# Corporate NTs



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

According to the stereotype, NT types in general are supposed to be the visionaries with imagination and abstract thinking.

So, to those of you who are part of the corporate American lifestyle (particularly those of you within positions of power inside your respective firms and/or industries) how do you morally reconcile with yourself the structural inequality that "corporatism" a.k.a. "globalism" creates both within the US and the rest of the world?

How do you address concerns dealing with "externalities" and the out-sourcing of labor to third-world countries which has historically decimated the textile industry and is now threatening to do the same to the rising computer science industry?

What is your response to sociologists and economists who persistently explain with math and science that capitalism as an economic model, specifically the one that exists within America today, simply is not sustainable?

How do you feel when someone mentions that the Fortune 400 according to Forbes magazine has a combined wealth that exceeds the total wealth of the bottom half of the entire population?

Or that, according to the US Department of Agriculture last year 4.1 billion dollars was distributed in the form of food stamps to over 47 million households - and 4.1 billion dollars is equal to about 5.6% of one man's total wealth (Bill Gates) essentially meaning that one single person could have completely wiped out national hunger for an entire year for only a tiny fraction of his wealth - ONE person. ONE. Person. Versus 47 million _*families?*_

Does it matter to you that according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization the world's food production allows for 2720 kcals of food allotted to every single human being per day, and yet billions of people are starving? Or that only 6 American corporations control 90% of the world's grain distribution?

Does it matter to anyone anymore, or have we all just stopped caring?


----------



## Graficcha (Dec 25, 2011)

It drains me of my hope of ever becoming part of it all in a way that won't wreck me mentally every day of my life.

When I was eight I pretty much blundered into existential depression over it all and never quite got out of that again. "Mom why can't we just send food and money to Africa and fix things there so they can life normally?" "Because it doesn't work that way and there's people who'll just steal it all back from the population anyway."
Oh.
Great.
_Yayyyyyyyy life is swell._

I somehow managed to maneuver myself into a position where soon I'll get to figure out how I can combine my interest for science and spreading knowledge with making money in a way that'll not cause me to want to kill myself after a year of it, graduating soon with a master in biology (the molecular-cellular bio side of things) and maybe I'll even manage to get my degree in high school education as well.

I already spent hours and hours crying in fear and disgust over the pointless demands the teacher's ed is making and how I think it manages to miss the mark only marginally less than the actual state of education itself and I still feel like I'm going to have to pretend to be mentally dead inside to manage the piles and piles of bureaucratic bullshit rapidly coming my way.

In terms of research I've by now found out that so many researchers wouldn't bother with strict patents if their next funding didn't so heavily depend on it. 'Why don't you just spread your new discoveries for a softer price, or even for free?'
Well, they would, if that wouldn't be economic suicide for their own department. Science is expensive.

I hate the world and I hate everything churning in this insane financial bubble of abstractions, greed and the delusion that marketeers and financers and stockbrokers aren't basically screwing everyone over for the gain of a few, but I'll have to do *something* to earn a living just enough so it can all kiss my ass and die.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Graficcha said:


> It drains me of my hope of ever becoming part of it all in a way that won't wreck me mentally every day of my life.
> 
> When I was eight I pretty much blundered into existential depression over it all and never quite got out of that again. "Mom why can't we just send food and money to Africa and fix things there so they can life normally?" "Because it doesn't work that way and there's people who'll just steal it all back from the population anyway."
> Oh.
> ...


I share your sympathies and I just wanted to say I really appreciate your response. I'm kind of in the same mentality myself.

I'm really glad to hear you're considering becoming an educator. I think education is by far the single most important resource that people have as human beings to improve their lives and progress at all. Without education you can't make informed decisions that are in your best interest, which is essential for democracy and freedom. How can you vote or make politically informed decisions without education? Which ties into the serious issue of corporate control over the mass media and propaganda, but I digress.

But yeah, I'm also trying to earn a bachelors and get my high school teaching credential here in Southern Nevada. I'm currently attending at College of Southern Nevada and hope to transfer to UNLV with an AS degree in computer science soon.

Just be aware that there will be setbacks in being an educator as well - for instance, the standardization of curriculum will tend to focus on a more conservative nationalist perspective which only provides students with the encouragement and information needed to pass tests and get jobs - not to really approach society as novel thinkers challenging the system with left-wing progressive ideologies that are trying to change things. That kind of mentality won't help them get jobs, you see. In fact, that kind of mentality might actively diminish their chances of getting hired, because once you start thinking laterally you tend to notice the structural inequality built into society and (heaven forbid) you might even want to oppose it - which means not supporting capitalism, and... well... how do you even do that without putting yourself in the under-class of homeless and discouraged citizens who are unemployed and have no access to the means of survival without depending on social movements?

Yeah, it's pretty bleak. But I maintain hope. Churches for instance do a lot to help the community, and there are a lot of NPOs that help out with food, shelter, and other basic needs like medicine and child care. The best thing is just to look into what kinds of "grass-roots" programs there are in your local community and try to help out somehow. At least you'll feel better somewhat, instead of feeling completely helpless.


----------



## Graficcha (Dec 25, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> I share your sympathies and I just wanted to say I really appreciate your response. I'm kind of in the same mentality myself.
> 
> I'm really glad to hear you're considering becoming an educator. I think education is by far the single most important resource that people have as human beings to improve their lives and progress at all. Without education you can't make informed decisions that are in your best interest, which is essential for democracy and freedom. How can you vote or make politically informed decisions without education? Which ties into the serious issue of corporate control over the mass media and propaganda, but I digress.
> 
> ...


I've done my theory and pre-practical classes, I was already kind of pessimistic about the entire setup and getting more closely involved with the political mishmash in my own country surrounding education and the practical demands in the field haven't done anything but make me even less hopeful.

I want to teach, but they're really managing to make it ever more impossible to pour some genuine wonder and useful knowledge back into kids.

Heck, I was appalled to look at my current education and notice how horribly far behind biology curricula are on *what biology is actually bloody good for in these modern times*. Why spend three hours discussing the exact indepth details of the human ear when you could talk about biotechnology, gene tech, medicine, agrotechnics, biofuel, the food debate?

Enfin, this year I'll probably end up being allowed to fill three hours teaching the sixth graders about biotech, a new bit in the curriculum this year here. That alone's making me a lot more enthusiastic already. They also FINALLY expanded the bit on biodiversity away from the old 'protists and plants and animals' system to the newer classifications, AND I'll actually be allowed to show them something much closer to the true diversity of life (you know, all those amazing taxa that aren't vertebrates).

