CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I know it just never ceases to amaze me what they are allowed to get away with, not only do a multitude of americans continue to tune in even though they have less credibility as a news station than North Korea state t.v. but no media regulatory authority punishes them in any way when they are caught blatantly lying in roder to influence and indoctrinate, their continued crypto-facist programming never ceases to amze me, in fact its just blatant facist programming for the most part.
Like is a strong word, i find him be one in an extreme minority of american politicians who is isn't completely subservient to elite corporate interests, Dennis Kucinich is another.
If this is all you got for Fox News somehow being a manipulative machine... wow.
Anyway, they've corrected themselves, and even though the libertarian who posted the correction thinks that it's them being "forced" and that they purposely made this "deception", it really isn't a big deal.
Anyway, the only real difference is to show that Ron Paul didn't receive as many boos this year, and for good reason, Ron Paul is the revolutionary candidate and the Tea Party republicans (whom many accuse Fox News of supporting) have chosen Ron Paul as their representative.
So what you're saying, Gary, is that Fox News is against the number 1 choice by CPAC... even though the reasons for their deception is that they are teaparty conservatives.
The dancing around is pretty interesting by you anti-fox people. I don't watch Fox much these days (or any cable news), except for Red Eye, but I find this hatred to be a bandwagon. Far worse things have been done on MSNBC and CNN, yet we don't see a youtube campaign against them.
"If this is all you got for Fox News somehow being a manipulative machine... wow."
No i have the enitire documented history of their programming.
"and that they purposely made this "deception", it really isn't a big deal."
Really, not a big deal....wow.
"So what you're saying, Gary, is that Fox News is against the number 1 choice by CPAC... even though the reasons for their deception is that they are teaparty conservatives."
No thats what you're saying because you wrote it, wanna put more words in my mouth?, how about you type up a big essay and put my signature at the end;)
"The dancing around is pretty interesting by you anti-fox people. "
What? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You seriously think im just anti-Fox.And what are taking about in general here i seriously have no idea.
"Far worse things have been done on MSNBC and CNN, yet we don't see a youtube campaign against them."
Beleive me i am far more concerned about those because many (sane and rational) people take them seriously, i mean sane people can watch Fox and immediately know its a news station for facist nutjobs but this may not be true of CNN or MSNBC, this is big problem because the american media is so piosoned and polluted with propaganda that people are willingly submitting their minds to extreme forms of regimentation and indoctrination.
Oi! Calm yourself. The entire media has been inducing a coverage black out on the only candidate with experience and a plan that can fix this country, and you're calling half of his voting base fascist nutjobs. You're vastly oversimplifying the situation, and you know it, or you're just as much of a rhetoric monkey, slave thinker as people who avidly watch any cable news network. People who watch fox news aren't fascist nutjobs. They're a group of people who feel alienated from other news networks and fox news has very cleverly wrapped all of that mistrust and misguided "freedom" love into a big dildo and shoved it up everybody's ass. But we asked for it. Look at what news has to compete with. Could you come up with pertinent information for news stories 24 hours a day seven days a week, and still be entertaining enough to draw people away from whatever other crap is on? Scratch that, could you and a roomful of your friends do that? I think not. People who watch news aren't psychopathic Nazis they're us. Anyone who is misguided enough to believe everything they hear on the news, (or the internet GARY77777) is our bad, all of us. Another score for the opiates of the masses, a loss to humanity's side. So don't talk like it takes total mental incapacity to sit through an hour of Fox news programming. Look at John Stossel, he's probably one of the only respectable newscasters that believes and talks about, at great length, liberty and small government. Judge Napolitano is pretty good and he's even had Gary Johnson on. GARY JOHNSON 2012. And fox has more reason.tv guests than CNN and MSNBC, and the people at Reason magazine are the only people out there laying down hardcore truth dickings to people like Bill... what's his name? Lumbergh? And people like him. NICK GILLESPIE 2016
"he entire media has been inducing a coverage black out on the only candidate with experience and a plan that can fix this country, and you're calling half of his voting base fascist nutjobs."
Which candidate is that?
"You're vastly oversimplifying the situation, and you know it, or you're just as much of a rhetoric monkey, slave thinker as people who avidly watch any cable news network."
