media" absolutely despise workers and always have from the outset. Which is also why we are never informed that while national productivity increases every decade since 1950, real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) wages have been nearly flat-lined from early '70s onwards.

And now to this notion of something like "merit based" immigration. In the first place, every Mexican and Chinese and Eritrean and Indian and Madagascan et al. I see in everyday life are working their ass off at low wages. Most of them, anyway. Some few of them actually make good money. That's probably what pisses some people off.

So, what would be the "measure" in regards to "merit" regarding immigration? That they benefit the US by way of cheap labor (which is obviously the case), or by way of improving "human capital" (which is also obviously the case) by having all these Chinese practically taking over math departments in US universities? (My Chinese probability and statistics instructor and calculus instructor were up to the task, I had no issue, but it was funny in class sometimes).

It's true that import of more workers devalues the market value of workers in general, but it's also true, and more to the point, that the demand/supply thing only works, to some extent, in the realm of supply vs. consumption. How are we to say what is actually supplied vs, what is demanded when it comes to workers? We have all these rules and regulations to keep corporations from being in collusion when it comes to pricing. But not so when it comes to labor.

Walmart has what's described as "monopsony power," the counterpart to monopoly power, by way of their large-sized purchases. We have all these rules (sometimes loosely enforced) to prevent monopoly, but nothing in regard to monopsony.

So there it is with "supply of labor."

If the worker is applying for a job because of need for food/clothing/shelter, the employer automatically has monopsony power before it goes any further.

When the focus is on lowering cost of labor, which focus is incessant and utterly relentless in every US business school, lowering the value of labor by any means is front and center.

So here we are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Face palm....

<rant>You ALL missed the point of my post. Every single time I try to have a discussion that is above ideological wars, it devolves into this. Bosco, I understand, but it's not just him. It is truly maddening. I enjoy the conversation with all of you, (Bosco, included), but the minute I walk away to spend time with my family, someone completely misses the point of my post and we are off into a left VS right bash war</rant>

I am on my phone and in the car now, but will try to clarify my post once I get to the central part of the state

smh

This seems to happen with some frequency.

Option 1: Everyone but you is stupid.
Option2: You aren't being clear.

Just a thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

I read your post, Jaguar... really.
Maybe my responses were too subtle to register as rebuttals, or perhaps you are just expressing some infinitely complex thoughts beyond all comprehension.

I honestly have no idea, but your responses weren't at all interesting or clarifying, so I can't see much of a point in continuing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

I read your post, Jaguar... really.
Maybe my responses were too subtle to register as rebuttals, or perhaps you are just expressing some infinitely complex thoughts beyond all comprehension.

I honestly have no idea, but your responses weren't at all interesting or clarifying, so I can't see much of a point in continuing.

I appreciate you saying that you read it. However, you bring up concepts (and attribute them to me) that are nowhere in my post:

Trade Wars
Austerity
"Every man for himself"

You point out that I don't point to any group specifically, and then ask how my statement connects to Economic Nationalism.

All of which leads me to believe that you haven't really read (and comprehended) my post.

I apologize if I am incorrect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
~FR~

Somebody here needs to get out more. Seriously.

If national healthcare is so inferior, then why are 30 out of 33 OECD countries doing it, and been at it for decades? And why is the that the cost of healthcare is 50% higher in the US than in any other country? And why, after that, do health outcomes in the US rank lower than in 5-12 other countries, depending on particular ailments treated? It's all in OECD and other national accounts data, as I have posted several times. Not that anybody was interested. Ideological saber rattling is the order of the day.

In other news, nobody else cares about "economic nationalism" because it makes no sense for them, fuck whatever political idiots in the US think. Do you think any other country is going to entertain the notion of mollycoddling the richest nation in the world? Please. BTW, the US is the richest nation in the world due to combination of size and a legal/regulatory regime which emphasizes channeling of wealth produced by the many to bank accounts of the few.

Everybody thinks of China when it comes to export/import, but the fact is that the US ranks second in total exports, and Germany is close behind in third place (and is a net exporter), -with only 27% of US population-. Why is that? It's because their education system is far superior in training those destined for the lower echelon jobs (thereby garnering a decent wage), and then having much lower cost higher education for the others. Across the board, they do a much better job in providing what economists call "human capital" to society than does the US, and it's not even close.

Did I just mention 'Society'? Something the US hasn't half a clue about? Well, there's that. A serious problem before we even get out of the blocks.

The conundrum comes about when we have all this noise, and more noise, about "nationalism" of any sort, economic or otherwise, --- from a nation (as these same protagonists would have it) of "rugged individuals."

Yeah, right.

Pay attention to the canyon-sized ideological discrepancy in play, here.

Carrying on; the US also ranks lowest or near-lowest in ratio of wages of the the lowest two percentiles to per capita GDP, -of all OECD countries-. That would be a surprise to 99% because the so-called "liberal media" absolutely despise workers and always have from the outset. Which is also why we are never informed that while national productivity increases every decade since 1950, real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) wages have been nearly flat-lined from early '70s onwards.

And now to this notion of something like "merit based" immigration. In the first place, every Mexican and Chinese and Eritrean and Indian and Madagascan et al. I see in everyday life are working their ass off at low wages. Most of them, anyway. Some few of them actually make good money. That's probably what pisses some people off.

So, what would be the "measure" in regards to "merit" regarding immigration? That they benefit the US by way of cheap labor (which is obviously the case), or by way of improving "human capital" (which is also obviously the case) by having all these Chinese practically taking over math departments in US universities? (My Chinese probability and statistics instructor and calculus instructor were up to the task, I had no issue, but it was funny in class sometimes).

It's true that import of more workers devalues the market value of workers in general, but it's also true, and more to the point, that the demand/supply thing only works, to some extent, in the realm of supply vs. consumption. How are we to say what is actually supplied vs, what is demanded when it comes to workers? We have all these rules and regulations to keep corporations from being in collusion when it comes to pricing. But not so when it comes to labor.

Walmart has what's described as "monopsony power," the counterpart to monopoly power, by way of their large-sized purchases. We have all these rules (sometimes loosely enforced) to prevent monopoly, but nothing in regard to monopsony.

So there it is with "supply of labor."

If the worker is applying for a job because of need for food/clothing/shelter, the employer automatically has monopsony power before it goes any further.

When the focus is on lowering cost of labor, which focus is incessant and utterly relentless in every US business school, lowering the value of labor by any means is front and center.

So here we are.

I have no idea to whom you are replying. None of this has much to do with my post.