I'll wiggle through this somehow. I'll see where it leaves me once I've been through that internship experience, because I haven't actually given presentations longer than ten minutes, let alone handled a class of twenty teenagers for fifty minutes.


I can really only try and focus on the shorter term to function at all, once I begin questioning what the use of it all is I just crumple under the knowledge that what I'm doing matters preciously little and in itself promotes the old systems as they were. But things can't change at all expecting abrupt change, and I can only value the minds of those teenagers more'n my own. Good teachers can be a godsend.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Honestly I really don't think about it. I do the best I can for myself and go from there. Working in a corporate environment is kind of soul crushing and I'm looking to start my own business very soon.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I just finished reading "Onward" - Written by the founder /CEO of Starbucks. Awesome, and yet I can't help but wonder if the whole book isn't 100% carefully crafted PR. The guy seems iconic ENFP. I think that could be a true representation of him. What he's been so good at is that he knows where his strength is, the rallying, and general direction, plus "radar" for people who will work in harmony with the "right" values. So If he is the passion, he can delegate the tactical pragmatism. Not that the guy hasn't accomplished a lot and isn't a powerhouse of brains in his own right, but he also comes across in the book as strongly Ne - Fi.

You know if Starbucks hadn't managed its image for new social realities, and practical necesity (Fe and Te) It would have gone under like a lot of companies did after 2008 crash. If, for the sake of argument, all the caring and social awareness expressed by companies today is not heart felt and just a PR tactic; so what? If coffee farmers in africa get physical and medical needs met, does it matter why? The nature of free market capitolism is that social values do effect business directives, because consumers vote on the life or death of a company. Business and free markets are not inherently dirty. So far a free market system, together with rule of law, holds best potential of any system for being a meritocracy.

So my point is that A feeler in a position of corporate power, can hold that position by being a leader, standard definer and communicator, along with whatever areas of specialiation they have, but they may have to deligate or conceed some of the harsh tactical aspects. *Conversely, thinkers in today's market *may have to start hiring feelers to write blogs, and purposely have feelers in their organizations with real authority to effect changes in line with what customer feedback loops indicate. Environmental concerns and social equality, have their best shot at being fixed with marketing now available to "the masses".

You've heard the proverbial life-boat story? When the raft is overloaded, someone has to be willing to deal with who gets thrown over or else everyone dies. I'm not making any exact litteral reference, I'm just saying there will always have to be some people making hard choices that don't feel like altuism but in reality, make things more functional goind forward. Calling these people meanies and tying their hands won't make things better.

We now have a marketplace where *capitol* means something besides owning buildings and machinery. Today's means of production involves PR investment and relationships - NT's in business know this.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

capitolism haha,, who came up with that, Bush?! Nookielar Kapitolism :tongue:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

:shocked:

Must be I've got a setting or browser issue. I depend heavily on spell check even for small words. I get wrapped up in my thoughts and don’t notice what I’ve actually typed.

Capitalism
:laughing:


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> According to the stereotype, NT types in general are supposed to be the visionaries with imagination and abstract thinking.
> 
> So, to those of you who are part of the corporate American lifestyle (particularly those of you within positions of power inside your respective firms and/or industries) how do you morally reconcile with yourself the structural inequality that "corporatism" a.k.a. "globalism" creates both within the US and the rest of the world?


Well, so far every system of government that has been tried has at some point had downsides and very few if any upsides compared to a capitalist model. I'm not going to get into the whole "marxism has never been tried" debate, because yes it has, repeatedly. 

So far, capitalism with its flaws has played a major role in improving the quality of life for a lot of people and has helped to drive us forward technologically as a species. I actually have more issues reconciling myself morally with government waste and waste due to externalities, subsidies and the likes than I do with "corporatism" 




> How do you address concerns dealing with "externalities" and the out-sourcing of labor to third-world countries which has historically decimated the textile industry and is now threatening to do the same to the rising computer science industry?


I think externalities need to be handled in a much better way than they are currently because they impede optimal allocation of resources by interfering with marginal utility. I.E. the price of a good does not accurately reflect the price of that good. 

When it comes to outsourcing, it's a very complex question. The outsourcing of labor is not an externality, it's an issue of a global economy and has to be addressed as an issue consisting of among others competitive advantage of nations, global trade and trade policy more than anything else. There is no denying that the issues are connected, especially in regards to emerging markets such as China, where both issues exist. 

Externalities in the form of government subsidies, poor worker's rights, worker safety, and so on. Trade and economic policy in the form of regulations for imports and exports, poor oversight, a lack of reporting, an artificially controlled currency etc. 




> What is your response to sociologists and economists who persistently explain with math and science that capitalism as an economic model, specifically the one that exists within America today, simply is not sustainable?


I don't disagree with them but it's a matter of finding a more sustainable alternative not simply proving that a model is not sustainable. Fossil fuels are not sustainable in the long term either, that doesn't mean that we're able to stop drilling for oil, mining for coal and extracting natural gas it means that we have to plan and research with that in mind. 




> How do you feel when someone mentions that the Fortune 400 according to Forbes magazine has a combined wealth that exceeds the total wealth of the bottom half of the entire population?
> 
> Or that, according to the US Department of Agriculture last year 4.1 billion dollars was distributed in the form of food stamps to over 47 million households - and 4.1 billion dollars is equal to about 5.6% of one man's total wealth (Bill Gates) essentially meaning that one single person could have completely wiped out national hunger for an entire year for only a tiny fraction of his wealth - ONE person. ONE. Person. Versus 47 million _*families?*_


I "feel" that someone is presenting an argument with an intention behind it, which is fairly clear but at the same time lack the ability to see the whole picture and is very likely to hold a "socialist" view of economics, where you can change one variable and all the others remain the same. 

I also "feel" that a distinction has to be made between "wealth" and "cash in hand". Fair enough, cash in hand can devalue very quickly in a case where you have hyperinflation, or something of a different nature such as the authority backing the (most likely) fiat currency collapsing. However, there are many ways in which "wealth" can be a poor measure, for instance I've known companies that had a lot of money on paper, but in reality they had large amounts of good will on their balance sheets. 

They may have had inventory that couldn't be sold at all, or would have to be sold at a heavily discounted price but still valued at full value on the balance sheet. There may be properties or other assets valued at too high or too low of a value, so in many ways such numbers fail to impress me. 

It's a bit like the distinction between your salary and your disposable income. 



> Does it matter to you that according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization the world's food production allows for 2720 kcals of food allotted to every single human being per day, and yet billions of people are starving? Or that only 6 American corporations control 90% of the world's grain distribution?
> 
> Does it matter to anyone anymore, or have we all just stopped caring?


Of course it does but probably not in the way you think.