I can assure you am i not for a variety of reasons, not least the fact that im one of my extreme cynicism.
"They're a group of people who feel alienated from other news networks and fox news has very cleverly wrapped all of that mistrust and misguided "freedom" love into a big dildo and shoved it up everybody's ass."
I wouldn't put it quite like that but i know exactly what you mean.
"But we asked for it."
You most certainly fucking did.
"Look at what news has to compete with. Could you come up with pertinent information for news stories 24 hours a day seven days a week, and still be entertaining enough to draw people away from whatever other crap is on?"
This is more of an inditement of the state of your degenerate culture than anything else.
"I think not. People who watch news aren't psychopathic Nazis they're us."
I agree we are all susceptible to the same methods of brainwashing, propaganda and indoctrination which is perpetuated by the need for instant gratification in the sources of information which we receive, but i don't view thia as a vaild or pardonable excuse.
"Anyone who is misguided enough to believe everything they hear on the news, (or the internet GARY77777) is our bad, all of us."
I disagree, the responsibility lies with the individual, now if you mean the state of the world is to some extent contingent on our (you, me, everyone else) actions (or lack thereof) in the collective sense, and thus you cannot give out about something you haven't actively tried to change, then yes i agree. Peoples passivity is a curse.
"So don't talk like it takes total mental incapacity to sit through an hour of Fox news programming. "
I don't mean it like that, i just feel western (particularly american) culture has evolved to the stage where ignorance is worshipped, thus allowing news programming like Fox's to florish.
"And fox has more reason.tv guests than CNN and MSNBC"
Lok im sure you can piont to different aspects of each station that is better than the other, im not defending american media by criticising Fox, american mainstream media is a complete and utter joke, i cannot even begin to explain this, but theres no doubt Fox is the most extreme when the totality of all the stations news prograaming is examined. To be honest i think Fox are as bad as they are to make the others look less extreme, in reality though if any european news station was as bad as an american one they wouldn't last long. Sky New in Britain is a good example, it is owned my Rupert Murdoch as well, and it is definitely the most progandised station ins all of Britain but it is much more subtle and is still a much more reliable news station than any mainstream american equivalent because the British people simply wouldn't stand for the garbage put on american news media.
Well, in general the U.S. has a lot more people, so the audience base is a lot larger with a lot more combative viewpoints. Typically Americans feel a lot more strongly about issues than British people (mostly because of our culture and the reactionary way we take everything and turn it into a fight.) That said, British television doesn't really have the same environment that American television has, and in general British TV is a lot less entertaining. I mean sure, Doctor Who is fun, Black Adder was cool, Father Ted. But jesus have you tuned in to some of that crap? Top Gear? I mean yeah cars woo hoo! Whatever but that doesn't excuse every one of those guys from being a total puss, and they're so ignorant. At least as ignorant as anything on American TV. But we still have Dexter, and the Daily Show (which for your information is the most trusted source of news in the country) and really intelligent stuff. This attitude you're giving Americans about how uneducated and inherently dreadful our culture is, well it's bigoted first of all. This feeling of superiority you get somehow from coming out of the most posh country in the world. You know what posh means right? You know that your country doesn't always allow defendants to be tried in front of a jury right? We're the new world motherfucker. There are stupid people here and there are smart people, but there are more of both, and that's what you don't like. That so many stupid people are on the air. You realize that most people watch MTV to laugh at how asinine those people are right? Your attitude is so old world. I'm glad your country is effectively impotent in the world now. Fuck England.
"so the audience base is a lot larger with a lot more combative viewpoints."
I will admit there may exist more diversity of opinion but this in no way excuses the corporatisation (and thus complete deterioration) of mainstream american news media.
" Daily Show (which for your information is the most trusted source of news in the country"
I agree it is one of the most trustworthy but that doesn't mean completely biased and politicised.
"and really intelligent stuff."
lets not get carried away, i admit the humour is quite intelligent on occasion, and it is no doubt better than the Colbert report but to honest i think it has become a little hit and miss, i also find that the humour has become cheap, i remember wathcing it a few years ago back and it was much more consistent but i must admit im not an avid watcher, and thus the authoirty of claims is limited.
