Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Game_Over

New Members
  • Posts

    7,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. Couple of things

    First, the problem of calculation isn't relegated to "socialist" systems as others have pointed out. Indeed, this isn't a socialist system by any stretch of the imagination. Monarchy's, dictatorships, communist and other systems all suffer from this problem. However, socialism doesn't "fail" it's just not as good as a free market system at allocating resources. Socialism is better than monarchy and it's better than dictatorship at resource allocation. Not quite as good as capitalism and nowhere near as good as a free market.

    The next thing is the assumption that the market will get it right. It won't, that's the whole point. The market will get it wrong - but soon have to change through lack of funding. Whereas coercive systems get it wrong and can then carry on regardless for a long time.

    Next one - some on here think people don't want the NHS. I'm as hardline a free marketeer as you'll find and think they really do. The NHS was put in when the balance of power in UK society (i.e. guns and the will/ability to use them amongst returning soldiers) was at it's most equal. The problem with private healthcare systems is that most people become injured or physically debilitated entirely through chance (insurances can check this but as the point of insurance is to not pay out, not ideal, mutualism is better) or through work. This means that the owners and runners of business in a private healthcase system are expecting the people they injure to pay the owners rightful costs. Occassionally you'll get some class action lawsuit which changes things (ear protection in factories for example) but the profit motive basically means that the most sociopathic ******* wins in the absence of distributed force.

    Next one - whether you want correct resource allocation or not is a moral question. People in general do not give a toss about economic viability. They care about morality and empathy for others. Bills need paying, sure - but what for is the question. It doesn't seem to occur to the good professor that you could offer the choice of mistaken but empathic system of resource allocation or correct but non empathic system and people would (and have) picked the empathic one every time.

    Next one - NHS is easily affordable if we stop bailing bankers out.

    Next one - complicated medicine requires recognised authority to allocate voluntary of coerced, doesn't matter. Mrs. miggins who just broke her hip and also has a bladder infection hasn't got a ******ing clue what the best course of treatment is. Price won't tell her, either. People are predictably irrational (Dan Ariely) and will in the overwhelming number of cases pick the most expensive treatment thay can afford - if you know this you can highball shit treatment and get paid out a jackpot.

    The morality is clear, stealing is wrong - but the price calculation is irrelevent. No one cares. Very obviously so.

    Agree with other people.

    You have started to seriously undermine your credibility by making claims such as this.

    You know very well that the bank bail outs didn't involve real wealth - they were just paper guarantees

    the idea that this 'money' could be used to buy actual goods and services in the real world is nonsense

    and you know it.

    :blink:

  2. It's a topsy turvy world when an arch-right-winger proposes a system very similar to that already implemented in Socialist France :)

    Actually I am not that right wing - only compared to the left wing mob who now seem to dominate these discussions.

    I am also aware that other countries have this type of system - I believe Australia uses a similar system to provide education.

    TBH it seems to me that this is the best way forward - the NHS is an organisational disaster but of course no one is allowed to even question the NHS

    without being vilified.

    :)

  3. So you think editing people's posts in order to misrepresent them is acceptable?

    I have reported people to the mods for doing this in the past

    but your behaviour is so patently childish and pathetic

    I really can't be bothered.

    Anyway - I will bid you goodnight as I drive my daughter to work early.

    :blink:

  4. But what would all the NHS managers do? :unsure:

    Exactly and we might actually get some wage competition instead of 'stuffing doctors mouths with Gold'

    Aneurin Bevan, the founder of the National Health Service,* explained at a private dinner circa 1956 how he had secured the doctors’ consent for the 1948 settlement. It was a remark made public by Professor Brian Abel-Smith only in 1964. (Nicholas Timmins, The Five Giants, p115.)

    Unfortunately, the British Medical Association, one of the most ruthless and sectional trade unions the world over, understood this founding principle of the NHS too well. So when Alan Milburn sought the doctors’ consent for his modest, belated competition reforms, he had to stuff their mouths with gold again. Hence the sudden inflation in GPs’ earnings towards the end of the New Labour years.