An addendum 

People have this habit of viewing economic systems as wealth distribution systems, when in reality they are wealth management systems. The goal of any economic system is to manage resources in the way that creates the maximum amount of utility. 

Unfortunately, as humans breed like rabbits, and consumption being too high leads to less production in the following cycles, growth is not a choice so much as a necessity. It would be needed in socialism as well, because unless the supply of goods is in a state where it's always D+1, choices of how to spend the resources available to a group will have to be made. 

The question is, how much of that should be up to individuals and how much should be mandated via law.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Well, so far every system of government that has been tried has at some point had downsides and very few if any upsides compared to a capitalist model. I'm not going to get into the whole "marxism has never been tried" debate, because yes it has, repeatedly.
> 
> So far, capitalism with its flaws has played a major role in improving the quality of life for a lot of people and has helped to drive us forward technologically as a species. I actually have more issues reconciling myself morally with government waste and waste due to externalities, subsidies and the likes than I do with "corporatism"
> 
> ...


Free markets work just fine, but only in true functioning democracies. Read about the takeover of Athenian democracy by the Tyrants, circa 500 BC. Then compare: US Congress are basically employees of multinationals and special interests. Add to that the NSA revelations, and one can make a case that the US is a corporate police state, and that democracy there is purely iconic. As the OP alluded.

BTW, Marxism is an ideal, like Christianity, neither has existed in its pure form. But that doesn’t prove that Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand works better.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

yentipeee said:


> Free markets work just fine, but only in true functioning democracies. Read about the takeover of Athenian democracy by the Tyrants, circa 500 BC. Then compare: US Congress are basically employees of multinationals and special interests. Add to that the NSA revelations, and one can make a case that the US is a corporate police state, and that democracy there is purely iconic. As the OP alluded.
> 
> BTW, Marxism is an ideal, like Christianity, neither has existed in its pure form. But that doesn’t prove that Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand works better.


The trouble is that a government that's strong enough to protect what you have is also strong enough to take it away. It's a famous catch 22. The trouble is that the U.S public actually voted for it, if you look at the founding father's and who they gave the right to vote to, it was by all means the best educated people of their day. Once everyone gets to vote, you get a situation where a "grassroots movement of patriots" are basically being manipulated by people who are much, much smarter than they are, and who vote against their own interest. 

Democracy only works when people vote their interest and the "1%" only has "1%" of the votes, it's a shame that at least 49.01% of the the 99% vote in the best interest of the 1%.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> The trouble is that a government that's strong enough to protect what you have is also strong enough to take it away. It's a famous catch 22. The trouble is that the U.S public actually voted for it, if you look at the founding father's and who they gave the right to vote to, it was by all means the best educated people of their day. Once everyone gets to vote, you get a situation where a "grassroots movement of patriots" are basically being manipulated by people who are much, much smarter than they are, and who vote against their own interest.
> 
> Democracy only works when people vote their interest and the "1%" only has "1%" of the votes, it's a shame that at least 49.01% of the the 99% vote in the best interest of the 1%.


True, the stupid peasants should not vote.:tongue: Even the Greeks believed that there must be a protected idle class that is free to indulge in pure intellectual pursuits that advance the common good. It’s just a question of *who* that privileged class of Plato & Aristotle serves.

Founding Fathers?! The pilgrims were *not* oppressed, that’s national mythology. They came from Europe with nothing and here they had all the land they wanted and the freedom to kill the natives to get it. Very few wanted to fight, that’s why they had to hire foreign mercenaries. The so-called American Revolution was a Capitalist coup d'état -- the rich locals grabbed the colony from the rich lords back home. Freedom & democracy was just window dressing, and that’s the way it’s been ever since.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> :shocked:
> 
> Must be I've got a setting or browser issue. I depend heavily on spell check even for small words. I get wrapped up in my thoughts and don’t notice what I’ve actually typed.
> 
> ...


I can't type either. But it surely must have been embarrassing to have a president that can't pronounce the word "nuclear" -- nookielar trumps capitolism.:tongue:


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

yentipeee said:


> True, the stupid peasants should not vote.:tongue: Even the Greeks believed that there must be a protected idle class that is free to indulge in pure intellectual pursuits that advance the common good. It’s just a question of *who* that privileged class of Plato & Aristotle serves.
> 
> Founding Fathers?! The pilgrims were *not* oppressed, that’s national mythology. They came from Europe with nothing and here they had all the land they wanted and the freedom to kill the natives to get it. Very few wanted to fight, that’s why they had to hire foreign mercenaries. The so-called American Revolution was a Capitalist coup d'état -- the rich locals grabbed the colony from the rich lords back home. Freedom & democracy was just window dressing, and that’s the way it’s been ever since.


I never made the case of pilgrims being oppressed, or the founding fathers as they were called being anything but rich guys, but that's hardly the point. The point was that the people who got the vote were those who they figured had the needed knowledge and education to make competent use of their vote. Part of it includes being able to determine what your best interests are and understand the issues. I don't think the average person in 2013 has a better chance than the average person of 1789 had, to make informed decisions on many of the issues of the day. 

So they elect representatives, who as predicted act in their own best interest. As someone said about financial regulators after the 2008 crash, "It's hard to be tough on the banks, when you know there's a $2.000.000 job waiting for you in a couple of years if you're not". 

That's reality, if enough people want something different then they have to devise a system to make that a reality.


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Or that, according to the US Department of Agriculture last year 4.1 billion dollars was distributed in the form of food stamps to over 47 million households - and 4.1 billion dollars is equal to about 5.6% of one man's total wealth (Bill Gates) essentially meaning that one single person could have completely wiped out national hunger for an entire year for only a tiny fraction of his wealth - ONE person. ONE. Person. Versus 47 million _*families?*_


Let's take this for example. Most of these people have billions...on paper, in the form of company stocks because they built these companies from the ground up. Microsoft provides for employment of over 100,000 people worldwide, and jobs for hundreds of thousands if not millions more indirectly. Bill & Melinda Gates founded the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which has put nearly 30 billion dollars that Bill donated to work on eradicating diseases worldwide, helping the poor, funding education, etc.

Foundation Fact Sheet - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 

The majority of the people at the top find good ways to share that money. Warren Buffett for example gave nearly 3 billion dollars this year and has outlined plans to give away more than 80% of his wealth. 

