| re: NJC: "Socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t education and healthcare | |
|
Posted by: |
JimmyG 08:30 pm UTC 11/20/08 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: "Socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t education and healthcare - John_Galt 06:23 am UTC 11/19/08 |
John, I agree with you in general w.r.t credentialism. My brother didn't even go to high school and he still advanced to the Swedish middle class by working as a technician at ABB (high voltage cables) and making good money doing that work in Europe, Asia, North America and New Zealand. It would have been much more difficult for him to get that opportunity today, even he has helped solved at least one conceptual problem in an ABB lab that had left his college educated colleagues puzzled up until that point. However, there's a big difference w.r.t to my own field, (materials) science, compared to the time when the U.S. was younger and more free - there has been so much progress and development since then that I find it hard to believe that a sufficient number of people can aquire that kind of knowledge necessary to comprehend and advance the field on their own....you simply must have the mentors that college and grad school offer in that case! Also, you were certainly right when you wrote: >Also, I don't think that, historically, Europeans who >began poor were more likely to end up rich than >Americans, but I suppose that could be true today. There is no doubt that poor Americans used to have an easier time getting rich in the past, but nowadays there is definititely a statistically greater chance for (relatively) poor Europeans to become rich and/or get fulfilling jobs on most of the continent. I also agree with you that healthcare costs too much, but I don't necessarily think that government itself is the problem - the drug companies simply have too much power, and their products are often not marketed and researched indepedently in a moral way, thus, it's necessary to create a balance between them and the people and institutions promoting preventative medicine....I couldn't care less if they are privatized or run by the government, as long as they work! I also agree with Pudding - healthcare should be a universal right in a rich country, but it might be wise to overlook the balance between drug companies and preventative medicine before enforcing a large scale experiment with universal healthcare, as would be the case for the U.S. See, even an ultraliberal like myself can be somewhat pragmatic and moderate.... ;-) /Jimmy G. > Also, I don't think that, historically, Europeans who > began poor were more likely to end up rich than Americans, > but I suppose that could be true today. > Jimmy, > > Thanks for commenting. I'm not sure that the education > and health care sectors are good examples of capitalism in > the United States, as these areas are heavily-regulated > and subsidized here. I think what you might be saying is > that European socialism, which is more upfront about what > it is, is more effective. > > I've commented below on education and health care > generally, because I thought your comments were > interesting. > > **RE: Education** > > I think that the connection between college and a shot at > the "big time" you describe is an indication of a larger > problem in both of our countries. > > When the U.S. was younger and more free, it wasn't such a > credentialized society. A guy with three months of > schooling and a knack for inventing things that people > need or want could, with a bit of luck, end up being the > guy hiring all the college-educated numbskulls. I'm > referring, of course, to Thomas Edison, the founder of GE > and inventor of the electric light, but just recently I > saw Bill Gates, a man who never graduated from college > before he made his billions at Microsoft, give the > graduation ceremony at the University he chose to drop out > of. I heard that, about ten years ago, Steven Speilberg > of Dreamworks SKG finally got his college diploma because > he promised his mother he would, but he made all his good > movies and founded Dreamworks before getting his degree. > Many of the farmers I have represented have, in good > years, annual incomes amounting to millions more than I > make, but some of the older ones have not attended > colleges. > > I despise the credentialism that big government creates. > We have guys in the inner cities who become truly > excellent at their work, but will never be promoted > because their firm cannot promote them over "better > qualified" college-educated people. Fear of employment > laws and policies imposed to limit liability regarding > descrimination is rampant and there are beauractrats who > can make you suffer for hiring the person you know is > subjectively better even though he didn't go to college. > It's reduced our competitiveness internationally and made > us look more European. > > I think college is a good thing for refining the mind and > its great for your sex life, but I don't think it should > have nearly the kind of importance in determining your > shot at the "big time" in your country or sadly in mine. > I mean, most of the folks I know majored in something > completely unrelated to what they actually are doing in > their post-college years. I also don't think college is > for everyone. There are plenty of good people with > genuine interests who can develop in different ways and > its sad that credentialism is making them into second > class citizens here just because they aren't compelled to > put their minds through four years of distraction. > > Also, I don't think that, historically, Europeans who > began poor were more likely to end up rich than Americans, > but I suppose that could be true today. > > **RE: Health Care** > > One problem with health care in the U.S. is that the > availability of insurance has perverted the capitalist > pricing system. Normally, if I demanded $80,0000 a month > for a medicinal cancer treatment, you might not pay that > because you (a) don't have the money so you can't pay that > and (b) would consider a cheaper substitute even if you > did. Under that scenario, I'd have to lower the price if > I wanted to maximize my returns and the U.S. would spend > less on health care. But, health care consumers in the > U.S. have the ability to pay becuase they are spending > other people's money. To simplify, they usually pay a > deductible and a pool of money is used to pay the > difference. The deductible is the same regardless of > whether the treatment is priced at $750.00 or $75,000 -- > so guess which one they choose. The government heavily > regulates insurance and provides some government > subsidies, entitlements, and programs so there's not going > to be a market-triggered adjustment. Ultimately, the U.S. > pays for and gets too much health care, and that doesn't > change the facts about diabetes and cancer that you > mention -- although, it might be a cause of those facts. > Our kids, who were conceived through fertility drugs and > viagra, are on ritalin and their parents are sucking down > painkillers after dinner. > > Everybody in the US can get emergency room or catastrophic > care without insurance, but they'll be billed rates that > are inflated by the availability of insurance and > government entitlements. The presidential candidates > think that the solution is to help more people, like the > poor and self-employed, get insurance and government > entitlements to insurance. Eventually though, someone > should consider that many Americans are already getting > too much health care and it just ain't healty. > > -=John Galt=- > > > > I apologize for being late, but I just read John Galt's > > take on "socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t Obama, and - > > although I must admit that it was a very intellectual take > > on the subject - it has (at least) a couple of > > shortcomings: > > > > Education (already mentioned during the previous > > discussion). Many academic studies show that it's easier > > for kids from low income families to advance in society in > > "socialistic" European countries, where college education > > is free, than in the U.S. Yes, it is true that stipends > > are awarded to the brightest students from low income > > families in the U.S, but a lot of people haven't fully > > matured after they finish high school, and they should > > have the *freedom* to still get a shot at a college degree > > and higher salaries without having to "eat dirt" in a > > lousy work environment (by European standards) on a > > factory floor for decades before getting a hypotethical > > shot at "the big-time"....yes, they do have to pay higher > > taxes once they get that big shot, but a profession should > > not only be about a paycheck, it should also be an > > identity...and you don't necessarily have to make 20x more > > than the guy on the floor, 5-10x more is still highly > > significant! > > > > Healthcare: The U.S spends more on healthcare than any > > other industrialized nation and still th life expectancy > > is shorter and diabetes and cancer are more common - one > > academic study from a couple of years ago even showed that > > Americans in the highest income quartile were twice as > > likely to suffer from diabetes and cancer than Brits in > > the lowest income quartile - this can't only be blamed on > > diet, since any Brit can confirm that the British diet is > > not exactly the healthiest one on the planet... > > > > /Jimmy | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: NJC: "Socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t education and healthcare - John_Galt 06:23 am UTC 11/19/08 |
| Next: | re: NJC: "Socialism" vs. "capitalism" w.r.t education and healthcare - Pudding 06:26 pm UTC 11/19/08 |
| Thread: | |