Being protectionist is not the same as being nationalist, you're confusing the two. As you said, free trade is not the panacea for everything and sometimes protectionist measures are needed in order to correct imbalance or distortions in the market. If a trading partner is artificially deflating prices, then protectionist measures are called for. If they are exporting sub-standard products or ones with high external (ie. social or environmental) costs, then protectionist measures are called for. Anything related to international trade that the market itself cannot manage basically called for some sort of measure to restrict it and control it; it is self-delusional to think otherwise.
Where did you get that idea? In the UK the trains are limited to 125mph because of *signalling*. The GWML for example was built extremely well (by Brunel over 170 years ago no less) and is capable of speeds of 140mph and over. The problem is telling the trains when to stop and slow down. The proposed project to electrify the Great Western Main Line would also introduced in-cab signalling which would make the higher speeds a reality.
It's like all those doctors that testify on behalf of the drug companies. There is a reason why the law now requires big pharma to disclose how much money they are paying doctors in speaking fees.
Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 1
While what you are saying may be true, we're talking about software patents here, and not about trademarks. Please try to keep up.
There is a reason that almost all roads are now public. Shared infrastructure is the only model that works efficiently. To sum it up, you're a ideologue and your ideology when taken to extreme isn't only flawed, but dangerous. Just because your concept works in a specific setting doesn't mean you can generalize it to everything.
The good thing about a having a democracy is that government should be subservient to the citizenry. What government does and how it does it should be answerable to everybody.
Without an effective government, the power vacuum will definitely be filled one way or the other, and almost certainly by organizations which are less transparent than government. The lack of government isn't the answer; the question is how to ensure good government.
It's the same type of argument as "if you don't like the FDA, you can leave the US". What kind of argument is that? We are the ones that are supposed to control and oversee government. That is the core idea of a democratic form of government!
See my post above. MPs should seriously reconsider their operations model in the internet age. They need to be savvy and know how to use things like email filters to group and sort form submitted email and set up methods in which people that do submit these emails can voice their opinion and have a meaningful debate with his or her constituents on the issue.
Our ageing model of representative democracy needs to embrace change. As people are more connected and instant communications easier, we are edging towards a more direct model of representation. Politicians need to acknowledge that and make do as opposed to pushing back.
And your point is? Democracy isn't cheap. There will always be low value communications, but and most people agree that that is a valid (but maybe not the most preferable) method of voicing support or disapproval of an issue to your MP. The issue here is that the MP stopped publishing his email so his other constituents would lose email access to their MP.
The previous reply hits the nail on the head. What MPs should be doing is to find ways of managing this, either by managing email in a much better fashion, or to divert such requests to a site in which meaningful data can be gathered. He or she can even arrange a short question session to address the concerns of all these people at once so that individual responses to form letters can be avoided.
And your point is? Email from these pressure groups are in no way invalid if they are from his constituents. Just because a Tory politician doesn't agree with the stance taken by pressure groups such as 38 degrees, doesn't give him the right to withdraw a valuable communications channel to his constituents. You can be sure that if those emails are in support of the MPs pet project, he would be openly inviting more email correspondence.
Most people in the UK have a GP (ie. a family doctor) which is paid for by the NHS and those with health insurance (many large employers provide this) go private only on specialist procedures.
In fact, usually the same surgeons performs the same surgery in the same hospital with the same staff. It's just that they get a better room and get to jump the queue. Instead of being paid by the government, these procedure are reimbursed by the insurance companies. This "dual" system has the side effect of making private medical insurance extremely affordable, but insurance companies still do it, as there is some money to be made.
Some providers have completely private facilities for everything, from frontline services to specialist procedures (eg. BUPA). However, this is uncommon and only a relatively small proportion of the population are enrolled in these plans. The reason? NHS care is very well regarded by the British and is found to be generally good despite the problems with some parts of the system. Any political party that campaigns on breaking up the NHS is in effect committing political suicide. The British would rather give up tea as the national drink than to give up their healthcare system.
The top tax rate in the UK used to be 40%, but now there is an additional 50% rate band thanks to the bailout of the banks. You will need to make over 150K GBP or roughly 225K USD to get hit by this new tax band.
Taxation is unitary in the UK and you will not need to pay any state or municipal tax on income. There is an additional National Insurance contribution for social security benefits. A person earning an average wage will pay roughly a combined 25% of income tax + NI.
First, ask yourself why is it so cheap to provide healthcare to your dog, but not for people.
1. The amount of regulation. 2. The amount of sophistication in procedures. 3. Liability in civil law. 4. Liability in criminal law. 5. Market forces, ie. people tend not let the vet put their mothers to sleep if they have a "incurable" ailment.
