Err, no. These people are members of the society. If you lived alone in the mountains, as a hermit, then perhaps you would not be interacting with the society.
generally for my skills related to the design of software, that they, in turn can leverage to either lower their operational costs, or use to provide a service to others.
In other words: inconsequential fluff. If you were to disappear tommorow, no if the entire branch of profession of yours were to disappear tommorow there would be no appreciable difference to the operation of American society. Fluff. Inconsequential. On good graces of the society. A self-important, self-agrandising, and completely irrelevant flea on a back of the society who thinks he is running the show. Expecting accolades and riches. That is what you are. And yet, largely through connivery, you receive the resources of many people whose importance to the daily workings of the society around you is of orders of magnitude greater then yours. It is apparent that you are in a dire need of a rather large dose of humble pie and some ego-shrinking excercises.
Expatriating Canadians must pay unrealized capital gains taxes when they leave Canada.
Capital gains taxes? You nimrod, that is to do with investments you have in this country, not the things that the public system have provided to you. Like medicare when you were a child. Public schools. Probably money for your higher education. You did not pay back any of it, you hypocrite. And he whines that they dared to make him pay his outsanding taxes on the profits on the investments you made thanks to all that education. And you think that makes you even?! What a dork.
Four poeple live from my income (albeit two of them are children of our own making),
I am really starting to look forward to full commoditization of software and the insuing ego-shrinkage of yours. I bet GPL must be driving you insane.
Er, strike a deal with the U.S.? You take all their socialists and send them all your capitalists. But then, who'd pay your taxes, with everyone on welfare?
You mean all liberals (or even a majority) in the US are on welfare!? All capitalists are right-wing wackos or libertarians?! Ever read Adam Smith? Hurt your head much banging on walls recently?
Incidently, I think that would be quite a good deal. Seriously. We get most of the academia, scientists, and labour and you end up with all the stock brokers and insane fundamentalist nutcases who would make you recite passages from Bible every hour and check your programs for "Satanic influences". Sounds like a plan to me.
Where's a good Libertarian when you need one?
Why, in some insane asylum, where you would find most of them, of course. Are you planning to join them soon?
Actually I am kidding. You should get all the 4 members of the Libertarian party in your area co-opt other ones from all over and set up a libertarian, or better yet Objectivist, "society" on some unpopulated island. Preferrably as far from mainland as possible to avoid the half-eaten chunks of Libertarian heroes landing in any populated areas when the Libertarian "society" comes to its unavoidable climax.
My point exactly! Its easy to be a socialist when you're rich isn't it?
Easy? Apparently not. Of course it is possible to pay more taxes when you have more. The trick is that some of those who have more find sharing it unspeakably abhorrent and consider it "theft" and "robbery". As you apparently have. I do not belong to that group and I am not quite sure what your "point" was.
TW I'm not an U.S. citizen, and - if your 'canned socialism' drivel is anything to go on - thankfully not a Canadian
That makes two of us. I am also thankful that you are not a Canadian. Have fun at your place and watch out for disgruntled serfs.
They're the same sort of ignorant sloganeering automatrons as the people who call them 'dittoheads.'
I merely responded in kind.
That sounds like dittohead jingoism to me.
Yes he did annoy me momentarily, I admit. So, as a result, perhaps unwisely, I used his own technique on him. But sometimes stooping to the rather low level of your opponent works. Occasionally.
Translation: they would like to earn what someone is willing to pay them.
Which is the definition of uncontrollable greed. At some point in time their conscience should kick in to warn them that getting (to exaggerate) $40 million for something that is not worth $50 is immoral.
What, you're going to restrict what they can earn, effectively put a gun to their head, and order them to operate!?
Yeah, sure, tell ya what, you can go under their knife first, O.K.?
Not at all. What should happen is that there should be a national negotiation process, with input from both citizens and surgeons to establish what a "fair" level of pay is and then everyone sticks to it. As I already mentioned, most medical services do not, due to their nature, fall under the auspicies of "free market" or capitalism. Free market forces of "competition" do not function in this area.
It would be better so say that you disagree with his position rather than engaging in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. It is true that smart and powerful people sometimes misbehave? Or course, they are only human after all. However, it is disingenuous to suggest, whether by implication or direct comment, that all Nobel Prize winning economists are somehow suspect because of the personal indiscretions of a few of their peers.
On one hand you criticise me for daring to take Friedman's theory with a gigiantic grain of salt because of his "credentials" and in the next sentence you claim that I should ignore the total failure of his profession's top members, which directly impacts his "credentials" as an economist. For the record, I know of no economist who actually did anything practically useful as far as daily operation of free markets and society is concerned. Nothing at least that could be directly traced to him. Friedman's "credentials" are worthless to me (and actually work against him).
... Argumentum ad lazarum or argument that the conclusion is correct because the subject of the argument is poor or without means....
The several paragraphs of your responses seem to follow the same basic pattern. You imply that it is unfair to offer public services because one cannot distinguish if the person in question is taking advantage of them because they are truly unable to pay or merely not wanting to pay. I am sure that the 10 hour wait times in the public ERs must somewhat discourage the second group. Never the less, it is possible that a percentage of those attending are indeed capable but unwilling to pay. Friedman's solution does not address this issue at all. Those who refuse to pay will still be in the same boat as those who cannot pay are today. With the exception of being able to obtain the "catastrophic" insurance. Friedman's system in no way encourages change in this area.
The Noam Chomsky remark was somewhat off the cuff, it is not your fault that I disagree with his writings, but I had the distinct impression from reading your earlier posts that you had read some of his books.
I came to my positions because of personal life experiences. I do read quite a bit but as far as books are concerned I find the old-time classics such as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" or "The Wealth Of Nations" far more instructive (and amusingly at odds with those who profess to be the followers of the tenets laid therein) then the modern analysis which tends to be too focused on various specifics. Most of the issues that I end up discussing are of basic, phillosophical nature at their core. My understanding of Chomsky is that he was focusing on the influence of wealth/power on access to information and manipulation of media in order to control the "free will" of consumers/citizens. It is an important aspect of modern life and a discussion in on itself, as FOX and Clear Channel as well as general degeneration of news media evidence but by no means a basic societal/economic force.
The posts of other Canadians in this thread bear out my personal experience in speaking with Canadians that most average Canadians who have lived in both countries, when asked, will concede that the overall quality of living, including healthcare, is better here in the United States.
That is highly subjective. You see, unlike old nasty me, most Canadians are very polite, specially to foreigners and would agree with you just to please you. Also a certain group of (mostly former) Canadians who is ideologially enthrolled with wealth and accumulation of thereof is far more likely to move to the US and therefore to come in contact with you. Additionally, it seems that this group is quite over-reprsented on Slashdot, which for some reason seems to attract libertarians like a corpse does flies. For which I am grateful since they provide me with much amusement.
The healthcare system in Canada seems great if you are one of th
LOL. Hey buddy, why don't you slave through 8 years of higher education to become a MD (at least in the US), and then tell me how greedy I am.
Everything has limits. 8 years of higher education does not translate to the wages equivalent to 40 of 5 year high education graduates, or should it?
That is if you ever decide to finally move out of your parent's basement. Its easy being a mini-Marx when you really don't have to worry about getting the bills paid.
Now you see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help I'm being repressed!
Oh, another classic. I probably earn more than that goof in the US who I am debating.
That's like quoting a scientolgist in order to support an argument that spacefaring dc-9s and galatic tyrants (XENU!!!!) really exist.
Something tells me if the link was to the Free Republic you would ne singing praises of it.
I'm gonna have to agree with the previous poster, you really are divorced from reality.
Never you mind that it is actual people in that thread with the actual insurance company plans. I was under the impression that constuted reality. But by all means, do enlighten me, where one does find "reality" if not in actual events?
I wouldn't expect thieves to believe that there are honest people in the world who do not take what they believe they are not entitled to, even if they can do so easily and conveniently.
A thief? A dickhead who lives off the backs of others and who considers himself "earning" all his money calls me a thief? Explain to me, worm, why exactly is society entitled to paying you money at all?! What the fuck do you do? Produce food? Mine minerals? Manufacture durable goods, that enable people to do the above? Provide medical care to others? Engage in scientific discoveries? Or perhaps you are just a pencil-necked IT dork whose entire life revolves around inconsequential fluff and who, due to unfortunate perversions of society, and his own thieving ways, receives far, far, far more then he ever deserved? And then, in his infinite arrogance and hubris, he dares to go around calling others "thieves" just because they see him for the self-aggrandising, pathetic worm that he is? And dare to impose on him some rules of civilised behaviour, an inconsequential payment for the great good greaces the society granted him?
It is you who is the thief: suggesting that I pay for something I do not use at a price I can not afford.
Oh yes you use it. All the fucking time. Everytime you want something of another Canadian. It is very likely that he lives thanks to the Medicare.
Also, you must be then against all taxation. Police? Thieves! How dare they fund police! Private armies is the way to go! Roads?! Toll roads, all of them! You are so stupid that is defies description.
I was referring to Canadians leaving Canada, because of the high taxes and poor services, not net worth.
Which is higly questionable, I even posted a link to CTVs coverage of a net gain of doctors in Canada. But do not let facts bother you.
I wouldn't mess with them if I were you though, they might still be a bit sore over old Uncle Pierre taking their oil and "sharing" it.
If Klein doesn't settle down, it might happen again. Either they are Canadians, or they are Albertans or perhaps Republic Of Edmonton's Greedetarians. It never ceases to amaze me how the greedmonkeys are all for a "nation" when it comes to beating up on some 3rd world country and then for sedition of their neighbourhood's 2 sqare blocks to form its own "country" as soon as they find something they can make cash on in there. And then call everyone else "thieves" for wanting to get them to share as others have shared with them. "Mine! Its all Mine! Me! I! Mine! Me! All Mine!". Sort of like your mindset.
According to Canadian laws, I was "free and clear" and didn't owe anything. In fact, I never received more than I paid in taxes.
Bullshit. There is no such law. Otherwise you would be still paying.
