Friday, August 14, 2009

Hey There Obama (Drink the Kool Aid)

17 comments:

Christopher said...

The only people drinking kool-aid are those conservatards and libertards that talk about government "death panels" when there are already corporate death panels profiting from byzantinely complex requirements. Oh, yeah, but from a retards perspective that is okay, because it isn't "The Government". Garbage.

Josh said...

"The only people drinking kool-aid are those conservatards and libertards that talk about government "death panels""

That's a different type of kool-aid and propaganda. And yep, insurance companies already have the same type panels in place. And it is not okay. Health care in the US needs reform so control is place in the hands of the patient, not the government and not the insurance companies.

Christopher said...

Again, those libertards that think that the market will be a wonderful world of small businesses competing for patient dollars are living in a dream world. The very nature of an insurance company and health care institutions leads to big corporations. You can not have small insurance companies operating when one person getting a rare sickness could put them out of business or wipe out their profits. It is a simple fact, Josh. Big corps or gov. Take your pick.

Josh said...

"Again, those libertards that think that the market will be a wonderful world of small businesses competing for patient dollars are living in a dream world."

They don't think there's anything wonderful about it. They understand its simply reality. They understand that freedom is more valuable than welfare, they understand that freedom is not perfect, they understand that some may suffer more than others, but they understand that true justice can only exist within a free market and that no such utopia of health care will ever be provided by any government for any long period of time.

"The very nature of an insurance company and health care institutions leads to big corporations. You can not have small insurance companies operating when one person getting a rare sickness could put them out of business or wipe out their profits. It is a simple fact, Josh. Big corps or gov. Take your pick."

Actually, there is an alternative, you simply choose to ignore pre-1970 US health care.

Josh said...

Very similar to how you chose to ignore the increase in the standard of living in the US pre-1900, how you chose to ignore the increase in the standard of living in China, how you chose to ignore the severity of the problems created in our society by fiat currency. Also similar to how you ignore government subsidies causes booms and busts as well as how government regulations put small business owners out of business.

Christopher said...

"They don't think there's anything wonderful about it. They understand its simply reality. They understand that freedom is more valuable than welfare, they understand that freedom is not perfect, they understand that some may suffer more than others, but they understand that true justice can only exist within a free market and that no such utopia of health care will ever be provided by any government for any long period of time."

And almost none of them experienced the conditions that caused the red tide. NONE. They are spoiled, cynical brats of the baby boomers who think that their high wages are the result of the economy, when in reality they are the result of three generations of working class struggle.

"Actually, there is an alternative, you simply choose to ignore pre-1970 US health care."

I'm "ignoring" it because it was basically the same, but a bigger percentage of the population was uninsured. I also ignore it because prices were much lower and because doctors were much more moral. They lived by the Hippocratic oath, not the almighty dollar. Doctors that work on the corporate death panels are a disgrace.

"Very similar to how you chose to ignore the increase in the standard of living in the US pre-1900, how you chose to ignore the increase in the standard of living in China,"

I don't ignore it. I am implicitly arguing that

a) What the average Chinese worker makes today is not enough, that is it is a slave wage.
b) that wages will stay low in China if the workers do not or banned from organizing.

"how you chose to ignore the severity of the problems created in our society by fiat currency."

I think it is fairly irritating, but not even in the same ballpark as the gutting of the working class. That you spend so much time on this issue is simply an indication of the propagandistic nature of the department you are being "educated" in.

"Also similar to how you ignore government subsidies causes booms and busts as well as how government regulations put small business owners out of business."

Government exists. Government is part of the economy. Government can be part of the economy without being "THE GOVERNMENT". Get over it.

Josh said...

"They are spoiled, cynical brats of the baby boomers who think that their high wages are the result of the economy, when in reality they are the result of three generations of working class struggle."

Are you not a spoiled, cynical brat of the baby boomers who thinks that your high wages are the result of union laws when really they are the result of the working class struggle and the free market? . . .as you and I both make decent wages, Dad has always made decent wages, most of our extended family has made decent wages, without touching a union...

Josh said...

"I also ignore it because prices were much lower and because doctors were much more moral. They lived by the Hippocratic oath, not the almighty dollar. Doctors that work on the corporate death panels are a disgrace."

Indeed, so why not legislate an environment which fosters a better doctor-patient relationship while cutting down health care costs?

"a) What the average Chinese worker makes today is not enough, that is it is a slave wage. "

The individual earning the wage must think its a enough.

"b) that wages will stay low in China if the workers do not or banned from organizing."