"This attitude you're giving Americans about how uneducated and inherently dreadful our culture is, well it's bigoted first of all"
First of all i didn't just single out americans, i specifically included all of "mainstream" (this is key) western culture, so i therefore included myself, and my own countries culture, now again im not saying that the totality of western (particularly american) culture is bad, dreadful, etc., but some its more predominant characteristics could certainly be defined as such, if you want to delve deeper into this siiue id be happy to explain in detail jst what i mean. I find Gore Vidal an excellent commentator on this issue.
" This feeling of superiority you get somehow from coming out of the most posh country in the world."
First of all im Irish and i didn't know anybody thought of our country as poshest in the world, second of all i come from a fairly poor family on my mothers side, my mother had 15 brothers and sisters (and no father who left before she was born), i grew up in probably the roughest parts of my town and was lucky enough to go to college (as we have completely free education, or used to), and i know my roots so i take offense to the superiority jibe, i don't consider myself superior to anyone, i find elitism digusting, thirdly im not critisicising anyone for being part of a certain society, or race or colour or whatever, im a rationalist, we are defined by our actions, these are what i criticise, and whats more i feel i am perfectly justified in doing so.
"You know what posh means right?"
Yes i do actually.
"You know that your country doesn't always allow defendants to be tried in front of a jury right?"
Yes i don't see hoe this is relevant though, unfortunately i feel like many americans on this site you have simply viewed my criticism as some kind of personal attack, do you realise that americans are the only people that do this, when a foreign person criticises my country i invariable agree with them, and i have observed the from many of various nationalities, americans seem to be the only ones that respond in this fashion, i think that tells its own story with reagrd to the prevalence of rabid nationalsim withint your country, unfortunately i feel you will misconstrue this as another personal attack but frankly i don't care.
"We're the new world motherfucker."
This is very stupid statement, i don't mean to antagonise you but surely you can at see how wrong this is.
"There are stupid people here and there are smart people, but there are more of both, and that's what you don't like."
Im not quite sure i follow.
"That so many stupid people are on the air."
No i don't like that fact that ignorance dominates western culture, i don't like that a man like Goerge W. Bush could become president of the most powerful (and supposedly civilised) country in the world, and have vice president Sarah Palin miss out by a whisker after 8 yrs of his carnage, i don't like that americans think they live in the best coutnry in the world despite that fact that nearly everyone who claims this has never been anywhere else and this fact is more than proved by the fact that something like only 10% of your population feel the need to have a passport, i think this alienates them from the rest of the world, i feel this creates ignorance of other cultures, america is one of the msot isloated countries in the world and this has seriously adverse consequences, i don't like how you are the richest coutnry in the world yet the lifestyle of the bottom 40% of people could easily be compared to many of the worlds most impoverished nations, i don't like how 1% of the population controls 40% of the welath, and the 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth, i can't understand how you can spend more on your military than the rest of the world combined every year yet your education and health care services are among the worst (if not the worst) in the developed world, and continue to steadily decline, i can't beleive health isn't free like everywhere else even though many studies have shown it a highly desirable social service among the majority of americans, i could on and on and on here but i feel ive made my piont.
Now this isn't just confined to america, i find these are serious problems in most of the west but nowhere are they moer pronounced than in america, you can take this as a personal attack again if you wish but im sure that unless you are a wealthy posh elitist white male you will probbaly sympathise with at least some of what i wrote.
"You realize that most people watch MTV to laugh at how asinine those people are right?"
I recognise that here are a great many people in america with a similar mind to myself,, i hope you are one of them, i feel i re-iterate my position on not havong anything against americans, quite the opposite acutally.
"Your attitude is so old world."
I don't think you even understand exactly what my attitude is, but i take your piont.
"I'm glad your country is effectively impotent in the world now. Fuck England."
Im glad the British empire crumbled as well, BTW as i said im not fucking english, you could do me the coutesy of not jumping to conclusions before you insult me, thats quite ignorant and surely even you must know that.
