Meet Barack Hussein Mugabe

[Felch]

Originally posted by Agathon
The US spends more than anyone else, and you yourself agreed that you get **** for it. The other developed countries spend much less and get much better results.

There are a lot of experimental treatments that go on in the US. The poor get shafted, but the rich get fantastic treatment. The fantastic treatment that the rich get gradually becomes available to more and more people. In other words, we pay a lot more, but make most of the discoveries in modern medicine. Then the other developed countries freeload off of us, just like they do with defense spending. It's not worse, it's just different.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Here I disagree with you. I think that in the end, the rich will have to pay up too.

I think this is not a good bet. The wealthy class have mounted a massive campaign to repeal the New Deal. Grover Norquist has himself stated IIRC that his goal is to roll back things to the way they were before Roosevelt (and he means Teddy, not FDR) and that his method is to run up the deficit so that social democratic programs will have to be cut.

edit: rather it's part of the argument. The other part is that if the economy suffers recessions/depressions b/c of the ridiculous debt load we continue to rack up, the rich are going to lose too. Even the most responsible people will go down with the ship.

Why do you say that? The wealthy have hundreds of years of practice at shuffling money and wealth around to prevent it being seized in such situations. On the whole the wealthy do not bear the load when things go bad (unless there's a successful revolt). Just look at history. As it happens, the rich seem constantly to choose to preserve their relative wealth in society over their absolute wealth.

It's all academic anyway. Global Climate change is going to kill a shedload of people and there will probably be more than a few nasty wars in the next half century and more than likely a nuclear exchange or two. We had our chance, we learned nothing, and all indications are that we've already blown it. Our species doesn't seem capable of organizing itself in such a way so as to prevent mass catastrophes (but then again apex predators often suffer from this problem).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Felch

There are a lot of experimental treatments that go on in the US. The poor get shafted, but the rich get fantastic treatment. The fantastic treatment that the rich get gradually becomes available to more and more people. In other words, we pay a lot more, but make most of the discoveries in modern medicine. Then the other developed countries freeload off of us, just like they do with defense spending. It's not worse, it's just different.

How many times does this story have to be debunked?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
How is "it pretty much sucks, but it's the least of the evils" constitute a mental contortion?

-Arrian

Because when the least of all evils is not sufficient to avoid catastrophe, there is no point in having the least of evils other than to buy some time. Democracy actually works OK in small states with a social democratic consensus and little weight to throw around. For example, the Nordic countries, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada. etc.

That's because it's pretty good at solving problems in relatively egalitarian societies where domestic concerns are all that the government can really deal with. This of course is under threat by globalization (and is the chief reason for the anti-globalist riots and so on).

But democracy is hopeless for dealing with international issues. The conceit has always been that democracies aren't aggressive and that the people can check the aggressive moves of their leaders. I don't see how anyone can reasonably believe that any more. People just don't care enough about international issues (whereas they do care about their mortgages). Thus leaders can commit war crimes and violate civil rights as long as they keep the mob happy. There are plenty of authoritarians to cheer them on, and people will only tend more that way as insecurity rises.

The problem is that the international arena is where all the risk is. We can't even deal with climate change because of voter intransigence. Democracies have sleepwalked into catastrophe before, and will do so again, but this time the stakes are much higher. Barring some miracle, this century will make the last one look like paradise.

Of course people will cling to hope (and will be supported by our culture industries which endlessly promote this meme), but it is deeply irrational, and that's the whole problem.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And AS gave you reasons what he thinks is the proper function of the Federal Government with what benefits and negatives there is to federal action.

He gave a vaguer version of the same reason I did, and provided nothing to counter the evidence I put forth (as I said, a sample is pointless when you have the whole enchilada). It's almost as if he didn't read the thread. Hence my displeasure.

[Patroklos]

How many times does this story have to be debunked?

Shall I post the top 100 world medical universties for both research and education yet again?

