What if mandatory health insurance could save lives?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by ARDY, Dec 12, 2019.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not quite. It actually requires neoliberalism. That magnifies the inefficient inequalities required for the ****fest

    You didn't. Shame you didn't make a relevant comment mind you...
     
  2. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    535
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Same thing, different words. Neoliberalism requires government intervention.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All capitalism requires government. Nonsense comment.
     
  4. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A childish response, I thought you wanted a serious discussion.
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was an obvious comment. You've constructed grunt over government intervention. You forgot that neoliberalism crucially inflamed inefficient inequalities, breaking down any distinction between private and public sectors. Given how the American political system is run, to pretend you don't know that really is not credible. Why, in your responses, are you pretending childishness?
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  6. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "You forgot that neoliberalism crucially inflamed inefficient inequalities, breaking down any distinction between private and public sectors. "

    That was exactly my point. Thanks
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it wasn't. It was mine. You merely whined without rhyme or reason.
     
  8. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I assumed I was having a discussion with someone well versed in neoliberalism and there was no need for the fluff of rhyme and reason.

    Neoliberalism is the overall concept of making the wealthy wealthier, rentier capitalism is a tool in the pursuit of that endeavor.
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reiver, to be absolutely fair, I do not necessarily entirely agree with everything she did. The subsidies to coal mining would have been worth it if they were much less than the amount of income of the workers that were lost after the mines closed. I am not sure if that was the case, though. It would probably take some economic research and digging through past statistics to try to uncover the truth of the matter.

    I'm just not in favor of government spending money just to "create jobs", unless it can be done in a very cost effective way, and offers much more benefit than the cost.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2020
  10. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    RENTIER CAPITALISM

    First, definition of Rentier Capitalism (from here):
    In other words, it means the monopolization of (of the elements mention) in order amass capital (economic worth).

    Which, to my mind, means we are exchanging over the practice of Income Disparity/Inequality. All countries that indulge in capitalism are challenged by the amassment of capital-worth by a select group of Rich Investors. That is, IF a country has a policy of Income Disparity (meaning to avoid it), then it must answer the question, "What is Income Fairness?"

    Which means directly what is our policy regarding Income Taxation timewise. Here's what it looks like:
    [​IMG]
    Piketty&Saez came up with the above description to show uniquely what Top Income-Shares appears to be. The difference being that One Percent of the population garner Twenty-percent of the Income. The question remaining is thus simple - is that fair and equitable?

    Why ask that question? The answer is a matter of Societal Fairness. Which is a subject that goes back to the 19th-century and was first addressed by Karl Marx. "Rentier" means this:
    And we are still debating the answer. More recently, Donald Dork reduced upper income-taxation. Because he could. (Legally.)

    The question thus devolves to "Should the PotUS have the right to change income-taxation (and thus Net Income Fairness) without the approbation of Congress".

    Methinks not. (But now you know why Donald Dork refuses to show his Income-Tax Returns ...!)
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2020
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Also actually wrong! Thatcher closed down productive mines. She did that to destroy the NUM (who had previously brought down Tory government). It was peevishness and also, by deliberately using the police to attack strikers, a sign of government authortarianism. Of course right wingers will tend to ignore that...

    You're in favour of myth. It wasn't about 'creating jobs'. It was about deliberately destroying them. Market fundamentalism is really fancy talk for vandalism.
     
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    4,242
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the police were called and attacked the strikers, those workers had no right to be striking the way they were, did they?

    (I imagine these weren't peaceful orderly strikers obeying the law?)

    The government was spending a lot of taxpayer money to keep those mines open when the business couldn't have been able to support itself.

    The real issue was cheaper coal imports that were coming from other countries.

    Ironic you don't support the closing down of those mines, when you're so in favor of free trade and US factories shutting down.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2020
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,501
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course strikers have a right to picket. They brought in the Met and gave them orders to attacks peaceful strikers. When it became a full blown riot it was then pitched as the miner's fault. This is all well known. Indeed, subsequent Governments have stopped any public inquiry.

    That is a lie. Profitable mines were closed. Indeed, mines were closed despite achieving significant growth in productivity.

    As usual you ignore reality to peddle your support for a Government police state. For an economic analysis, try
    Try Glyn and Machin (1997, Colliery Closures and the Decline of the UK Coal Industry, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 35, pp 197-214). Here are some snippets:

    "[W]hen ranked by productivity, closures were only weakly clustered at the bottom of the distribution, and that there were reasonably large numbers of closures located in the top half of the distribution"

    "[C]losures were by no means exclusively concentrated on the worst performers, and many of the pits that were closed at the end of the period had achieved very large increases in productivity over the years preceding closure"

    "It is striking, however, that the 5 pits on BC's closure list that were not on Boyd's 'worst 31' were all in Yorkshire. This seems to support the idea that there was strong political pressure when BC's list was drawn up to keep open a few pits in the outlying areas".
     
  14. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Definition of Neoliberalism (from Wikipedia here):
    Definition of Liberalism (from here) :
    The point being that ideas can have definitions but let's be careful when applying them. Meaning what?

    When I compare the type of governance practiced in the US, and compare with Europe, then:
    *I would call the former economically "liberal or neoliberal" whilst
    *The latter practices a mixed economic-system; that is, both private enterprise as well as the government-provision of key public-services (like housing, schooling and healthcare).

    Simply because the free-behaviour of unrestrained Liberalism can lead inevitably to wholly unfair Income/Wealth distribution (as it does in the US).

    Which means that income
    re-distribution (ie. "taxation and government expenditure") is necessary to establish and maintain the decency of societal fairness and impartiality ...
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2020

Share This Page