Socialism- No thank you

[vt]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Venezuela.html

[dcarrigg]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n_Saudi_Arabia

[geodrome]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

What's Saudi Arabia got to do with Venezuela?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

What's Saudi Arabia got to do with Venezuela?

It's just a mirror-move. If Venezuela is to be the exemplar of socialism, then why not choose Saudi Arabia as the exemplar of capitalism?

After all, is there any country in the world with less government, fewer laws, fewer taxes, and more billionaires per person than Saudi Arabia? I don't think so.

[vt]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

Both countries have lots of oil. However Venezuela also has very fertile farmland, which Saudi Arabia does not.

The results speak for themselves.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier.../#6be019037399

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.909f0a5590a7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricu...n_Saudi_Arabia

[dcarrigg]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

Fantastic results, complete with slavery, crucifixions, and uncodified Shariah law!

But I guess as long as they're all good god-fearing capitalists who keep foreigners and migrants and women in their place, they're a big success story?

Of course not.

Point being, it's a bit disingenuous to select random dictatorships and mafia states and hold them up as exemplars of any given '-ism.' Single payer healthcare isn't going to lead to a Bolivarian Revolution in the USA any more than it did in Canada or South Korea.

[vt]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

The problem with single payer health is that is has not worked in states that wanted to try it:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...e-payer-664622

There are non government models that are working. I know because I and my employee are part of this one:

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/...-with-hal-wolf

[dcarrigg]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

Nothing about the US healthcare system is "working." At least not well. Especially not for the 40+ million people with no coverage and the millions more who go bankrupt even with it.

And what do we save for doing that? Nothing. We pay more than anyone in any other country for the same thing. New Porsche prices for used Hyundai quality.

The US already spends more per capita in GOVERNMENT money on healthcare than:


1. Canada
2. Germany
3. Switzerland
4. Sweden
5. Denmark
6. France
7. Argentina
8. Japan
9. UK
10. Australia
11. New Zealand
12. Botswana (Yes, even Botswana has universal healthcare and Americans don't. Suckers).


Americans spend more public money each (per person) than Canada, and yet they still don't provide coverage for anyone working full time between age 26 and 64, and they still leave 40 million people uninsured. This is not counting all the money you and your employer spend on premiums, copays, co-insurance, deductibles, and out-of-pocket healthcare costs. Only counting government costs. You already pay more.


There are thousands of insurance CEOs and hospital CEOs and crooked doctors and other middlemen picking all Americans' pockets as we speak and laughing all the way to the bank. And Americans are sitting there like slack-jawed, country rubes, scratching our heads, mumbling something about freedom and markets as our life expectancy circles the drain and our pockets are being emptied and we fall further and further behind the rest of the civilized world.

[jk]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

the lower life expectancy is probably 2o to both diet [high incidence of obesity, ever rising rates of metabolic syndrome and diabetes ii] and economic despair [rising rates of suicide and drug deaths]. in general, though, we've got at best mediocre outcomes on champagne budgets.

single payer works in a lot of countries. it could work here, too. saying it's too expensive is ridiculous when you compare the cost to what we're already paying. if all those insurance premia, copays and deductibles were collected by a single payer the system would run a huge surplus.

given our national aversion to single payer, however, i think kaiser-like systems are the best realistic alternative. integrated systems which also act as the insurer have all their incentives aligned. there can be more than one such system in each of our largest metro areas. natural monopolies will exist elsewhere, but they can be benchmarked against systems in competitive environments.

[GRG55]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

It's just a mirror-move. If Venezuela is to be the exemplar of socialism, then why not choose Saudi Arabia as the exemplar of capitalism?

After all, is there any country in the world with less government, fewer laws, fewer taxes, and more billionaires per person than Saudi Arabia? I don't think so.

In a practical sense, as opposed to an official sense, I would select Nigeria for that honor over Saudi Arabia.

In the Middle East the Ruling Families essentially own the bulk of the national income (right down to and including who is legally allowed to harvest the dates from the trees on the boulevard medians). What part of the economy they do not own for themselves has been granted by them to the favoured merchant families, most of whom have connection to the respective Ruling Family dating back many generations. This includes such tawdry sectors such as the car dealerships, much of the domestic construction industry (the bin Laden Group has its origins in construction in KSA) and retailing.

For Saudi, the last information I saw showed approximately 60% of the national income was recycled back to the citizens in the form of imported food subsidies, domestic agriculture subsidies, government housing, electricity subsidies, health care, transportation and a host of other basic services. The other 40% was needed to support the Princes. In Kuwait and Qatar the %'ages going to programs was higher. In the UAE a bit less. Fluctuations in crude oil and petrochemical prices can shift those percentages over time, but the system has remained intact for decades. I viewed these as the ultimate welfare states - masses of people with no skills, no prospects, unlikely to ever work at a productive job, living on public income their entire lives.