Wages are continuing to increase though. I'm not familiar with Chinese union laws, but, as you know, I think organizing is certainly a right that should be protected, however individuals should not be forced into unions.

"Government exists. Government is part of the economy. Government can be part of the economy without being "THE GOVERNMENT". Get over it."

Again, you ignore.

Christopher said...

"Indeed, so why not legislate an environment which fosters a better doctor-patient relationship while cutting down health care costs?"

Because that type of reform will leave tens of millions uninsured.

"The individual earning the wage must think its a enough."

You mean that a little bit better than chaos is all that wage earners have to look forward to while the capitalists gobble up all the profits?

"Wages are continuing to increase though. I'm not familiar with Chinese union laws, but, as you know, I think organizing is certainly a right that should be protected, however individuals should not be forced into unions."

They should be if they want to work at a factory that already has a union. Individuals should not be able to cynically undercut the solidarity of other workers, which is what has happened in the United States. The corporations have pitted worker against worker, paid certain workers to oppose the union. The capitalist running dogs should not have the power, and elections, since this is an economic sphere, not a public sphere, should be public. If a worker wants to be a corrupt hand puppet of management the other workers should be able to know about it.

"Again, you ignore."

I'm not ignoring anything. The worst excesses of government assailing liberty have always come from the right. McCarthy, union busting, Patriot Act, Homeland security.. Bluedogs, Republicans, and libertards lending their legitimacy.

Josh said...

"Because that type of reform will leave tens of millions uninsured."

Those who would be uninsured in a competitive environment would not be 10s of millions. There will be some though and they will be left to depend on others who choose to help them.

"You mean that a little bit better than chaos is all that wage earners have to look forward to while the capitalists gobble up all the profits?"

What wage earners should hope for is to earn enough to live a good life and a bit extra to save for a rainy day or to pass on to their next generation. This built up capital is the fuel that runs an economy; its the fuel the US currently doesn't have. Its the fuel that is pushing the Chinese economy to the center of the world.

"They should be if they want to work at a factory that already has a union. Individuals should not be able to cynically undercut the solidarity of other workers"

So you support physically intervening an individual's free will? There's nothing cynical about it. If the union provides a better situation for workers, than the union has nothing to worry about.

"The corporations have pitted worker against worker, paid certain workers to oppose the union. The capitalist running dogs should not have the power, and elections, since this is an economic sphere, not a public sphere, should be public. If a worker wants to be a corrupt hand puppet of management the other workers should be able to know about it."

No doubt corporations have tried this, but in the long run, if unions do provide more to workers, than the unions would win out (but in the long run we're all dead, right?). Protecting a worker's right to choose not to be part of the union, to choose to leave the union while keeping his employment, would force union leaders to be held more accountable to its members.

"The worst excesses of government assailing liberty have always come from the right. McCarthy, union busting, Patriot Act, Homeland security.. Bluedogs, Republicans, and libertards lending their legitimacy."

Yea, Roosevelt never put any Japanese-Americans in concentration camps eh? And wasn't it Carter that introduced the original FISA bill? How about Wilson's oppression of opposers to the war state? His oppression of German-Americans and their culture? His signing into law the income tax which had not properly been ratified by the number of states required under the constitution? And his allowing of the banks to form a government legislated cartel?

Democrats have their own demons.

Christopher said...

"Those who would be uninsured in a competitive environment would not be 10s of millions. There will be some though and they will be left to depend on others who choose to help them."

Again, the small company utopia you allude to is not possible with health insurance, because the costs of sick people often outstrip profits. HMOs are big, and even they have to set up death panels to make a buck. What makes you think that small insurance companies are going to fare or do anything different?

"You mean that a little bit better than chaos is all that wage earners have to look forward to while the capitalists gobble up all the profits?"

"What wage earners should hope for is to earn enough to live a good life and a bit extra to save for a rainy day or to pass on to their next generation. This built up capital is the fuel that runs an economy; its the fuel the US currently doesn't have. Its the fuel that is pushing the Chinese economy to the center of the world."

=

I agree, the the fuel of capitalism is wage slavery. I agree, philosophies that support capitalism have nothing better to say than:

"What wage earners should hope for is to earn enough to live a good life and a bit extra to save for a rainy day or to pass on to their next generation."

WELL FUCK THAT. THE LAST 70 YEARS PROVES YOU WRONG. THERE IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE>>>>

"So you support physically intervening an individual's free will? There's nothing cynical about it. If the union provides a better situation for workers, than the union has nothing to worry about."

Economics is not about "free will". And, yes, if you want to work for a company that is unionized, you don't have the right to enjoy the benefits of the union without paying your dues. You don't have the right to enjoy the high wage that you DIDNT FIGHT FOR.