Personally I would trust these two guys to use that money far more effectively than any government agency. Capitalism tends to put money in the hands of those that know how to grow and use it in my experience, I don't necessarily believe that is a bad thing.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> Well, so far every system of government that has been tried has at some point had downsides and very few if any upsides compared to a capitalist model. I'm not going to get into the whole "marxism has never been tried" debate, because yes it has, repeatedly.
> 
> So far, capitalism with its flaws has played a major role in improving the quality of life for a lot of people and has helped to drive us forward technologically as a species. I actually have more issues reconciling myself morally with government waste and waste due to externalities, subsidies and the likes than I do with "corporatism"


Then how do you explain the progressive and extremely successful economies of democratic-socialist countries like the Scandinavian countries of Finland and Sweden? Public ownership of the basic needs of a human being - shelter, food, education, child care, healthcare, etc - are all provided for out of taxes and yet their economies are rapidly expanding. In fact, if you compare their productivity to America, they're actually turning a profit while our country is trillions in debt.







Scelerat said:


> People have this habit of viewing economic systems as wealth distribution systems, when in reality they are wealth management systems. The goal of any economic system is to manage resources in the way that creates the maximum amount of utility.


But that's a fantasy. While it is true that economics is about the distribution of resources, (what gets produced, who produces it, who gets to consume it?) in reality corporations don't value resources according to their use, they value resources according to their trade potential. The value of a thing to a company is not what they can use it for, but rather, what they can get for trading it with someone else, which depends on supply and demand, which is economics 101. If what you are saying were actually true, water or air would be the most valuable resources on this planet - but those are not the wealthiest markets. The most profitable markets are military technology, oil, food, and pharmaceuticals.



Scelerat said:


> Unfortunately, as humans breed like rabbits, and consumption being too high leads to less production in the following cycles, growth is not a choice so much as a necessity. It would be needed in socialism as well, because unless the supply of goods is in a state where it's always D+1, choices of how to spend the resources available to a group will have to be made.
> 
> The question is, how much of that should be up to individuals and how much should be mandated via law.


This is true, but the statistics I was referring to published in the 2012 report given by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization don't indicate a recession of food production. They indicate a rise in food production that is over proportionate with the rising birth rate on this planet. Meaning, the food industry produces MORE food every year, not less, and it produces enough food to meet the demands of the increasing world population better and better, not worse and worse.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Then how do you explain the progressive and extremely successful economies of democratic-socialist countries like the Scandinavian countries of Finland and Sweden? Public ownership of the basic needs of a human being - shelter, food, education, child care, healthcare, etc - are all provided for out of taxes and yet their economies are rapidly expanding. In fact, if you compare their productivity to America, they're actually turning a profit while our country is trillions in debt.


I don't know the Swedish and Finnish economies well enough to offer an informed argument. I'll look over it tomorrow and get back to you. 



> But that's a fantasy. While it is true that economics is about the distribution of resources, (what gets produced, who produces it, who gets to consume it?) in reality corporations don't value resources according to their use, they value resources according to their trade potential. The value of a thing to a company is not what they can use it for, but rather, what they can get for trading it with someone else, which depends on supply and demand, which is economics 101. If what you are saying were actually true, water or air would be the most valuable resources on this planet - but those are not the wealthiest markets. The most profitable markets are military technology, oil, food, and pharmaceuticals.


In reality, all resources are valued according to their trade potential. That's precisely why water and air are not the most valuable resources on the planet, because they're public goods. Nobody can prevent access to air, and water in the cases where it's actually scarce does become a valuable commodity. 

If you want to reference econ 101, one of the most basic ideas is marginal utility. It can easily be argued that corporations make a judgment on whether a resource is worth more if they consume it, it's a trade off between one good and another good. In the same way, a consumer makes a decision about the utility of a good vs the utility of another good. 

For instance, if you have a carton of milk and I have $2 and I think your carton of milk is worth more or equal to other things I can spend $2 on and you think the $2 (or something you can buy with those $2) is worth more than the carton of milk, we can trade. 




> This is true, but the statistics I was referring to published in the 2012 report given by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization don't indicate a recession of food production. They indicate a rise in food production that is over proportionate with the rising birth rate on this planet. Meaning, the food industry produces MORE food every year, not less, and it produces enough food to meet the demands of the increasing world population better and better, not worse and worse.


My issue isn't with food production, but with the way an economy works. To simplify, you have a given amount of resources that can be divided between consumption and investment, the more you consume, the less you can invest and vice versa. In order for an economy to grow it has to have positive net investment, I.E investment after replacement investment (replacing stuff that breaks). 

In addition, when it comes to food production you have to look at alternate uses. Corn for instance is used in non-food applications, something which reduces the amount available for consumption. Can you link the report in question?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_Scelerat_

Yeah, sorry I should've provided it sooner. Here it is.

Interestingly enough, I was just going over it again (I had to write a paper for a class I'm taking in which I was writing about world hunger and used this as a citation) and it does talk about what you're saying with economic growth.

The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> I don't know the Swedish and Finnish economies well enough to offer an informed argument. I'll look over it tomorrow and get back to you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But that's basically my point as well. Marginal utility is just the way economists talk about it. It's using fancy language to disguise what is just common sense. In the end, it has nothing to do with providing anyone with what they need or even what they want. It's about profit. Most people only act out of self-interest, not any kind of interest in the community - or, if they do, only because doing so benefits themselves. The bottom line is that someone has to pay the bill, and nobody want to be paying it. But someone DOES pay the bill. It usually ends up being those who lack status, lack access to existing power structures, lack education, etc etc. Those in power stay in power and act in whatever way perpetuates their dominance - and why wouldn't they?

Shared-monopoly then becomes the perfect capitalist dream, in which you have a small handful of firms that control the entire market and compete only amongst themselves, which allows them to completely regulate the market however they see fit and drive profits up or down according to their own schedules. This idea actually has a name in game theory courses called "co-opetition." As much as the US government has tried to pass "anti-trust" laws preventing this from happening, it still happens in the form of what are called "megamergers" and, more insidiously, "interlocking directorates" called "indirect interlocks" that allow for transnational corporations to share information and coordinate to dominate the world market.

That happens to be the current state of things, and if you really start to compare that kind of power structure with the way things were during the feudal ages, it starts to seem like we are just going right back to the way things have always been, with a privileged, ruling, elite upper class that owns everything dictating to the people what they can and cannot have, how they can and cannot live their lives, all the while indoctrinating them into believing that they are free only so long as they uphold the cultural institutions that perpetuate the existing power structure.

