- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
MUT doesn’t ignore what you are describing, it explains it. When supply decreases, price tends to increase. This is because the people who only value it at the lower price are removed from the equation leaving only the people who will pay the higher price or above
Why do you so readily take this economic idea at face value? If the price increases due to scarcity it is because the seller has raised the price, not because the buyers at the original price only value it at that price, or because scarcity automatically increases price. It's opportunistic selling, not an inevitable consequence of a cause.
Economics .. could benefit from some basic psychology.
Economic social darwinism, Amarel, is still social darwinism, whichever way you spin it. Being born in Idaho or Kansas is a different matter than being born and having by virtue of low economic status no preparedness for success, but much preparedness for economic stagnation.
Socioeconomic structure fabricates such a situation. We may choose, as is our right as a society, either to maintain or challenge that. I would imagine that if such an idea were put to a referendum, we might soon live in a very different world.
Yes, of course, diversity necessarily means unequal opportunities in certain regards, but it does not necessarily mean unequal opportunities in the regards I have laid above. It is possible to change a socioeconomic structure to best as possible provide pathways for those who do not have automatic "success" by inheritance, but rather have, in most cases, automatic hinderance by lack of inheritance.
For example, a capped tuition fee at universities, and a fair student loans system. The appointment of social psychiatrists at schools to deal with problems of violence and the issues that highborn people aren't likely to experience, to help children better develop in their education; the subsidy of the lowest earners' eductions; better help for low earners who need healthcare, and for their young, school-age relatives who cannot afford to spend all their time looking after their sickly relatives. Things like that. There are ways that society can attempt to level the playing field and thereby produce better, more rounded, well-educated citizens that will only improve the country.
Look around America right now. About a third of people support this oaf in office. What does that tell you about America's education; the American peoples' awareness of fact; America's future?
This is a fair point.
However, the current American president uses rhetoric of serious criminal activity among immigrants to fan the flames of populism. It really is not a fair way to present the facts. Yes, illegal immigrants are committing a crime by virtue of being "illegals", however, proportionally they commit less violent crimes than American citizens.
Many of those who are in prison, as you point out, are guilty of identity theft, which really is an attempt to seem a legitimate citizen. It begs the question: why are they so desperate to become citizens? Might it be because the country offers them an opportunity for work and a life they couldn't have back home?
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" ....
I'm not trying to say that unbridled immigration should be allowed -- there always have to be controls in place, of course -- but I am saying that perhaps this vilifying rhetoric by various people at the moment is not exactly all that it seems.
They're badly funded, trying to buy medical equipment and medicine at vastly inflated costs. Any wonder they have long waiting lists. Socialised healthcare has to be "all-in" to work. It has to be the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies, the medical manufacturers and medical engineering firms, the whole shabang, with a fixed percentage of each available for private investment.
Remove profit-seeking as the central drive of medicine and it becomes affordable and accessible, with the caveat that it remains well-funded with a consistent percentage of the national tax and other national income. It requires care to maintain but it is worth it. The per capita government expenditure on healthcare of highly advanced, world-class socialised health systems is less than the US per capita government expenditure on healthcare at present. Yet US citizens still have to pay insurance costs too.
I don't get it.
Actually, socialised healthcare will lead you to pay less, because costs will reduce as a result of it. Why would the government continue to buy equipment and medicine at current costs when socialised healthcare gives it a monopoly of buying power that EVERY pharmaceutical/medical company in the country is gonna want the contract for?
To go one further and assume the government also absorbs these companies, too, then why would it continue to pay the current costs of medicines when it has, by virtue of nationalising the medial industry, just acquired the investment power of the combined pharmaceutical sector, in one of the biggest markets on the planet? It could manufacture medicines and sell them to itself for the cost of making them, rather than purchasing them from private companies currently at grotesquely inflated costs. Meaning you pay less, your government pays less, and medicine becomes fantastically more accessible to everybody.
It's not pseudo-economics. It has worked this way in every country that has adopted it. Every other developed nation pays less, per capita, in government expenditure, for medicine and medical treatment costs, than the USA does. Yet the USA is to my knowledge the only developed that hasn't socialised the industry.
It's quite simple really. Without investors and board members seeking profits, the costs of medical treatments and pharmaceutical products drastically decline. For less than what you currently pay in your taxes towards medical costs, you could have a socialised system for everyone.
It depends. Technically, the definition of wet is of an object, which is saturated with liquid, usually water, to some extent. In real terms, you can't saturate water water.
Conclusion: water makes things wet, but is not itself wet.
But again, this is really a matter of opinion. The other way to look at it is that water is a liquid, liquid has "wetness".
One of those rare instances where the same idea can be interpreted two completely different ways.
This is quite the persistent myth. Really, those with power and money stay in power and money. Those without, maybe a small, minute percentage will "make it". But without the tools and the facility, a vast majority will not.