Nigeria, on the other hand, struck me as the "ultimate capitalist society" during the time I spent there. If you want the road in front of your house paved you hire a contractor. If you want reliable power you install your own generator and secure your own fuel supply. If you want reliable telephone service you install your own satellite phone dish on the rooftop. And so forth. The government cannot be relied on to provide much of anything, except efficient, ongoing mechanisms to loot the economy for the privileged few. It is a quite sophisticated system. Elections are rigged by the outgoing President to ensure that "his man" succeeds him, so there will be no messy corruption investigations - huge efforts and maneuverings occur to achieve these remarkable outcomes. And the reward for the incoming gang is "its your turn at the trough".

Now my experience and observations are from the last decade. I have been hearing that there's been some improvement/progress in Nigeria, but I think it will take generations to reform that system.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

In a practical sense, as opposed to an official sense, I would select Nigeria for that honor over Saudi Arabia.

In the Middle East the Ruling Families essentially own the bulk of the national income (right down to and including who is legally allowed to harvest the dates from the trees on the boulevard medians). What part of the economy they do not own for themselves has been granted by them to the favoured merchant families, most of whom have connection to the respective Ruling Family dating back many generations. This includes such tawdry sectors such as the car dealerships, much of the domestic construction industry (the bin Laden Group has its origins in construction in KSA) and retailing.

For Saudi, the last information I saw showed approximately 60% of the national income was recycled back to the citizens in the form of imported food subsidies, domestic agriculture subsidies, government housing, electricity subsidies, health care, transportation and a host of other basic services. The other 40% was needed to support the Princes. In Kuwait and Qatar the %'ages going to programs was higher. In the UAE a bit less. Fluctuations in crude oil and petrochemical prices can shift those percentages over time, but the system has remained intact for decades. I viewed these as the ultimate welfare states - masses of people with no skills, no prospects, unlikely to ever work at a productive job, living on public income their entire lives.

Nigeria, on the other hand, struck me as the "ultimate capitalist society" during the time I spent there. If you want the road in front of your house paved you hire a contractor. If you want reliable power you install your own generator and secure your own fuel supply. If you want reliable telephone service you install your own satellite phone dish on the rooftop. And so forth. The government cannot be relied on to provide much of anything, except efficient, ongoing mechanisms to loot the economy for the privileged few. It is a quite sophisticated system. Elections are rigged by the outgoing President to ensure that "his man" succeeds him, so there will be no messy corruption investigations - huge efforts and maneuverings occur to achieve these remarkable outcomes. And the reward for the incoming gang is "its your turn at the trough".

Now my experience and observations are from the last decade. I have been hearing that there's been some improvement/progress in Nigeria, but I think it will take generations to reform that system.

Oh yeah, you have actual experience in these places unlike me. Anything I know I only know second hand or from books.

It was just sort of a flippant comment I made anyways.

I just think this weird idea of picking the biggest basket-case of a country you can think of and using it to argue about domestic US policy is silly.

Obviously neither Nigeria nor Saudi Arabia are fair warnings about what will happen if cut corporate tax rates were cut further. And neither are Venezuela nor Cuba fair warnings about what would happen if they were raised.

A Republican asking a Democrat "How's Venezuela working for you?" is precisely as vacuous and pointless as a Democrat asking a Republican "How's Nigeria working for you?" You may as well drop the charade and just start calling each other poopy-heads at that point.

[vt]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

Just like Democrats point to Norway and Denmark as examples how a socialistic type government with great health care for their citizens can work.

First the taxes are huge. Next the population is 92% European for Norway and 87% for Denmark.
The population of each is less than the Washington, D.C metro region. (5.5 million vs. 6 million).

Single payer won't work in a socialist society:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1221061.html

A corrupt, semi capitalistic country like Nigeria is also unworkable.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

Nice "semi"

[vt]

Re: Socialism- No thank you

From Wkipedia:

"Nigeria is a middle-income, mixed economy and emerging market, with expanding manufacturing, financial, service, communications, technology and entertainment sectors. It is ranked as the 30th-largest economy in the world in terms of nominal GDP, and the 23rd-largest in terms of purchasing power parity. It is the largest economy in Africa; its re-emergent manufacturing sector became the largest on the continent in 2013, and it produces a large proportion of goods and services for the West African subcontinent.^[15] In addition, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 11 percent, which is 8 percent below the 2012 ratio.<sup>[16]"

By the way, Nigerian immigrants to the U.S. have the highest educational attainment here. Even higher than Asians and Caucasians.

https://www.chron.com/news/article/D...-S-1600808.php</sup>