Sir Bandelot Posted July 13, 2009 Author Report Posted July 13, 2009 Much like the Catholic faith, Marxism is a condemnation of capitalism. The analogy ends, beyond that simplistic comparison. Quote
benny Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 You see Sir Bandelot, you have the idea that something is driven by profit. Believe me if something is driven by profit the people will run it out of town. the only reason it won't be is if government protects it. Otherwise people will use it's services. Anything that is driven by profit will fail. There must be a product or service supplied to society in order fo rit to sustain itself. It is only accountants and investors that are concerned about profit. But profit is only a measure of performance in the organizations delivery of it's goods and/or services in the satisfaction of consumers. If you want a business to die you must boycott it. The consumer determines it's profit. You are correct, the government does not run the health care system. It is the single payer to the health care system. It only redistributes the wealth. it balances cost with the taxpayers ability to pay. It is already attempting to restrict treatment. Doctors are calling for not treating those who engage in unhealthy lifestyles as some sort of solution to shortage of funds and lineups. Individual doctors should be able to determine who they will treat preferentially but in Canada they only have one payer so they cannot take this into their own hands. The government may legislate it. Did I say that the government micromanages healthcare? It has devised and legislated the structure and the financial monopoly of it. The Provincial governments do more of the managing of it than does the federal government. The point is that lack of any options precludes any concern for excellence because excellence cannot be determined without comparison. Those advocates of our healthcare system claim excellence but their concerns are obviously not about health care delivery but the system itself, and in comparison to other countries it fares rather poorly. Christian churches used to run healthcare systems before the "invisible hand" of liberal governments take them over. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted July 13, 2009 Author Report Posted July 13, 2009 The point is that lack of any options precludes any concern for excellence because excellence cannot be determined without comparison. Those advocates of our healthcare system claim excellence but their concerns are obviously not about health care delivery but the system itself, and in comparison to other countries it fares rather poorly. I think that is a mis-characterization. The health care system is something that everyone in the country uses, even politicians and doctors, and their families. It affects us all and I'm sure everyone wants it to do well. The government monitors the system, using international standards as benchmarks to see how well it is doing, in terms of response time and success of treatments, survival rates and so on. There is no reason to believe that Canada is not doing as well, or as badly as other countries. In fact our medical personnel are considered among the best in the world. In the end, its the skill of the medical staff that makes the system work or fail. Any such system where there are billions of dollars involved will come under criticism by groups who seek to make profit on it, by changing it to give themselves an advantage. As such we only hear about the bad news, not the millions of treatments that went well and were delivered in timely fashion. Of course, there are some significant problems and the system must be constantly scrutinized and adjusted. As such it will always be in a state of flux. Quote
Pliny Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 What does marxism have to do with it? Marxism primarily means constant revolution, to remove power from the elite so they cannot gain a foothold. Marxism does include socialism as its economic principle but it goes further beyond that, such as removing powers of ownership. Socialism does not require these things. People who confuse socialism with marxism and communism are simply confused. The rich elite want to make socialism a dirty word. Yet now ironically that the capitalist system has collapsed, of its own accord, we see the ideas of socialism raise again. Much to the horror and confusion of the misled capitalist public, no doubt. Yet the evidence remains that those northern European countries, and to some extent Canada have shown themselves better able to weather the economic storm. The problem is that our economies are tied to the US in many ways. When the big one goes down, we all get pulled down with it. The wise thing to do, is start to disconnect. Somebody cut the cord Communism is dead. Marxism is about revolution as you say. No revolution to install the State has been successful and will fail as soon as the guns are no longer trained upon it's citizens. Socialism is a progression towards the totalitarian state, Sir Bandelot. It is not stagnant. At what point should it become stagnant and not grow? That is the question. If we realize that the State is about force we must limit it to use force only against the criminal use of force or fraud. Not to engineeer society. You talk of the nordic countries as being socialist. They truly are. But successful? In what respect? Capitalism in other places needs to be apologized for but capitalism in Sweden is virtuous? Well, if I am correct and socialism is a progression towards totalitarianism then the Swedes should be about ready to revolt and either throw off the yoke of socialism or to install the totalitarian state. The people in Sweden are embroiled in doing each others laundry right now generally. That's my concept of it. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 I think that is a mis-characterization. The health care system is something that everyone in the country uses, even politicians and doctors, and their families. It affects us all and I'm sure everyone wants it to do well.The government monitors the system, using international standards as benchmarks to see how well it is doing, in terms of response time and success of treatments, survival rates and so on. There is no reason to believe that Canada is not doing as well, or as badly as other countries. In fact our medical personnel are considered among the best in the world. In the end, its the skill of the medical staff that makes the system work or fail. Any such system where there are billions of dollars involved will come under criticism by groups who seek to make profit on it, by changing it to give themselves an advantage. As such we only hear about the bad news, not the millions of treatments that went well and were delivered in timely fashion. Of course, there are some significant problems and the system must be constantly scrutinized and adjusted. As such it will always be in a state of flux. Yes we all want our healthcare system to do well and to be the best. Why do we have to maintain according to advocates of it's excellence, a 32nd slot in a 48 developed countries. Rather mediocre I would say. I am not saying that there are people that are evilly forcing mediocrity upon us all. I am saying that a State monopoly will never reach excellence. Our healthcare system is only financially socialized right now. It is a single payer system. It is has been determined that it is a violation of our rights to deny us the option to purchase medical services if we desire to. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted July 13, 2009 Report Posted July 13, 2009 Why do we have to maintain according to advocates of it's excellence, a 32nd slot in a 48 developed countries. Rather mediocre I would say. The Pope was certainly not concerned about Canada's ranking among other capitalist states! Quote
Pliny Posted July 14, 2009 Report Posted July 14, 2009 Learn more about Justice as fairness:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness Is affirmative action fair or just, both or neither? Is a graduated income tax fair or just, both or neither? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
kuzadd Posted July 14, 2009 Report Posted July 14, 2009 Yes we all want our healthcare system to do well and to be the best. Why do we have to maintain according to advocates of it's excellence, a 32nd slot in a 48 developed countries. Rather mediocre I would say.I am not saying that there are people that are evilly forcing mediocrity upon us all. I am saying that a State monopoly will never reach excellence. Our healthcare system is only financially socialized right now. It is a single payer system. It is has been determined that it is a violation of our rights to deny us the option to purchase medical services if we desire to. as opposed to a private system that will never reach excellence either? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
benny Posted July 14, 2009 Report Posted July 14, 2009 Is affirmative action fair or just, both or neither?Is a graduated income tax fair or just, both or neither? A political forum is not a free classroom. Quote
Pliny Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 as opposed to a private system that will never reach excellence either? Excellence would be the best in the world. Right now what's that, France? At least you can buy healthcare in France if you can and want. There is room for improvement in all. A monopolistic single payer system strives for mediocrity until it inexorably crumbles, as we are witnessing in Canada. If you want excellence it must come out of the concepts of many contributors and the experience of their successes and losses not the single unimaginative, unchallenged, mind of a committee or government study that looks only at saving costs through cuts in the delivery of it's service. We are all equal, aren't we? How can excellence be achieved when striving to rise to excellence is condemned. Can a white anglo-saxon protestant doctor achieve excellence? Sorry he has to take a back seat to sonmeone who can perhaps reach mediocrity. The only awards being handed out are that of excellence in dedicating oneself to the maintenance of mediocrity. Socialists call themselves "progressives" but never realize where are they progressing to - it's toward a bigger government with a bigger mouth to feed. And toward a solidity of law and social structure that would rival heaven - that vast unchangeable netherworld where only goodness resides. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 A political forum is not a free classroom. What are you doing here then? Not trying to teach me something are you? If you can't answer the questions just say so. You are the best at running topic tangents, benny. I think I will dub you "bentley" - A nice aristocratic ring to it as opposed to the proletarian sounding, benny, and more appropos doncha think? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 What are you doing here then? Not trying to teach me something are you? We should all defend ideas instead of asking questions and getting personal. Quote
