• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Economist: From Corner Office to Oval Office

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Excerpt:
Even a successful business career is no guarantee of political competence

THE front-runners in the race to become the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump, share more than mutual disdain. Both believe that their time spent in a corner office, bossing around underlings, posing for photos for the covers of glossy business magazines and overseeing billion-dollar deals, counts as preparation for the presidency. This business-as-brilliance worldview has long been popular among Republicans. Mitt Romney, who ran for president in 2012, pointed to his career running Bain Capital, a successful private-equity firm, as proof that he could run a country.

Businesspeople who build firms from scratch or advance to the top often think they can master anything, including the maelstrom of modern politics. Although both Ms Fiorina and Mr Trump have ruled companies, neither has had the shining career they claim. Mr Trump, who got his start in New York property before taking his golden logo around the world, is regarded with scepticism within his industry, because he overstates his involvement in deals and several of his ventures have filed for bankruptcy.

Mr Trump may like to gloat ..., but his spotless professional image is a Trump-l’oeil. He has also stumbled repeatedly, taking on too much debt and seeing at least four of his firms and casinos go bankrupt. These failures are even more significant because he began with a head start thanks to his wealthy property-developer father. Some reckon that if he had simply put his inheritance into the stockmarket he would be richer than he is now.

The skills demanded in politics and business are different. Politicians need to seek consensus; bosses can demand it. Politicians need to woo their foes; executives can get them fired. Running a large company is complicated, but nowhere near as complex as overseeing a government in which diverse, competing interests must be weighed and reconciled for the public good.

Americans had a choice between a BusinessMan and a Lawyer in 2008, and they made the right choice. Then they stumbled in 2010, when they punished Obama who demonstrated that he could not walk on water and lead them out of the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. The consequence was the Replicant inanity of "Austerity Budgeting" - the exact opposite of the stimulus-spending bill (ARRA, 2009) that stopped-dead at 10% a raging unemployment rate in 2010.

It has therefore taken two to three years more than necessary to finally get Uncle Sam back to 4.9% unemployment. Meaning what?

This: If Trump gets elected, that will be the second-time in recent history that the American electorate got it wrong, wrong, wrong.

And Heaven Help America ...
 
Last edited:

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Excerpt:

Americans had a choice between a BusinessMan and a Lawyer in 2008, and they made the right choice. Then they stumbled in 2010, when they punished Obama who demonstrated that he could not walk on water and lead them out of the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. The consequence was that the Replicant inanity of Austerity Budgeting - the exact opposite of the stimulus-spending bill (ARRA, 2009) that stopped-dead a raging unemployment rate in 2010.

It has therefore taken two to three years more than necessary to finally get Uncle Sam back to 4.9% unemployment. If Trump gets elected, that will be the second-time in recent history that the American electorate "got it wrong, wrong, wrong" ...

That is a surprisingly shallow excerpt from a paper that usually gives deep insights. While the 2008 alternative to Obama was not my dream of a President lacking the level of pertinent experience in foreign policy and government, he would quite probably not have messed as badly as has our man that can. But you never know. The sight on Trump and Fiorina is probably accurate enough, though, the reasoning for wanting a business person in the White House from time to time is quite different from the one advocated in the article. The reason to want a business person is that they will tend to understand that part of society, while the average politician has no idea, how the economy really makes its decisions. This means that much of the legislation is slanted towards bureaucratic mind bends and social policies that do less to improve the lot of their targets than they would by taking into consideration, how the rest of the population thinks.
 

Gimmesometruth

Merry f'ing Xmas!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,596
Reaction score
6,761
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
That is a surprisingly shallow excerpt from a paper that usually gives deep insights. While the 2008 alternative to Obama was not my dream of a President lacking the level of pertinent experience in foreign policy and government, he would quite probably not have messed as badly as has our man that can. But you never know. The sight on Trump and Fiorina is probably accurate enough, though, the reasoning for wanting a business person in the White House from time to time is quite different from the one advocated in the article. The reason to want a business person is that they will tend to understand that part of society, while the average politician has no idea, how the economy really makes its decisions. This means that much of the legislation is slanted towards bureaucratic mind bends and social policies that do less to improve the lot of their targets than they would by taking into consideration, how the rest of the population thinks.
What a muddled comment. Our fed legislature has been doing the bidding of business....since at least 1980....with the full-on adoption of neo-liberal macro policy (low tax/low barrier/anti-union). The idea that they don't know what business wants is laughable, law is written (or outright copied verbatim) to benefit corporations...and it is even worse at the state level. If one can look at the stagnation of wages and the rise in GINI....and then say the interest of business has been ignored, then someone is walking on their hands, not on their feet.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
SAY IT ISN'T SO ...