[DinoDoc]

Why do people bother trying to give substantive answers to Agathon's posts?

[rah]

1. The rich have been paying to support this country from the begining of time. The rich acount for what... about 95% of non-business tax revenue. So when you say that debt is going to be paid by our children, you're right but it's going to be paid for by the RICH children since the rich are the biggest contributers. The poor can't pay more since they've never paid in the first place.
2. The poor have been voting for Dems forever because they promise them more (taken from the wealthy) They're not voting Democratic from feeling that the Democrats are going to save the world or are even better for it. They're voting that way because of bread and circuses.
3. I have never said that DEMOCRACY is the end all greatest thing. Personally I think a benevolent dictatorship is better but it usually only works out good for one generation. But Democracy is better than most of the alternatives over the long run. I like a system where power can be handed over without guns and killing involved.
4. Granted any process where you let people that can't count to 10 play any part in policy making just seems silly, but tell me what you'd replace it with.

Yeah back in college I voted for what I thought would save the world, But that's before I was paying for it.
We can still let the young be our conscious. But when it comes down to it, people are going to vote self interest. It's our right under a democracy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah

We can still let the young be our conscious. But when it comes down to it, people are going to vote self interest. It's our right under a democracy.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Shall I post the top 100 world medical universties for both research and education yet again?

Shall I point out that nothing prevents this from occurring under a socialized system that allows private supplementary insurance (rich people could fund such things). But it doesn't matter.

In fact, it's not true, so it is irrelevant.

This myth has come up again in recent years regarding prescription drugs

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7522/958#TBL1

On several measures, other developed countries spend proportionately as much as the US on research and development. The table presents the spending on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product for eight developed countries.14 The US is about at the median. Prices in the countries with better ratios than the US were 31-36% less than those in the US.15 Pharmaceutical companies commit as large a percentage of sales to research and development in Europe as in the US, about 19% on average over the past seven years.9 13 This little reported fact contradicts the widely circulated claims that European countries deliberately ignore research and development costs in calculating prices

Contrary to claims of American dominance, pharmaceutical research and development in the US has not produced more than its proportionate share of new molecular entities. The US accounts for just under 48% of world sales and spent 49% of the global total on research and development to discover 45% of the new molecular entities that were launched on the world market in 2003, less than its proportionate share. European countries account for 28% of world sales, 36% of total research and development spending, and 32% of new molecular entities, more than its proportionate share.13

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7522/958/TBL1

Consider yourself schooled... again.

[Arrian]

Why do you say that? The wealthy have hundreds of years of practice at shuffling money and wealth around to prevent it being seized in such situations. On the whole the wealthy do not bear the load when things go bad (unless there's a successful revolt). Just look at history. As it happens, the rich seem constantly to choose to preserve their relative wealth in society over their absolute wealth.

Keep in mind I'm arguing in terms of self-interest - rah's and mine. We're not super rich. We're well off. And our group WILL get ****ed.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Keep in mind I'm arguing in terms of self-interest - rah's and mine. We're not super rich. We're well off. And our group WILL get ****ed.

-Arrian

What can you actually do about it?

[Arrian]

Because when the least of all evils is not sufficient to avoid catastrophe, there is no point in having the least of evils other than to buy some time.

That's not an argument for another system, though. One can accept that and still think democracy is the best we've got. Maybe we'll buy enough time that we come up with something better.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon

What can you actually do about it?

The best I can do is to use my vote to chose politicians who will use some lube. That's the best any of us can do.

Anyway, I get that you are deeply pessimistic and you don't think democracy works. In that case, why bother to get in the middle of a debate rah and I are having over who we should vote for? You think the vote is meaningless.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

That's not an argument for another system, though. One can accept that and still think democracy is the best we've got. Maybe we'll buy enough time that we come up with something better.

-Arrian

Like what? Keep in mind you have maybe 50 years to convert most of the developed world to this system.

What can you realistically do?