Most people in the industrialized world tend to expect a minimal standard of care which is unfortunately very high as people tend to not want to die. To provide this, there is a substantial amount of overhead that we have no way to get rid of at the moment.
BTW, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, and not data. However, in your case it's not even an anecdote since you're comparing apples to pineapples.
It wasn't a red herring, it was the "deflection". The right-wing media needed somebody to blame and with that they can paint the lenders as the victims.
In fact, these lenders know full well what they were getting into. The problem was that they were able to bundle these mortgages up and sell it on to unsuspecting investors. The returns on these products looked good with apparently low risk. But because these products are so complex, those models were proven to be made in fantasy la-la land and broke down when the housing boom started to collapse.
We settled this question in the civil war once before. Is this where you are taking us?
The problem with the right-wing movement in the past decade is belief does not match up with reality.
Government may not be 100% efficient, nor is the free market. The idea is to make government work better (ie. smaller in some areas, more efficient in others). Instead of generalisations about government==tyranny and rejecting government, wouldn't your time be much better spent on how to influence government policies and legislation for the better?
If you feel that individuals don't have this power, think about where it all went. I would much rather have a government that I have some influence over by representation than have the same essential services (eg. defence, law, infrastructure) provided by a corporation that is completely opaque and driven by the profit motive.
Outside of right-wing circles, I have never heard of any discussion of the serious flaws in the OECD methodology. It is widely accepted that the US spend roughly 16% of GDP on healthcare and almost all other industrialized countries spend significantly less.
From the data available, if you look at just Medicare and Medicaid spending in the US, those programs alone would be able to pay for universal coverage in many countries with the same or better medical outcomes.
Or are you just arguing on ideology alone? If you decide to disregard good data and make decisions based on your beliefs and not on reality, there is nothing me or anyone else can say to make you change your mind. A closed mind is in effect a dead mind.
So somebody sooner or later will point out that we have tons to regulation in the US on healthcare, implying that this regulation is cauting the inefficiencies.
No amount of data would persuade these people because they are blinded by their ideology to the fact that before doctors and dentists were regulated, being died as a result of low standards, and a lot of times, outright fraud.
If the government runs the police, the fire service, the coast guard, the public parks, the national highways, the FDA, etc, etc.. and most people have no problem with this, then why is it that when healthcare is the subject, people start mumbling about socialism? We're not in a socialist nor capitalist economy, we've been in a mixed economy since the beginning of the modern era.
People tend to forget that in a democracy, the government is us. It is our responsibility to keep government accountable and honest, but it is also our responsibility to vote for government do its job and fulfil its duty for our benefit. They are us. Without a stable government that regulates and balances the interests of the nation, somebody will step in to fill the void, and these actors are usually less accountable than government.
Why is it that a bewildering number of smart people has been indoctrinated into believing that the "free market" is the only solution to everything?
If the cost benefit ratio is less for a market-based solution compared to an alternative solution, then maybe it's time to go with the alternative.
By all metrics, the US healthcare system is delivering comparable medical outcomes to other industrialized nations at about 2 times the cost.
It is beyond debate that a completely laissez faire approach to markets ultimately leads to distortions that prevent efficient resource distribution in most (if not all) sectors of the economy. The is just no reason to object based on the facts, yet people still object. Funny this ideology thing.....
For 4 digit PINs, there is a 0.3% chance of an attacker randomly entering the PIN and succeeding. So is a 0.3% chance of losing all your money in your debit card account acceptable (which can be partially mitigated using EMV smartships on debit cards)?
Capitalism is a categorization of economic systems where the *mean of productions* is owned privately. That's all it is. The related concept of "laissez-faire" translates roughly to minimal government interference in markets (duties, price ceilings, etc). Capitalism does not necessarily equate to more individual freedom, but by definition capitalism tends towards smaller public sectors as less of the economy is handled by the state.
No single economic system solves all problems. Private ownership of the means of production works for many goods and services, but breaks down in others (notably heathcare and utilities) and the reasons for which is clear to anyone with a rudimentary education in economics. Most people don't have a problem with Capitalism per se, but only when it is practised blindingly, when people disregard the obvious non-market-based solutions to economic problems which can not be solved by the market alone.
Now back to your post, I can't speak for everybody, but from the people with who has a opinion on this, the core problem with America is that likes to proselytize its values while actively interfering with other nations contrary to said values. The issues you point out are illustrations of such cases.
Slashdot Mirror
The proof of the pudding is *in the eating*!