kuzadd Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 Excellence would be the best in the world. Right now what's that, France? At least you can buy healthcare in France if you can and want. There is room for improvement in all. A monopolistic single payer system strives for mediocrity until it inexorably crumbles, as we are witnessing in Canada. If you want excellence it must come out of the concepts of many contributors and the experience of their successes and losses not the single unimaginative, unchallenged, mind of a committee or government study that looks only at saving costs through cuts in the delivery of it's service. We are all equal, aren't we? How can excellence be achieved when striving to rise to excellence is condemned. Can a white anglo-saxon protestant doctor achieve excellence? Sorry he has to take a back seat to sonmeone who can perhaps reach mediocrity. The only awards being handed out are that of excellence in dedicating oneself to the maintenance of mediocrity. Socialists call themselves "progressives" but never realize where are they progressing to - it's toward a bigger government with a bigger mouth to feed. And toward a solidity of law and social structure that would rival heaven - that vast unchangeable netherworld where only goodness resides. funny, pliny, can't see the obvious political ideology that is the font of your conversation, you couldn't even acknowledge the bush government roll in the banking disaster. though it is a fact! socialists and big government, is that what bush and harper were and are?? Look at how big government got under those two? Political idealogues are useless to talk to, they can only see things, anything, one way, with complete tunnel vision. Your ideology runs right and only right. You can't consider anything that is not in that doctrine, doctrine is indoctrination, you do realize that, right? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
benny Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 funny, pliny, can't see the obvious political ideology that is the font of your conversation, you couldn't even acknowledge the bush government roll in the banking disaster. though it is a fact!socialists and big government, is that what bush and harper were and are?? Look at how big government got under those two? Political idealogues are useless to talk to, they can only see things, anything, one way, with complete tunnel vision. Your ideology runs right and only right. You can't consider anything that is not in that doctrine, doctrine is indoctrination, you do realize that, right? This thread is about the Pope not about Pliny. Quote
kuzadd Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 This thread is about the Pope not about Pliny. you are right on that, but, a discussion with an ideologue is a wasted discussion. and actually this thread is more then about the pope it is about banking, and capitalism. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Pliny Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) funny, pliny, can't see the obvious political ideology that is the font of your conversation, you couldn't even acknowledge the bush government roll in the banking disaster. though it is a fact!socialists and big government, is that what bush and harper were and are?? Look at how big government got under those two? Political idealogues are useless to talk to, they can only see things, anything, one way, with complete tunnel vision. Your ideology runs right and only right. You can't consider anything that is not in that doctrine, doctrine is indoctrination, you do realize that, right? The Bush Administration played a role in the banking disaster. I don't think I haven't acknowledged that. I will say that when the Democrats took control of Congress they Barney Frank, Chris Dawd, and Nasty Pelosi really went to town. The Republicans didn't do a good job for sure. Al Greenspan and Ben Bernanke pumping things up didn't help either. I read an article recently, actually I think it was in Business Week, about Economists and how 80% of them didn't see the coming crisis. Ask any financial advisor and they will tell you no one saw it coming. Well, some did. So the question is of what value is an economics degree? You would think that those economists that were caught by surprise would start looking for another profession. But at the end of the article the author appeals to the same economists that missed the boat to tell him what is going on. You think I am an ideologue, do you? A right wing conservative ideologue? Looking at the contemporary political spectrum I would say I am right of almost all Canadians. I have a set of mores which could be defined as conservative but I don't feel mores are things that should be politicized they are a part of the fabric of the society and Government should not, in my opinion engage in defining the mores of the society it is contracted to protect. Anyway, I definitely have a vision for government and that is to keep it as small as possible. That means that the majority of people have to be honest. I think that the bigger the government, the less responsible the citizenry and the less responsible the citizenry the less honest they are. "Honest" may not be the word perhaps the less responsible the more disconnected from the effects of your activities. Sort of like corporations that leave polluted rivers by their factories. Very irresponsible and denying or not taking responsibility is dishonest - the disconnect I mentioned. You see Government is supposed to take care of externalities - damage caused to property by the activity of someone other than the owner - through justice. Dishing out fines does not make for unpolluted rivers and neither will a carbon tax so it is not justice. Is the govenrmnt going to shut down the auto industry because automobiles pollute? No, they never did. They had ample time to nip it in the bud but never did. Let's say, they ignored any vision of the future out of convenience. The less Government concerns itself with simple justice the less prescient it becomes as regards future forecasting which, in my view, it shouldn't be doing anyway. Edited July 15, 2009 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