You did make a personal attack. You keep supposing that European media and culture is somehow excused from the same kind of vitriol that comes at American media and culture. You can't even give a straight forward compliment to an American TV show, that does better to enlighten people than half the crap on air in your country. Hence the Daily show being broadcasted over pretty much all of Europe. By the way, I didn't say one of. In the United States, the Daily Show is the most trusted program for news and current events. This is a fact. You did single out American culture by starting this debate with "How does Fox News get away with this kind of behaviour?" I doubt you've even watched Fox News, probably just clips of O'Reilly and Hannity, probably on the Daily Show.
I also reject most of what you said about our government regarding healthcare and our isolationism. The notion that a country as large as the U.S. has the ability to Federally hand out care to everyone all the time, efficiently, is ludicrous. I don't even know why you bring it up in a conversation about culture and media. Yeah it's a shame more Americans don't get outside the country much, but you're forgetting that Disney World is in Florida not England. So where would we go?
I'll continue to insist that as a matter of fact, you are singling out Americans as fascist nutjobs, when the only thing that's going on here is a cultural divide in two minorities of the American population that even still watch news. It's a matter of fact that if you want to watch the news in the States, you have to put up with some kind of bias. Just because some people choose a different flavor of punch in the teeth, doesn't make them fascists. I would also contend that a lot of people watch all the news networks to get a general sense of what's going on. Fox News takes advantage of what they see as renewed interest in conservative thinking. As time progresses people will only get more progressive, and the more extremely Fox pulls against this, the more they lose credibility. I think in general I take offense to your supposition that the fine people in the news media shouldn't be allowed to get away with behaving like this, as you suggest in the original question. They have no less of a right to free speech than I do. You think what, someone's going to prosecute them for slinging BS? That we're going to, as a country, indict an industry norm, so that we can beat a trend that's just going to burn out eventually anyways? Besides these stations aren't even strictly news. Most of the programming is opinion, they're like editorial stations. Try watching ABC news, NBC news, FOX news local affiliates and national newscasters like Brian Williams. You're just pointing out how much you hate the politics on a politically based editorial station. That's ridiculous. Sorry you don't like it, I don't like the government wasting money on shit it can't possibly accomplish, but you seem to suggest it's the only sensible option like most of the other broke European countries on the verge of a banking collapse.
As i said i criticise aspects of your country, you choose to interpret that as a personal attack, only rabid nationalists do as far as i can tell.
"You keep supposing that European media and culture is somehow excused from the same kind of vitriol that comes at American media and culture."
I didn't say that european media is exempt, i said it is less pronounced in Europe, much less, but i will conceed it is present.
" You can't even give a straight forward compliment to an American TV show, that does better to enlighten people than half the crap on air in your country."
I admit there are very few news programmes that enlighten people as much as the daily show in my country, im not sure whether thats an insult against news media in my country, or a testament to how brainwashed the american public are by their media.
" You did single out American culture by starting this debate with "How does Fox News get away with this kind of behaviour?" I doubt you've even watched Fox News"
I keep up to date with msot of Fox news's programming actually, or least those stories that interest my (mainly international), i find it funny to see how they cover them, it never ceases to amaze how they portray international news stories that america has a vested interest in, seriously id say you get more truthfulness from North Korea state t.v. I also check out their site whenever im online if i don't keep up with the station.
"The notion that a country as large as the U.S. has the ability to Federally hand out care to everyone all the time, efficiently, is ludicrous."
" Yeah it's a shame more Americans don't get outside the country much, but you're forgetting that Disney World is in Florida not England. So where would we go? "
Good question my friend.
"I think in general I take offense to your supposition that the fine people in the news media shouldn't be allowed to get away with behaving like this, as you suggest in the original question.They have no less of a right to free speech than I do."
Your stretching here a great deal, yes everyone has the right to freedom of speech, im not denying them their right to freedom of speech but there are laws against deliberately distributing and deceminating misinformation and you know it. Now i don't mean they don't have a right to spew their vile propaganda, im just suprised they are tolerated and are viewed as much as they are.
"Sorry you don't like it, I don't like the government wasting money on shit it can't possibly accomplish, but you seem to suggest it's the only sensible option like most of the other broke European countries on the verge of a banking collapse"
I get the sense that yuo have it all figured out;)
BTW im Irish not english, ive corrected you once already.