Canada would have been worse off revenue wise if I never lived and worked there. The only Canadian laws I ever may have broken related to my paying for services instead of sucking at the taxpayer's teat -- I'd rather be a criminal than a hyocrite.
You are not only a hypocrite, you are a bald faced liar.
But, you see a revenue source in the skilled worker, to be enslaved and taxed.
US does not require you to pay taxes?! I think they call that "tax evasion". You should look into it before some gentlemen with guns show up from that outfit called the IRS.
Well, I don't. Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah! Go, go close your borders in desparation. Keep your productive citizenry behind bars, taxing them. The faster you make it worse, the sooner the revolution will come.
You are a crazy loon in search of a way to try to silence what remains of your conscience (which tells you that you are evil, your posts show it clearly) and failing. Revolution? You stand a higher chance of it happening in the US where the liberals are starting to boil and there is a heck of a lot more of them there then there is wacko libertarian nuts like you in Canada. And I am
Now shut up, before the U.S. decides to block export of cheap meds your way.
The reason that they are cheap here is because otherwise the 20 year patent protections which Canadian government granted to them under the condition of price controls would be removed. Followed by Canada's generic drug makers becoming the suppliers of drugs to 90% of USA. But you knew that, didn't you?
Funny. Doctors weren't scare in Canada until there was universal health care coverage and their fees were fixed by the government.
We know not of this "scarce resources" problem, at least when applied to doctors, in the U.S. If you'd stop taxing your "scarce resources" away, perhaps they'd not be so scarce.
Let me explain to you how this works: some doctors (and many other professionals) are supremely greedy sons of bitches. Luckily for them, there is one place on Earth that is insane enough to allow them to control access to medical care for all of its citizens. In that place, called the USA, they can make fortunes completely out of proportion with their services to society. The result of such a thing is that many US citizens have no medical care, most only partial and the doctors get supremely rich. Not to mention other middle-men such as the insurance companies. That is chiefly because medical care is not an element of a free market and not even of capitalism per se. Patients do not qualify as Adam Smith's "educated consumers" as in many cases they arrive in the hospital unconscious and thus unable to "shop" for medical services. Not to mention the lack of knowledge required to even do such "shopping". So, consequently, by being direct neighbours to complete insanity, it is only natural that some unscrupulous medical professionals would leave to hope to get rich quick in such an environment. Luckily, most are sane and understand their role in society. And they dont leave. Many older doctors are actually coming back, having tasted the way things work in the US. That is the long answer to your "scarcity" of doctors. The short answer is: you are an idiot. Do not let reality interfere with your engaging in the oldest pursuit of man: trying to morally justify your own selfish greed.
It's funny how scarcity is a self-fulfilling prophesy of socialist societies.
Only temporarily, when they are neighbours to insane houses of cards built on pure greed. If they can make it to the next "depression" there is smooth sailing afterwards, at least for a few decades, until the memories wane and the greedmongers overtake the discourse again amidst the affluence. Rinse, repeat.
Geez, I actually went out of my way to not subscribe to any social services during my short return -- I specifically did not reapply for health cards, and paid (quite illegally, actually) for whatever care I required, precisely to not be a hypocrite... etc. and so on... my wad of cash is mightier then your Medicare... blah blah... I showed you!.
I don't believe a word of this.
You are not angry because you think I will take what my taxes would entitle me to -- you are angry because I refuse to be robbed by your ilk.
No, I am angry that you would not pay taxes, diss the system and then take what you are thus not entitled to. I admit, stricter controls against the likes of you are something we should work on. That is one weakness of the Unviersal Medicare I will readilly agree exists.
Look at your brain drain: I am independent of your chains and my numbers are growing.
Your numbers growing is everything that you ever cared for. Worship of Mammon in its purest form. These "chains" as you call them are called "conscience", "society" and "civilization". No wonder you are yearning to be free of all of those.
Watch now, as Canada seals its borders to emmigration.
I think you have snorted too much of that white powder before posting this.
Actually, our local food banks never run out, though I expect that some might. Then, there are various shelters, and of course, the Sally Ann and other organizations. Private charity is quite vibrant in the U.S., partly because people aren't taxed to death.
have personal experience with people paying high taxes all their lives for Canada's health care, and then were denied.... I now know of another relative that needs this surgery and is not getting it. Tick, tick, tick.
And I have personal knowledge (that is I personally have heard of him) of that guy, who my second-removed cousin on my mother's side met throught his sister's girlfriend's schoolmate's aunt, who has this goose which lays golden eggs. Honest!
I also could not help but notice that you provided some meaningless statistics about the cost of US surgeries. Which have no impact on Canadian public whatsoever. Nor do they in any way endorse your point. But the dollar amounts with +/- and all look so impressive! No wonder weak minded fools fall for it. Just look at some other posts on this thread. Some goofball posts completely made up statistics (80% of US citizens being employer-insured! Hah!) and gets +5 informative!
If anything, once I obtain U.S. citizenship, I'll likely renounce my Canadian citizenship -- one can not serve two masters.
Splendid. And yes, you refer to the assemblage of US politicians/big-business correctly. As a Master.
But, your comment is telling of the desparation among Canadians -- every one wants what they think they are entitled to, but no one else who may also be entitled should get it.
What? I got my medical care already, many times. I also gladly pay my taxes so that others can take advantage of the same thing. It is called taking care of each other. You know, the thing called "society". Never heard about it? What are you blabbering about then?
It is typical of a fight over scarce resources, and reminided me of rats on a sinking ship.
You remind me of a rat chewing through the ships hull so that he can get the wood-chips to build his own raft. And so what if the hole is the one which actually sinks the ship? He got his, everyone else go get theirs. Suckers!
Your idea of the world is this lovely, "eat or be eaten", "dog eats dog", vicious, bloody race to nowhere, where the one who hoards the most (and manages to abuse as many others as possible on the way) "wins". I think that world-view is called "sociopathy".
Meanwhile, the rest of us will work on making sure that the supply of the scarce resources is increased and that everyone has fair and equitable access to these resources that exist. That is what any sane group of people would do when faced with a problem of scarce resources.
Did you read the article before making this statement? First off it is extremely rude to refer to a Nobel Laureate and PhD economist as a loon, although he has been demonized by left wing crackpots, such as yourself, for helping poor countries improve their economic situations.
No I refer to him as a loon because of what he proposed. Also, being a Nobel Prize winning economist is not exactly an automatic endorsement, afer the antics some of the "top" ones have perpetrated in not so distant past. Finally, economy is not exactly "science" and only seen as such by other economists (and various related greed mongers).
The idea that people will wait until they are almost dead to seek care under a high deductible system is absurd.
It is not only not absurd, it is the situation at present. Most of the uninsured seek attention at Emergency Rooms only after "home remedies" and other desperate measures failed. This is one of the reasons of the severe overcrowding of the ER services in public hospitals.
Do you wait until your car engine has a catastrophic failure before you get the oil changed?
If you have no money for the oil change you have only two options: do not drive (or live in this case) or keep on driving, hoping for the best (and pray furiously, given that most poor are very religious).
Of course not so why should it be any different with your body?
No money means no money. It does not matter if it is a car or your body.
I am tired of hearing people with $100 tennis shoes, $300 dollar cell phones, and designer clothing complain about how they cannot afford to pay out of pocket for their basic medical care. They should try saving their money instead of living above their means.
Their "means" are those of serfs and slaves. What you describe is a pathetic attempt by them to try to hide their membership in this, ever increasing, underclass. And it would help little. Even if the shoes and phones went, as the medical insurance is a constant, monthly and far more expensive proposition. A $300 cell phone a month. Or more.
I also tired of being modded down by people..
Why are you complaining to me? I never use my moderator points. I reply instead.
that their Noam Chomsky view of the way the world should be is inherently superior to any other viewpoint when experience has shown time and again that wishful socialist thinking leads inevitably to the distribution of poverty and not wealth.
What is it with Chomsky and right wing utopians? My contact with Chomsky was purely through Artificial Intelligence research. But I (and many others) get accused of being somehow under the man's spell continuously. He must have written something that really got under your skin.
when experience has shown time and again that wishful socialist thinking leads inevitably to the distribution of poverty and not wealth.
You are confusing liberal democracies like Canada with Soviet-style socialism. As far as I know, the Canadian government is actually producing surpluses and the Canadian economy is doing quite well (comparatively, to the US for example), thank you.
Take your cool-aid and drink it someplace else, sir.
cool-aid? It is you who is the cool-aid drinker around here, as your complete lack of understanding of most basic facts, in favour for ridiculous but self-centered schemes, indicates.
n my case, the cost of our health coverage is more like $1200 a month, but my employer covers all of it,
There are not many people like you there statistically. You are an elite exception. Also a huge, $1200 a month, tax on an employer is supposedly somehow better then personal taxation how again?
and it's for far better care than I can get in Canada -
And that would be how precisely? Blow jobs by nurses? 1400 square feet bed-rooms with French maids? What?
much of what it covers is not covered by provincial health care programs.
Ouija boards or Chinese Astrological Brick To The Head Therapy I presume?
Even then, it's still cheaper
$1200 a month is cheaper? Does it cover whatever that thing is you are smoking right now too?
Healthcare you pay for optionally, where you can actually _receieve_ healthcare?
What the fuck are you talking about? I, as all Canadians, receive my healthcare whenever I need it. As I have on multiple occasions, with two (one quite lengthy) hospital says. The parent poster did too, as he himself admitted when he was "down on luck" in the States. But now he is back on a roll and getting fat and rich and therefore anything that event faintly resembles txation "robs" him of his "fair and square gotten loot" and is to be destroyed. Like some other people's medical coverage in another country he no longer lives in and pisses on as a sport, which is his way of saying "thanks" for saving his ass.
Not so. The parent is spinning, which I pointed out in my reply.
Many Canadians I've met can not understand how the U.S. can function at all without universal healthcare. But, function it does.
That depends on your definition of "function".
But, when one looks deeper, one sees that the percentage of the population in the worst case scenario is (a) actually quite small and (b) there is opportunity to move out of poverty.