This means that much of the legislation is slanted towards bureaucratic mind bends and social policies that do less to improve the lot of their targets than they would by taking into consideration, how the rest of the population thinks.

The worst legislation in modern history was that of Reckless Ronnie's administration that reduced upper-income taxation from 70% to 30% in the 1980s:

Historical Marginal Tax Rate - Highest & Lowest Wage Earners.jpg

and which gave rise to the Income Disparity that ravages America today.

As demonstrated in this research:

Income Share History - 10Percenters.jpg

where the 10Percenter class take home nearly 50% of all income generated, whilst we 90Percenters scramble after the other half!

My Point? There will be no resolution to Income Disparity for as long as the flat-tax of 30% for all incomes above $105K per year is retained - when a progressive taxation scheme would allow finally the necessary fairness ...
 
Last edited:

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What a muddled comment. Our fed legislature has been doing the bidding of business....since at least 1980....with the full-on adoption of neo-liberal macro policy (low tax/low barrier/anti-union). The idea that they don't know what business wants is laughable, law is written (or outright copied verbatim) to benefit corporations...and it is even worse at the state level. If one can look at the stagnation of wages and the rise in GINI....and then say the interest of business has been ignored, then someone is walking on their hands, not on their feet.

I don't think that rude statements require answers, but I would point out that understanding what drives business decisions and how they come about is quite something other than knowing, what business people tell you they want.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
SAY IT ISN'T SO ...



The worst legislation in modern history was that of Reckless Ronnie's administration that reduced upper-income taxation from 70% to 30% in the 1980s:

View attachment 67200594

and which gave rise to the Income Disparity that ravages America today.

As demonstrated in this research:

View attachment 67200593

where the 10Percenter class take home nearly 50% of all income generated, whilst we 90Percenters scramble after the other half!

My Point? There will be no resolution to Income Disparity for as long as the flat-tax of 30% for all incomes above $105K per year is retained - when a progressive taxation scheme would allow finally the necessary fairness ...

You are right, that the US did not step into the social programs trap as badly as did the Europeans, who are trying to role back the programs, because they are doing too much harm and cannot be financed much longer. This is creating enormous problems, as many millions of inhabitants had structured their live by the promises made by successive governments and now have no time to restructure for old age. This is acerbated by the zero percent interest rates required to prevent a good number of countries having to declare bankruptcy over their pledged social payments. This does not mean the US is in good shape. It also has installed much too large social systems and performs services by the public that are essentially private goods, thus detracting from national efficiency and reducing long term general welfare. It is only that Europe is more deeply in the hole than the US.
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
5,802
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
That is a surprisingly shallow excerpt from a paper that usually gives deep insights.

Seems pretty spot on to me. I have often said that business people make horrible politicians. Private Businesses are run like Dictatorships. That is nothing like how a Democracy works. Running a business is nothing like running an economy or a country. Many of the ideas that seem golden to those in business are absolutely disastrous as national policy.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You are right, that the US did not step into the social programs trap as badly as did the Europeans, who are trying to role back the programs, because they are doing too much harm and cannot be financed much longer.

Hogwash.

Look, I live and work in Europe.

What you say is a bold-face exaggeration of the facts. (Aka, an "untruth".)

Not one aspect of Social Democracies in Europe has been altered, but some have diminished. The principle "deliverables", namely, Health Care and Education have not been change One Iota. Also, Unemployment Insurance, Minimum Wage, Sustenance Income for the Unemployed, are maintained even if diminished.