I didn't call you English. But just for the record that's like saying "I'm from New Mexico, not Arizona." in the states. I only watched a portion of that Noam Chomsky guy, because he said "Privatization introduces a massive amount of bureaucracy" so obviously he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. What's bureaucratic about being able to buy something get a receipt and go home? Is he a student of Keynesian economics? It certainly seems that way, because that's the pile of horse crap that got the world in this mess in the first place, introducing government regulations that corporations can just buy off in order to run whole countries. That's where Keynes and Noam Chomsky got us. How about you listen to the man who got it right, but due to the long line of Big government elected officials that keep passing the "fuck Americans over" torch to each other, was pretty much completely ignored in his own country, but managed to bring peace and prosperity across the world by spreading capitalism and standard-of-life improving industry: Milton Friedman
"But just for the record that's like saying "I'm from New Mexico, not Arizona"
I can assure you its not, it really really really isn't.
"so obviously he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about"
Obviously, clearly you know much more than a man that is widely recognised as the greatest and most important intellectual alive, a man that is the 8nd most quoted author in history, and is the most quoted author alive, and a man that created the modern science of linguistics single handedily.
"Is he a student of Keynesian economics?"
No but id advise you to do your own investigating on him i can tell it would do you a lot of good.
"That's where Keynes and Noam Chomsky got us"
Ya totally.
" but managed to bring peace and prosperity across the world by spreading capitalism and standard-of-life improving industry: Milton Friedman"
Are you fucking serious?, this is seriously your assessment of Milton Friedman's economics?, you do realise that you just said the following:"managed to bring peace and prosperity across the world by spreading capitalism and standard-of-life"
I don't even know how to debate against this kind of ignorance, surely you are capable of looking at the history and realising that peace and prosperity and a high standard of living has never followed on from any kind of free market captialism, especailly not Friedman's economic theory. I strongly advise you to read the following book:
The book is an excellent expose of the "free market capitalism" and "Friedmanite and Reaganite economics", it goes a long way towards exposing what those policies really represent for the majority in the countries within which they are introduced, and beleive they have nothing to with peace prosperity and a high standard of lving, not even the rich elite get all that, the top 1% gets the prosperity and high standard of living alright.
The first video has very little to with what we are debating about, its largely a talk about maintaining the qulaity of healthcare.
In the second video Friedman says that nationalised healthcare invariably leads to worse healthcare system, he states that the causes are that 1. the qulaity goes (lower quality) down due to less resources being available (intially he says there are more due to government investment but this dries up once the votes have been obtained), 2.more inefficient operation (lower quantity), this caused which is caused by a multitude of factors e.g. flow of goods and services slows down, supply may become less synchronized with demand, flow of information can slow down etc. etc. etc. He sumarises this by saying input goes up and output goes down.He then uses the example of doctor Max Gammin a british physician to prove his piont, citing damning stats about the nationalised healthcare system in the UK.
He then talks about the waiting lists which are a big problem in the Uk, then he talks about Sweden and the Kings physician which is another damning inditement of the lack of quality of the socialist healthcare system within a free market capitalist system.
In a nutshell what he's getting at is the fact that healthcare service ceases to function like an profitable business, and thus it suffers greatly as a consequence, a public healthcare service he beleive's cannot work in a society where all other services are private.I don't really agree with this entirely with this but im not willing to get into a debate about something which i am unsure of, i will conceed the man clearly knows what hes talking about, and is correct in what hes saying.But you really have to look at the alternative to this to gain full insight, its very easy to criticise public healthacre without looking at the reality of private healthcare and what that means for the entire population.
But
before i even begin to talk about how fucked up what he endorses is i would just like to say that it has long been known that the people in the US wopuld much rather a system more akin to that in the rest of the deveoped world, this has been a desire of the majority of the population for decades as was said in the Chomsky video and is backed up by numerous studies of public opinion over the years, this doesn't even enter into the political discourse in the US (or it didn't until very recently) because it simply wasn't aligned with corporate elite interests, so if you say you don't want for whatever reason (you cited that it couldn't work this really isn't an excuse at all it could easily work no one would even try to say it couldn't work, it works in Canada) it really doesn't matter cause you don't represent the majority. So if the US was a real functioning democracy the health service would have been reformed a long time ago and your opinoin really wouldn't matter.