Take me for example. I currently study for a PhD. Now you might say "well done, you obviously worked hard", but the fact of the matter is that I was born in a country that provides a fair and generous student loan system by the government, where there are maintenance allowances associated with that, and where people in education are (relatively, not completely) looked after in terms of living costs, available grants, and student mental health support etc. Of course there are a significant number of flaws in our system, but relatively speaking, it is excellent compared to the likes of the USA, and even more so foreign countries with poor education systems and no socialisation or government subsidy for students.
If these had not been available, the fact that I come from a working class family who by all means work very hard, but don't earn very much, would likely have made it impossible for me to pursue education.
I was lucky.
Yes, I worked hard and yes hard work is necessary to succeed in academia or the world of careers, but to say that hard work alone is sufficient for success is to ignore so many other factors that can make success extremely difficult if not impossible for some people.
Had I to pay for the high rent costs, my teaching fees, my transport, my food, my electricity and amenities, without the help of these governmental systems, I can tell you with complete certainty I would not be where I am today.
The investment by a government in socialised or subsidised efforts to better its citizens are entirely and completely worthwhile and yet they fly in the face of "unbridled capitalism", as opposed to at least partially socialised society.
The same thing, really, happens in all of the most developed countries. Those with the highest educational outputs per capita have systems of support for their students in terms of loans and different avenues to facilitate education.
It is just one example but there are many examples of instances where without some level of socialisation, furtherance of ones "success" becomes difficult to almost impossible.
Surely the rewards for investing in educating and bettering a populace are worth the comparably small cost associated with it, particularly when such people end up being the professors, the engineers, the doctors, the researchers, the innovators, the questioners, the people who find information, who send astronauts to the moon, who explore the universe, who find cures to disease, who study the mind and attempt to better our mentalities as a species, who write timeless stories and change perspectives with a piece of prose.
Surely it's worth it.
Free market capitalism, as highly valued as it is, particularly in America, is insufficient alone to allow a populace to be the best that it can be. If the only agenda is the highest profit then all manner of human requirements and values and aspirations just fly out the window. The world's aim becomes the pursuit of a dollar, and that colours every other impulse and aspiration.
I appreciate what capitalism has done for the world, but I also see the ways in which, when left unchecked and allowed to remain a creature unto itself, it has caused destruction and impoverishment, both morally and economically.
It's quite clear that you didn't read the definition properly. Nationalisation is not inherently or necessarily the same as socialisation. If the control of the nationalised entities rests solely in the hands of a few chosen autocrats then that is not socialisation, but fascism.
The Nazi ideology in fact rejected the Marxist idea of class warfare as it was a threat to the subordination of the populace (this is perfectly illustrated in the various times protests were quelled with ferocity and violence by the Nazi government). Hitler used the "rich Jews" as a scapegoat to fool the lower-classes into revolt, which lent him support, but once he had control, Hitler did not keep to his rhetoric about struggling against the upper class (of which he had just become a part of). Hitler, openly disdained liberal democracy (illustrated in the making of himself the Führer, rather than merely "the Chancellor" as his predecessor had been). Hitler then attempted to redefine socialism by impregnating it with populism, social Darwinism and nationalism, quite clearly with much success considering your views on the matter.
Regardless, it is quite apparent, for all to see, that Hitlerian socioeconomics did not give power over infrastructure, production and exchange to the German people, but rather to Hitler himself, and to the upper echelons of the Nazi party, who benefitted handsomely with their various houses and material possessions. Again, this is a form of tyrannical statism (not unlike Stalinism in various respects), where the populace is explicitly made subordinate to the state and more specifically the state's officials.
How many good German citizens were terrorised and executed by the SS for opposing the Nazi ideologies? It is hardly a country built on the ideas of community control of the country whenever the community are persecuted by a rigid, regimental, statist government of elites.
The Social Democratic party (a much more "socialist" German party than the Nazis) were imprisoned by the Nazis and put in concentration camps along with the Jews, the disabled, homosexuals and the elderly. The Nazis also completely banned trade unions (which in Marist ideology are vital bridges towards socialist society) and then eventually every other political party apart from the Nazis.
Thus, the claim that the Nazis were a socialist government (facilitators of the community ownership and control of production and exchange) is ludicrous. Hitler was anti-democracy, anti-worker's rights, anti-union, anti-freedom of expression, anti-disabled rights. The populace became entirely subordinate to Hitler and his close allies.
In socialism, the populace are the state, for all intents and purposes. Socialism is a necessarily bottom-upwards democracy, where the people of the country directly shape its socioeconomic policy by direct participation and popular consent: they control the country.
Do you think the German populace, upon Hitler making himself "Führer" and witnessing and feeling the despicable horror that followed, felt in control of their country?