Being protectionist is not the same as being nationalist, you're confusing the two. As you said, free trade is not the panacea for everything and sometimes protectionist measures are needed in order to correct imbalance or distortions in the market. If a trading partner is artificially deflating prices, then protectionist measures are called for. If they are exporting sub-standard products or ones with high external (ie. social or environmental) costs, then protectionist measures are called for. Anything related to international trade that the market itself cannot manage basically called for some sort of measure to restrict it and control it; it is self-delusional to think otherwise.
Where did you get that idea? In the UK the trains are limited to 125mph because of *signalling*. The GWML for example was built extremely well (by Brunel over 170 years ago no less) and is capable of speeds of 140mph and over. The problem is telling the trains when to stop and slow down. The proposed project to electrify the Great Western Main Line would also introduced in-cab signalling which would make the higher speeds a reality.
It's like all those doctors that testify on behalf of the drug companies. There is a reason why the law now requires big pharma to disclose how much money they are paying doctors in speaking fees.
While what you are saying may be true, we're talking about software patents here, and not about trademarks. Please try to keep up.
There is a reason that almost all roads are now public. Shared infrastructure is the only model that works efficiently. To sum it up, you're a ideologue and your ideology when taken to extreme isn't only flawed, but dangerous. Just because your concept works in a specific setting doesn't mean you can generalize it to everything.
The good thing about a having a democracy is that government should be subservient to the citizenry. What government does and how it does it should be answerable to everybody.
Without an effective government, the power vacuum will definitely be filled one way or the other, and almost certainly by organizations which are less transparent than government. The lack of government isn't the answer; the question is how to ensure good government.
It's the same type of argument as "if you don't like the FDA, you can leave the US". What kind of argument is that? We are the ones that are supposed to control and oversee government. That is the core idea of a democratic form of government!
See my post above. MPs should seriously reconsider their operations model in the internet age. They need to be savvy and know how to use things like email filters to group and sort form submitted email and set up methods in which people that do submit these emails can voice their opinion and have a meaningful debate with his or her constituents on the issue.
Our ageing model of representative democracy needs to embrace change. As people are more connected and instant communications easier, we are edging towards a more direct model of representation. Politicians need to acknowledge that and make do as opposed to pushing back.
And your point is? Democracy isn't cheap. There will always be low value communications, but and most people agree that that is a valid (but maybe not the most preferable) method of voicing support or disapproval of an issue to your MP. The issue here is that the MP stopped publishing his email so his other constituents would lose email access to their MP.
The previous reply hits the nail on the head. What MPs should be doing is to find ways of managing this, either by managing email in a much better fashion, or to divert such requests to a site in which meaningful data can be gathered. He or she can even arrange a short question session to address the concerns of all these people at once so that individual responses to form letters can be avoided.
And your point is? Email from these pressure groups are in no way invalid if they are from his constituents. Just because a Tory politician doesn't agree with the stance taken by pressure groups such as 38 degrees, doesn't give him the right to withdraw a valuable communications channel to his constituents. You can be sure that if those emails are in support of the MPs pet project, he would be openly inviting more email correspondence.
Most people in the UK have a GP (ie. a family doctor) which is paid for by the NHS and those with health insurance (many large employers provide this) go private only on specialist procedures.
In fact, usually the same surgeons performs the same surgery in the same hospital with the same staff. It's just that they get a better room and get to jump the queue. Instead of being paid by the government, these procedure are reimbursed by the insurance companies. This "dual" system has the side effect of making private medical insurance extremely affordable, but insurance companies still do it, as there is some money to be made.
Some providers have completely private facilities for everything, from frontline services to specialist procedures (eg. BUPA). However, this is uncommon and only a relatively small proportion of the population are enrolled in these plans. The reason? NHS care is very well regarded by the British and is found to be generally good despite the problems with some parts of the system. Any political party that campaigns on breaking up the NHS is in effect committing political suicide. The British would rather give up tea as the national drink than to give up their healthcare system.
The top tax rate in the UK used to be 40%, but now there is an additional 50% rate band thanks to the bailout of the banks. You will need to make over 150K GBP or roughly 225K USD to get hit by this new tax band.
Taxation is unitary in the UK and you will not need to pay any state or municipal tax on income. There is an additional National Insurance contribution for social security benefits. A person earning an average wage will pay roughly a combined 25% of income tax + NI.
Not bad at all really.
First, ask yourself why is it so cheap to provide healthcare to your dog, but not for people.
1. The amount of regulation.
2. The amount of sophistication in procedures.
3. Liability in civil law.
4. Liability in criminal law.
5. Market forces, ie. people tend not let the vet put their mothers to sleep if they have a "incurable" ailment.
Most people in the industrialized world tend to expect a minimal standard of care which is unfortunately very high as people tend to not want to die. To provide this, there is a substantial amount of overhead that we have no way to get rid of at the moment.