Now lets look at the reasons why people want it. Approx. 50 million (1/6th of the population) don't have health insurance, and can't afford private healthcare, i think they would most likely want the chance to live as well if they became ill, don't you? I mean right now if they injure themselves in any way or fall ill they are fucked financially, as it s quite clear anyone with no health insurnace doesn't have a lot of money in the bank, thats fucked up from where im sitting, i mean you really have to ask the question why, if the majority wants it why do they not have have, especially since the rest of the developed world has it. Its simply ridiculous and results it produces are tragic and you should be ashamed for endorsing them.
Even out of the rest of the population who have insurance, among the middle classes tens of millions more struglle to the get the treatment they need approve. This is without even going into the various horror stories about your current system, i mean it is widely acknowledged as being the worst in the developed world. And the reason is simple, it serves big business, not the people, the corporations and pharmacetical companies benefit, the people suffer, this is borne out by the facts so pelase don't be so stupid to try to dispute it, your private healthcare system is the worst in the developed world for this very reason.
I don't why i even took up this piont with you its almost as stupid as the piont you made about Freidmans free market economics bring peace and prosperity to the world, i mean seriously?????????
The fact is if you haven't realised this yourself you should be ashamed.
Well when you bring up Reaganomics be sure to include in your argument how Reagan did very little in accordance with Friedman's personal philosophy. Reagan increased pressure in the war on drugs, while Friedman advocated ending prohibition of all drugs. Reagan increased military spending and infrastructure while Friedman promoted the idea that trade should be the most obvious legacy of the U.S. or any country around the world. I'm sure he was also a fan of living within your means. The U.S. is facing a catastrophic devaluation of the dollar because of the deficit we have, and we can't keep spending more than our GDP if we want to turn around. It would be nice if the government could take care of everyone all the time, but as an individual entity the U.S. Federal government simply can not deliver sufficient healthcare to everyone who needs it. As a matter of personal politics, the local governments would be much more effective at delivering on this, especially since it's much easier for people to go to their local government to try and change policy. On the whole, private healthcare with fewer regulations and open trade would drive down the price of healthcare, so the minority of the population that can't afford healthcare is reduced and the price on the gov'ts tab is significantly lower. That's just one aspect of how Friedman's economic ideas work better than yours. Maybe people want universal healthcare and hand outs, who the hell wouldn't? But the U.S. is headed towards disaster if we don't start digging ourselves out of this hole, and social spending makes up the majority of it. Friedman wanted a small effective federal government in my country, that was not libel to the kind of corrupt corporate control that is so evident now. The less government has to do with business, the less control business will buy up from our politicians. This even playing field makes the market very competitive and focused on providing the best product to the most amount of customers for the lowest price. Like healthcare for example.
I think you down play the importance of Friedman's work to open trade up to countries who had not previously been so free. Introducing a free market to increase the amount of jobs and infrastructure of these countries. The man even tried to introduce a negative income tax to increase the amount of money the average worker receives on his pay check, to more than it would be even without an income tax altogether. You've just got rhetoric flooding out your gob, without any knowledge of how economies really work, or how for-profit businesses are motivated. They're not evil, they just want the most money. If we create this giant government to monitor everyone, of course some corporations are going to buy control of it trough politicians so the government can intercept capitalism with whatever they're selling. Like what's happened since Nixon started a trend of Big Gov Republicans. I'll state again, that a world as progressive as ours is trying to be, has no right to supplant natural selection, a system which has been at work for too many years to count, with this rampant interventionism that's lead us this far into our grave. It's evident in military policy, economic policy, social policy. And it needs to stop, not just here either.
"Well when you bring up Reaganomics be sure to include in your argument how Reagan did very little in accordance with Friedman's personal philosophy"
Don't worry plenty of countries followed friedmans theories to the letter and suffered greatly as a consequence, the reason i suggested the book "the shock doctrine" is because it is largely a rebuke of Friedmans "disaster capitalism" theories, friedman was also the progenitor of the trickle down theory of economics which only ensures the rich get richer and poor get pooer. Lets not pretend like this guy's theories were popular , there a very good reason why they were never applied fully in the US, the had no democratixc mandate, his theories have never been popular among the masses for obvious reasons.