"No doubt corporations have tried this, but in the long run, if unions do provide more to workers, than the unions would win out (but in the long run we're all dead, right?). Protecting a worker's right to choose not to be part of the union, to choose to leave the union while keeping his employment, would force union leaders to be held more accountable to its members."

That worker has the right to find another job in a non-unionized industry. But that's the rub, eh! Non-unionized industry pays less. Workers who want to benefit from the union, but not pay their dues are parasites. They want to eat their cake and have it too.

"Yea, Roosevelt never put any Japanese-Americans in concentration camps eh? And wasn't it Carter that introduced the original FISA bill?"

Good thing I'm not a democrat and that I think that Carter was economically left-of-center, not left, and that Roosevelt was fight to save capitalism, which makes him right. He pretty much said so. Therefore, I'm not all impressed. Overall, the worst assaults on liberty always come from the right, at least in the context of democracy. Stalin is another great example. He was a right-wing, authoritarian piece of shit when compared to his fellow Bolsheviks. His subsequent murdering is thus no surprise. It was a direct attack on liberty and a naked power grab.

Josh said...

"the small company utopia you allude to is not possible with health insurance"

I allude to no utopia.

The world is imperfect, people are imperfect.

"is not possible with health insurance, because the costs of sick people often outstrip profits."

Thats not true. You could say the same thing for every other form of insurance.

The only real argument you'll ever have for government health insurance is that you think an individual has a "right" to health care. Stop making up other reasons.

"What makes you think that small insurance companies are going to fare or do anything different?"

I'm not sure they would. All I'm saying is that the government needs to back out of health care and stop subsidizing these HMOs. The one thing that the federal government can do to increase competition in health insurance and lower costs, is allow residents in one state to purchase insurance from a company that is located in another state. As congress does have the authority to keep commerce regular, they can force states to nullify laws which prevent citizens from purchasing insurance out of state. If this all leads to smaller insurance companies, than that means people WANT smaller insurance companies.

"I agree, the the fuel of capitalism is wage slavery"

Thats not what I said. I said savings is what fuels economies. "Wage slavery" is a made up term that has no meaning. As economies grow, wages grow. Slavery is something physically forced on an individual. Wage slavery only came about because a situation forced people to work for lower wages than what we experience in the west. So then...people are slaves to the situation, are they not? Not to any particular person. Isn't that true for all of us? And the wealthier we are the more in control of our situation we are...so in the beginnings of a free market economy, most people will have less choice for employment, because they are poor, but this choice will increase on its own as savings and wages increase. So you want an economy which continues to increase the standard of living for everyone, and that is happening in China right now. I'd think that if I was a Chinese worker, and my standard of living has increased substantially from 20 years ago, then I'd be pretty happy, and hope that policies are in place which allow this trend to continue. Did you know auto sales in China are up 70% this year? So much for depending on the US consumer for growth...production across the board in Southeast Asia is up even as consumer spending in the US is down. Increases in consumer spending in China has been more than enough to makeup for lost consumer spending in the US.

Josh said...

"Economics is not about "free will"."

Economics is about free will and government using physical force to make people do what they otherwise wouldn't do had they had free will. To understand economics, you have to understand what how the economy would work in a society that protects free will versus a society in which government violently intervenes.

"And, yes, if you want to work for a company that is unionized, you don't have the right to enjoy the benefits of the union without paying your dues. You don't have the right to enjoy the high wage that you DIDNT FIGHT FOR."

Well, you'd have the right to enjoy the agreed upon benefits with your employer. But no, you can't force a union to provide you with their benefits while not paying dues, that's just stupid.

"Good thing I'm not a democrat and that I think that Carter was economically left-of-center, not left, and that Roosevelt was fight to save capitalism, which makes him right. He pretty much said so. Therefore, I'm not all impressed. Overall, the worst assaults on liberty always come from the right, at least in the context of democracy. Stalin is another great example. He was a right-wing, authoritarian piece of shit when compared to his fellow Bolsheviks. His subsequent murdering is thus no surprise. It was a direct attack on liberty and a naked power grab."

I love it. You use all republican examples to prove how the right destroy individual liberties, and then when its shown that democrats do the same, suddenly democrats all on the right even though the left wing are the ones that elect democrats, support democrats and provide democrats their legitimacy. In your world everything good the government does is left wing, and everything bad the government does is right wing. Lol. Please, which right wing policies did Castro, Chavez, and Mao put in place?