What is (a) the number then and (b) I have the "opportunity" to become the King of Monaco, if only I were to hang around in the right places to meet the princess and get hitched, no? It could happen, really! The odds are even similar as for some of those people "moving out of poverty". What the fuck does "opportunity" to "move out of poverty" mean? What counts is that they, at present, not in your hypotetical, coulda-woulda-shoulda America, have no coverage. Or is this too complicated?
In contrast, Canada's "social safety net" is, for many, an illusion. Rather like a lottery: everybody knows of someone who won, but the chances of doing so are quite slim.
I have first-hand experience. Many who post on Slashdot do too. You are just a lying, greedy dork with an agenda, that's all.
We have, went through boom and bust, having to return to Canada for a while (always staying in legal status), and are now back.
That fuck says it all about you. Do not come back here you fucking leech! You've abandoned this country, you are opposed to what it stands for, you pay your taxes to another and obviously have greater allegiance to another so stay the fuck out!. You whine about how wonderful it is to make profits on the backs of some poor idiots in the States and then, when some shit hits the fan, to crawl back here to take advantage of the social safety net which the rest of us are building for ourselves. The same one you are dissing whenever it is inconvenient for your pocket book at other times. What a fucking cockroach!
Heck, my son is an American citizen, and the rest of us hope to be soon, as well.
Good riddance. And stay out.
There is poverty everywhere. I happen to like that I can donate substantial funds a month to the local food bank (generally more around the holidays) rather than have some fat-ass politoco tax that money from me "for the poor on welfare (after expenses of course -- mmmm, leather chair, mmm".
Sure and they get to eat whenever the bank happens to have some food, i.e. whenever you and other economic-rape artists feel pangs of conscience. Every second July or so.
He probably reads Noam Chomsky each night before going to sleep.
Last time I read Chomsky was when I was dabbling in Natural Language Processing. As to the rest of your vigorous dittohead nodding to the parent's falsities, see my reply to him.
Nope. 80% of Americans get their health insurance paid for by their employers. It is in fact very likely.
Source?
Health aides 138%
Human service workers 136%
Personal and home care aids 130%
Computer engineers and scientists 112%
Systems analysts 110%
Physical and corrective therapy assistants and aides 93%
Physical therapists 88%
Paralegals 86%
Teachers, special education 74%
Medical assistants 71%
Most of these are service, part-time, contract or self-employed (i.e. "consultants") "workers". Explain to me again how is it that the employer pays their insurance?
Wal-Mart does in fact offer health covereage to it's workers. The problem here is that their pay rate is so low that about half of them decline coverage.
Oh yes! That makes all the difference! Phew! The end result is so completely different! Why, if Wal-Mart did not provide any coverage, that would be, like, they would have no coverage. As opposed to having no coverage. I am so glad that we have this clarified.
My insurance coverage, which I pay $25 a month for includes 100% hospital coverage, free prescriptions and $5 a visit copay to the doctor. Two years ago I needed an MRI for an ankle injury and was able to get an appointment in 3 days. Out of pocket cost was $0. I am definitely NOT a CEO class person.
Let me put you in touch with these people then (read all the comments from your fellow Americans). Enlighten them as to your wonderful insurance company. It seems they sure need it.
A Nobel Prize winning economicist, actually.
It seems to me that you are living in some sort of weird fantasy world not connected in any way to what the reality is.
That's the way to prove your grasp on reality! Nobel Prise winning economcists [sic!] are always guaranteed to be experts in everything. Like national medical care. Even if economics itself is considered "science" only by other economists (sort of like psychiatry). And the top Nobel Prize winning economists never get together to apply their "theories" to practice by forming world's most famous and largest hedge funds, which never, I mean never would fail completely and spectacularly to the tune of many billions of dollars, having the said geniuses scatter all over with their tails between their legs. It could never happen! They also never have agendas, oh no! Even if their theories have obvious, easily noticeable holes you could drive trucks through. But what counts for "reality" is only the things which agree with your ideology. Reality my ass.
It is sort of like having 200-600 tax free dollars which must be used to purchase health care, but in this case the employer buys it for you instead of giving you the cash
Except this is unlikely to be the case in the situation the parent described. The employers are doing their darnest to get out of paying these "benefits" and change work designations to "part-time" or "temporary" or "contract" work to avoid paying them on ever expanding basis. Most people employed in the only area of job expansion in the US - the burger flipping. Wal-Mart and other "service" industries do not have any such benefits. Even many well to do places, such as Microsoft do that. It is a very common scenario amongst IT workers, who are treated as "consultants". Add to this the fact that if forced to, the employers will opt for cheapest insurance with the lowest coverage and highest deductible possible. To compare this situation to Canada and claim that taxation in the US is "lesser" is ridiculous, even if one does not take into account the miriad of other programs offered by the Canadian and Provincial Governments. It is comparing apples to oranges. The US "take home" pay is "greater" simply because the people who take it home are expected to pay much more dearly for these, largely unaffordable to them, services. The fact that there is 40 million of completely medically uninsured US citizens speaks for itself far louder then any self-centered, greedy shill on Slashdot can. What bothers me about the parent is that I fully expect him to crawl back here as soon as he gets into any medical trouble over there. For the likes of him, all of his profits are "private" and exclusively of his own making and all of the losses and help to him are, naturally, an obligation of the Canadian society. I know that kind of a cockroach all to well.
In other words both systems are third-party pay, but in Canada its the government through higher taxes and in the US it is mostly the employers.
That is untrue. Some industries, mostly old-style and going away manufacturing ones, used to provide generous benefits. Such benefits are today restricted mostly to the CEO class. In this "comparison" the Canadian system is the only one which is "third-party" as in the US the coverage is abysmal and it could be more accurately described "third-party for CEOs and the wealthy, everyone-for-himself-party former middle class and no-party for the poor" system.
The economist Milton Friedman wrote an excellent paper on how to fix the healthcare system in America and he considers many other systems alongside our own including the Canadian and European systems.
That man is a total loon. In his scenario, the coverage for the many Americans would be restricted to the "catastrophic" insurance only, which in the long term is much more expensive as the low income (most populous group and increasing) would avoid using high-deductible medical services until their situation got so desperate as to qualify for "catastrophic" coverage. Such a system promotes use of the "catastrophic", emergency services by discouraging the pre-emptive, lower cost ones. It would result in continuation mad profit taking and little change amongst the insurance leeches who would benefit enormously from the fact that they no longer have to worry about the most expensive and money loosing procedures, for which the taxpayer would pay instead. In other words, it is socialism for the insurance companies. All the profits remain private and in place for regular medical service coverage and the greatest potential losses are socialized. I would expect such as system to prove far more expensive as a whole then the current one (but far more profitable for the insurance companies), even though it would provide at least the catastrophic insurance to all citizens. A typical plan by the kind of a "thinker" Freedman is. An economist my ass.
I once figured out that for marrieds, taxes in the U.S., in a no-income tax state, are generally lower once income goes above $US15k.
You did, of course, not being a disingenious shill, include the $200-600 (depending on employment type/other factors) a month health insurance per-person in the household in the US equation, right? Right?
Wal-mart uses the same suppliers as everyone else, so their suppliers are not the reason they are successful. Their efficient management and emphasis on low prices is the reason they are successful.
No they don't. Most of the foreign suppliers work exclusively with Wal-mart.
In Canada, shortages in supply are met by lines and waiting lists,
Only if you listen to Limbaugh or perhaps one of our local copycats. I did have several hospital visits in my history. The waiting lists are exclusively for elective procedures, which is a sane way of priorizing resources. Based on medical need, as opposed of the thickness of the wallet. Some people of course consider themselves above such things as waiting their turn and prefer to try destroy the system for thousands of others, even if it means destroying their access to essential procedures, just so they can get their elitist, fat, white, pimple covered asses to the front of the queue. Anyone of that mindset is a mortal enemy of society and consequently of mine, personally. I count you amongst those.
You can't possibly claim that shortages do not occur in Canada, as they have the same supply per capita as the US.
As I said, any shortages are reorganized so that only non-essential, elective procedures are delayed.
It's unfair either way.
Canadian system is orders of magnitude more enlightened and fair.
Socialized heathy care provides no incentive for increasing supply of health care.
Riiiight. Because the government paying more money to doctors for some more services performed will never do it, as opposed to the American way, of insurance companies paying doctors waaaaay more for some more services performed. The approaches are totally different! One, the stinking, lousy, socialist one, involves stupidly paying more money as an incentive and the other, diametrically opposed, enlightened, smart, clever and super-effective involves paying more money as an incentive! So there!
The same could be said for allowing the poor to decide how the wealth of the rich is spent, yet that is what you advocate. The best system results when both parties are given a say in the process.
No, I actually advocate that the middle class which is the core of any stable, affluent society, decides what to do with both of these extremes, the poor and the wacko, insanely wealthy, whose riches are completely out of proportion to their contributions to society.
Otherwise you get only what your role models, your idols, the billionaires want: a miniscule aristocracy who owns and controls everything and a sea of serfs. You included in the latter, of course, no matter how sycophantic and brown-nosing you get.
Being wealthy is not immoral.
Accumulating wealth with no matching personal contribution to society is.
Therefore, it is not fair to take money from them just because they are are rich.
It is fair if the method of obtaining the wealth is immoral or, in extreme cases, if the good of the society is severely threatened by the sheer magnitude of the wealth accumulated.
You say that you cannot be rich without being immoral, but it is simply not true.
You have not provided a single, proveable example of a moral ascention to a billionaire status. I, on the other hand, provided a multitude of reasons for which such ascention is extremely unlikely.
Furthermore, immoral behavior is not restricted to the wealthy
That is true, but an impact a petty pick-pocket has on society is insignificant to what an amoral, selfish billionaire has.
No matter how you look at it, there is not a morally justified reason to take money from the rich simply because they are rich.
Let me repeat: two major reasons exist, one being that the proces of accumulation of massive wealth is extremely unlikely to be conducted in ways acceptable to society and the second, that such extreme a
They use the lowest-cost provider just like everyone else, yet they are the most successful. What's the difference? More efficient practices.