In my opinion, capitalist interest has gotten way out of hand. I don't oppose capitalism, I just support specific kinds of progressive socialist reforms that have in fact worked out perfectly in other wealthy countries that are now considered ideal places to live for many people in this country. I think regulation is absolutely essential. When you mentioned that there need to be laws influences the distribution of certain resources that are essential to people's survival, that's basically what I'm about. I'm not saying we need to abolish capitalism or do away with private ownership of certain things - I just think privatization needs to be limited to things that aren't essential for life itself, like luxury goods, art, media, and entertainment. I think basic things should be socialized, like healthcare, education, child care, transportation, communication, shelter, some kind of clothing - basic things. I believe in a hybrid economy which is partly social and partly capital, which is egalitarian and truly democratic (as in, a true multi-party system rather than a handful of candidates that all represent right-wing ideologies in some form).

Truth is, that's actually how it already works here in this country. We already have most of that in some form or another. There are social programs for healthcare, education, transportation, shelter (kind of), child care, etc. But allowing private ownership of those resources so that owners can compete with the public is undercutting those social programs and preventing them from reaching a point where they can actually do what they are supposed to do efficiently. As long as there is competition, the ones with the most resources - private owners - are going to have the power to offer something better than whatever a public socialized program can provide, and that kills off social programs and perpetuates this idea in society that social programs are shit and can't work in this country.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

bluekitdon said:


> Let's take this for example. Most of these people have billions...on paper, in the form of company stocks because they built these companies from the ground up. Microsoft provides for employment of over 100,000 people worldwide, and jobs for hundreds of thousands if not millions more indirectly. Bill & Melinda Gates founded the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which has put nearly 30 billion dollars that Bill donated to work on eradicating diseases worldwide, helping the poor, funding education, etc.
> 
> Foundation Fact Sheet - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
> 
> ...


People don't need money. They need food, shelter, medicine, etc. Donating billions of dollars doesn't actually change anything, it just generates a lot of positive public appeal for those individuals. It's marketing strategy 101.

What WOULD make a difference is if those rich individuals started lobbying all over the world for social reform, starting right here in this country. If a majority of the Fortune 400 got together and decided to collectively hand over ownership of certain industries to the people that work in them and consume from them, people would be crying out for joy and worshiping them for the next thousand years.

This belief that the people aren't smart enough to govern themselves is precisely what the Enlightenment movement resisted and what the French revolution was all about. It's the very basis of democracy - a government for the people, by the people. If you want that government to succeed, the people must have access to education. Education - provided by scientific progress and rational choice, as well as the legal and social freedom to pursue what is rational. If any of those elements are missing, then democracy fails.

The problem isn't democracy, and the problem isn't the people. The problem is that the structure of today's American society doesn't allow for a successful democracy because our primary education system is horseshit compared to other first world countries. They don't even teach sociology in most public high-schools in this country. Most high-school graduates in this country don't even know how the government works.

Our people are kept stupid and ignorant, and kept that way because each state is allowed to allocate the educational budget to individual schools however they see fit. Thus, rich middle-class suburban kids get to go to fancy high-schools and middle-schools where they receive a higher quality education, and those high-schools therefore have a much higher graduation average, which reinforces them as candidates for increases to their budgets, or at least puts off significant budget cuts. Meanwhile, poor inner-city middle-schools and high-schools receive substantially smaller budgets because they are primarily attended by poor minorities living in poverty in bad neighborhoods with high crime rates. The state therefore allocates a much smaller budget to those schools, and as expected the students who attend therefore have little or no motivation to succeed, don't, and thus those schools are viewed as a wasted investment, perpetuating their deficiency.

The bottom line is that most contemporary social programs can't be explained effectively by biological theories of deficiency or cultural theories that focus on differing values. Both of those kinds of theories just do a lot of "blaming the victim" instead of looking at the context in which inequality exists. The problem is structural - built right into the structure of society itself, and better explained by social institutions, such as class stratification.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Something about economics that confuses people is that it assumes there is a rational individual at the fore. Thus we say, hey, I'm a rational individual, doesn't that mean that everybody makes the same choices I do? Rationality is not neutral. It is just another way of saying, here is the standard- this is what is acceptable, don't go against it. But if people have other desires, they won't be rational.

Economics is not a blanket excuse for these sorts of problems. It is a series of tools for modeling reality, just like any other science. Where you bring it must coincide with reality. The way it is portrayed and taught causes a lot of bias, because people naturally inject their own approximations of rationality into their thinking, that is not actually thought, but value-based. That said, maybe the place you need to look is at our law. Where else does corporatism and capitalism come from? If not in law, it's in the people, and good luck dealing with people. Economics explains the people(if you're doing it right), not the law. But, the law defines the economics.

The corporate environment is something I loathe, but its benefits I can't deny. Ideas don't translate perfectly to reality, and sometimes you have to make hard decisions based on what you see to be rational at the time, some of them decisions that others will exploit. So some economists look at what's called social welfare(positive gains from trade for consumers and producers), and have ways of modeling those in accordance with supply and demand. Maybe check this out to make some headway into the problem.


----------



## Graficcha (Dec 25, 2011)

*enthused applauding for @Abraxas*

I'm not super well-versed in these matters but you're hitting all the nails on the head that I can't seem to pinpoint or formulate.


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> What WOULD make a difference is if those rich individuals started lobbying all over the world for social reform, starting right here in this country. If a majority of the Fortune 400 got together and decided to collectively hand over ownership of certain industries to the people that work in them and consume from them, people would be crying out for joy and worshiping them for the next thousand years.


I agree that ideally people should want to govern themselves, and people should want to own and grow these types of businesses. The reality is that a lot of people will do the minimum amount of work possible. If you gave everyone that worked at those companies a million dollars, the majority would just quit working and the company would collapse.

I used to have a more utopian view when I was younger and perhaps less jaded that if we allowed people to govern themselves without any leaders things would be wonderful. Look around though, inevitably the law of 80/20 comes into play...20% of the people do 80% of the work and those 80% of the people doing next to nothing are the ones that sit around and complain. I've seen this in nearly every volunteer organization I've ever worked with.

In the US where the people have the option of voting, only a little more than 50% of them actually do! And I would suspect that a very small fraction of those people that actually vote are even remotely well informed on the issues.

So the question becomes in my mind, do you put the resources in the hands of those 20% that actually do the work and can put it to good use, or do you just give it away to those doing nothing? I'm not saying that anyone deserves to starve, that's why we have welfare and charity, but it doesn't seem fair to me to give everyone the same thing regardless of the effort they put in either.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I never made the case of pilgrims being oppressed, or the founding fathers as they were called being anything but rich guys, but that's hardly the point. The point was that the people who got the vote were those who they figured had the needed knowledge and education to make competent use of their vote. Part of it includes being able to determine what your best interests are and understand the issues.* I don't think the average person in 2013 has a better chance than the average person of 1789 had, to make informed decisions on many of the issues of the day. *
> 
> So they elect representatives, who as predicted act in their own best interest. As someone said about financial regulators after the 2008 crash, "It's hard to be tough on the banks, when you know there's a $2.000.000 job waiting for you in a couple of years if you're not".
> 
> That's reality, if enough people want something different then they have to devise a system to make that a reality.