And I also love how violent control of the people (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and probably Kim Jong Il) are always associated with the RIGHT. The left are not violence, violence is a RIGHT-WING policy. Therefore anything that is remotely right-wing is violent and extreme! Even though taking state control of everything has nothing to do with anything I believe, I get thrown into this generic direction with evil dictators. LOL. This is what your poli-sci profs taught you in university?

Christopher said...

"Economics is about free will and government using physical force to make people do what they otherwise wouldn't do had they had free will. To understand economics, you have to understand what how the economy would work in a society that protects free will versus a society in which government violently intervenes."

Heavens no. Economics is about the management of the household. That is what it means:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=economy&searchmode=none

Thus, modern economics is about the modern MANAGEMENT of households.

"Well, you'd have the right to enjoy the agreed upon benefits with your employer. But no, you can't force a union to provide you with their benefits while not paying dues, that's just stupid."

Yeah, well, the employer will offer you the union rate or a bit lower to undercut the union, make them too expensive. That is why card check is essential, because one's workplace is not the same as voting for a politician. Voting for a politician can be private and no one is directly affected. At your workplace that is not so.

"I love it. You use all republican examples to prove how the right destroy individual liberties, and then when its shown that democrats do the same, suddenly democrats all on the right even though the left wing are the ones that elect democrats, support democrats and provide democrats their legitimacy."

Ah, no. The democrats are not left from a Marxist perspective. And, no, I am not a democrat. I simply listed far-right examples because they are the easiest.

I would never vote for a democrat.

"In your world everything good the government does is left wing, and everything bad the government does is right wing. Lol. Please, which right wing policies did Castro, Chavez, and Mao put in place?""

Policies? None. Instead, it is their expression of power that is right-wing. Mao and Castro seized power in the name of the proletariat and peasant classes, yet they did not institute meaningful democratic/liberal power structures. Instead, they instituted the same old top-down, centralized, authoritarian government that is characterized by the far right, Kings and Queens respecting paleoconservatives. Christians are just another form. Even academia, with all its left-wing intellectuals is an example of a right-wing, top-down expression of power.

Chavez has the votes of the people on his side. Independent observers corroborate it, so just because you dont like the decision of the majority in Venezuela, doesn't mean it is somehow illegitimate. For example, Stalin murdered all of his fellow Bolsheviks and rigged the elections. Chavez is not the same.
They booted Zelaya out of Honduras for this reason. He wanted to conduct a non-binding (plebicite) vote on term limits which was totally constitutional. They booted him because they knew the people would vote for it and that the elections would be legitimate.

Josh said...

"Thus, modern economics is about the modern MANAGEMENT of households."

Thats scratching the surface. The economy is so much more than just the household. Its about human action.

"Yeah, well, the employer will offer you the union rate or a bit lower to undercut the union, make them too expensive. "

Well, if everyone in the union is willing to take a pay cut to avoid working for the union, what does that tell you?

I don't think that would happen though. I think the union would need to become more competitive and more responsive to its membership, but it would still exist. An organized labour force will always have more power than the individual when dealing with an employer, but the individual should still have choice.

"That is why card check is essential, because one's workplace is not the same as voting for a politician. Voting for a politician can be private and no one is directly affected. At your workplace that is not so."

Well, the politician is directly affected, does that mean the politician has the right know who you voted for? lol. That's a retarded argument. And other employees aren't even DIRECTLY affected if I choose not to be a member of a union. Its an indirect affect, and my wage is noone's business but mine and the person giving it to me, which is another reason my choice of membership to a union should be a free choice.

"I would never vote for a democrat."

Fortunately, the world doesn't revolve around you, and the left does provide legitimacy to the democrats.

"Chavez has the votes of the people on his side. Independent observers corroborate it, so just because you dont like the decision of the majority in Venezuela, doesn't mean it is somehow illegitimate."

Never did I say Chavez was illegitimate.

"Policies? None. Instead, it is their expression of power that is right-wing. Mao and Castro seized power in the name of the proletariat and peasant classes, yet they did not institute meaningful democratic/liberal power structures. Instead, they instituted the same old top-down, centralized, authoritarian government that is characterized by the far right, Kings and Queens respecting paleoconservatives. Christians are just another form. Even academia, with all its left-wing intellectuals is an example of a right-wing, top-down expression of power."

This is my point. Physical force by government is be default right wing in your world, and peace, butterflies and cotton candy is left. Even though physical force has nothing to do with the philosophies I believe in which are considered right wing, but has everything to do with the philosophies you believe in. Everything you believe requires the use of physical force against the people. This is why the left-right paradigm is inherently false. It serves no academic purpose. Its a broad stroke, a generalization that serves as propaganda and ignores the truth.