The difference is that some people, as opposed to vicious predatory animals, balk at using slave labour. That makes them "less efficient" in your view, ergo, "losers". Your version of a capitalist society is exclusively about resources and money. Nothing else. And while it is true that that economic system itself is amoral, you keep missing the obvious fact that capitalism and sane, conscious capitalist society are not one and the same! While I keep talking about the required conduct of members of a society, you pretend that the society does not exist and only some sort of fantastic world populated by resources, products and money which somehow circulate and morph into each other on their own, with no consideration for anything else is the only thing of importance. It seems when you speak of "society" you mean "factories", "mines' and some sort of unconscious, dis-embodied maws of consumption which you term "consumers". Things like civilized conduct or morality do not exist for you, except when they somehow interfere with your "economic freedom". Then, suddenly, everything becomes a matter of high principles and morality. You are a piece of work indeed.
Lets see, acceptable durability, low price. No, I don't think there's anything missing.
The trick is in that term "acceptable". Most people who had experience with.. well just about any other source of goods would not use that term and "quality" in one sentence when mentioning Wal-mart. Not to mention the sub-standard design of most of the things there and the cheapest possible materials involved.
That's not really surprising since branding was much more difficult before mass media. Given how long ago Adam Smith lived, you wouldn't really expect him to talk about branding. He did talk about quality though, which does, in my opinion, cover branding.
No it does not include branding. The problem with this line of thinking is that Smith has spent a lot of time and effort coming up with the scheme, you did not. His assumptions and equations hold true only for things which he analysed and carefully balanced. If you keep throwing into this, rather precariously balanced, mechanism any garbage that strikes your fancy, like "branding" and "Intellectual Property" and the like, it simply ceases to be capitalism, its cogs become gummed with this crap and it simply breaks altogether. So saying that, "Aw, shucks! He just didn't think of it, lets pin this dead chicken over there on that spring thingie, it must be capitalist 'cause it makes me money!" reflects just about the whole intellectual attitude of yours.
The seller does not make untrue claims about the product in order to sell it at a higher price, so it's not a scam. This is because the claim that all the cool, popular kids use these items is true.
Oh, yes, he does. Some "cool popular" (I dare you to define this precisely, as to not make such sales claim a lie in most cases) kids use it and as soon as a mass of wanna-bes (to whom the crap is marketed aggressively, as they are much larger group) do too, the "popular" ones quickly change to some new fad (as they must remain "special"), which, by pure coincidence, I am sure, was suggested to them by the maker of that original high-fashion stuff they used to wear. You are simply too naive to see how such scams operate.
You can say that they're exploiting peer pressure if you want to, but they're really just filling a market need that already exists.
This is another gem of high wisdom. By this token, cigarette makers are a legitimate business enterprise. The "market" of drug addicts "already exists", so who can blame the "entrepreneur" gentlemen from Colombia for filling it, no?
That does not bode well for your assertion that wealthy people hurt the economy, since they don't waste resources.
No, wal-mart is successful because it is the most efficient retailer.
Only because they don't play by the rules, such as using slave labour overseas. So it is now all right to downright physically coerce people to work (to be paid in bowls of rice) so that you can become "efficient"?!
Their return policy gives them an incentive to sell items of an acceptable quality, which I have found to be the case.
Your standards are frighteningly low.
People are naturally inclined to seek out ways to fit in to a group. Peer pressure has always been around, an I have no reason to believe that capitalism perpetuates it.
Err, capitalism is not perpetuating peer pressure, some companies are merely using it to escape the need to compete on price/quality. I am not sure if your realize this, but "cool image" is nowhere to be found in Adam Smith's opus magnum on the workings of capitalism. As a matter of fact, he strictly confined himself to price/quality ratios which I also believe to be the only valid measurement. Everything else is in varying degrees a scam or a mass delusion, but most certainly outside the scope of the system, i.e. your dreaded "Negative Externality".
Brand names are a value added feature. It costs money to develop and promote a brand image, and people are willing to pay extra for the social recognition they gain from it. You may not place any value in this kind of nonsense, but it is not your place to pass judgment on others who do. Saying that their value judgment is invalid is arrogant and meaningless. If you have a problem with others making these kind of judgments, you should try to explain your point of view to them.
This is at the core of your problem with lack of comprehension of the things I am attempting to explain. You assume that anything about capitalism can be stretched and extended to fit anybody's particular point of view. That your "judgment" that polka-dotted polyester pants improve your "social status" because the salesman said so is somehow a valid element of a capitalist system, because it is "your judgment". I, on the other hand, am attempting to stick to the actual theoretical foundations of the system, the very same ones Adam Smith outlined. In my view, predicated on the scientific underpinnings of the system, there is only one method of measurement, i.e. price/quality. And in the case of identical products, this ratio is constant, and thus any means by which you are capable of extracting much higher price from the same set of customers (under the same economic circumstances in the same geographic area) implies some form of connivery.
This problem is broader then such cases, because I suspect that you, in your lack of understanding of the basics, would attempt merilly to apply capitalism to other things, such as music or arts or science, which of course, because of the way its mechanism operate, cannot be done without some major league contortions of logic and the resulting wacko side-effects.
So now, in the light of this, when I say that "branding" is nonsense, it is not only because I do not fancy polka dotted tights, but because such "judgments" by these "customers" are indistinguishable, according to the tenets of capitalism, from a scam. Basic capitalist principles say so. That is the extent my "arrogance". It is so in the same way when I "arrogantly" claim that if someone claims to have found a way to levitate by flapping his ears it is certainly a scam. Law of Gravity combined with some basics of Aerodynamics say so.
To you however, since capitalism has in your view divine, religious aspects, and because you believe in a form of harmful, perverted, "absolute freedom", such limitations do not apply. Everything in a marketplace is to you a matter of "personal judgment", undisputable by anyone else, like say, the sale of "magical pixie dust", which only "works" on the 7th night of June every 8 centuries. A matter of "personal judgment", pure and simple, the "custome
But just because you think the items have the same value, doesn't mean that the people involved do. For example, people will be willing to pay more for a brand name product than a non-brand name one. You might say that they've been cheated because they should've bought the cheaper item. But the name-brand item is much more valuable to an image-consious person, because it allows them to "buy" higher social standing along with the product.
You just don't get it. Branding is a form of psychological warfare, peer pressure and the very thing I was repeatedly pointing out as a con-job.
In other cases people may be willing to pay more for an item which they find to be aesthetically appealing, or may pay more for a product from a manufacturer they buy from regularly because they trust them more.
Then they are different products and not the case I was discussing. Most "branded" clothing for example is not even made by the logo holder and can be had without the logo. Identical product sold at a fraction of a price... and being held in low regard because of psychological warfare.
By purchasing from wal-mart, I am offloading the work of determining product quality, and finding a reasonable price to them (since I don't have to worry about getting stuck with a defective or overpriced item).
I should really end this conversation right here and then. You are making a fool out of yourself. Wal-mart as a place to get quality goods? This must be some joke, you forgot to include the punchline. Wal-mart's modus operandi was always the cheapest crap under the sun, manufactured in sweat-shops, by slave labour, and sold to working poor in huge quantities. I will skip over their labour practices and what not as they are secondary (although indicative of their mindset). I don't think "quality" is even in Wal-mart's dictionary. Wal-mart has the great distinction of being one of the most abusive, underhanded, gaming the system corporations ever. And it also happens to be your example of "quality". This is truly pathetic.
The problem is that these government operations are partially immune from racketeering and antitrust laws, so I don't really have a good recourse.
Err, I see. I might take back that statement about you not getting a fair shake at the college. It is starting to look like the college did not get a fair shake from you! You are probably one of those in the news who sue the profs in school because they do not "take your point of view into account", like say, Intelligent Design to replace the evolution at the college. Or insisting that college should teach things of "practical value", like trade schools do! Or something like it. I am starting to worry here that your idea of curriculum quality is diametrically opposed to science and common sense.
Steve Jobs, and Sam Walton for example, definitely earned what they earned fairly, without gaming the system.
Not at all. Jobs' fortune is much smaller and chances are that a greater proportion of it is legit. Walton was nearly all abuse. In hundreds of flavours, colours, sizes and other varieties. He will join the club of the greatest assholes of business history, next to Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and the rest of the scum. His assholery continues daily after his death, with whole communities being essentially eradicated by Wal-mart (and the copy cat operations), never you mind the joyful crap they are perpetrating abroad. Everyone loses, even those who buy the cheesy plastic junk from China there. They save in short term, only to be out of job as a result. The only winners of the scam: Waltons. Everyone else loses. And it is easy to tell as their fortunes increase rapidly and the purchasing power of an average worker goes down. I can't believe you would use Sam Walton as an example of a "legit" businessman.
You simply fail to comprehend the relationship of great wealth and the pre-conditions of obtaining it, as well as the abuse one can per
The problem is that the fairness of an exchange is evident solely through perceived fairness on the part of the parties involved. If they don't think there's a problem, it's hard to say that one really exists, because an outside agent will not judge value the same way the parties involved in the exchange do.
Actually such judgement is not only possible, but rather obvious. All one has to do is to compare virtually identical transactions to each other. If an identical product, sold to identical consumer group, in the same very location, keeps being successfully sold for no practical reason for 10 times the price, it is clearly in violation of the most sacred rules of Adam Smith's model, as reduction of price or increase in product quality are essential outcomes of the competitive process. You cannot claim to be for capitalism (I don't think you really are, I think you are an objectivist/libertarian, in your view "freedom" to hoard and transfer money trumps every other consideration, including capitalism) and at the same time pretend that one of its most basic mechanisms is "depending on point of view" or "subjective value". The free marketplace is suposed to adhere to some basic rules of behaviour. Some fundamental mechanisms. If those are not fulfilled and it does not bother you, you are just blowing hot air out of your rectum in order to justify your personal psyche. Which is what I sensed a long time ago. I stand by it.
Your worldview keeps revolving around strict "non interference" (presumably with your personal schemes) and you are willing to go to any length, even denying the very universal rules which you claim as "justification" of that non-interference to obtain it. It is a hypocritical stance. If one were to adopt it, law in general would be a matter of "subjective preception". This also explains why you are such a great proponent of relative morality, as no absolutes exist for you, everything is a function of your self-centered "perspective".
