I can tell, you’re not an investor. You spend far too much time on macro activity beyond your control and understanding. It’s an intriguing academic exercise but worthless in application for the deployment of capital.
When you cry Uncle should be interesting. This market is not going to be kind to you.
You are assuming far too much about what I do from a cryptic few comments.
We work, we eat. I could see how collective capitalism might not be all that bad. Individualistic capitalism is a recipe for greed induced disaster.
4 Likes
The “Questions” are how is capital managed by the private and public sectors hand in hand? Will capital be heavily reinvested for everyone’s interests? Will smoke stacks be heavily regulated for everyone’s interest? Or will total ignorance continue to rule us and think it is the best thing since sliced bread?
Most of the body politics are against all of this right now in the US. The middle is for it, but counted out by everyone. As in the UK the liberals which are the middle only modify the others who trade being in power. We have no Labour party so we keep losing. Labor favors a factory buildout and the general public.
The largest single charitable donation is $1.5 billion left to the Salvation Army by Joan Kroc, the wife of Ray Kroc, founder of the McDonald’s restaurant chain, in her will after she died in October 2003…
DB2
Of course there are outliers. But the base of the congregations tend to be from the lower class with some middle class.
**2. General Congregants (Soldiers & Adherents)**The Salvation Army operates as a church with a global membership base of “soldiers” (those who have signed its statement of faith) and “adherents”. [1, 2]
- Income Level: Congregants come from a broad cross-section of socioeconomic backgrounds, heavily leaning toward working-class and middle-class demographics. [1]
This is no diss. I have worked with the Salvation Army on several charity campaigns (notably media related around Thanksgiving and/or Christmas). I have toured a facility for battered women, and worked in a soup kitchen. I said they do some great things, and are one of the few religions I have found less interested in building giant buildings and golden thrones than in actually helping other human beings.
Indeed, in the battered women’s shelter (replete with toddlers running about) there was not a single sign of religiosity, and when asked if they were required to attend services in return for their shelter several immediately replied “no.” It was truly a “charitable” offering, not a quid pro quo. [That said, I am foursquare opposed to their stance on gays and other such social issues.]
6 Likes
It’s not a government website. It’s an AI summary, looking at multiple independent assessments of the VA effectiveness, rather than cherry picking a few individual complaints and blowing them out of proportion as is popular in the conservative media.
Just thought you’d want to know.
9 Likes
If you look at where the summary is from, it shows a link to a govt website as the source. I didn’t cherry-pick, there are years of complaints about the VA regarding staffing, red tape, long waits and fraud in its record keeping and reporting. If you really read the supporting data, it largely speaks to patient outcomes. It does not address the major complaints which are primarily about the inability to treat at all because of long delays, limited locations, and difficulty with staffing.
Turning this back to the original discussion, the VA is not an endorsement of socialism, wouldn’t you agree? It was intended to fulfill an obligation to treat service members. At the time, it was believed the care needs were specialized and best served by military doctors that understood the culture and experience with treating battle related physical and mental injuries.
But if this approach is so successful, why has it never been replicated as a solution for say Medicare or Medicaid recipients? The answer seems quite obvious.
The early discussion of military might was communist Sparta.
Any US government spending is socialist and many wealthy people take advantage.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
The point isn’t whether the VA is good or bad.
Universal Healthcare has better outcomes.
2 Likes
Interesting take…let me try to soften the hard edges for those deathly afraid of the socialist boogeyman!
Universal healthcare isn’t socialism. By eliminating for-profit insurance, the government can more efficiently provide healthcare to all citizens and ensure capital isn’t wasted on fat-cat insurance executives, but is better used to improve health outcomes.
Universal childcare isn’t socialism. By providing low-cost childcare, the government helps incentivize families to have more children and increases labor participation.
9 Likes
It’s worth noting that prior to the 1980s most health insurance in the US was non-profit, not profit-motivated. There are some things where the profit-motive is a problem, not a solution.
7 Likes
You may want to re-read the thread, since you are making exactly my point. Let me try to help you out. The government funding of certain programs that are then carried out by privately held businesses is not an endorsement of socialism. It is not even an acknowledgement that it is the best solution. It is just a manner in which we choose to address certain problems. For profit businesses make charitable donations to worthy causes all the time, it doesn’t make then non-profits nor does that mean its the best use of investor’s dollars.
Expanding the list of defined rights to include healthcare for all or childcare, are ideas for debate. It seems impractical given that we are facing shortfalls with existing social contracts such as Medicare and Social Security.
I’m not afraid of socialism I just agree with Thomas Sowell and others. The best thing about it is it sounds wonderful. The worst part about it is it doesn’t work. For the most part, competition as well as risk and reward incentives, seems to provide better solutions in most areas where govt involvement is limited.
For example, the cost of laptop today is about a 1/10th of the price of what it was in the mid 90’s. Prior to deregulation in 1978, an inflation adjusted price of an airline ticket for a domestic flight would average about $2,300 vs what we pay now with broad competition. Canadian’s regularly travel to the US and elsewhere to pay cash for better outcomes, treatments and procedures that are not covered, or because of long wait times and where expediency is critical to save one’s life.