The EU is, quite like the US, exiting a major recession imported from the US. It has a higher unemployment derived from the fact that language barriers do not permit the facile reallocation of production-resources across EU-nations.

The European Social Model is alive and well - all guaranteed by the Treaty of the European Community that stipulates social objectives:
The promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions ... proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion. Because different European states focus on different aspects of the model, it has been argued that there are four distinct social models in Europe – the Nordic, British, Mediterranean and the Continental.

Whilst in the US, you (plural) are still haggling over how to fund the cities to provide a "social-services minimum" due to the collapse of employment. (Which is a political hot-ball, depending upon the governor responsible.)

In Europe, said services are provided by the national governments - no dithering and no questions asked.

Yes, which is why taxation in the EU is (overall) higher than the US - 24% of GDP vs over 40% in the EU. But the EU - thankfully - does not have a Defense Budget that gobbles 20% of the total ...
 

Gimmesometruth

Merry f'ing Xmas!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,596
Reaction score
6,761
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I don't think that rude statements require answers,
Aww...the boo-boo...
but I would point out that understanding what drives business decisions and how they come about is quite something other than knowing, what business people tell you they want.
I have no idea what this means, if a corporation is crafting the legislation, ie telling the legislature what it wants, what will drive its business, why would the legislature need a deeper understanding...unless you are going to argue that the legislature would need to know BETTER what is needed for the business....so in that case it would NOT help to have a business leader in place, since again, he would be doing what business wanted in the first place.

You have not thought this through....at all.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
MONEY CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY

That is a surprisingly shallow excerpt from a paper that usually gives deep insights.

If you don't like the Economist, then don't read it ... ?

The reason to want a business person is that they will tend to understand that part of society, while the average politician has no idea, how the economy really makes its decisions. This means that much of the legislation is slanted towards bureaucratic mind bends and social policies that do less to improve the lot of their targets than they would by taking into consideration, how the rest of the population thinks.

If that's the case, then why not a University Professor? Lemme see ... one with a Doctorate in Economics?

What a silly notion that is! Just as silly as any Trump-like billionaire who thinks that because s/he made megabucks that they are "fit for political office". What they are fit for is to pay entry-costs to see if there is any base-popularity. If so, the money will roll in - and the more popular, the more money will flow.

But, as soon as they apply a "label" (Replicant/Democrat) that money begins to stink. They are beholden to its source.

Money corrupts, absolute money corrupts absolutely. We have got to get back to "of the people and by the people" and fund elections such that they are less show-business and more issues-oriented.

Maybe in another century, we might see that happen - Americans are so used to "advertised branding".

Find a label, slap it on the candidate and boost "The Label" - kid's play, works every time like any marketing commercial, which is why TV makes millions every four years on presidential elections ...
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Excerpt:

Americans had a choice between a BusinessMan and a Lawyer in 2008, and they made the right choice. Then they stumbled in 2010, when they punished Obama who demonstrated that he could not walk on water and lead them out of the worst recession since the Great One in the 1930s. The consequence was the Replicant inanity of "Austerity Budgeting" - the exact opposite of the stimulus-spending bill (ARRA, 2009) that stopped-dead at 10% a raging unemployment rate in 2010.

It has therefore taken two to three years more than necessary to finally get Uncle Sam back to 4.9% unemployment. Meaning what?

This: If Trump gets elected, that will be the second-time in recent history that the American electorate got it wrong, wrong, wrong.

And Heaven Help America ...

Ironically, it wasn't a good choice at all for the Democrat party who wound up losing the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 and nunerous Governorships and State and local elections.

It wasn't good for the American economy or the American people either

Sure, there are plenty of left wing hacks both here and overseas who will post unemployment #s without the context of our labor participation rate, who will claim we're close to full employment right after we've expienced tens of thousands of layoffs due to oil prices

Those people could care less about what the average American has had to endure over the last 8 years. They could care less if tens of millions of Americans are struggling with chronic unemployment

They care only about perpetuating their corrupt ideology no matter how much damage it does.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A PSYCHOLOGICAL MINDSET

Ironically, it wasn't a good choice at all for the Democrat party who wound up losing the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 and nunerous Governorships and State and local elections.