Christopher said...

"Thats scratching the surface. The economy is so much more than just the household. Its about human action."

That is its original meaning, Josh. Investment comes later. People have bought and traded with little innovation for centuries, and this is why a majority of the economy is legitimate consumption.

"Well, if everyone in the union is willing to take a pay cut to avoid working for the union, what does that tell you?"

That tells me that many people have been brainwashed. That they think the high wages are natural and that the union has nothing to do with wages being so high, which is absurd.

"I don't think that would happen though. I think the union would need to become more competitive and more responsive to its membership, but it would still exist. An organized labour force will always have more power than the individual when dealing with an employer, but the individual should still have choice."

I am totally for the union being able to do what it wants internally. Card check, independence, rank-and-file voting. Those morons at the Toyota plants down South are a prime example of the brainwashed benefiting from 3 generations of union struggle. They make 40 bucks an hour, BECAUSE Toyota wanted make sure the wages they paid were somewhat near union wages. IDIOTS>

"Well, the politician is directly affected, does that mean the politician has the right know who you voted for? lol."

No, the politician is trying to gain public power, which is immense.

"That's a retarded argument. And other employees aren't even DIRECTLY affected if I choose not to be a member of a union."

Yes, yes they are. If you take less money and work harder, that causes a stronger employer. When a strike comes, you can keep working, while everyone else fights for your relatively high wages.

"Its an indirect affect, and my wage is noone's business but mine and the person giving it to me, which is another reason my choice of membership to a union should be a free choice."

Nope. If you want to enjoy the benefits of union wages, you should join the union. It is a pretty fucking basic courtesy. And if you don't, you should find a non-union job that pays comparable wages. Ah! But those don't exist! The union wage is always higher!

"This is my point. Physical force by government is be default right wing in your world, and peace, butterflies and cotton candy is left. Even though physical force has nothing to do with the philosophies I believe in which are considered right wing, but has everything to do with the philosophies you believe in. Everything you believe requires the use of physical force against the people. This is why the left-right paradigm is inherently false. It serves no academic purpose. Its a broad stroke, a generalization that serves as propaganda and ignores the truth."

I think the 13 colonies used force, if I am not mistaken..

Josh said...

"That is its original meaning, Josh. Investment comes later. People have bought and traded with little innovation for centuries, and this is why a majority of the economy is legitimate consumption."

Not in an economy that's growing in a sustainable way. You cannot consume more wealth than you produce and expect that the economy will grow forever. I don't care about the original, the economy is represented by every human action.

"That tells me that many people have been brainwashed. That they think the high wages are natural and that the union has nothing to do with wages being so high, which is absurd."

People would take a paycut to leave the union because they think high wages are natural? I'm sorry..expand on that seemingly irrational and illogical statement. That reason wouldn't seem rational for any individual to take a pay cut. Could you imagine "yep, i'm gonna leave this union and make less money because high wages are natural..i'll show them!" LOL.

"They make 40 bucks an hour, BECAUSE Toyota wanted make sure the wages they paid were somewhat near union wages. IDIOTS>"

I'm not going to argue with you what wages would be or would not be if unions weren't allowed an unfair advantage which forced on employers by the government. You can only reference the 19th century to describe how bad it would be, but even in the 19th century the american worker was the highest paid and most productive worker in the world. To argue that there would be violent riots ignores that economies evolve and business practices change , on their own. Businesses benefit from their employees earning a decent wage, everyone that goes through business school is taught this. It has nothing to do with unions.

"Yes, yes they are. If you take less money and work harder, that causes a stronger employer."

Which is an INDIRECT affect to other employees.

"When a strike comes, you can keep working, while everyone else fights for your relatively high wages."

I've obviously decided I'm living a pretty good life on my wage and don't see the point. Get over it. Let me live my life.

"It is a pretty fucking basic courtesy."

Courtesies are extended by choice.

"And if you don't, you should find a non-union job that pays comparable wages. Ah! But those don't exist! The union wage is always higher!"

And most unions are driving their businesses into the ground; any that aren't provided labour to government institutions whose cost of services are always increases faster that the CPI (education, health care, etc).

There's a reason why employees that work for companies like Google, RIM, and Poly Cello don't want unions. We like our jobs, and we like our wages. We don't want a union to fuck it up and force our employers to ship work over seas.

"I think the 13 colonies used force, if I am not mistaken.."

Not sure what that has to do with my point. But anyway, noone claims the 13 colonies were saints; I am curious to know which example you're citing though.