Something is happening but you do not know what it means!

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
And better yet the list that TFF linked to features a large ad on the right inviting folks to sign a petition to "Save their Health Care" and at the bottom features the slogan "Hands Off My Health Care". I guess they figure 37th in the world is all we can hope for?
Ok, if we are going to site the WHO rankings then lets understand their rating criteria;

"In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country’s system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country’s system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries.

WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."


This is not purely about which country is providing the best care. There are subjective measurements such as how the underprivilidged "feel" about the care received. I think the WHO rankings are important but one needs to understand how they arrived at their conclusion.

If one just looked at cancer survival rates then one may conclude that the US is superior in it's system;

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

There is more to this argument than just going by what the WHO has to say.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
Talking about 'sustainability' and 'efficiency' in a capitalist system, what's the verdict on that?

We have all been educated that Communist and socialist states, are/were the main 'polluters' and 'least efficient' in history. Some of it is hypothesized down to 'lack of proper ownership' and 'market competition' to manufacture products as efficiently as possible.

With production facilities that were funded by government - based on their projected output - they had actually incentives to exaggerate inefficiencies. The result being, funding would increase and time frames extended so that they could meet the requested outputs. Those facilities that worked efficiently could face cuts in funding, because they were so efficient.

But now try to look 'objectively' at capitalism. Products are being mass produced, and due to economies of scale, are getting cheaper and cheaper, and, in some/most cases, much crappier. For example, whereas an iron from 40's would work for generations, an iron from 2010 would not last longer than half a decade. It's made not to last, but to quickly degenerate, so that you need a new one.

Then there is the increased role of marketing - the creation of needs that didn't exist previously - and its emphasis on high turn overs. A new cell phone, not once per decade, but preferably once per year. You 'need' that newest, most definitely brand product, and toss the old one out.

And what about skills of employees and 'sustainable' production methods? I was astounded to hear that in the US they could build a home in less than 60 days! A prefab home, 3 guys with a nail gun and a colour-coded blue print and they'd manage. The craftsmen with age-old, proven skills are crowded out, and with them their skills and production methods that were refined over decades to build a long lasting quality product.

Their is no incentive for a company to look at its long term environmental (broadest sense including society) impact. Top CEOs are like mercenaries and a reflection of what I just described. They are hired for a hit job and they move out as quickly as they moved in. Long term sustainability of the company they work for is (yet) really not much of their concern, as they lack a firm connection/bond. Lining their pockets with a quick buck is.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Talking about 'sustainability' and 'efficiency' in a capitalist system, what's the verdict on that?

We have all been educated that Communist and socialist states, are/were the main 'polluters' and 'least efficient' in history. Some of it is hypothesized down to 'lack of proper ownership' and 'market competition' to manufacture products as efficiently as possible.

With production facilities that were funded by government - based on their projected output - they had actually incentives to exaggerate inefficiencies. The result being, funding would increase and time frames extended so that they could meet the requested outputs. Those facilities that worked efficiently could face cuts in funding, because they were so efficient.

But now try to look 'objectively' at capitalism. Products are being mass produced, and due to economies of scale, are getting cheaper and cheaper, and, in some/most cases, much crappier. For example, whereas an iron from 40's would work for generations, an iron from 2010 would not last longer than half a decade. It's made not to last, but to quickly degenerate, so that you need a new one.

Then there is the increased role of marketing - the creation of needs that didn't exist previously - and its emphasis on high turn overs. A new cell phone, not once per decade, but preferably once per year. You 'need' that newest, most definitely brand product, and toss the old one out.

And what about skills of employees and 'sustainable' production methods? I was astounded to hear that in the US they could build a home in less than 60 days! A prefab home, 3 guys with a nail gun and a colour-coded blue print and they'd manage. The craftsmen with age-old, proven skills are crowded out, and with them their skills and production methods that were refined over decades to build a long lasting quality product.

Their is no incentive for a company to look at its long term environmental (broadest sense including society) impact. Top CEOs are like mercenaries and a reflection of what I just described. They are hired for a hit job and they move out as quickly as they moved in. Long term sustainability of the company they work for is (yet) really not much of their concern, as they lack a firm connection/bond. Lining their pockets with a quick buck is.
You have a lot of blanket statements there. For every iron example I could give you an example just the oppisite. A US commercial truck for example is about 60% more efficient, produces less than 1% of exhaust emissions with engines who's life to rebuild is twice as long as those purchased just 15 years ago. Additionally, irons have many more functions than old ones. They could be made to last 50 years but would people pay 4x as much for one?