And why, pray tell, did that happen ... ?

Because we have since learned that:
*The Great Recession was as acute as was the Great Depression, which took WW2 to definitively end, and
*That since 1934, when Keynes first suggested it, Stimulus Spending was the best way to kick-start a dormant economy (but some mindless twerps controling the HofR refused to employ it), and
*That Quantitative Easing did not meet expectations, because it simply got bad-debt off Bank-books thus enhancing their ability to lend but,
*Did nothing to convince consumers to re-engage in consumption.

Consumption, unfortunately, is just an economic statistic - and economists do not understand that it is more importantly, a "psychological mind-set". One that is deeply affected by the "economic situation" at any given moment. The Toxic Waste Mess in 2008/9 created a deep confusion in the minds of consumers. Who reduced seriously their spending out of fear that the economy would implode - which it nearly did.

We are now 7/8 years later and the opposite is happening. The mind-set is one that promotes expansion, so consumers will indeed begin spending once again. Slowly, slowly because the memory of past years is not that distant.

But the threat of a Deep Recession or Depression is behind us.

What is ahead of us, as a nation, is what the nation as a whole will want to believe. Because the old-nostrums of the recent past simply led to expensive wars and high-debt levels and recession.

That is no recipe for the future. So, what is?

Any answers ... ?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Hogwash.

Look, I live and work in Europe.

What you say is a bold-face exaggeration of the facts. (Aka, an "untruth".)

Not one aspect of Social Democracies in Europe has been altered, but some have diminished. The principle "deliverables", namely, Health Care and Education have not been change One Iota. Also, Unemployment Insurance, Minimum Wage, Sustenance Income for the Unemployed, are maintained even if diminished.

The EU is, quite like the US, exiting a major recession imported from the US. It has a higher unemployment derived from the fact that language barriers do not permit the facile reallocation of production-resources across EU-nations.

The European Social Model is alive and well - all guaranteed by the Treaty of the European Community that stipulates social objectives:

Whilst in the US, you (plural) are still haggling over how to fund the cities to provide a "social-services minimum" due to the collapse of employment. (Which is a political hot-ball, depending upon the governor responsible.)

In Europe, said services are provided by the national governments - no dithering and no questions asked.

Yes, which is why taxation in the EU is (overall) higher than the US - 24% of GDP vs over 40% in the EU. But the EU - thankfully - does not have a Defense Budget that gobbles 20% of the total ...

I can see you are very much engaged. That might be the reason why you missed that I didn't say anything about social democracies having changed, though they are beginning to. What has changed and is changing at an accelerated rate are the social programs. I am not quite as versed in the state of French programs, but the sounds coming out of France indicate that the country is having considerable problems stemming from such benevolent policies as the 35 hour work week. Even the socialists sound as though they would need to work on rolling back socialism.

In Germany this process became necessary earlier, when it slid into stagnation as a consequence of joining the Euro at a currency rate that was too high. This revealed that the costs of the social state were already higher than the economy could carry, when external shocks hit. Schröder cut social expenditures and programs drastically enough to reduce the SPD's vote by about 15 percent. It wasn't enough to make the social programs tenable, however. They had to be revised downwards further and are set for further cuts in social security, health care etc in the near future. Which are now being debated.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Aww...the boo-boo...I have no idea what this means, if a corporation is crafting the legislation, ie telling the legislature what it wants, what will drive its business, why would the legislature need a deeper understanding...unless you are going to argue that the legislature would need to know BETTER what is needed for the business....so in that case it would NOT help to have a business leader in place, since again, he would be doing what business wanted in the first place.

You have not thought this through....at all.

Nope. It is not a question about what business wants. It is about what drives businesses decisions, which factors flow into them and how they are made; how things are in the uncertainty outside of the public sector. This latter is not as troublesome as in European societies, where the level of security enveloping public servants seems higher and distorts policy more seriously.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,407
Reaction score
12,976
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Who thought or claimed that being a successful business leader guaranteed success at anything?

Remember, this nation elected Bush Jr. who arguably had no real skills political, business, or otherwise. A grown up frat boy trying to make his dad see that he's not incompetent... The idea that a successful, charismatic business CEO would *necessarily* be worse than a politician....political drivel.

Do you really find these lawyer/politicians make great LEADERS? Or are they better in the senate. I'd rather a leader these days than a brilliant politician. But we've had neither for a while...since its two political parties that run the nation. With the presidency it seems that a great leader that can mobilize public support, circumvents the hardest political challenge. Have you worked for a corporation with a great leader? Has the author? I have yet to meet an attorney, personally, that I admired as a leader.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
COMPARATIVE VALUE JUDGEMENTS

Even the socialists sound as though they would need to work on rolling back socialism.

In Germany this process became necessary earlier, when it slid into stagnation as a consequence of joining the Euro at a currency rate that was too high.

Nobody here is talking about rolling-back "socialism" because there is none.

There is a French Socialist Party (in power today), but Socialism does not exist. What we have is a Social Democracy, since the government has got out of owning very large sectors of the economy. For instance, Telecoms and Energy have been privatized.

And those are just two examples of where once there was significant government ownership of typically private enterprise.

I insist upon making this point clear: Social Democracies have as a permanent goal to assure fairness and equitability as regards its citizens, whereas other countries without a clear devotion to Social Justice are more fixated on Wealth from Income.

Too each democracy their idiosyncrasies in a truly free world. But you are not about to convince me that Individual Wealth as an obsession is more important than Social Justice.

Nope, that just wont wash - we have very different measurement-criteria employed as regards "Value Judgement" ...
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
COMPARATIVE VALUE JUDGEMENTS



Nobody here is talking about rolling-back "socialism" because there is none.

There is a French Socialist Party (in power today), but Socialism does not exist. What we have is a Social Democracy, since the government has got out of owning very large sectors of the economy. For instance, Telecoms and Energy have been privatized.

And those are just two examples of where once there was significant government ownership of typically private enterprise.

I insist upon making this point clear: Social Democracies have as a permanent goal to assure fairness and equitability as regards its citizens, whereas other countries without a clear devotion to Social Justice are more fixated on Wealth from Income.

Too each democracy their idiosyncrasies in a truly free world. But you are not about to convince me that Individual Wealth as an obsession is more important than Social Justice.

Nope, that just wont wash - we have very different measurement-criteria employed as regards "Value Judgement" ...

I'm not sure what you mean with "fixated on Wealth from Income" or with "social justice" for that matter. What I have looked at is the impacts of diverting resources away from their market determined allocation. One of these is to reduce the level of product available. This reduces investment and over time consumption, which is a major reason for Europe's slow average growth over the last 20 years.
 
Last edited:

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A CENTRAL TRUTH!

I'm not sure what you mean with "fixated on Wealth from Income" or with "social justice" for that matter.

That's obvious. But Social Justice is what a government is all about.

Without it, what is the purpose of a society? To simply produce income-that-becomes-wealth for whom? (Only 11% of American households as studies have shown?)

Do you realize that an economy of 305 million souls generates an enormous amount of income that gushes up into Wealth and then Net Worth?

And Life-On-Earth is principally about how National Income is shared amongst those who generate it? Not equally but equitably. (I doubt seriously that you are aware of this Central Truth!)

What I have looked at is the impacts of diverting resources away from their market determined allocation. One of these is to reduce the level of product available. This reduces investment and over time consumption, which is a major reason for Europe's slow average growth over the last 20 years.


The Market Determine Allocation of certain services is a necessity when the market is of a nature not to make that distribution fairly priced and equitable to all who seek the service. HealthCare comes rapidly to mind.

If we want Government Services - for instance - that are destined to provide adequate HealthCare at a decent cost, which America does not have today (even with ObamaCare), then so be it. I give this example because America's HealthCare is a "market determined cost" and the most expensive on earth.

However, I ask, should the American people decide they want a National Health Service that fixes costs (of HC-services provided) at mandated prices, then why not?