Of course, in most of the industrialized world such information is freely and easily available to people who are interested in having such information. As a result, it is reasonable to expect citizens to make informed decisions about personal spending. It would be wrong not to hold people accountable for their own ability to make good decisions. Such a policy would take power and freedom from the population at large and give it to the government. Since this is true, it is reasonable to say that government intervention should take place only if someone complains that they've been taken advantage of.
This is an obvious evasion. Yes, the information is available, but it is being purposefully obfuscated and drowned in a vast river of screeming, yelling informational junk. Even experts have hard times locating valid comparative information, and they spend majority of their work time doing so. The consumers, specially young or elderly ones, stand no chance whatsoever. And that does not even take into account social conditioning. Although, your position is at least consistent with its continued "blame the victim" and "the perpetrator got his loot fair and square" mantra.
This is not an accurate description of the tax-system as it currently exists. Taxes are levied across the board, to all citizens. I can't see an easy way to determine who is gaming the system. Simply taking money from rich people would be like giving B's to people who earned A's on a test, assuming that they have cheated. First of all, people who cheat should get F's, and secondly you don't have to cheat to get an A.
The tax system as it currently exists has a lot of problems. However, your example is entirely self-serving. Unlike an exam which, although cheating is possible, involves very few of the problems we are discussing, in real-life you can observe the following with 100% accuracy: vast fortunes are always obtained by gaming the system. That is so because the accumulation of wealth, in its natural state, is self-propelling
Slashdot Mirror
Err, no. These people are members of the society. If you lived alone in the mountains, as a hermit, then perhaps you would not be interacting with the society.
generally for my skills related to the design of software, that they, in turn can leverage to either lower their operational costs, or use to provide a service to others.
In other words: inconsequential fluff. If you were to disappear tommorow, no if the entire branch of profession of yours were to disappear tommorow there would be no appreciable difference to the operation of American society. Fluff. Inconsequential. On good graces of the society. A self-important, self-agrandising, and completely irrelevant flea on a back of the society who thinks he is running the show. Expecting accolades and riches. That is what you are. And yet, largely through connivery, you receive the resources of many people whose importance to the daily workings of the society around you is of orders of magnitude greater then yours. It is apparent that you are in a dire need of a rather large dose of humble pie and some ego-shrinking excercises.
Expatriating Canadians must pay unrealized capital gains taxes when they leave Canada.
Capital gains taxes? You nimrod, that is to do with investments you have in this country, not the things that the public system have provided to you. Like medicare when you were a child. Public schools. Probably money for your higher education. You did not pay back any of it, you hypocrite. And he whines that they dared to make him pay his outsanding taxes on the profits on the investments you made thanks to all that education. And you think that makes you even?! What a dork.
Four poeple live from my income (albeit two of them are children of our own making),
I am really starting to look forward to full commoditization of software and the insuing ego-shrinkage of yours. I bet GPL must be driving you insane.
Er, strike a deal with the U.S.? You take all their socialists and send them all your capitalists. But then, who'd pay your taxes, with everyone on welfare?
You mean all liberals (or even a majority) in the US are on welfare!? All capitalists are right-wing wackos or libertarians?! Ever read Adam Smith? Hurt your head much banging on walls recently?
Incidently, I think that would be quite a good deal. Seriously. We get most of the academia, scientists, and labour and you end up with all the stock brokers and insane fundamentalist nutcases who would make you recite passages from Bible every hour and check your programs for "Satanic influences". Sounds like a plan to me.
Where's a good Libertarian when you need one?
Why, in some insane asylum, where you would find most of them, of course. Are you planning to join them soon?
Actually I am kidding. You should get all the 4 members of the Libertarian party in your area co-opt other ones from all over and set up a libertarian, or better yet Objectivist, "society" on some unpopulated island. Preferrably as far from mainland as possible to avoid the half-eaten chunks of Libertarian heroes landing in any populated areas when the Libertarian "society" comes to its unavoidable climax.
Easy? Apparently not. Of course it is possible to pay more taxes when you have more. The trick is that some of those who have more find sharing it unspeakably abhorrent and consider it "theft" and "robbery". As you apparently have. I do not belong to that group and I am not quite sure what your "point" was.
TW I'm not an U.S. citizen, and - if your 'canned socialism' drivel is anything to go on - thankfully not a Canadian
That makes two of us. I am also thankful that you are not a Canadian. Have fun at your place and watch out for disgruntled serfs.
I merely responded in kind.
That sounds like dittohead jingoism to me.
Yes he did annoy me momentarily, I admit. So, as a result, perhaps unwisely, I used his own technique on him. But sometimes stooping to the rather low level of your opponent works. Occasionally.
Which is the definition of uncontrollable greed. At some point in time their conscience should kick in to warn them that getting (to exaggerate) $40 million for something that is not worth $50 is immoral.
What, you're going to restrict what they can earn, effectively put a gun to their head, and order them to operate!? Yeah, sure, tell ya what, you can go under their knife first, O.K.?
Not at all. What should happen is that there should be a national negotiation process, with input from both citizens and surgeons to establish what a "fair" level of pay is and then everyone sticks to it. As I already mentioned, most medical services do not, due to their nature, fall under the auspicies of "free market" or capitalism. Free market forces of "competition" do not function in this area.
On one hand you criticise me for daring to take Friedman's theory with a gigiantic grain of salt because of his "credentials" and in the next sentence you claim that I should ignore the total failure of his profession's top members, which directly impacts his "credentials" as an economist. For the record, I know of no economist who actually did anything practically useful as far as daily operation of free markets and society is concerned. Nothing at least that could be directly traced to him. Friedman's "credentials" are worthless to me (and actually work against him).
The several paragraphs of your responses seem to follow the same basic pattern. You imply that it is unfair to offer public services because one cannot distinguish if the person in question is taking advantage of them because they are truly unable to pay or merely not wanting to pay. I am sure that the 10 hour wait times in the public ERs must somewhat discourage the second group. Never the less, it is possible that a percentage of those attending are indeed capable but unwilling to pay. Friedman's solution does not address this issue at all. Those who refuse to pay will still be in the same boat as those who cannot pay are today. With the exception of being able to obtain the "catastrophic" insurance. Friedman's system in no way encourages change in this area.
The Noam Chomsky remark was somewhat off the cuff, it is not your fault that I disagree with his writings, but I had the distinct impression from reading your earlier posts that you had read some of his books.
I came to my positions because of personal life experiences. I do read quite a bit but as far as books are concerned I find the old-time classics such as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" or "The Wealth Of Nations" far more instructive (and amusingly at odds with those who profess to be the followers of the tenets laid therein) then the modern analysis which tends to be too focused on various specifics. Most of the issues that I end up discussing are of basic, phillosophical nature at their core. My understanding of Chomsky is that he was focusing on the influence of wealth/power on access to information and manipulation of media in order to control the "free will" of consumers/citizens. It is an important aspect of modern life and a discussion in on itself, as FOX and Clear Channel as well as general degeneration of news media evidence but by no means a basic societal/economic force.
The posts of other Canadians in this thread bear out my personal experience in speaking with Canadians that most average Canadians who have lived in both countries, when asked, will concede that the overall quality of living, including healthcare, is better here in the United States.
That is highly subjective. You see, unlike old nasty me, most Canadians are very polite, specially to foreigners and would agree with you just to please you. Also a certain group of (mostly former) Canadians who is ideologially enthrolled with wealth and accumulation of thereof is far more likely to move to the US and therefore to come in contact with you. Additionally, it seems that this group is quite over-reprsented on Slashdot, which for some reason seems to attract libertarians like a corpse does flies. For which I am grateful since they provide me with much amusement.
The healthcare system in Canada seems great if you are one of th
Everything has limits. 8 years of higher education does not translate to the wages equivalent to 40 of 5 year high education graduates, or should it?
That is if you ever decide to finally move out of your parent's basement. Its easy being a mini-Marx when you really don't have to worry about getting the bills paid. Now you see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help I'm being repressed!
Oh, another classic. I probably earn more than that goof in the US who I am debating.
Something tells me if the link was to the Free Republic you would ne singing praises of it.
I'm gonna have to agree with the previous poster, you really are divorced from reality.
Never you mind that it is actual people in that thread with the actual insurance company plans. I was under the impression that constuted reality. But by all means, do enlighten me, where one does find "reality" if not in actual events?
A thief? A dickhead who lives off the backs of others and who considers himself "earning" all his money calls me a thief? Explain to me, worm, why exactly is society entitled to paying you money at all?! What the fuck do you do? Produce food? Mine minerals? Manufacture durable goods, that enable people to do the above? Provide medical care to others? Engage in scientific discoveries? Or perhaps you are just a pencil-necked IT dork whose entire life revolves around inconsequential fluff and who, due to unfortunate perversions of society, and his own thieving ways, receives far, far, far more then he ever deserved? And then, in his infinite arrogance and hubris, he dares to go around calling others "thieves" just because they see him for the self-aggrandising, pathetic worm that he is? And dare to impose on him some rules of civilised behaviour, an inconsequential payment for the great good greaces the society granted him?
It is you who is the thief: suggesting that I pay for something I do not use at a price I can not afford.
Oh yes you use it. All the fucking time. Everytime you want something of another Canadian. It is very likely that he lives thanks to the Medicare.
Also, you must be then against all taxation. Police? Thieves! How dare they fund police! Private armies is the way to go! Roads?! Toll roads, all of them! You are so stupid that is defies description.
I was referring to Canadians leaving Canada, because of the high taxes and poor services, not net worth.
Which is higly questionable, I even posted a link to CTVs coverage of a net gain of doctors in Canada. But do not let facts bother you.
I wouldn't mess with them if I were you though, they might still be a bit sore over old Uncle Pierre taking their oil and "sharing" it.
If Klein doesn't settle down, it might happen again. Either they are Canadians, or they are Albertans or perhaps Republic Of Edmonton's Greedetarians. It never ceases to amaze me how the greedmonkeys are all for a "nation" when it comes to beating up on some 3rd world country and then for sedition of their neighbourhood's 2 sqare blocks to form its own "country" as soon as they find something they can make cash on in there. And then call everyone else "thieves" for wanting to get them to share as others have shared with them. "Mine! Its all Mine! Me! I! Mine! Me! All Mine!". Sort of like your mindset.