“Universal childcare isn’t socialism. By providing low-cost childcare, the government helps incentivize families to have more children and increases labor participation.”
I always love the myth that the govT provides something at a low cost. It’s not disrupting the real supply/demand dynamics. Are you suggesting the Govt is going to contract with childcare providers to take less or pay caregivers less? Of course not, the govt is intervening with taxpayer dollars to subsidize the cost of childcare. It is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
We pay 2X for health care, at similar results, than socialist Europe.
5 Likes
Nobody is suggesting it is. Many of those who argue for Universal Healthcare and Universal Childcare advocate for government provided services. Much like the services we receive from police departments and fire departments we fund.
Let me try to help you out. Thomas Sowell is a cherry-picking, quasi-economist who’s “research” is limited to oversimplified ideological arguments. After reading many of your posts, it’s not all too surprising that you’re a fan.
No, that’s not what I’m suggesting. I’ll give it to you though, you kicked the hell outta that strawman.
8 Likes
I am an unapologetic fan of Thomas Sowell.
Then you’re really not providing anything that’s low cost. If you’re not, where is the cost going? The problem is you never invert the discussion. One of my favorite Sowell quotes is the left never ask 3 basic questions when vetting these massive policy decisions.
-
Where has at worked?
-
At what cost?
3)Compared to what alternative?
No one would like healthcare cost to get reduced more than myself. My personal premium costs have tripled and my deductible has doubled. For our employees, the cost to provide coverage is running in excess of $25k per year.
1 Like
our current system is a mess that does not fully embrace the aspects of free markets or universal care. Again, we probably need to choose one path or the other. You need to be specific about which European countries. Germans pay a sizeable payroll tax for subsidized healthcare. In other countries, individual tax rates are much higher farther down the payscale than in the US to cover the costs. The reality is there is no free lunch.
What would be interesting is the concept of govt funded catastrophic coverage for the bulk of Americans but then where the individual is responsible for “gap coverage”. You could then apply for private coverage products that develop in the market, pay cash, or employer’s could offer it as a fringe benefit.
There is some value in my mind of the consumer having skin in the game. WIth that, demanding more price transparency on routine services and the ability to shop around.
I’ve shopped for MRI scans that have ranged from $350 - $1,800. There shouldn’t be that much of a swing in pricing in a competitive market with price transparency.
2 Likes
Sure. But I pay (and my employer pays) a sizable monthly premium for my healthcare as well. And many people go without health insurance entirely, and when they have a problem, it turns into a big financial problem.
Once again, we pay 2X for healthcare for the same results. This is pretty common knowledge. We also frequently bankrupt people due to injury and illness, also something unique to us amongst first world nations.
I’m not saying there is a free lunch. Stop that straw man. NOBODY IS SAYING THERE IS A FREE LUNCH. We are saying there are cheaper lunches.
11 Likes
Yes, I know, I pay as an employer and employee. There is some argument that with access to coverage, some people would not defer health maintenance, analogous to routine vehicle care and avoid catastrophic failures down the road. However, there are other studies that suggest that much of this is genetic and it may delay an outcome but not avoid it for the bulk of patients. So, it doesn’t materially change the total cost of care for a person but just when it occurs. With that, the preventive care erodes some of the would be if not all of the savings.
It’s pretty common knowledge, what is less common is breaking down why that occurs. It’s a factor of several things including a mish mash of systems that exacerbate costs. In addition, we are a wealthier nation and with that salaries and services tend to cost more than they do in nations where income rates are lower or based on relative GDP. We’re also less healthy, particularly as we age, requiring increased care and pharmaceuticals. Lastly, to extent it is included in the cost, the US leads the world in per capita elective/cosmetic surgeries.
You kind of are if your assumption is that your going to add on an entire segment of the population you claim is not pursuing care for cost reasons and the cost to do so is going to be entirely absorbed by a 50% efficiency gain in costs. If that’s true, it would be the first time in recorded American history that the cost of a govt administered program didn’t end up costing taxpayers far more than the expert’s predictions. If the argument is some moral obligation to provide care as a basic right, I’m fine with that argument. If the suggestion is that you can do so and reduce the costs for the average citizen in total outlay, including increased taxes, I don’t think it will move the needle, unless you limit what is covered, along with other consequences. You only need look to our neighbor to the north, as to what those consequences look like.
1 Like
All in for a lifetime, EU members pay less for healthcare, childcare, education, retirement, and taxes combined. On average, they live longer.
3 Likes
Most of the valuable work in “healthcare” (lower mortality and healthier lives) results from diet, sensible use of the body including doing exercise and not doing stoopid stuff, genetics, and only after all that medicines and medical procedures. PUBLIC HEALTH services usually do all of that but the last far better than hospitals and medical practices at lower costs.
Alone in the world the USA puts huge sums into the least cost-effective work, although until recently that was somewhat balanced by doing extraordinary medical research…
6 Likes