"The U.S. is facing a catastrophic devaluation of the dollar because of the deficit we have, and we can't keep spending more than our GDP if we want to turn around"
Im not disputing that.
" It would be nice if the government could take care of everyone all the time, but as an individual entity the U.S. Federal government simply can not deliver sufficient healthcare to everyone who needs it."
Look friend we both that if the government wanted a system comparable to thsoe found in western europe or Australia or even Canada, it could.
"On the whole, private healthcare with fewer regulations and open trade would drive down the price of healthcare, so the minority of the population that can't afford healthcare is reduced and the price on the gov'ts tab is significantly lower. "
So your saying all you need is fewwer regulations and then everything will be rosy for the million and million of people qho lack any basic medical coverage, fair enough go and try that then, see what happens.
". That's just one aspect of how Friedman's economic ideas work better than yours"
What are you talking about, listen to yourself, im not advocating any theories here, im saying people deserve free healthcare, were living in the 21st century, free healthcare in the western developed world is no longer considered a luxury (not that it ever was), it is a necessity, if that means im advocating soem theory you disagree with fair enough but again i have to re-iterate, the majority of americans want what the rest of the developed world has i.e. free healthcare so your opinion on how it Friedman has ir all right really isn't worth shit, people want it, the reason they don't get it is because you don't have a real democracy.
" Maybe people want universal healthcare and hand outs"
Well people will take whatever you're offering but universal healthcare is not considered a hand out in the west, its considered a right, a right that the people of the US are being denied in my opinion,. if any weestern government tried to take free healthcare away in my coutnry or any other that have it you would see an instant uprising, of that i am certain.
"who the hell wouldn't?"
You clearly can't see this from my perspective, look im a healthy young man, ive never had any serious medical problems in fact i go years at a time without even going to a doctor but i like know that if i do fall ill i don't have to worry about being treated, thats the security that everyone in the west has, america does not, why, its not because the people don't want it i can assure you.
"But the U.S. is headed towards disaster if we don't start digging ourselves out of this hole, and social spending makes up the majority of it."
Ya thats always the culprit isn't it, the Us is always speding way too much and health and education, thats why those systems are so good in the US (sarcasm they're the worst in the developed world).
So the two wars you fought almost singel handedly, and the fact that you have almsot 900 bases all over trhe world, and spend mroe on your military than the rest of the world combined has nothing to do with it?
"Friedman wanted a small effective federal government in my country, that was not libel to the kind of corrupt corporate control that is so evident now"
Friedmans theories just like many others have been found to be lacking, simple as.
" Like healthcare for example. "
Ya tell that to 50 million who have nightmares about breaking a finger.
"Introducing a free market to increase the amount of jobs and infrastructure of these countries"
I cannot even begin to describe how false this is, look ill jjust say this, what your are saying is true to an extent, but friedmans theories have always benefitted the minority not the majority, and they never will no matter what capitalist bullshit you think will work.
" You've just got rhetoric flooding out your gob,without any knowledge of how economies really work, or how for-profit businesses are motivated."
I not going to pretend im an economist, im a scientist and engineer, but i am familiar with economics.Now this all started with me claiming america should have free healthcare, i really don't care if you don't agree with this, you clearly don't give much of fuck about the 50 million who have no insurance in your, but please don't try to make this about economics, and then claim i don't what im taking about based on that, we both know america could have free healthcare, they don't, you can disagree with it and citte friedman or whatever other prestigious economist supports your piont of view if you chose.
"I'll state again, that a world as progressive as ours is trying to be, has no right to supplant natural selection, a system which has been at work for too many years to count, with this rampant interventionism that's lead us this far into our grave"
How can you possibly think that our world will supplant natural selection, that is of course of it hasn't already.
this is big problem because the american media is so piosoned and polluted with propaganda that people are willingly submitting their minds to extreme forms of regimentation and indoctrination.
Exactly, like the idea that government must regulate media.