According to Canadian laws, I was "free and clear" and didn't owe anything. In fact, I never received more than I paid in taxes.
Bullshit. There is no such law. Otherwise you would be still paying.
Canada would have been worse off revenue wise if I never lived and worked there. The only Canadian laws I ever may have broken related to my paying for services instead of sucking at the taxpayer's teat -- I'd rather be a criminal than a hyocrite.
You are not only a hypocrite, you are a bald faced liar.
But, you see a revenue source in the skilled worker, to be enslaved and taxed.
US does not require you to pay taxes?! I think they call that "tax evasion". You should look into it before some gentlemen with guns show up from that outfit called the IRS.
Well, I don't. Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah! Go, go close your borders in desparation. Keep your productive citizenry behind bars, taxing them. The faster you make it worse, the sooner the revolution will come.
You are a crazy loon in search of a way to try to silence what remains of your conscience (which tells you that you are evil, your posts show it clearly) and failing. Revolution? You stand a higher chance of it happening in the US where the liberals are starting to boil and there is a heck of a lot more of them there then there is wacko libertarian nuts like you in Canada. And I am
The reason that they are cheap here is because otherwise the 20 year patent protections which Canadian government granted to them under the condition of price controls would be removed. Followed by Canada's generic drug makers becoming the suppliers of drugs to 90% of USA. But you knew that, didn't you?
Funny. Doctors weren't scare in Canada until there was universal health care coverage and their fees were fixed by the government. We know not of this "scarce resources" problem, at least when applied to doctors, in the U.S. If you'd stop taxing your "scarce resources" away, perhaps they'd not be so scarce.
Let me explain to you how this works: some doctors (and many other professionals) are supremely greedy sons of bitches. Luckily for them, there is one place on Earth that is insane enough to allow them to control access to medical care for all of its citizens. In that place, called the USA, they can make fortunes completely out of proportion with their services to society. The result of such a thing is that many US citizens have no medical care, most only partial and the doctors get supremely rich. Not to mention other middle-men such as the insurance companies. That is chiefly because medical care is not an element of a free market and not even of capitalism per se. Patients do not qualify as Adam Smith's "educated consumers" as in many cases they arrive in the hospital unconscious and thus unable to "shop" for medical services. Not to mention the lack of knowledge required to even do such "shopping". So, consequently, by being direct neighbours to complete insanity, it is only natural that some unscrupulous medical professionals would leave to hope to get rich quick in such an environment. Luckily, most are sane and understand their role in society. And they dont leave. Many older doctors are actually coming back, having tasted the way things work in the US. That is the long answer to your "scarcity" of doctors. The short answer is: you are an idiot. Do not let reality interfere with your engaging in the oldest pursuit of man: trying to morally justify your own selfish greed.
It's funny how scarcity is a self-fulfilling prophesy of socialist societies.
Only temporarily, when they are neighbours to insane houses of cards built on pure greed. If they can make it to the next "depression" there is smooth sailing afterwards, at least for a few decades, until the memories wane and the greedmongers overtake the discourse again amidst the affluence. Rinse, repeat.
I don't believe a word of this.
You are not angry because you think I will take what my taxes would entitle me to -- you are angry because I refuse to be robbed by your ilk.
No, I am angry that you would not pay taxes, diss the system and then take what you are thus not entitled to. I admit, stricter controls against the likes of you are something we should work on. That is one weakness of the Unviersal Medicare I will readilly agree exists.
Look at your brain drain: I am independent of your chains and my numbers are growing.
Your numbers growing is everything that you ever cared for. Worship of Mammon in its purest form. These "chains" as you call them are called "conscience", "society" and "civilization". No wonder you are yearning to be free of all of those.
Watch now, as Canada seals its borders to emmigration.
I think you have snorted too much of that white powder before posting this.
Actually, our local food banks never run out, though I expect that some might. Then, there are various shelters, and of course, the Sally Ann and other organizations. Private charity is quite vibrant in the U.S., partly because people aren't taxed to death.
And it works wonders.
And I have personal knowledge (that is I personally have heard of him) of that guy, who my second-removed cousin on my mother's side met throught his sister's girlfriend's schoolmate's aunt, who has this goose which lays golden eggs. Honest!
I also could not help but notice that you provided some meaningless statistics about the cost of US surgeries. Which have no impact on Canadian public whatsoever. Nor do they in any way endorse your point. But the dollar amounts with +/- and all look so impressive! No wonder weak minded fools fall for it. Just look at some other posts on this thread. Some goofball posts completely made up statistics (80% of US citizens being employer-insured! Hah!) and gets +5 informative!
If anything, once I obtain U.S. citizenship, I'll likely renounce my Canadian citizenship -- one can not serve two masters.
Splendid. And yes, you refer to the assemblage of US politicians/big-business correctly. As a Master.
But, your comment is telling of the desparation among Canadians -- every one wants what they think they are entitled to, but no one else who may also be entitled should get it.
What? I got my medical care already, many times. I also gladly pay my taxes so that others can take advantage of the same thing. It is called taking care of each other. You know, the thing called "society". Never heard about it? What are you blabbering about then?
It is typical of a fight over scarce resources, and reminided me of rats on a sinking ship.
You remind me of a rat chewing through the ships hull so that he can get the wood-chips to build his own raft. And so what if the hole is the one which actually sinks the ship? He got his, everyone else go get theirs. Suckers!
Your idea of the world is this lovely, "eat or be eaten", "dog eats dog", vicious, bloody race to nowhere, where the one who hoards the most (and manages to abuse as many others as possible on the way) "wins". I think that world-view is called "sociopathy".
Meanwhile, the rest of us will work on making sure that the supply of the scarce resources is increased and that everyone has fair and equitable access to these resources that exist. That is what any sane group of people would do when faced with a problem of scarce resources.
No I refer to him as a loon because of what he proposed. Also, being a Nobel Prize winning economist is not exactly an automatic endorsement, afer the antics some of the "top" ones have perpetrated in not so distant past. Finally, economy is not exactly "science" and only seen as such by other economists (and various related greed mongers).
The idea that people will wait until they are almost dead to seek care under a high deductible system is absurd.
It is not only not absurd, it is the situation at present. Most of the uninsured seek attention at Emergency Rooms only after "home remedies" and other desperate measures failed. This is one of the reasons of the severe overcrowding of the ER services in public hospitals.
Do you wait until your car engine has a catastrophic failure before you get the oil changed?
If you have no money for the oil change you have only two options: do not drive (or live in this case) or keep on driving, hoping for the best (and pray furiously, given that most poor are very religious).
Of course not so why should it be any different with your body?
No money means no money. It does not matter if it is a car or your body.
I am tired of hearing people with $100 tennis shoes, $300 dollar cell phones, and designer clothing complain about how they cannot afford to pay out of pocket for their basic medical care. They should try saving their money instead of living above their means.
Their "means" are those of serfs and slaves. What you describe is a pathetic attempt by them to try to hide their membership in this, ever increasing, underclass. And it would help little. Even if the shoes and phones went, as the medical insurance is a constant, monthly and far more expensive proposition. A $300 cell phone a month. Or more.
I also tired of being modded down by people ..
Why are you complaining to me? I never use my moderator points. I reply instead.
that their Noam Chomsky view of the way the world should be is inherently superior to any other viewpoint when experience has shown time and again that wishful socialist thinking leads inevitably to the distribution of poverty and not wealth.
What is it with Chomsky and right wing utopians? My contact with Chomsky was purely through Artificial Intelligence research. But I (and many others) get accused of being somehow under the man's spell continuously. He must have written something that really got under your skin.
when experience has shown time and again that wishful socialist thinking leads inevitably to the distribution of poverty and not wealth.
You are confusing liberal democracies like Canada with Soviet-style socialism. As far as I know, the Canadian government is actually producing surpluses and the Canadian economy is doing quite well (comparatively, to the US for example), thank you.
Take your cool-aid and drink it someplace else, sir.
cool-aid? It is you who is the cool-aid drinker around here, as your complete lack of understanding of most basic facts, in favour for ridiculous but self-centered schemes, indicates.
There are not many people like you there statistically. You are an elite exception. Also a huge, $1200 a month, tax on an employer is supposedly somehow better then personal taxation how again?
and it's for far better care than I can get in Canada -
And that would be how precisely? Blow jobs by nurses? 1400 square feet bed-rooms with French maids? What?
much of what it covers is not covered by provincial health care programs.
Ouija boards or Chinese Astrological Brick To The Head Therapy I presume?
Even then, it's still cheaper
$1200 a month is cheaper? Does it cover whatever that thing is you are smoking right now too?
What the fuck are you talking about? I, as all Canadians, receive my healthcare whenever I need it. As I have on multiple occasions, with two (one quite lengthy) hospital says. The parent poster did too, as he himself admitted when he was "down on luck" in the States. But now he is back on a roll and getting fat and rich and therefore anything that event faintly resembles txation "robs" him of his "fair and square gotten loot" and is to be destroyed. Like some other people's medical coverage in another country he no longer lives in and pisses on as a sport, which is his way of saying "thanks" for saving his ass.
Not so. The parent is spinning, which I pointed out in my reply.
Many Canadians I've met can not understand how the U.S. can function at all without universal healthcare. But, function it does.
That depends on your definition of "function".
But, when one looks deeper, one sees that the percentage of the population in the worst case scenario is (a) actually quite small and (b) there is opportunity to move out of poverty.
What is (a) the number then and (b) I have the "opportunity" to become the King of Monaco, if only I were to hang around in the right places to meet the princess and get hitched, no? It could happen, really! The odds are even similar as for some of those people "moving out of poverty". What the fuck does "opportunity" to "move out of poverty" mean? What counts is that they, at present, not in your hypotetical, coulda-woulda-shoulda America, have no coverage. Or is this too complicated?
In contrast, Canada's "social safety net" is, for many, an illusion. Rather like a lottery: everybody knows of someone who won, but the chances of doing so are quite slim.