kuzadd Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) The Bush Administration played a role in the banking disaster. I don't think I haven't acknowledged that. I will say that when the Democrats took control of Congress they Barney Frank, Chris Dawd, and Nasty Pelosi really went to town. The Republicans didn't do a good job for sure. Al Greenspan and Ben Bernanke pumping things up didn't help either. I read an article recently, actually I think it was in Business Week, about Economists and how 80% of them didn't see the coming crisis. Ask any financial advisor and they will tell you no one saw it coming. Well, some did. So the question is of what value is an economics degree? You would think that those economists that were caught by surprise would start looking for another profession. But at the end of the article the author appeals to the same economists that missed the boat to tell him what is going on. there were a surprising number of people out there who saw the disaster coming and warned of it. I can tell you I listen to a non-mainstream person, who laid it out over two years ago. then there was roubini, and Peter Schiff?? spelling? Others whose names are escaping me at this time. I also think these economists you make mention of willingly missed the boat, better to string the populace along, and to take as much money as you can before the boat capsizes. These economists may have been linked to the big banks as an example, where the interest would lie in covering up as long as possible. "So the question is of what value is an economics degree"? economics is not a science, it is really an ideology, or worse, a religion, with faithful followers, but a science, not by a long shot. Edited July 15, 2009 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
benny Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 and actually this thread is more then about the pope it is about banking, and capitalism. Banking and capitalism as conceived by this Pope. Quote
kuzadd Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 Banking and capitalism as conceived by this Pope. as opposed to banking and capitalism not conceived of by this pope ?? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
benny Posted July 15, 2009 Report Posted July 15, 2009 as opposed to banking and capitalism not conceived of by this pope ?? As opposed to other already opened topics on banking and capitalism rather. Quote
Pliny Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 there were a surprising number of people out there who saw the disaster coming and warned of it.I can tell you I listen to a non-mainstream person, who laid it out over two years ago. then there was roubini, and Peter Schiff?? spelling? Others whose names are escaping me at this time. I also think these economists you make mention of willingly missed the boat, better to string the populace along, and to take as much money as you can before the boat capsizes. These economists may have been linked to the big banks as an example, where the interest would lie in covering up as long as possible. You mean they're....gulp..evil? They were greedy and they knew but strung the populace along and it had ties to the big banks....AND the.....gulp....Vatican? "So the question is of what value is an economics degree"?economics is not a science, it is really an ideology, or worse, a religion, with faithful followers, but a science, not by a long shot. So you agree with the statement that an Economics degree is worthless? Basically, as the Business Week article stated, the value of an Economics degree should be questioned in light of the fact that no one saw the crisis coming and then they turn to the same Economists and ask.."Well, what's going to happen next?" A religion??...I think that's a bit of a stretch. I would call it more of a Philosophy. Educators are trying to make it a science with hardcore mathematical formulae to be able to predict economic trends but with the human factor needing to be included it makes it too unpredictable to fit a concise formulaic mold with any precision. Peter Schiff knew and so did the whole Austrian economic school know. How many have heard of Austrian Economic Theory. Even some Economists haven't and indeed... it has been called a "cult" by some who, like yourself, think of Economics as a religion. It seems a good way to marginalize anything these days...just label it a religion. In the mainstream media there was no one that I saw but Peter Schiff that was portrayed as seeing the crisis - oh... and Ron Paul was perhaps the only politician. Some, like John McCain warned about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but all was rosy in the mainstream and the forecasters of doom were just chicken littles. You may have found a few people who actually did see it because they have a propensity for being naysayers....the actual chicken littles; of which there is no shortage in any consideration of the future. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) So you agree with the statement that an Economics degree is worthless? Basically, as the Business Week article stated, the value of an Economics degree should be questioned in light of the fact that no one saw the crisis coming and then they turn to the same Economists and ask.."Well, what's going to happen next?"A religion??...I think that's a bit of a stretch. I would call it more of a Philosophy. Educators are trying to make it a science with hardcore mathematical formulae to be able to predict economic trends but with the human factor needing to be included it makes it too unpredictable to fit a concise formulaic mold with any precision. Peter Schiff knew and so did the whole Austrian economic school know. How many have heard of Austrian Economic Theory. Even some Economists haven't and indeed... it has been called a "cult" by some who, like yourself, think of Economics as a religion. It seems a good way to marginalize anything these days...just label it a religion. In the mainstream media there was no one that I saw but Peter Schiff that was portrayed as seeing the crisis - oh... and Ron Paul was perhaps the only politician. Some, like John McCain warned about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, but all was rosy in the mainstream and the forecasters of doom were just chicken littles. You may have found a few people who actually did see it because they have a propensity for being naysayers....the actual chicken littles; of which there is no shortage in any consideration of the future. The superiority of the Catholic religion over economic science is precisely that Catholic religion doesn't have to predict any crisis, it assumes humanity always live one and acts accordingly. Edited July 17, 2009 by benny Quote
Pliny Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 The superiority of the Catholic religion over economic science is precisely that Catholic religion doesn't have to predict any crisis, it assumes humanity always live one and acts accordingly. How very astute. The Catholic Church doesn't pretend to create jobs or make th economy strong...and - it doesn't tax it's members. It asks for donations. I think politicians and government should work more in the structural framework of a religion instead of a business. It isn't a business; it is closer to being a religion which is more dependent upon the people than a business. A business is more dependent upon serving society's needs and a religion is more about serving an individuals needs. So government should serve the citizen, the individual and not engineer society. A religion lays down the ground rules for society; as does government, but a business serves society. I don't know what do you think, benny? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 How very astute. The Catholic Church doesn't pretend to create jobs or make th economy strong...and - it doesn't tax it's members. It asks for donations. I think politicians and government should work more in the structural framework of a religion instead of a business. It isn't a business; it is closer to being a religion which is more dependent upon the people than a business. A business is more dependent upon serving society's needs and a religion is more about serving an individuals needs. So government should serve the citizen, the individual and not engineer society. A religion lays down the ground rules for society; as does government, but a business serves society. I don't know what do you think, benny? The superiority of the Catholic religion over business is that Catholic religion reveals instead of hiding what is behind and cause wasteful hyperactivity (i.e. business). Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 19, 2009 Report Posted July 19, 2009 I have to agree with the Pope, strange but true. Yet on the other hand I lay the responsibility at the feet of governments, not the bankers. Governments frame the regulations under which banks operate, they are "Chartered" by the governments to do business. Beyond taxes, and central banking, governments have determined that they should have the right to borrow money as they see fit and saddle the responsibility for paying these incurred debts to the public. There is mistake number one. The Pope seems to claim that ethics are in question and responsibility is absent. I must agree, yet in so doing I must suggest the we, the citizens have allowed our governments to perpetuate a system of economic slavery. I believe the true cause of our problems lie in the area of legislation and regulation relevant to the banking industry. The bank used to be the King or Queen of a nation and their treasury was the nations bank. When nations displaced monarchies they did not allow the new governments to act as the bank and control every aspect of society through financial leverage. An entire financial industry grew up as a result. Not hamstrung by governments, more available capital was accessible to the public and economies grew. They grew unchecked and the industry providing the money was to a great extent unregulated. Ever so slowly the banks were legislated into corners and regulated to provide protection to citizens and investors. Those efforts did little to solve financial problems as economies grow and contract subject to political realities. A final answer to the woes of finances was fractional reserve banking. Complete with central banking and international industry coordination and cooperation, the industry as it stands today is far more stable than it ever was. The price of doing this was very high to citizens and to a much larger extent governments. We now have an accumulated international debt that will in time see the net transfer of wealth from individuals and governments to corporations of banking interests. Allowing banks to "create" money in the form of credit has changed everything. Fiat currencies are the flavour of the day and they are no longer backed with assets, being brought into existence as interest bearing debt they are subject to numerous variables, not the least of which is consumer confidence. The Pope was right. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.