    Oh - and this is from the Independent by the way.

    :blink:

  5. Meaningless repetition turns your posts into a self-parodying cliché. Whatever arguments you present are effectively lost under the sound of it, and your response when this is pointed out to you doesn't exactly help your cause. I don't even remember whether you were for or against whatever this thread is about. I just remember that your posts became a cliché.

    So you have absolutely no idea where I stand on the political spectrum then?

    I would humbly suggest that this says far more about your powers of comprehension than it does about my ability to explain my opinions.

    :)

  6. Here's a radical proposal

    How about someone goes to the Doctor and if they require treatment they are given a credit by the state to pay for that treatment.

    Private healthcare providers then compete for this business.

    If a person wants to have a private room or 5 star catering they top it up with their own money.

    Also if someone could get the treatment done better or cheaper abroad, they could keep the difference.

    Even Obama doesn't want to copy the NHS.

    :blink:

  7. So how do you know the U.K system is so crap then. Do we rely on your family anecdotes?

    And the WHO did not rank us in 2003 it was 2000. It also did not rank us 18th out of 19 it ranked us 18th out of 190 nations (both poor and rich nations). But I must admit it's hilarious and it's extremely helpful in showing your extreme bias, that you'd remove the other 171 nations ranking lower than us in an attempt to propagate your propaganda.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

    You'll note the nations ranked lower than the U.K. include places like Denmark, Germany, U.S., Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, etc, and of those ranked higher than us 6 were tiny nation states such as Monaco and Andorra, with which it's hard to make a reliable comparison.

    Lastly the most 'private' industrial nation healthcare system is that of Switzerland, which ranks lower than us despite spending way more than the U.K. on healthcare.

    Here's another one for you

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327766/Mid-Staffordshire-NHS-hospital-scandal-left-1-200-dead-happen-again.html

    unfortunately these are not isolated examples.

    :blink:

  8. So how do you know the U.K system is so crap then. Do we rely on your family anecdotes?

    And the WHO did not rank us is 2003 it was 2000. It also did not rank us 18th out of 19 it ranked us 18th out of 190 nations (both poor and rich nations). But I must admit it's hilarious and it's extremely helpful in showing your extreme bias, that you'd remove the other 171 nations ranking lower than us in an attempt to propagate your propaganda.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

    You'll note the nations ranked lower than the U.K. include places like Denmark, Germany, U.S., Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, etc, and of those ranked higher than us 6 were tiny nation states such as Monaco and Andorra, with which it's hard to make a reliable comparison

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9721900/Senior-MP-Ann-Clwyd-says-her-husband-died-like-a-battery-hen-in-hospital.html

    Of course if she had done what many other Labour MP's do and go private

    she would have believed the statistics - same as you do.

    Well I really hope you don't have the pleasure of having your faith in the NHS tested, because

    when the ruling elite start to realise there is a problem - then you really do know there is a problem.

    :blink:

  9. Where did I say anything about the U.S. system? The U.K. healthcare system ranks highly compared to many other nations also. It's not the best but then we spend less on it than most other nations.

    Given that the NHS has now been proven to have left tens of thousands of elderly people, who would have otherwise survived, to die.

    How does this show up in the stats?

    Answer - it doesn't.

    In Socialist Utopias the figures never match up with reality

    because reality proves that Socialism always fails.

    :blink:

  10. It's not an "attitude", it's a logical argument.

    The principal reason for founding the EC/EU was to bind its members together so tightly that war between them would become unthinkable. There have been no wars between EU member states, ergo the EC/EU has been successful in its primary stated objective.

    NATO was founded as a military alliance to counter the Soviet threat, not to ensure peace between its members. The fighting between Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, over Cyprus is evidence of this. NATO successfully countered the Soviet threat; it did not play the primary role in fostering peace between its members.

    It has got to be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that resurgent nationalism and the break-up of the EU is going to threaten peace rather than fostering it. The EU should be defended, rather than attacked, by those whole wish to maintain peace in Europe.

    The EU is CAUSING a resurgence of nationalism

    How about the countries of Europe just living together and trading with each other as independent states in peace?

    Why can't they try that for a change?

    :blink:

  11. I agree. Neanderthal was larger and stronger.. and had a bigger brain. But could not work in more than about 12 people. Sort of like modern day libertarians and anarchists. While homo-sapiens had no limit to the numbers. We have seen million man armies.

    So no matter how individually talented Neanderthal was, he was overwhelmed by numbers. Of course this also means at least 95% of humans are herd members in their mentality. The same people who believe in enivronmentalism and diversity with passion today, would passionately believe in Nazism or anti-communism or communism if they happened to be living in a different time/place. They subconciously follow the herd.

    As you say, homo sapiens are tribal by nature - this is how we got where we are today.

    When Diana died and hundreds of thousands of people who didn't know her from Adam wept and wailed in the streets.

    I found the whole thing stomach churning

    because it was no different than the mass hysteria of the Nuremburg rallies.

    Needles to say I didn't make myself very popular at the time by pointing this out.

    :blink:

  12. Yugoslavia was not a member of the EU. None of the countries within the EU have fought one another since joining. However, neither the EU nor NATO could prevent fighting in countries outside the EU.

    The fighting in Yugoslavia is thus evidence that it is the EU rather than NATO that has been primarily responsible for the recent long period of peace between EU countries.

    If people recognized the dangers and planned for an orderly dismantling of the EU we could perhaps avoid the worst consequences

    but this sort of attitude virtually guarantees disaster on a grand scale.

    :blink:

  13. Foxconn is in China British workers couldn't compete with their wages. The only thing we can do is carry on pretending to be rich and that we are good for are money and get all the unemployed working building their own houses and stop immigration so we end up with enough housing.

    Then we may have cheap enough labour in this country to compete.

    But China and Germany are not having every thing there own way. They aren't going to be paid for the surpluses they have sold to us and if they stop exporting to us we will end up like Cuba with 50 year old cars on the road every thing being repaired.

    Energy is our biggest headache.

    Germany, China and Japan were nowhere in 1945

    We missed a golden opportunity

    Sadly we won't ever get such a chance again.

    :(

  14. Socialism. Does anybody know of a socialist model which hasn't had to adapt to capitalism or face implosion.

    USSR/Russia?

    Cuba?

    China?

    Even these didn't have the crazy levels of welfare that Nu Lab thought was a good idea. The problem is Nu Lab gave us unregulated capitalism (bad) and an unsustainable increase in socialism (bad).

    Exactly - one was needed to pay for the other

    so we got the worst of both

    :blink:

  15. You think we'd be seeing austerity at this point if the banks hadn't been bailed out?

    I'd agree that welfarist systems tend to bloat and fail, but minus the bailouts there'd be a few more decades life in the system.

    And the country would come to a standstill until it was put back the way it was.

    The future is printing.

    You see I view this as intellectual dishonesty

    because you understand far too much about how money works to believe this.

    The bank bailouts cost nothing.

    Numbers were entered on spreadsheets.

    You cannot either create OR destroy actual wealth in this way.

    :blink:

  16. Compared to what?

    That's the real question. Welfare state versus dickensian britain?

    Welfare state versus technocracy? Monarchy? Anarchy?

    What's the options?

    At the end of World War 2 Britain had the finest scientists and engineers in the World.

    We led the World in many fields and our European competition had been devastated by years of warfare.

    But instead of investing in these technologies and becoming a major exporter of high tech and engineering products

    the government starved these areas of funds and ploughed the money into creating a welfare state.

    We could have broken the sound barrier first

    Launched a satellite first

    We could have been the World's largest builder of jet aircraft

    We could have led the world in electronics and computer technology.

    But instead we decided to construct a socialist utopia where millions of people are left to rot on benefits

    and those who work are on a constant treadmill trying to pay for this.

    A once in a century opportunity was squandered and TBH I actually can't see any way back from the position we have now got ourselves into.

    :blink:

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.