Bold part - doesn't have to be true anymore. Facebook . . . YouTube . . . plus all the local networking groups that can pool resources, knowledge and strategy - Just to get people informed. It is doable but we are still in a frontier stage of using the technology, and integrating it in meaningful ways. Right now people are brainwashed with Fox news vs., a few celebrities - two extremes who have their own investments and image to protect, without much at stake on important issues. Don't blame the tea party for being stupid, even if they are stupid, they are smart enough to know you have to organize and make noise.

*Whose fault is it that people are not informed? *We have internet cafes, libraries and search engines. Even the poorest of poor people in this country can read.

Which is way different from the disconnected rural people in china! China is doing what they need to do for where their population and ecconomy is right now. Amazon delivers packages with drones, they are figuring out what they need to do. Facebook gives me a business page for free, and google gave me google voice - BUT these guys figgured out how to make money as a result of giving stuff; and they are figuring out what *they* need to do. So we have a big batch of people who used to be able to have a living from just showing up, and now they will have to *figure out* what to do. Yes we have a transition and it's painful, and yes opensource technology, makes more for everybody (potentially); but we have to make systems (businesses) that create value, or we don't move beyond putting out fires.

"If a majority of the Fortune 400 got together and decided to collectively hand over ownership of certain industries to the people that work in them and consume from them, people would be crying out for joy and worshiping them for the next thousand years."

Read "ONWARD" (Starbucks) if you want a quick read about how the combination of shareholders, public opinion, and the need for good employee morale makes a company think out of the box and work much harder, and more creatively than they would with any government mandate. *The balance of how much is handled as an executive decision, and how much autonomy should be given back to workers is a complex interesting issue.* You don't want a commitee to form a commitee, to appoint a commitee to do nice stuff; but we might need to find ways for retail and part-time work to be more rewarding and productive - while we adjust to a new normal - and figgure out our next moves as individuals and as a country?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Then how do you explain the progressive and extremely successful economies of democratic-socialist countries like the Scandinavian countries of Finland and Sweden? Public ownership of the basic needs of a human being - shelter, food, education, child care, healthcare, etc - are all provided for out of taxes and yet their economies are rapidly expanding. In fact, if you compare their productivity to America, they're actually turning a profit while our country is trillions in debt.


This is interesting and I've read a couple things - Denmark? (maybe in INC?). I just think we have to focus on jobs, keeping industries that are not PC, for now, and maybe deal with intellectual property laws, and do something that encourages business innovation as the first layer to build on. 

One example is my Dad, he needs his part-time job as a semi retired guy. He counts on the supplemental income, and the comraderie in his old age. In order to be careful not to hit 30hrs (too many new people to insure) they want everybody to stay under 25 hrs per week. I'm sure my dad will deal with it, but this kind of thing might be happening to other people on a grander more drastic, even devastating level?

Does anyone have the numbers about how getting everyone insured is supposed to feed back into the general economy? (i'm asking - maybe dumb question?). I know value is lost that drives up prices when someone uninsured goes to the emergency room. But do we know how long this will take, and will it be too late for people who in the meantime lost jobs, went on a downward spiral, and companies that didn't get created while someone in another county got the head start?


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

I work for a corporation that dedicates one day per year for all (read: 100,000+) employees to volunteer for local non-profits. Also, as part of my benefits package, I can provide pro bono services to a non-profit of my choice for up to 4 months while retaining salary and benefits. We also plan many other community engagements throughout the year within smaller internal organizations.

As far as what I do on a day-to-day, I ensure that the Department of Agriculture is able to issue Food Stamp benefits to those who are eligible as well as Medicaid and TANF. That's how I deal with it. Hope this answers your questions.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> I work for a corporation that dedicates one day per year for all (read: 100,000+) employees to volunteer for local non-profits. Also, as part of my benefits package, I can provide pro bono services to a non-profit of my choice for up to 4 months while retaining salary and benefits. We also plan many other community engagements throughout the year within smaller internal organizations.


I work for a corporation that is literally trying to get us to sign away our rights and claim ownership to our inventions, apps, and other intellectual property that we create while employed there. Even if it's on our own time.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

PowerShell said:


> I work for a corporation that is literally trying to get us to sign away our rights and claim ownership to our inventions, apps, and other intellectual property that we create while employed there. Even if it's on our own time.


The point is that capitalism isn't inherently evil and is responsible (in full or in part) for everything we have.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

I work for a French corporation that provides engineering software and services, they opened up this office in my country in 2011 to outsource some of their projects. 

The projects I work on are generally for places French people don't want to go, like Russia, South America and various West-African countries.

Also, from what I've seen, French employees are generally lazy, not that knowledgeable and they dodge responsibility as much as they can, so fuck them. 

We do the work they can't or won't do, so in my case, outsourcing is a good thing.

I wish François Hollande good luck in reindustrializing his country, he's going to need it, with these feckless sons of bitches.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> The point is that capitalism isn't inherently evil and is responsible (in full or in part) for everything we have.


I never said anything negative about capitalism and actually I highly support it. I just see the corporation I work for overstepping its bounds. Basically they're trying to stifle my innovation by basically taking the incentive to create things because they will retain ownership. I'm planning on embracing capitalism and starting my own mobile app business soon enough (another reason that document is appalling to me).


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> I work for a corporation that is literally trying to get us to sign away our rights and claim ownership to our inventions, apps, and other intellectual property that we create while employed there. Even if it's on our own time.


It’s very common for corporations to require of new employees a contract of “invention and non-disclosure”. Even though I ran my own business for 20+ years, my inventions and patents are the clients’ intellectual property. I don’t mind, I enjoy my work and large corporations have the resources to create working prototypes of my ideas and market them within weeks, something I couldn’t do on my own.

Bill Gates did it on his own, but he got bored with it after a few years. Steve Jobs did it on his own, but it was a rough ride, truly creative people are very misunderstood. His partner, Woz, didn’t want to be a corporate wienie either. For Jeff Bezos, my guess is that Amazon is just an outlet for his creativity, I doubt he wants anything to do with day-to-day details. There are others, Oracle, etc., all of them NTs BTW, so you’ll do just fine.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

@*PowerShell
*
... and a link I've kept that I'm sure you'll enjoy:
Full text: An epic Bill Gates e-mail rant - The Microsoft Blog


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

yentipeee said:


> It’s very common for corporations to require of new employees a contract of “invention and non-disclosure”. Even though I ran my own business for 20+ years, my inventions and patents are the clients’ intellectual property. I don’t mind, I enjoy my work and large corporations have the resources to create working prototypes of my ideas and market them within weeks, something I couldn’t do on my own.