I think the societal advantages that capitalism has produced far outweigh the disadvantages. If you or anyone you know are ever diagnosed with cancer you can go ahead and thank capitalism for at least a decent chance at recovery. Take away the profit motive for the pharma's and the physicians and you don't stand a chance.

There are well over 5,000,000 ceo's in the US. You never hear of the good, conscientious ones as it does not sell. Just the corrupt ones.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Couple comments here...this is a nice thread...

I get frustrated when I hear the claim "shipping US jobs overseas". This is indeed a scare tactic and made to make corporations look bad. In this day and age we are in a global economy. That means that if not every society is on equal economic footing...there will always be nations who have a population who will work for less...substantially less. Now, it is in the corporations interest to remain viable...hence they use cheaper labor. I do not see this a inherrently bad...just a result of a global economy. In the US...there are Toyota and Honda manufacturing plants. These are foreign companies that employ US citizens. It can work both ways. In the US...since the country has been moving toward a service economy what can you expect? I think it will be a long process...we are not completely "global" and probably won't be in my lifetime...but the more "global" we become I think the pendelum may swing back towards center...who knows.

Second, I don't usually watch much TV news...but saw a pretty good report on health care on CNN. It covered many countries throughout the world and made comparisons. While we in the US complain about health care (and rightly so) I was surprised at the poll numbers from all the other countries...they basically showed that there was a large segment of the population that was not satisfied with their systems. I don't know what this means other than no system will make everyone happy.

Lastly...in the US...if you want to take the power of money from the big corporations and the influence they have on politics....give it back to the "common man"....the way to do it is TERM LIMITS!!! Single term in the house and senate...period!! This would go a long way to root out the political corruption that we see all too often.

Once again, good thread!
 
Aug 3, 2009
176
0
0
broken chain said:
In a nutshell,corruption has gone off the charts.Manufacturing has gone the way of the Chinaman.Corruption has infiltrated every aspect of our society,from small local government to the White House.From the local bank to Wall Street investment banks.GREED without a doubt is the prime motivator.Morality has been pushed off into the ravine.The problem is that the pie has been greatly reduced with American Companies selling out to overseas labor.I saw an interview years ago on 60 minutes with a person who made his fortune by convincing American Companies to Mfg.overseas.Mike Wallace asked him if he felt guilty about whoring jobs overseas.He said no and its made him millions.:eek:Because the pie has been reduced i.e. less tax base etc. more hands in a smaller till sticks out like a sore thumb.I bet there are arguments now over who gets what.Our days as mfg. giant are over.High tech jobs created here eventually wind up overseas.Remember,all those lost jobs are affecting the Wal-Mart shopper,the people who actually drive the economy.Before credit cards came readily available our country was financially sound with resources to back our dollar.Our economy now is nothing more than an enter key on a computer.Its smoke and mirrors.I believe Henry Paulson is enormously responsible for a large share of this countries financial downfall.It was he after all who was a big part in developing the credit default swap.I could go on but I said in a nutshell.
Read todays article about Henry Paulson in the Wall Street Journal.He's a bad guy.I have always sensed an evil about him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
broken chain said:
Read todays article about Henry Paulson in the Wall Street Journal.He's a bad guy.I have always sensed an evil about him.
You can call him "Hank," all of the politicians do...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Paulson should be in prison.

So should this ass clown;

http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/chief-us-tax-writer-charles-rangel-hit-another-round-trouble

The chair of the Ways & Means committee (chief tax-law writers) is himself a tax cheat. PRISON TIME.


How about this turd?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31108460/#


And this one continues to have a heavy hand in "repairing" the problems that he helped create. Brilliant.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


There is no sewer pipe in the world big enough to handle all of the crap that needs to be flushed on Wall St. AND Washington DC.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There's no man-made global warming now. In my opinion, the trading of carbon credits may be one of the greatest examples of what's wrong with a capitalist system. Fake demand for a fake solution for a problem that does not exist the way it is portrayed. We in the US are about ready tax emitters of CO2 (cap and trade) which means it will not be long before some political nitwit will craft legislation to tax people every time they exhale.

There's enough oil for the foreseeable future. BP recently announced one of the largest oil finds ever in the Gulf of Mexico. US President Carter announced the world was nearly out of oil in the mid-1970's. He was wrong then and those that argue we are nearly out of oil are wrong now.

Third world countries have been devastated largely by tin-horn dictators and corruption. Capitalism does not serve richer countries. They are richer because of capitalism. There's a reason most developed nations have some basis in capitalism and it's not to devastate third world countries.
+1

If you want to find unbelievable levels of pollution, just look at the eastern block countries; have a concern with the economy, look at Russia for the past ten years (it was even worse before that); corruption - again, the socialists systems breed corruption to the point that government is often associated with the mafia.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS