some fool breeds a deadly unstoppable strain of a new virus/bacteria in his garage ?
genetics is no I.T. computers cant harm people, websites cant kill people. you can confiscate computers, you can take down websites. genetics is no joke.
fascists' government intervention was not in matters related to free market and freedom of corporations. actually what happened after nazi's ascent was just the domination of previously already dominating corporations, which supported their ascent to power. totally the same with what happened in neocon republicans' era in america.
In the extreme case of a centrally planned economy, we would assume that the government knows everything about everyone. This by itself is unjust as privacy advocates would tell you, however, we know also that it is impossible.
In less extreme cases it would be to add regulation to a current free market system in response to certain events, to deter certain unwanted behavior which I would also argue is unjust for the following reasons:
corporations should not retain any privacy. the moves that brought on the credit crisis and the madoff scam were hid behind trade secrets/privacy rights. individuals may have privacy and that is their right too. but corporations are way too strong factors in social life to let have any privacy. its rather moot anyway, in modern times of economic analysis, modeling and forecasts, it is rather stupid to try to hide balance sheets, financial ratios, accounts. for, if any sufficiently big corporation puts enough money into stalking another, they can readily make out all the 'secrets' of the other. the only ones who cant do that are the people, and politicians, because people lack the resources to conduct such analysis, and politicans are barred from doing it because 'hands off business'.
1- There is enough regulation in the market for government and any market participant to know what is considered right and what is considered wrong, therefore the justice system can take care of any cases of illegal behavior.
if there was enough, credit crisis wouldnt happen. madoff wouldnt have pulled out that scam.
and its rather dud statement either. mankind advances day by day, and new venues and methods of business are found. regulations need to be renewed and updated continually. we cant rely on 50 year ago's regulations in the age of internet. what those people, the hedge fund scammers did, was to invent dud assets over existing assets and overblow their importance and values in a computerized environment anyway.
2- More regulation would just add more burden on the market players that choose not to participate in the illegal behavior, and therefore, it is a punishment for them more than it is a deterrent for future illegal activity.
another moont statement. corporations are already going through immense bureaucratic procedures within the protocols that they created for their internal workings. they do that for their own benefit, but somehow, when it comes to going through regulatory bureaucracy, suddenly that kind of bureaucracy becomes unbearable. that doesnt add up.
a necessary evil, in the end, is a necessary evil in any case. if that burden is needed so that entire world wont come crashing down again, everyone has to 'suffer' it. small price to pay to prevent another world war.
3- More regulation would reduce the number of entrants which free markets rely on to correct itself and bring about innovation.
totally absurd, totally unfounded. regulations were the things that were ensuring there's competition in the first place. regulations ended the era of robber barons, and opened up venues for trade for everyone. and we always will need regulations as mankind progresses. 50 years ago there wasnt internet around. now there is. and it has come to brink of becoming another robber baron's business, with the attempt telcos did 1.5 year ago in which they tried to end equality on the net by attacking network neutrality. internet is new. it needs new regulations. the only way to ensure that no telco will make internet into a cable network of its own, no
Regarding the other point you made: there are a lot of economists that say a lot of things. There is no "consensus of opinion" amongst economists on a sole-source of failure, even if consensus were a desirable or relevant thing. There isn't even agreement that what we're seeing is a failure. I'd argue that what we're experiencing is potentially wondeful: stupid people that did stupid things are getting punished. Except that because of federal intervention, the wrong people are getting punished and the stupid people are getting sacks of money, so it wont really be seen as a market correction, it will be seen as a "market failure" (whatever that means).
not in post credit crunch world. before the bailouts, there were still 150 morons who had the guts to sign a letter and send to bush to say 'dont bail anything out'. practically meaning 'let everything burn'. when they saw that entire world was crashing and burning down, and europe was bailing out its own sectors and stabilizing the crisis a bit, they shut the hell up.
these people are always going to blabber like that. they are finding their self actualization and importance in being the member of this belief, and their power comes from that. no different than the cardinals of catholic church back a thousand years ago. even if jesus came down and said 'you have gone way out of line', they would STILL have to deny and be stubborn in what they say.
and yes, there is a consensus. economists around the world are agreeing on the cause of failure, and even imf, wto had put out statements on that consensus, asking u.s. to do proper regulation, and not leave finance sector lawless. the only non consensus situation exists in your country, where a lot of people have been brainwashed to believe a chaotic dog eat dog environment can actually work out for people. there has never been such a case in world history that it worked out.
it never works that way. choice does NOT happen in a market that is let to be entirely 'free'.
its against the societal dynamics of mankind. how ? very simple :
nature doesnt like chaos. it always establishes some kind of order in any environment eventually. societal dynamics are no different. if you let a market be completely free, eventually the corporations which come out stronger will proceed to corner the market through various means. even in an ideal world, that would still happen through excessive competition - bigger ones muscling others out with better products and cheaper prices. it may seem like a good thing at first, but, in the end it evolves to something else. imagine 10 remaining huge corporations who are way too chummy with each other dominate the food market entirely. do you think, you have a choice in such an environment ? do you think, you will be let to choose a corporation's products exclusively than others, to the detriment of all the others ? no. you will NOT be let to. if any corporation tries to break free out of the 'group' at this eventual cartel situation, they will get bashed.
just like the current situation in many of the markets. cd prices, computer prices, movie prices, all kinds of major product prices that are sold on global scale, converge at certain levels in each country, despite a lot of competition. how ? because everyone, without talking to each other, arranges their prices to a point that will not upset other major corporations. else, they would face retaliation in other markets that the corporations are strong. or other regions.
voila - a strongmen's alliance instead of corporations competing for customers like a maniac.
but what i describe here would happen in an IDEAL environment. world is far from ideal.
wealth is economic power. economy is a dog eat dog world. it is NO different than feudal times, in which stronger lords strongarmed lesser lords and kept them in check, keeping their dominion.
in real world wealth is a strategic resource. supplying a nation exclusively with something is a strategic resource. just think how many 'messages' hollywood slips out into movies that are shown to american people. same goes for every other country's movie industry. opinion is herded. just imagine how the telecommunications companies monopolize a nation's communication, and anything that runs on it. just imagine how it would be if a few companies had mega clout on education, finance, and even food.
no buddy, choice is something that can ONLY be ensured when there is strict regulation to ensure that there IS choice, through government. without government's prominence, there is chaos, and eventually a bigger 'old boys' network' that has enough number of megacorporations fill in the void of authority. if there is a prominent government, and YOU practically OWN and run it through your representatives, then noone can strongarm another, and you can actually ensure that you really have a choice.
my friend,
alan greenspans create people like hitler, stalin and the likes.
it was people like him who caused the 1929 crash to go out of hand, entire world come burning down, social unrest coming up as a result of this, and the advent of fascism.
holistic economists with their attitude "dont touch it - market will correct itself", created the 1929 disaster. market corrected itself, right, it created a world war to correct itself. 15 million people died as a result, and thats only in europe, known numbers. unofficial count, god knows.
internet has become an indispensable feature of life today. leave aside surfing and whatnot, important paperwork, business, even medical proceedings, filekeeping can be done online.
its not a far cry. each automation method we invented in preceding centuries became the method we built modern life upon. the world is going to be run through internet in the coming decades.
these all are the eggs laid by the top management republicans staffed those organizations with. leave aside creating them in the first place.
unbelievable isnt it ? they are 1 month from being fired, yet still try to force their agenda.
actually not. self centered, extremist right groups tend to lose perception of reality after a point. nazis at the closing stages of the war, or nixon still saying he is an honest man, are examples of that.
you know the saying "your freedoms end where another's begins"
society is a give and take situation. its a trade off. you trade in SOME freedom in order to get a lot of perks and freedoms. for, if society wasnt there, you would be also concerned about saving your butt from wolves, or, wondering whether it will rain this month, so you can find water.
instead, you just get to suffer a little in terms of 'freedoms' (Which is basically generally cash - tax complaints), but gain innumerable, invaluable benefits.
if your interests differ from the will of majority, you STILL have the power to seek reparation for your losses, and you still have the option to have another concession in another thing that will interest you, if anything that you werent interested in was taken away.
but also sorry pal, this is social living. you give, you take.
we invented society to get us out of caves and reach this level of civilization, sitting in front of monitors instead of brick mud houses. because that is where we would be still if we havent invented society.
excuse me, but you cant be making use of all the perks society brings, and cry out 'its not in my interests' when you have to forfeit stuff for the greater good of entire society.
if you think otherwise, youre just a self centered, spoiled individual. just go to a mountain top, and live there, where you will not have to spend a dime for nobody else's interests, but also be away from the perks society brings.
These systems work well only in your imagination. I live in one of these countries with which you think government is doing a good job and I also work in that very field.
Believe me, people will always be looking for their self interest and "some" will always get what they want even if it means everyone else is worse off.
This includes the physicians, administrators, and "Government Officials".
When government is in control, and resources for the system are only provided by government, the patient will always take a back seat to the self interest of the physicians and administrators and politicians.
my dear friend, there has been and there will be corruption in ANY society, in diminishing levels, even closing on to an utopia.
we have invented judiciary, laws, we have invented democracy. none of these are perfect and they harbor corruption.
but the magic is, these are the ones that provide for the LEAST corruption. democracy beats feudalism by a long shot, makes it harder to be corrupted, modern legal system beats any previous justice understanding by a long shot, and makes it more just to live in.
you cant just ditch something because it is imperfect.
When private sector is under control, even if physicians and administrators are seeking their self interest, their enterprise will fail if it is not aligned with that of the patient, and the patient now has the option to go to another practice or hospital.
you talk like greenspan. who, in front of senate committee, sheepishly admitted that he 'couldnt understand why corporations didnt regulate themselves'.
because they WONT.
if you let a lawless, unregulated, no alternative environment to be created out of the belief that is 'private does it better', private corporations will fight it in between themselves, establish a pecking order in between themselves, and then proceed to protect THEIR rights via the power they wield.
a private corporation's interest is majority shareholders' interest. the shareholders' numbers of any corporation can NEVER be compared to any considerable majority in any given country - they are ALWAYS in minority in terms of numbers, so they never encompass many people.
even, in the case of credit crunch, shareholders' interest can be even discarded for self profit by those who actually run those corporations. without blinking.
there can be no delusion like 'patients' interests', as we can see from the united states healthcare system. they skip anything that is unprofitable through contract juggling, using power of law because bigger money means larger lawyer army and victory, and employ more lobbyists than congressmen to pass out laws in their interest, but to the detriment of public. the people.
It amazes me how many people want to give more power to governments thinking that they can make things better. I would agree with that if you can guarantee that we will always get competent officials who are always looking for interest of their community.
Free markets, even with all its corruption, are better than any system or institution the government would put in place. Since the selfish organizations can roll over and die if they dont perform well. Whereas with government institutions... we are stuck with them for life. They are worse than monopolies!.
If many people think highly of a certain way of running a business, a healthcare system, an ISP or that a company is not offering a good enough service . Then why not get together in this free market, and try to establish a company that follows your ideals and see how competitive it is. If your ideals are good enough for their time, it will be profitable and investors would be lined up. If not, then the rest of us would not be stuck with it.
The system works (free market), we just have to use it. There have to be new entrants in the market for it to function properly. Inviting government to the market is lik
first, government is YOUR corporation. you have every right to it. if, they dont give out information to you, you change your senator, demand it, have him put out laws, and get it.
ANYthing that is in private hands, can be hid behind the 'private property' 'privilege' 'trade secrets' rights, and you CANT argue.
these were what were used to hide the financial scam that has been going on in wall street in regard to credits, and these were also the thing that prevented madoff's scheme from being found out.
no, harboring trust for private sector in THAT level you people have, is no different than trusting a divine being with all your faith. there is no 'invisible hand', and there is no free market god to set things right.
thats just another excuse you americans use to excuse your inaction. 'neither democrats nor republicans are any good' -> nonsense. upon any given two groups, there is always one that is more suitable for the purpose at hand.
sue your senators, demand from your senators. choose whichever is more accommodating for people's wishes. start from somewhere. 'hey a third party is gonna co...' -> HOW do you know that third party is not going to be 'the 3rd party', if you are SO sure that the first two are totally useless ? what if it happens to be just another ?
which explains what has exactly happened, as per international economist's view ?
boy. the tendency to blame government STILL in there, even in slashdot. unbelievable. its as if it became something like a religion in your country - 'believe' government is inefficient, and IT should be blamed for EVERYthing bad that happens and private sector comes up all roses.
some people need a thick stick to get sense beaten into their thick skull.
to an ordinary occasional internet subscriber, and they are in the majority, such a post that is not responded to may seem like an uncontested opinion, when reached through a random google result.
the credit crisis did NOT result from the lending to risky borrowers due to those laws, but, from the fact that the bastardly corporations of yours conjured 'derivative' assets over those mortgages, juggled them into complex composure hedge funds and sold them for over SIXTY TIMES their value. now, mark that, SIXTY Times.
because these were considered as investments, therefore assets, the corporations and banks which invested in those showed them in their balance sheets. therefore, all those WATER VAPOR assets have been taken into account while calculating those companies financial health factors, borrowing/lending power and so on. governments and regulators worldwide have given o.k. for those corporations to buy, borrow or lend upon those numbers, because there were no reason not to trust investment banks in united states. entire world thought that they would act responsibly, like total fools.
and those banks and corporations borrowed, lent, loaned and invested ALSO calculating those assets. therefore many of them loaned money/value they dont have, many of them borrowed value that is not there.
and then it turned out that the regulators in u.s. did SH@T of a job in regulating and assessing the financial health of the lenders and the SCAM they were running. why ?
why ! government is inefficient !! if government meddles in business, it kills jobs !!! hands off business !!!
thats why.
and when it came out that the wealth which ENTIRE world thought that was there, was actually a SCAM, VOID, WATER VAPOR. ON PAPER
you know the rest.
dont feed me that stupid 'risky borrower' shit. if a risky borrower bought a house through mortgage, EVEN if the bank gave the mortgage from an overinflated price of 600 k value despite the house was worth actually 400, and the house now only sells for 300 k, 1 million americans risking foreclosure means that there should be only 300 bn worth of assets at stake.
america already provided 700 bn in bailout cash, britain 160 bn, germany 600 and france 400 bn, switzerland 80 bn.
these cover the risky mortgages OVER a few times.
so why bailout money is not fixing the situation ?
BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE MORTGAGES, BUT THE POISONOUS WATER VAPOR ASSETS YOUR BANKS HAVE JUGGLED INTO EXISTENCE.
if you multiply 300 bn with SIXTY, the overselling rate of those FAKE assets, you can get to a rough number of $180 trillion. 180 trillion dollars worth of FAKE assets or more were sold around the world, by your banks, which were NOT regulated in regard to what sh@t they were pulling out.
being brainwashed by private corporations, is your thing. private, personal. we, out of civilized respect, only can voice our opinion on it, but not demand anything. that was what we have done up until now.
however, when your corporations SCAM entire world, excuse me, but that takes on a whole different meaning. this is a global world. you cant do your will and still continue trading globally. you will have to f@cking stick by modern global regulatory standards, and use proper regulatory methods, or you will be going back to herding cattle from kansas to california. for, noone will trade with you again like that. imf, wto, are already pressurizing your government to take its responsibility. you better heed their words.
give me ANY reason not to respond to an internet troll. what are we gaining by not responding ? all we are doing is to create the impression that noone dare oppose those views, for the uninformed readers. you, me, other communities' members, people who know internet may discern a troll. but many ordinary users will not be able to.
already. universal healthcare, other public services, or other services that are held by private sector in other countries work very well in europe, but SOMEHOW, goverment is always 'inefficient' in united states.
or, rather, you people are WAY too brainwashed with the private sector propaganda and lobbying there. for example, the concept of 'lobbying corporation' is an abomination that exists mainly in united states. remember how they spent 100 million on advertisements on how network neutrality was 'sabotaging jobs' back 2 years ago in the blink of an eye over a month, in order to push laws to turn internet into cable tv ? if you dont, you should.
i have to say this here - if, you are unable to make your government work more efficiently than european countries, its YOUR fault. its your country, government is YOUR corporation, you are the inalienable shareholder, you should f@cking stand up and demand your rights, and your rights to be protected from private interests, yourself. someone is not going to come and do it for you.
and no, blabbering 'government is inefficient' and selling your butt to private sector WONT help, just like we saw what happened with healthcare, and credit crisis.
ibm didnt try to prevent people from using PC as a generic term. psion, scion, scimition, noone else will be able to similarly.
excuse me, but you are totally stupid if you think you can fight languages. languages evolve beyond the call of law, you cant do zit about them. maybe 1/4 of the world uses the word 'f@ck', despite it being prevented from being used in a lot of places via laws.
Slashdot Mirror
explain your decision.
is there a christmas sale with mod points ?
some fool breeds a deadly unstoppable strain of a new virus/bacteria in his garage ?
genetics is no I.T. computers cant harm people, websites cant kill people. you can confiscate computers, you can take down websites. genetics is no joke.
fascists' government intervention was not in matters related to free market and freedom of corporations. actually what happened after nazi's ascent was just the domination of previously already dominating corporations, which supported their ascent to power. totally the same with what happened in neocon republicans' era in america.
In the extreme case of a centrally planned economy, we would assume that the government knows everything about everyone. This by itself is unjust as privacy advocates would tell you, however, we know also that it is impossible. In less extreme cases it would be to add regulation to a current free market system in response to certain events, to deter certain unwanted behavior which I would also argue is unjust for the following reasons:
corporations should not retain any privacy. the moves that brought on the credit crisis and the madoff scam were hid behind trade secrets/privacy rights. individuals may have privacy and that is their right too. but corporations are way too strong factors in social life to let have any privacy. its rather moot anyway, in modern times of economic analysis, modeling and forecasts, it is rather stupid to try to hide balance sheets, financial ratios, accounts. for, if any sufficiently big corporation puts enough money into stalking another, they can readily make out all the 'secrets' of the other. the only ones who cant do that are the people, and politicians, because people lack the resources to conduct such analysis, and politicans are barred from doing it because 'hands off business'.
1- There is enough regulation in the market for government and any market participant to know what is considered right and what is considered wrong, therefore the justice system can take care of any cases of illegal behavior.
if there was enough, credit crisis wouldnt happen. madoff wouldnt have pulled out that scam.
and its rather dud statement either. mankind advances day by day, and new venues and methods of business are found. regulations need to be renewed and updated continually. we cant rely on 50 year ago's regulations in the age of internet. what those people, the hedge fund scammers did, was to invent dud assets over existing assets and overblow their importance and values in a computerized environment anyway.
2- More regulation would just add more burden on the market players that choose not to participate in the illegal behavior, and therefore, it is a punishment for them more than it is a deterrent for future illegal activity.
another moont statement. corporations are already going through immense bureaucratic procedures within the protocols that they created for their internal workings. they do that for their own benefit, but somehow, when it comes to going through regulatory bureaucracy, suddenly that kind of bureaucracy becomes unbearable. that doesnt add up.
a necessary evil, in the end, is a necessary evil in any case. if that burden is needed so that entire world wont come crashing down again, everyone has to 'suffer' it. small price to pay to prevent another world war.
3- More regulation would reduce the number of entrants which free markets rely on to correct itself and bring about innovation.
totally absurd, totally unfounded. regulations were the things that were ensuring there's competition in the first place. regulations ended the era of robber barons, and opened up venues for trade for everyone. and we always will need regulations as mankind progresses. 50 years ago there wasnt internet around. now there is. and it has come to brink of becoming another robber baron's business, with the attempt telcos did 1.5 year ago in which they tried to end equality on the net by attacking network neutrality. internet is new. it needs new regulations. the only way to ensure that no telco will make internet into a cable network of its own, no
the irony of the parent post, your reply, and your nickname introduces to the environment is unparaleled.
Regarding the other point you made: there are a lot of economists that say a lot of things. There is no "consensus of opinion" amongst economists on a sole-source of failure, even if consensus were a desirable or relevant thing. There isn't even agreement that what we're seeing is a failure. I'd argue that what we're experiencing is potentially wondeful: stupid people that did stupid things are getting punished. Except that because of federal intervention, the wrong people are getting punished and the stupid people are getting sacks of money, so it wont really be seen as a market correction, it will be seen as a "market failure" (whatever that means).
not in post credit crunch world. before the bailouts, there were still 150 morons who had the guts to sign a letter and send to bush to say 'dont bail anything out'. practically meaning 'let everything burn'. when they saw that entire world was crashing and burning down, and europe was bailing out its own sectors and stabilizing the crisis a bit, they shut the hell up.
these people are always going to blabber like that. they are finding their self actualization and importance in being the member of this belief, and their power comes from that. no different than the cardinals of catholic church back a thousand years ago. even if jesus came down and said 'you have gone way out of line', they would STILL have to deny and be stubborn in what they say.
and yes, there is a consensus. economists around the world are agreeing on the cause of failure, and even imf, wto had put out statements on that consensus, asking u.s. to do proper regulation, and not leave finance sector lawless. the only non consensus situation exists in your country, where a lot of people have been brainwashed to believe a chaotic dog eat dog environment can actually work out for people. there has never been such a case in world history that it worked out.
it never works that way. choice does NOT happen in a market that is let to be entirely 'free'.
its against the societal dynamics of mankind. how ? very simple :
nature doesnt like chaos. it always establishes some kind of order in any environment eventually. societal dynamics are no different. if you let a market be completely free, eventually the corporations which come out stronger will proceed to corner the market through various means. even in an ideal world, that would still happen through excessive competition - bigger ones muscling others out with better products and cheaper prices. it may seem like a good thing at first, but, in the end it evolves to something else. imagine 10 remaining huge corporations who are way too chummy with each other dominate the food market entirely. do you think, you have a choice in such an environment ? do you think, you will be let to choose a corporation's products exclusively than others, to the detriment of all the others ? no. you will NOT be let to. if any corporation tries to break free out of the 'group' at this eventual cartel situation, they will get bashed.
just like the current situation in many of the markets. cd prices, computer prices, movie prices, all kinds of major product prices that are sold on global scale, converge at certain levels in each country, despite a lot of competition. how ? because everyone, without talking to each other, arranges their prices to a point that will not upset other major corporations. else, they would face retaliation in other markets that the corporations are strong. or other regions.
voila - a strongmen's alliance instead of corporations competing for customers like a maniac.
but what i describe here would happen in an IDEAL environment. world is far from ideal.
wealth is economic power. economy is a dog eat dog world. it is NO different than feudal times, in which stronger lords strongarmed lesser lords and kept them in check, keeping their dominion.
in real world wealth is a strategic resource. supplying a nation exclusively with something is a strategic resource. just think how many 'messages' hollywood slips out into movies that are shown to american people. same goes for every other country's movie industry. opinion is herded. just imagine how the telecommunications companies monopolize a nation's communication, and anything that runs on it. just imagine how it would be if a few companies had mega clout on education, finance, and even food.
no buddy, choice is something that can ONLY be ensured when there is strict regulation to ensure that there IS choice, through government. without government's prominence, there is chaos, and eventually a bigger 'old boys' network' that has enough number of megacorporations fill in the void of authority. if there is a prominent government, and YOU practically OWN and run it through your representatives, then noone can strongarm another, and you can actually ensure that you really have a choice.
my friend,
alan greenspans create people like hitler, stalin and the likes.
it was people like him who caused the 1929 crash to go out of hand, entire world come burning down, social unrest coming up as a result of this, and the advent of fascism.
holistic economists with their attitude "dont touch it - market will correct itself", created the 1929 disaster. market corrected itself, right, it created a world war to correct itself. 15 million people died as a result, and thats only in europe, known numbers. unofficial count, god knows.
no apology needed.
yet it isnt a far cry.
internet has become an indispensable feature of life today. leave aside surfing and whatnot, important paperwork, business, even medical proceedings, filekeeping can be done online.
its not a far cry. each automation method we invented in preceding centuries became the method we built modern life upon. the world is going to be run through internet in the coming decades.
these all are the eggs laid by the top management republicans staffed those organizations with. leave aside creating them in the first place.
unbelievable isnt it ? they are 1 month from being fired, yet still try to force their agenda.
actually not. self centered, extremist right groups tend to lose perception of reality after a point. nazis at the closing stages of the war, or nixon still saying he is an honest man, are examples of that.
you know the saying "your freedoms end where another's begins"
society is a give and take situation. its a trade off. you trade in SOME freedom in order to get a lot of perks and freedoms. for, if society wasnt there, you would be also concerned about saving your butt from wolves, or, wondering whether it will rain this month, so you can find water.
instead, you just get to suffer a little in terms of 'freedoms' (Which is basically generally cash - tax complaints), but gain innumerable, invaluable benefits.
that is a good deal.
you have made great milage in the last election.
despite one candidate and his party tried to use the ages old 'low taxes' ploy in order to fool you into electing them, you elected the higher road.
this is how changes are made. bit by bit. one step at a time.
Yeah, Europe's in such great shape that plenty of them still come here for good and timely medical care.
what we see is otherwise. where does that happen ? freerepublic chat rooms ?
if your interests differ from the will of majority, you STILL have the power to seek reparation for your losses, and you still have the option to have another concession in another thing that will interest you, if anything that you werent interested in was taken away.
but also sorry pal, this is social living. you give, you take.
we invented society to get us out of caves and reach this level of civilization, sitting in front of monitors instead of brick mud houses. because that is where we would be still if we havent invented society.
excuse me, but you cant be making use of all the perks society brings, and cry out 'its not in my interests' when you have to forfeit stuff for the greater good of entire society.
if you think otherwise, youre just a self centered, spoiled individual. just go to a mountain top, and live there, where you will not have to spend a dime for nobody else's interests, but also be away from the perks society brings.
These systems work well only in your imagination. I live in one of these countries with which you think government is doing a good job and I also work in that very field. Believe me, people will always be looking for their self interest and "some" will always get what they want even if it means everyone else is worse off. This includes the physicians, administrators, and "Government Officials". When government is in control, and resources for the system are only provided by government, the patient will always take a back seat to the self interest of the physicians and administrators and politicians.
my dear friend, there has been and there will be corruption in ANY society, in diminishing levels, even closing on to an utopia.
we have invented judiciary, laws, we have invented democracy. none of these are perfect and they harbor corruption.
but the magic is, these are the ones that provide for the LEAST corruption. democracy beats feudalism by a long shot, makes it harder to be corrupted, modern legal system beats any previous justice understanding by a long shot, and makes it more just to live in.
you cant just ditch something because it is imperfect.
When private sector is under control, even if physicians and administrators are seeking their self interest, their enterprise will fail if it is not aligned with that of the patient, and the patient now has the option to go to another practice or hospital.
you talk like greenspan. who, in front of senate committee, sheepishly admitted that he 'couldnt understand why corporations didnt regulate themselves'.
because they WONT.
if you let a lawless, unregulated, no alternative environment to be created out of the belief that is 'private does it better', private corporations will fight it in between themselves, establish a pecking order in between themselves, and then proceed to protect THEIR rights via the power they wield.
a private corporation's interest is majority shareholders' interest. the shareholders' numbers of any corporation can NEVER be compared to any considerable majority in any given country - they are ALWAYS in minority in terms of numbers, so they never encompass many people.
even, in the case of credit crunch, shareholders' interest can be even discarded for self profit by those who actually run those corporations. without blinking.
there can be no delusion like 'patients' interests', as we can see from the united states healthcare system. they skip anything that is unprofitable through contract juggling, using power of law because bigger money means larger lawyer army and victory, and employ more lobbyists than congressmen to pass out laws in their interest, but to the detriment of public. the people.
It amazes me how many people want to give more power to governments thinking that they can make things better. I would agree with that if you can guarantee that we will always get competent officials who are always looking for interest of their community. Free markets, even with all its corruption, are better than any system or institution the government would put in place. Since the selfish organizations can roll over and die if they dont perform well. Whereas with government institutions ... we are stuck with them for life. They are worse than monopolies!.
If many people think highly of a certain way of running a business, a healthcare system, an ISP or that a company is not offering a good enough service . Then why not get together in this free market, and try to establish a company that follows your ideals and see how competitive it is. If your ideals are good enough for their time, it will be profitable and investors would be lined up. If not, then the rest of us would not be stuck with it.
The system works (free market), we just have to use it. There have to be new entrants in the market for it to function properly. Inviting government to the market is lik
first, government is YOUR corporation. you have every right to it. if, they dont give out information to you, you change your senator, demand it, have him put out laws, and get it.
ANYthing that is in private hands, can be hid behind the 'private property' 'privilege' 'trade secrets' rights, and you CANT argue.
these were what were used to hide the financial scam that has been going on in wall street in regard to credits, and these were also the thing that prevented madoff's scheme from being found out.
no, harboring trust for private sector in THAT level you people have, is no different than trusting a divine being with all your faith. there is no 'invisible hand', and there is no free market god to set things right.
thats just another excuse you americans use to excuse your inaction. 'neither democrats nor republicans are any good' -> nonsense. upon any given two groups, there is always one that is more suitable for the purpose at hand.
sue your senators, demand from your senators. choose whichever is more accommodating for people's wishes. start from somewhere. 'hey a third party is gonna co...' -> HOW do you know that third party is not going to be 'the 3rd party', if you are SO sure that the first two are totally useless ? what if it happens to be just another ?
make use of what you have. push forward.
which explains what has exactly happened, as per international economist's view ?
boy. the tendency to blame government STILL in there, even in slashdot. unbelievable. its as if it became something like a religion in your country - 'believe' government is inefficient, and IT should be blamed for EVERYthing bad that happens and private sector comes up all roses.
some people need a thick stick to get sense beaten into their thick skull.
thats what WE think.
to an ordinary occasional internet subscriber, and they are in the majority, such a post that is not responded to may seem like an uncontested opinion, when reached through a random google result.
The Health Care and Credit crunch hit Europe too even with your vaunted government regulations.
yea, because everyone had the stupidity and foolishness to TRUST american corporations and do business with them.
government is YOURS.
DEMAND otherwise.
stop it.
the credit crisis did NOT result from the lending to risky borrowers due to those laws, but, from the fact that the bastardly corporations of yours conjured 'derivative' assets over those mortgages, juggled them into complex composure hedge funds and sold them for over SIXTY TIMES their value. now, mark that, SIXTY Times.
because these were considered as investments, therefore assets, the corporations and banks which invested in those showed them in their balance sheets. therefore, all those WATER VAPOR assets have been taken into account while calculating those companies financial health factors, borrowing/lending power and so on. governments and regulators worldwide have given o.k. for those corporations to buy, borrow or lend upon those numbers, because there were no reason not to trust investment banks in united states. entire world thought that they would act responsibly, like total fools.
and those banks and corporations borrowed, lent, loaned and invested ALSO calculating those assets. therefore many of them loaned money/value they dont have, many of them borrowed value that is not there.
and then it turned out that the regulators in u.s. did SH@T of a job in regulating and assessing the financial health of the lenders and the SCAM they were running. why ?
why ! government is inefficient !! if government meddles in business, it kills jobs !!! hands off business !!!
thats why.
and when it came out that the wealth which ENTIRE world thought that was there, was actually a SCAM, VOID, WATER VAPOR. ON PAPER
you know the rest.
dont feed me that stupid 'risky borrower' shit. if a risky borrower bought a house through mortgage, EVEN if the bank gave the mortgage from an overinflated price of 600 k value despite the house was worth actually 400, and the house now only sells for 300 k, 1 million americans risking foreclosure means that there should be only 300 bn worth of assets at stake.
america already provided 700 bn in bailout cash, britain 160 bn, germany 600 and france 400 bn, switzerland 80 bn.
these cover the risky mortgages OVER a few times.
so why bailout money is not fixing the situation ?
BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE MORTGAGES, BUT THE POISONOUS WATER VAPOR ASSETS YOUR BANKS HAVE JUGGLED INTO EXISTENCE.
if you multiply 300 bn with SIXTY, the overselling rate of those FAKE assets, you can get to a rough number of $180 trillion. 180 trillion dollars worth of FAKE assets or more were sold around the world, by your banks, which were NOT regulated in regard to what sh@t they were pulling out.
being brainwashed by private corporations, is your thing. private, personal. we, out of civilized respect, only can voice our opinion on it, but not demand anything. that was what we have done up until now.
however, when your corporations SCAM entire world, excuse me, but that takes on a whole different meaning. this is a global world. you cant do your will and still continue trading globally. you will have to f@cking stick by modern global regulatory standards, and use proper regulatory methods, or you will be going back to herding cattle from kansas to california. for, noone will trade with you again like that. imf, wto, are already pressurizing your government to take its responsibility. you better heed their words.
give me ANY reason not to respond to an internet troll. what are we gaining by not responding ? all we are doing is to create the impression that noone dare oppose those views, for the uninformed readers. you, me, other communities' members, people who know internet may discern a troll. but many ordinary users will not be able to.
already. universal healthcare, other public services, or other services that are held by private sector in other countries work very well in europe, but SOMEHOW, goverment is always 'inefficient' in united states.
or, rather, you people are WAY too brainwashed with the private sector propaganda and lobbying there. for example, the concept of 'lobbying corporation' is an abomination that exists mainly in united states. remember how they spent 100 million on advertisements on how network neutrality was 'sabotaging jobs' back 2 years ago in the blink of an eye over a month, in order to push laws to turn internet into cable tv ? if you dont, you should.
i have to say this here - if, you are unable to make your government work more efficiently than european countries, its YOUR fault. its your country, government is YOUR corporation, you are the inalienable shareholder, you should f@cking stand up and demand your rights, and your rights to be protected from private interests, yourself. someone is not going to come and do it for you.
and no, blabbering 'government is inefficient' and selling your butt to private sector WONT help, just like we saw what happened with healthcare, and credit crisis.
ibm didnt try to prevent people from using PC as a generic term. psion, scion, scimition, noone else will be able to similarly.
excuse me, but you are totally stupid if you think you can fight languages. languages evolve beyond the call of law, you cant do zit about them. maybe 1/4 of the world uses the word 'f@ck', despite it being prevented from being used in a lot of places via laws.
netbook.
netbook.
i want to bu a netbook. NETBOOK.
sue me.
are there any dimwits who could be able to defend republican party, STILL ?