Especially in America that has a very high concentration of Medical Insurance in regional sectors. From the American Medical Association:
Based on the DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 70 percent of the 388 metropolitan areas are highly concentrated (HHI>2,500). Additionally, in 89 percent of the metropolitan areas, one or more insurers had a combined HMO+PPO+POS market share of 30 percent or more, and in 38 percent of the areas, at least one insurer had a share of at least 50 percent.
(Regional concentration in any market produces generally higher cost-prices.)

For a crucial public-service such as health-care, it is obvious that there is insufficient insurance competition, which is why a universal National HealthCare Service is necessary for HC to be fairly available to the General Public.

At present, it is at an astronomically higher cost ($7500 per capita) than elsewhere on this planet whilst resulting in a lower-lifespan than in other developed nations*. To wit, "Life Expectancy and Total HealthCare Spending (OECD countries)":
Average HC costs versus Life Span.jpg

*Lifespan is not solely dependent upon the provision of decent healthcare but is also a matter of individual choice. If Americans want to be obese or overweight (and they are, see here), then that is a life-span choice that each of us makes knowingly.
 
Last edited:

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
A CENTRAL TRUTH!

That's obvious. But Social Justice is what a government is all about.

.... (I doubt seriously that you are aware of this Central Truth!)

I know that this is the myth often told around virtual bonfires. And, in fact, the wealthy do do better than the less wealthy. But the question is not so straight forward nor is it easy to change things without doing most everyone damage out of proportion to the benefits.

Societies have functions much older and important than the secondary impressions like "social justice". They are fine to excite the population or gain votes, but are only populist and propaganda that feed off the fact that voters mostly did not study these things. Such terms are deeply emotional and work as drivers even in educated populations, where the focus of learning is not in socio- and political economics. They are sloppily defined and their real wold value is only, where they are used in populist pursuit. This is not to say that there is no redistribution that increases a society's efficiency for the citizens. But it certainly is not exemplified by the 35 hours week.

The Market Determine Allocation of certain services is a necessity when the market is of a nature not to make that distribution fairly priced and equitable to all who seek the service. HealthCare comes rapidly to mind.
.....
For a crucial public-service such as health-care, it is obvious that there is insufficient insurance competition, which is why a universal National HealthCare Service is necessary for HC to be fairly available to the General Public.

At present, it is at an astronomically higher cost ($7500 per capita) than elsewhere on this planet whilst resulting in a lower-lifespan than in other developed nations*. To wit, "Life Expectancy and Total HealthCare Spending (OECD countries)":
View attachment 67200616

Yes, the US health sector often comes to mind, when I think of a topic, where so many say things that are iffy at best. What might be true and probably is, is that spending is (too) high. Last time I looked carefully the US public sector spent about as much per capita of the total population as a country like Germany. This meant that it was spending much more than Germany per capita for beneficiaries. The poor are in the programs and the elderly are. I did not calculate the exact relationship, but maybe you are interested and will do it. The extra spending was by the private sector so more or less driven by voluntary behavior. The young and middle aged earners could decide to take insurance or not. Their decision.

This is changing with ACA and will continue to for a long time. At present we cannot tell, what it will mean and what economic and health impacts it will have. We will have to wait for at least a decade to know. Only a collapse would give early knowledge and the government is strong enough to let any President prevent it from happening on her watch.

*Lifespan is not solely dependent upon the provision of decent healthcare but is also a matter of individual choice. If Americans want to be obese or overweight (and they are, see here), then that is a life-span choice that each of us makes knowingly.

That is very true. It appears to me that lifestyle is indeed a major factor in determining the point on your graph showing earlier mortality than one apriori would expect from the health care spending. And very probably also it is closely connected to obesity and its consequences. This is interesting for other countries primarily, as they are catching up with the US in this respect and should take the opportunity of early warning. I just saw a statistic showing 17 percent increase of obesity among French children, while adults are still at 6 percent increases. This is not to point a finger at the French. The same is happening in most OECD countries.
 