I have first-hand experience. Many who post on Slashdot do too. You are just a lying, greedy dork with an agenda, that's all.
We have, went through boom and bust, having to return to Canada for a while (always staying in legal status), and are now back.
That fuck says it all about you. Do not come back here you fucking leech! You've abandoned this country, you are opposed to what it stands for, you pay your taxes to another and obviously have greater allegiance to another so stay the fuck out!. You whine about how wonderful it is to make profits on the backs of some poor idiots in the States and then, when some shit hits the fan, to crawl back here to take advantage of the social safety net which the rest of us are building for ourselves. The same one you are dissing whenever it is inconvenient for your pocket book at other times. What a fucking cockroach!
Heck, my son is an American citizen, and the rest of us hope to be soon, as well.
Good riddance. And stay out.
There is poverty everywhere. I happen to like that I can donate substantial funds a month to the local food bank (generally more around the holidays) rather than have some fat-ass politoco tax that money from me "for the poor on welfare (after expenses of course -- mmmm, leather chair, mmm".
Sure and they get to eat whenever the bank happens to have some food, i.e. whenever you and other economic-rape artists feel pangs of conscience. Every second July or so.
Last time I read Chomsky was when I was dabbling in Natural Language Processing. As to the rest of your vigorous dittohead nodding to the parent's falsities, see my reply to him.
Source?
Health aides 138% Human service workers 136% Personal and home care aids 130% Computer engineers and scientists 112% Systems analysts 110% Physical and corrective therapy assistants and aides 93% Physical therapists 88% Paralegals 86% Teachers, special education 74% Medical assistants 71%
Most of these are service, part-time, contract or self-employed (i.e. "consultants") "workers". Explain to me again how is it that the employer pays their insurance?
Wal-Mart does in fact offer health covereage to it's workers. The problem here is that their pay rate is so low that about half of them decline coverage.
Oh yes! That makes all the difference! Phew! The end result is so completely different! Why, if Wal-Mart did not provide any coverage, that would be, like, they would have no coverage. As opposed to having no coverage. I am so glad that we have this clarified.
My insurance coverage, which I pay $25 a month for includes 100% hospital coverage, free prescriptions and $5 a visit copay to the doctor. Two years ago I needed an MRI for an ankle injury and was able to get an appointment in 3 days. Out of pocket cost was $0. I am definitely NOT a CEO class person.
Let me put you in touch with these people then (read all the comments from your fellow Americans). Enlighten them as to your wonderful insurance company. It seems they sure need it.
A Nobel Prize winning economicist, actually.
It seems to me that you are living in some sort of weird fantasy world not connected in any way to what the reality is.
That's the way to prove your grasp on reality! Nobel Prise winning economcists [sic!] are always guaranteed to be experts in everything. Like national medical care. Even if economics itself is considered "science" only by other economists (sort of like psychiatry). And the top Nobel Prize winning economists never get together to apply their "theories" to practice by forming world's most famous and largest hedge funds, which never, I mean never would fail completely and spectacularly to the tune of many billions of dollars, having the said geniuses scatter all over with their tails between their legs. It could never happen! They also never have agendas, oh no! Even if their theories have obvious, easily noticeable holes you could drive trucks through. But what counts for "reality" is only the things which agree with your ideology. Reality my ass.
P.S. Sorry for the bad typos (loosing? ugh) and missing letters/words. It is really late here.
Except this is unlikely to be the case in the situation the parent described. The employers are doing their darnest to get out of paying these "benefits" and change work designations to "part-time" or "temporary" or "contract" work to avoid paying them on ever expanding basis. Most people employed in the only area of job expansion in the US - the burger flipping. Wal-Mart and other "service" industries do not have any such benefits. Even many well to do places, such as Microsoft do that. It is a very common scenario amongst IT workers, who are treated as "consultants". Add to this the fact that if forced to, the employers will opt for cheapest insurance with the lowest coverage and highest deductible possible. To compare this situation to Canada and claim that taxation in the US is "lesser" is ridiculous, even if one does not take into account the miriad of other programs offered by the Canadian and Provincial Governments. It is comparing apples to oranges. The US "take home" pay is "greater" simply because the people who take it home are expected to pay much more dearly for these, largely unaffordable to them, services. The fact that there is 40 million of completely medically uninsured US citizens speaks for itself far louder then any self-centered, greedy shill on Slashdot can. What bothers me about the parent is that I fully expect him to crawl back here as soon as he gets into any medical trouble over there. For the likes of him, all of his profits are "private" and exclusively of his own making and all of the losses and help to him are, naturally, an obligation of the Canadian society. I know that kind of a cockroach all to well.
In other words both systems are third-party pay, but in Canada its the government through higher taxes and in the US it is mostly the employers.
That is untrue. Some industries, mostly old-style and going away manufacturing ones, used to provide generous benefits. Such benefits are today restricted mostly to the CEO class. In this "comparison" the Canadian system is the only one which is "third-party" as in the US the coverage is abysmal and it could be more accurately described "third-party for CEOs and the wealthy, everyone-for-himself-party former middle class and no-party for the poor" system.
The economist Milton Friedman wrote an excellent paper on how to fix the healthcare system in America and he considers many other systems alongside our own including the Canadian and European systems.
That man is a total loon. In his scenario, the coverage for the many Americans would be restricted to the "catastrophic" insurance only, which in the long term is much more expensive as the low income (most populous group and increasing) would avoid using high-deductible medical services until their situation got so desperate as to qualify for "catastrophic" coverage. Such a system promotes use of the "catastrophic", emergency services by discouraging the pre-emptive, lower cost ones. It would result in continuation mad profit taking and little change amongst the insurance leeches who would benefit enormously from the fact that they no longer have to worry about the most expensive and money loosing procedures, for which the taxpayer would pay instead. In other words, it is socialism for the insurance companies. All the profits remain private and in place for regular medical service coverage and the greatest potential losses are socialized. I would expect such as system to prove far more expensive as a whole then the current one (but far more profitable for the insurance companies), even though it would provide at least the catastrophic insurance to all citizens. A typical plan by the kind of a "thinker" Freedman is. An economist my ass.
You did, of course, not being a disingenious shill, include the $200-600 (depending on employment type/other factors) a month health insurance per-person in the household in the US equation, right? Right?
No they don't. Most of the foreign suppliers work exclusively with Wal-mart.
In Canada, shortages in supply are met by lines and waiting lists,
Only if you listen to Limbaugh or perhaps one of our local copycats. I did have several hospital visits in my history. The waiting lists are exclusively for elective procedures, which is a sane way of priorizing resources. Based on medical need, as opposed of the thickness of the wallet. Some people of course consider themselves above such things as waiting their turn and prefer to try destroy the system for thousands of others, even if it means destroying their access to essential procedures, just so they can get their elitist, fat, white, pimple covered asses to the front of the queue. Anyone of that mindset is a mortal enemy of society and consequently of mine, personally. I count you amongst those.
You can't possibly claim that shortages do not occur in Canada, as they have the same supply per capita as the US.
As I said, any shortages are reorganized so that only non-essential, elective procedures are delayed.
It's unfair either way.
Canadian system is orders of magnitude more enlightened and fair.
Socialized heathy care provides no incentive for increasing supply of health care.
Riiiight. Because the government paying more money to doctors for some more services performed will never do it, as opposed to the American way, of insurance companies paying doctors waaaaay more for some more services performed. The approaches are totally different! One, the stinking, lousy, socialist one, involves stupidly paying more money as an incentive and the other, diametrically opposed, enlightened, smart, clever and super-effective involves paying more money as an incentive! So there!
The same could be said for allowing the poor to decide how the wealth of the rich is spent, yet that is what you advocate. The best system results when both parties are given a say in the process.
No, I actually advocate that the middle class which is the core of any stable, affluent society, decides what to do with both of these extremes, the poor and the wacko, insanely wealthy, whose riches are completely out of proportion to their contributions to society.
Otherwise you get only what your role models, your idols, the billionaires want: a miniscule aristocracy who owns and controls everything and a sea of serfs. You included in the latter, of course, no matter how sycophantic and brown-nosing you get.
Being wealthy is not immoral.
Accumulating wealth with no matching personal contribution to society is.
Therefore, it is not fair to take money from them just because they are are rich.
It is fair if the method of obtaining the wealth is immoral or, in extreme cases, if the good of the society is severely threatened by the sheer magnitude of the wealth accumulated.
You say that you cannot be rich without being immoral, but it is simply not true.
You have not provided a single, proveable example of a moral ascention to a billionaire status. I, on the other hand, provided a multitude of reasons for which such ascention is extremely unlikely.
Furthermore, immoral behavior is not restricted to the wealthy
That is true, but an impact a petty pick-pocket has on society is insignificant to what an amoral, selfish billionaire has.
No matter how you look at it, there is not a morally justified reason to take money from the rich simply because they are rich.
Let me repeat: two major reasons exist, one being that the proces of accumulation of massive wealth is extremely unlikely to be conducted in ways acceptable to society and the second, that such extreme a
The difference is that some people, as opposed to vicious predatory animals, balk at using slave labour. That makes them "less efficient" in your view, ergo, "losers". Your version of a capitalist society is exclusively about resources and money. Nothing else. And while it is true that that economic system itself is amoral, you keep missing the obvious fact that capitalism and sane, conscious capitalist society are not one and the same! While I keep talking about the required conduct of members of a society, you pretend that the society does not exist and only some sort of fantastic world populated by resources, products and money which somehow circulate and morph into each other on their own, with no consideration for anything else is the only thing of importance. It seems when you speak of "society" you mean "factories", "mines' and some sort of unconscious, dis-embodied maws of consumption which you term "consumers". Things like civilized conduct or morality do not exist for you, except when they somehow interfere with your "economic freedom". Then, suddenly, everything becomes a matter of high principles and morality. You are a piece of work indeed.
Lets see, acceptable durability, low price. No, I don't think there's anything missing.
The trick is in that term "acceptable". Most people who had experience with .. well just about any other source of goods would not use that term and "quality" in one sentence when mentioning Wal-mart. Not to mention the sub-standard design of most of the things there and the cheapest possible materials involved.