I understand it's a common thing to protect their investments. I have no problem if they pay me to create something, they retain the copyright. If I do it on my own time, even if they provided some insights on it (and it obviously doesn't directly compete with their product), it should be mine.

The thing is I'm not a "new hire." I've been here over 3 years now and they got some bright idea to spin the IT department of a large non-profit clinic to a for-profit managed services IT department that will bill back the clinic for the services as well as try to sell services to other people. I guess technically the process is a "new hire" process since my job at the large clinic is being eliminated and being recreated in their separate managed services company.

Well long story short they had an informational session yesterday and they had to cut each meeting short because of questions since another meeting was starting. The last meeting of the day went 30 minutes over until the CIO said, "Enough questions." They have it so badly worded there's a lot of questions. I was looking at the intellectual property part but as part of the non-compete they literally have it worded that you could not take a job at the clinic in any capacity (even as a janitor) since the clinic is now a client of this new company.

I should post the document for a few lolz for people. It's a joke and it appears half the employees won't sign it. They're trying to push, "Sign it now and we'll work out the details later. Trust us." They also claim it's a just a general guideline and operating procedures. BS. It's a legally binding contract and anything in there can be enforced via a lawsuit.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> I understand it's a common thing to protect their investments. I have no problem if they pay me to create something, they retain the copyright. If I do it on my own time, even if they provided some insights on it (and it obviously doesn't directly compete with their product), it should be mine.
> 
> The thing is I'm not a "new hire." I've been here over 3 years now and they got some bright idea to spin the IT department of a large non-profit clinic to a for-profit managed services IT department that will bill back the clinic for the services as well as try to sell services to other people. I guess technically the process is a "new hire" process since my job at the large clinic is being eliminated and being recreated in their separate managed services company.
> 
> ...


The real inventors are *very* few, the contract is mainly to prevent employees from disclosing things to competitors, sometimes unwittingly or just bragging. There’s rarely more than one genius in the team, Apple only had a handful and their problem was people discussing their work over drinks in a bar.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

yentipeee said:


> The real inventors are *very* few, the contract is mainly to prevent employees from disclosing things to competitors, sometimes unwittingly or just bragging. There’s rarely more than one genius in the team, Apple only had a handful and their problem was people discussing their work over drinks in a bar.


I literally filled a notebook full of app ideas. True some have already been done and some are improvements on what is already out there, but there's ton of stuff that I think will do somewhat well. The non-disclosure part of the agreement is really a no-brainer and I don't have a problem with that. It's the fact that if I write a fitness app completely on my own time, with my own resources, they can claim it as their own and not I don't own the code\intellectual property I worked on.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> I literally filled a notebook full of app *ideas*. True some have already been done and some are improvements on what is already out there, but there's ton of stuff that I think will do somewhat well. The non-disclosure part of the agreement is really a no-brainer and I don't have a problem with that. It's the fact that if I write a fitness app completely on my own time, with my own resources, they can claim it as their own and not I don't own the code\intellectual property I worked on.


You can start your own business. Sometimes ideas come in an avalanche, so write stuff down, I use my cellphone. Some ideas on stuff I’m working on come in dreams, and I often can’t remember in the morning, unless it’s really exciting and I wake up. If you’re highly visuospatial, software/firmware and design visualizations can show up in dreams.

I’m watching a German news channel right now, online, a new leak from Edward Snowden, another NT hell-bent on smashing the police state, so privacy, EU don’t trust US companies anymore, so you may have to move.:tongue:


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

yentipeee said:


> You can start your own business. Sometimes ideas come in an avalanche, so write stuff down, I use my cellphone. Some ideas on stuff I’m working on come in dreams, and I often can’t remember in the morning, unless it’s really exciting and I wake up. If you’re highly visuospatial, software/firmware and design visualizations can show up in dreams.
> 
> I’m watching a German news channel right now, online, a new leak from Edward Snowden, another NT hell-bent on smashing the police state, so privacy, EU don’t trust US companies anymore, so you may have to move.:tongue:


I'm just looking to make life easier and more efficient. Basically I love taking big road trips but often times you are unfamiliar with the area. A lot of my app ideas have to deal with getting information to you in an easier fashion so it makes unfamiliar places a bit more familiar with less effort. I just got my passport so I'm planning to travel to Thunder Bay next week when I have a 3 day weekend. I'm sure with all the observations I make, I'll fill up another notebook easily with other ideas.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

PowerShell said:


> I understand it's a common thing to protect their investments. I have no problem if they pay me to create something, they retain the copyright. If I do it on my own time, even if they provided some insights on it (and it obviously doesn't directly compete with their product), it should be mine.
> 
> The thing is I'm not a "new hire." I've been here over 3 years now and they got some bright idea to spin the IT department of a large non-profit clinic to a for-profit managed services IT department that will bill back the clinic for the services as well as try to sell services to other people. I guess technically the process is a "new hire" process since my job at the large clinic is being eliminated and being recreated in their separate managed services company.
> 
> ...


Its a murky area about things you learn while you work for somebody else and them wanting tomake sure you don't benefit from things that should be held in confidence - But good for you to not be intimidated into signing this new thing. -if I undersand you correctly other people don't think it's fairly written either.

There must be a legal way to draw the line between what is related to the employer and what is too far of a stretch for them to claim ownership of with unrelated and non competitive work. ? -Good Luck on that


----------



## Blacktide (Sep 16, 2012)

All in all I strongly believe the world we live in today is better than it has ever been before in the history of man kind, and that in another 20 years we will be even better off than we are today.

The world is globalizing we are using science to create crops that grow in almost any environment so anyone can be fed. We have more disposable income than our parents, all in all life is pretty good.

As far as wealth is concerned, I think that those who work hard and intelligently towards a goal will always have more than the masses. I am president of an investment management firm due to working extremely hard to become a master of my craft and investing my money in quality stocks rather than spending it or saving it at the bank. 

I strongly believe that anyone who has enough determination can succeed in life. It's a simple thing to do, but most people will never do it.


----------



## Graficcha (Dec 25, 2011)

@_Blacktide_
I think it's very cheap to say 'I worked hard and learned something useful and I made it in life' and then assume it turns out that way for everyone. 