BTW, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, and not data. However, in your case it's not even an anecdote since you're comparing apples to pineapples.
It wasn't a red herring, it was the "deflection". The right-wing media needed somebody to blame and with that they can paint the lenders as the victims.
In fact, these lenders know full well what they were getting into. The problem was that they were able to bundle these mortgages up and sell it on to unsuspecting investors. The returns on these products looked good with apparently low risk. But because these products are so complex, those models were proven to be made in fantasy la-la land and broke down when the housing boom started to collapse.
We settled this question in the civil war once before. Is this where you are taking us?
The problem with the right-wing movement in the past decade is belief does not match up with reality.
Government may not be 100% efficient, nor is the free market. The idea is to make government work better (ie. smaller in some areas, more efficient in others). Instead of generalisations about government==tyranny and rejecting government, wouldn't your time be much better spent on how to influence government policies and legislation for the better?
If you feel that individuals don't have this power, think about where it all went. I would much rather have a government that I have some influence over by representation than have the same essential services (eg. defence, law, infrastructure) provided by a corporation that is completely opaque and driven by the profit motive.
Two words - Citation Needed..
Outside of right-wing circles, I have never heard of any discussion of the serious flaws in the OECD methodology. It is widely accepted that the US spend roughly 16% of GDP on healthcare and almost all other industrialized countries spend significantly less.
From the data available, if you look at just Medicare and Medicaid spending in the US, those programs alone would be able to pay for universal coverage in many countries with the same or better medical outcomes.
Or are you just arguing on ideology alone? If you decide to disregard good data and make decisions based on your beliefs and not on reality, there is nothing me or anyone else can say to make you change your mind. A closed mind is in effect a dead mind.
Wow, that post was so full of spelling errors I hang my head in shame.
So somebody sooner or later will point out that we have tons to regulation in the US on healthcare, implying that this regulation is cauting the inefficiencies.
No amount of data would persuade these people because they are blinded by their ideology to the fact that before doctors and dentists were regulated, being died as a result of low standards, and a lot of times, outright fraud.
If the government runs the police, the fire service, the coast guard, the public parks, the national highways, the FDA, etc, etc.. and most people have no problem with this, then why is it that when healthcare is the subject, people start mumbling about socialism? We're not in a socialist nor capitalist economy, we've been in a mixed economy since the beginning of the modern era.
People tend to forget that in a democracy, the government is us. It is our responsibility to keep government accountable and honest, but it is also our responsibility to vote for government do its job and fulfil its duty for our benefit. They are us. Without a stable government that regulates and balances the interests of the nation, somebody will step in to fill the void, and these actors are usually less accountable than government.
Why is it that a bewildering number of smart people has been indoctrinated into believing that the "free market" is the only solution to everything?
If the cost benefit ratio is less for a market-based solution compared to an alternative solution, then maybe it's time to go with the alternative.
By all metrics, the US healthcare system is delivering comparable medical outcomes to other industrialized nations at about 2 times the cost.
It is beyond debate that a completely laissez faire approach to markets ultimately leads to distortions that prevent efficient resource distribution in most (if not all) sectors of the economy. The is just no reason to object based on the facts, yet people still object. Funny this ideology thing.....
Do you even know what high-frequency trading is? All of the intelligence are in algorithms, which are written as computer programs.
Sorry.. I meant 0.03%
For 4 digit PINs, there is a 0.3% chance of an attacker randomly entering the PIN and succeeding. So is a 0.3% chance of losing all your money in your debit card account acceptable (which can be partially mitigated using EMV smartships on debit cards)?
In a democracy, we, in effect, choose them.
Actual that 20% is for consumers interested in a Google branded phone only and not for all Android phones in total.
Oh no.. not this thing about Capitalism again.
Capitalism is a categorization of economic systems where the *mean of productions* is owned privately. That's all it is. The related concept of "laissez-faire" translates roughly to minimal government interference in markets (duties, price ceilings, etc). Capitalism does not necessarily equate to more individual freedom, but by definition capitalism tends towards smaller public sectors as less of the economy is handled by the state.
No single economic system solves all problems. Private ownership of the means of production works for many goods and services, but breaks down in others (notably heathcare and utilities) and the reasons for which is clear to anyone with a rudimentary education in economics. Most people don't have a problem with Capitalism per se, but only when it is practised blindingly, when people disregard the obvious non-market-based solutions to economic problems which can not be solved by the market alone.
Now back to your post, I can't speak for everybody, but from the people with who has a opinion on this, the core problem with America is that likes to proselytize its values while actively interfering with other nations contrary to said values. The issues you point out are illustrations of such cases.