That's not really surprising since branding was much more difficult before mass media. Given how long ago Adam Smith lived, you wouldn't really expect him to talk about branding. He did talk about quality though, which does, in my opinion, cover branding.
No it does not include branding. The problem with this line of thinking is that Smith has spent a lot of time and effort coming up with the scheme, you did not. His assumptions and equations hold true only for things which he analysed and carefully balanced. If you keep throwing into this, rather precariously balanced, mechanism any garbage that strikes your fancy, like "branding" and "Intellectual Property" and the like, it simply ceases to be capitalism, its cogs become gummed with this crap and it simply breaks altogether. So saying that, "Aw, shucks! He just didn't think of it, lets pin this dead chicken over there on that spring thingie, it must be capitalist 'cause it makes me money!" reflects just about the whole intellectual attitude of yours.
The seller does not make untrue claims about the product in order to sell it at a higher price, so it's not a scam. This is because the claim that all the cool, popular kids use these items is true.
Oh, yes, he does. Some "cool popular" (I dare you to define this precisely, as to not make such sales claim a lie in most cases) kids use it and as soon as a mass of wanna-bes (to whom the crap is marketed aggressively, as they are much larger group) do too, the "popular" ones quickly change to some new fad (as they must remain "special"), which, by pure coincidence, I am sure, was suggested to them by the maker of that original high-fashion stuff they used to wear. You are simply too naive to see how such scams operate.
You can say that they're exploiting peer pressure if you want to, but they're really just filling a market need that already exists.
This is another gem of high wisdom. By this token, cigarette makers are a legitimate business enterprise. The "market" of drug addicts "already exists", so who can blame the "entrepreneur" gentlemen from Colombia for filling it, no?
That does not bode well for your assertion that wealthy people hurt the economy, since they don't waste resources.
Only because they don't play by the rules, such as using slave labour overseas. So it is now all right to downright physically coerce people to work (to be paid in bowls of rice) so that you can become "efficient"?!
Their return policy gives them an incentive to sell items of an acceptable quality, which I have found to be the case.
Your standards are frighteningly low.
People are naturally inclined to seek out ways to fit in to a group. Peer pressure has always been around, an I have no reason to believe that capitalism perpetuates it.
Err, capitalism is not perpetuating peer pressure, some companies are merely using it to escape the need to compete on price/quality. I am not sure if your realize this, but "cool image" is nowhere to be found in Adam Smith's opus magnum on the workings of capitalism. As a matter of fact, he strictly confined himself to price/quality ratios which I also believe to be the only valid measurement. Everything else is in varying degrees a scam or a mass delusion, but most certainly outside the scope of the system, i.e. your dreaded "Negative Externality".
Brand names are a value added feature. It costs money to develop and promote a brand image, and people are willing to pay extra for the social recognition they gain from it. You may not place any value in this kind of nonsense, but it is not your place to pass judgment on others who do. Saying that their value judgment is invalid is arrogant and meaningless. If you have a problem with others making these kind of judgments, you should try to explain your point of view to them.
This is at the core of your problem with lack of comprehension of the things I am attempting to explain. You assume that anything about capitalism can be stretched and extended to fit anybody's particular point of view. That your "judgment" that polka-dotted polyester pants improve your "social status" because the salesman said so is somehow a valid element of a capitalist system, because it is "your judgment". I, on the other hand, am attempting to stick to the actual theoretical foundations of the system, the very same ones Adam Smith outlined. In my view, predicated on the scientific underpinnings of the system, there is only one method of measurement, i.e. price/quality. And in the case of identical products, this ratio is constant, and thus any means by which you are capable of extracting much higher price from the same set of customers (under the same economic circumstances in the same geographic area) implies some form of connivery.
This problem is broader then such cases, because I suspect that you, in your lack of understanding of the basics, would attempt merilly to apply capitalism to other things, such as music or arts or science, which of course, because of the way its mechanism operate, cannot be done without some major league contortions of logic and the resulting wacko side-effects.
So now, in the light of this, when I say that "branding" is nonsense, it is not only because I do not fancy polka dotted tights, but because such "judgments" by these "customers" are indistinguishable, according to the tenets of capitalism, from a scam. Basic capitalist principles say so. That is the extent my "arrogance". It is so in the same way when I "arrogantly" claim that if someone claims to have found a way to levitate by flapping his ears it is certainly a scam. Law of Gravity combined with some basics of Aerodynamics say so.
To you however, since capitalism has in your view divine, religious aspects, and because you believe in a form of harmful, perverted, "absolute freedom", such limitations do not apply. Everything in a marketplace is to you a matter of "personal judgment", undisputable by anyone else, like say, the sale of "magical pixie dust", which only "works" on the 7th night of June every 8 centuries. A matter of "personal judgment", pure and simple, the "custome
You just don't get it. Branding is a form of psychological warfare, peer pressure and the very thing I was repeatedly pointing out as a con-job.
In other cases people may be willing to pay more for an item which they find to be aesthetically appealing, or may pay more for a product from a manufacturer they buy from regularly because they trust them more.
Then they are different products and not the case I was discussing. Most "branded" clothing for example is not even made by the logo holder and can be had without the logo. Identical product sold at a fraction of a price ... and being held in low regard because of psychological warfare.
By purchasing from wal-mart, I am offloading the work of determining product quality, and finding a reasonable price to them (since I don't have to worry about getting stuck with a defective or overpriced item).
I should really end this conversation right here and then. You are making a fool out of yourself. Wal-mart as a place to get quality goods? This must be some joke, you forgot to include the punchline. Wal-mart's modus operandi was always the cheapest crap under the sun, manufactured in sweat-shops, by slave labour, and sold to working poor in huge quantities. I will skip over their labour practices and what not as they are secondary (although indicative of their mindset). I don't think "quality" is even in Wal-mart's dictionary. Wal-mart has the great distinction of being one of the most abusive, underhanded, gaming the system corporations ever. And it also happens to be your example of "quality". This is truly pathetic.
The problem is that these government operations are partially immune from racketeering and antitrust laws, so I don't really have a good recourse.
Err, I see. I might take back that statement about you not getting a fair shake at the college. It is starting to look like the college did not get a fair shake from you! You are probably one of those in the news who sue the profs in school because they do not "take your point of view into account", like say, Intelligent Design to replace the evolution at the college. Or insisting that college should teach things of "practical value", like trade schools do! Or something like it. I am starting to worry here that your idea of curriculum quality is diametrically opposed to science and common sense.
Steve Jobs, and Sam Walton for example, definitely earned what they earned fairly, without gaming the system.
Not at all. Jobs' fortune is much smaller and chances are that a greater proportion of it is legit. Walton was nearly all abuse. In hundreds of flavours, colours, sizes and other varieties. He will join the club of the greatest assholes of business history, next to Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and the rest of the scum. His assholery continues daily after his death, with whole communities being essentially eradicated by Wal-mart (and the copy cat operations), never you mind the joyful crap they are perpetrating abroad. Everyone loses, even those who buy the cheesy plastic junk from China there. They save in short term, only to be out of job as a result. The only winners of the scam: Waltons. Everyone else loses. And it is easy to tell as their fortunes increase rapidly and the purchasing power of an average worker goes down. I can't believe you would use Sam Walton as an example of a "legit" businessman.
You simply fail to comprehend the relationship of great wealth and the pre-conditions of obtaining it, as well as the abuse one can per
Actually such judgement is not only possible, but rather obvious. All one has to do is to compare virtually identical transactions to each other. If an identical product, sold to identical consumer group, in the same very location, keeps being successfully sold for no practical reason for 10 times the price, it is clearly in violation of the most sacred rules of Adam Smith's model, as reduction of price or increase in product quality are essential outcomes of the competitive process. You cannot claim to be for capitalism (I don't think you really are, I think you are an objectivist/libertarian, in your view "freedom" to hoard and transfer money trumps every other consideration, including capitalism) and at the same time pretend that one of its most basic mechanisms is "depending on point of view" or "subjective value". The free marketplace is suposed to adhere to some basic rules of behaviour. Some fundamental mechanisms. If those are not fulfilled and it does not bother you, you are just blowing hot air out of your rectum in order to justify your personal psyche. Which is what I sensed a long time ago. I stand by it.
Your worldview keeps revolving around strict "non interference" (presumably with your personal schemes) and you are willing to go to any length, even denying the very universal rules which you claim as "justification" of that non-interference to obtain it. It is a hypocritical stance. If one were to adopt it, law in general would be a matter of "subjective preception". This also explains why you are such a great proponent of relative morality, as no absolutes exist for you, everything is a function of your self-centered "perspective".
Of course, in most of the industrialized world such information is freely and easily available to people who are interested in having such information. As a result, it is reasonable to expect citizens to make informed decisions about personal spending. It would be wrong not to hold people accountable for their own ability to make good decisions. Such a policy would take power and freedom from the population at large and give it to the government. Since this is true, it is reasonable to say that government intervention should take place only if someone complains that they've been taken advantage of.
This is an obvious evasion. Yes, the information is available, but it is being purposefully obfuscated and drowned in a vast river of screeming, yelling informational junk. Even experts have hard times locating valid comparative information, and they spend majority of their work time doing so. The consumers, specially young or elderly ones, stand no chance whatsoever. And that does not even take into account social conditioning. Although, your position is at least consistent with its continued "blame the victim" and "the perpetrator got his loot fair and square" mantra.
This is not an accurate description of the tax-system as it currently exists. Taxes are levied across the board, to all citizens. I can't see an easy way to determine who is gaming the system. Simply taking money from rich people would be like giving B's to people who earned A's on a test, assuming that they have cheated. First of all, people who cheat should get F's, and secondly you don't have to cheat to get an A.
The tax system as it currently exists has a lot of problems. However, your example is entirely self-serving. Unlike an exam which, although cheating is possible, involves very few of the problems we are discussing, in real-life you can observe the following with 100% accuracy: vast fortunes are always obtained by gaming the system. That is so because the accumulation of wealth, in its natural state, is self-propelling