You really think you somehow work that significantly harder than so many people who never even make it to probably half your income? Do you realise what a set of personal advantages has to pile up for a life story like yours to become reality? Had you been poor, black, born with a mental problem, heck, FEMALE, do you think your 'determination and hard work' would have sufficed? Do you really think everyone is actually given the opportunities you received based on their merit alone? That's really, really naive.

Note the bit where you need money to be able to benefit from something like stockbroking to begin with.
*Check your fucking privilege*
as social justice would say it nowadays. You sound like you've got it coming out of your ears.

I'll agree that those who work hard and intelligently lay out their plans stand a good chance of doing better than people in the same circumstances who give up, but 'better than the masses?' Hahah, no, really not. 
The only people soaring out above the masses are those who end up riding the waves of finances, economical tricks, fuel, pharma, media trends and war. The one percent own 40% of the USA's finances. 'The masses' including even the top twenty percent *all lose*. By 'not being poor' you get to already feel like you've made it. How to keep a hierarchy? Make the middle class fight the lower class so they can cling to their meagre reapings, while the upper class harvests the benefits.


----------



## Helweh18 (Jul 30, 2013)

yentipeee said:


> It is a true statement, but doesn't it show contempt for democracy? Isn't it preferable to give all voters equal access to education & healthcare, as they do in more advanced countries?


I don't know that it shows a contempt for democracy, it's just stating the obvious point that most people aren't aware of the issue therefore they really shouldn't be voting on something they don't understand. If people took an hour away from watching TV to read a paper, magazine or do research on the internet they would be better informed and be able to make a educated decision. What makes me laugh is when I talk to people that really don't understand universal healthcare and they automatically say that it is bad because they don't understand the concept. These are the same people that would benefit greatly from a universal healthcare system, if they did even a small amount of research about how this system works in other countries they would be better informed and be able to make a decision that is right for them and their family. I do believe in equal healthcare and education. I was born in Canada. As a Canadian I had the benefit of growing up with a universal healthcare system. I now live in the US and have had to deal with the issues that come with a for profit system. Personally I prefer the universal system. My question is how do you educate the masses when they aren't really willing to listen?


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Helweh18 said:


> As a Canadian I had the benefit of growing up with a universal healthcare system. I now live in the US and have had to deal with the issues that come with a for profit system. Personally I prefer the universal system. My question is how do you educate the masses when they aren't really willing to listen?


I really don't know. We get propaganda here with supposed pissed off Canadians ripping (for a small fee of course :wink the health care system in Canada. Funny thing is I've been to Canada (and plan to go more often while I'm still in reasonable driving distance since I do really like it up there) and everyone there is appalled by the US system and thinks the Canadian system is sufficient and don't really have any major complaints.

It is also interesting with their views on gun control. I even went to an independently owned gun shop and was talking to the owner (older guy probably in his late 60's) and he was pretty much for the majority of what they had in place for gun control. Gun shop owners here are the biggest anti-gun control people as well as biggest Obama bashers there are here. I actually had a friend comment saying, "If they get any stricter with the gun control laws here (he lives in Duluth, MN), I think I'm going to move to Canada." It's like, dude, it's way stricter in Canada for gun control.


----------



## Helweh18 (Jul 30, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> I really don't know. We get propaganda here with supposed pissed off Canadians ripping (for a small fee of course :wink the health care system in Canada. Funny thing is I've been to Canada (and plan to go more often while I'm still in reasonable driving distance since I do really like it up there) and everyone there is appalled by the US system and thinks the Canadian system is sufficient and don't really have any major complaints.
> 
> It is also interesting with their views on gun control. I even went to an independently owned gun shop and was talking to the owner (older guy probably in his late 60's) and he was pretty much for the majority of what they had in place for gun control. Gun shop owners here are the biggest anti-gun control people as well as biggest Obama bashers there are here. I actually had a friend comment saying, "If they get any stricter with the gun control laws here (he lives in Duluth, MN), I think I'm going to move to Canada." It's like, dude, it's way stricter in Canada for gun control.


The thing that gets me is that I had top of the line insurance in the US through the company I worked for and it was still more efficient for me to go back to Canada to have surgery. The co-pays alone would have killed me. How do people that are barely scraping by afford healthcare? Oh wait they don't go to the doctor...


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Helweh18 said:


> The thing that gets me is that I had top of the line insurance in the US through the company I worked for and it was still more efficient for me to go back to Canada to have surgery. The co-pays alone would have killed me. How do people that are barely scraping by afford healthcare? Oh wait they don't go to the doctor...


Or they wait until it's basically a life-threatening emergency and then they go into the emergency room and have treatment that costs 10X as much. Then we ultimately end up either subsidizing it via taxes or indirectly when the hospital eats the costs and passes them on to everyone else in the form of higher charges. A Canadian system would be so much better.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

Helweh18 said:


> I don't know that it shows a contempt for democracy, it's just stating the obvious point that most people aren't aware of the issue therefore they really shouldn't be voting on something they don't understand. If people took an hour away from watching TV to read a paper, magazine or do research on the internet they would be better informed and be able to make a educated decision. What makes me laugh is when I talk to people that really don't understand universal healthcare and they automatically say that it is bad because they don't understand the concept. These are the same people that would benefit greatly from a universal healthcare system, if they did even a small amount of research about how this system works in other countries they would be better informed and be able to make a decision that is right for them and their family. I do believe in equal healthcare and education. I was born in Canada. As a Canadian I had the benefit of growing up with a universal healthcare system. I now live in the US and have had to deal with the issues that come with a for profit system. Personally I prefer the universal system. My question is how do you educate the masses when they aren't really willing to listen?


That’s a very good question. There have been very few enlightened societies in history, but even so they eventually collapsed due to their arrogance and overconfidence. The thing they had in common is that they were educated, extroverted and their people had the power to effect change.

The difference you cited between US & Canada is a good example: Canada & Sweden ranked #1 in healthcare in the world vs. US #24. Canada a true parliamentary democracy vs. US a corporate police state.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> Or they wait until it's basically a life-threatening emergency and then they go into the emergency room and have treatment that costs 10X as much. Then we ultimately end up either subsidizing it via taxes or indirectly when the hospital eats the costs and passes them on to everyone else in the form of higher charges. A Canadian system would be so much better.


I guess he’d have to be legally indigent for the hospital to write off his debt. But I doubt he is, he probably has a house, a job and a bank account, so all his assets are still at risk.

Sent from my SAMDUNG foobar32x


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

yentipeee said:


> I guess he’d have to be legally indigent for the hospital to write off his debt. But I doubt he is, he probably has a house, a job and a bank account, so all his assets are still at risk.
> 
> Sent from my SAMDUNG foobar32x


True. I meant for the people who are so poor they don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.


----------