Gimmesometruth

Merry f'ing Xmas!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,596
Reaction score
6,761
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Nope. It is not a question about what business wants.
Of course corporations lobbying the legislation they want is what I am talking about.
It is about what drives businesses decisions, which factors flow into them and how they are made; how things are in the uncertainty outside of the public sector.
Again, the topic we are debating is whether corporations tell a legislative body what it wants, they do, and you are diverting with your horrible verbiage.
This latter is not as troublesome as in European societies, where the level of security enveloping public servants seems higher and distorts policy more seriously.
We are not debating "EU societies", we were debating the effects of corporate lobbying on Congress:

"the reasoning for wanting a business person in the White House from time to time is quite different from the one advocated in the article. The reason to want a business person is that they will tend to understand that part of society, while the average politician has no idea, how the economy really makes its decisions. This means that much of the legislation is slanted towards bureaucratic mind bends and social policies that do less to improve the lot of their targets than they would by taking into consideration, how the rest of the population thinks."
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Of course corporations lobbying the legislation they want is what I am talking about.Again, the topic we are debating is whether corporations tell a legislative body what it wants, they do, and you are diverting with your horrible verbiage.We are not debating "EU societies", we were debating the effects of corporate lobbying on Congress:

"the reasoning for wanting a business person in the White House from time to time is quite different from the one advocated in the article. The reason to want a business person is that they will tend to understand that part of society, while the average politician has no idea, how the economy really makes its decisions. This means that much of the legislation is slanted towards bureaucratic mind bends and social policies that do less to improve the lot of their targets than they would by taking into consideration, how the rest of the population thinks."

Yes. We have been there. That is why I pointed out that lobbying is not a relevant here.
 

Gimmesometruth

Merry f'ing Xmas!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
30,596
Reaction score
6,761
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Yes. We have been there. That is why I pointed out that lobbying is not a relevant here.
Not "a' relevant here....FFS. the only thing worse than the complete lack of logic, is your inability to use clear grammar.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Not "a' relevant here....FFS. the only thing worse than the complete lack of logic, is your inability to use clear grammar.

Again you err, even as you try an ad hominem to deflect from your impotency to make your point convincing.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
... if a corporation is crafting the legislation, ie telling the legislature what it wants, what will drive its business, why would the legislature need a deeper understanding...unless you are going to argue that the legislature would need to know BETTER what is needed for the business

Quite right! Legislators should be focusing on "what is best for my constituency" that elected me.

Not, "Well XYZ&Co. did give me one helluva lotta financial boost, so I guess they need a favor ..."

Far too often political representation in Congress is an ample temptation for furthering one's own bird-nest. (Meaning paid vacations for some in the Carribean and "extra-special consideration" for others as regards regulatory environments.)

Meaning, quite simply, "You KMA and I'll KYA ..." Which amply qualifies a LOT of the political shenanigan going on in LaLaLand on the Potomac.

How do we correct that monumental fault in our present governance? By electing Responsible Individuals to positions of power.

And who - in their right-mind - thinks that is going to happen by electing blather-mouth Donald to the highest office in the land?

Raise your hands ...
 
Last edited:

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,519
Reaction score
1,449
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
WHO IS BLAMABLE FOR FAULTY GOVERNANCE?

... This means that much of the legislation is slanted towards bureaucratic mind bends and social policies that do less to improve the lot of their targets than they would by taking into consideration, how the rest of the population thinks.

But when and where does that happen when lobbyists "infect" Washington, constantly getting up the backsides of our Congressional representatives?

Where's "the people lobby"? How is it funded? How does it work? What real "victories" has it delivered?

I'll wager that, if you tried to answer that question in "real-terms", it is NOT the corporate-lobbyists who come up with the sh*t-end of the stick! No,not them.

Moreover, we have a democracy that thinks it can stay away from the polls every two-years; but at the onset of a Major Recession gets all hot-'n-bothered that it-aint-all-going-right-for-me!

In any democracy, the first-and-last person blamable for faulty-governance is the one you-and-I see in the mirror every morning. If we do not take societal and economic objectives seriously by means of an on-going dialog (as in this forum) regarding matters of significance consequence - then it is not every two- or four-years that we will have any impact upon results in LaLaLand on the Potomac or even in our own state-capitals.

THAT (as described) is a functional democracy! Not all the pre- and post-convention hoopla that you will spectate on the BoobTube.

My Points?
*We, the sheeple should be determining governmental legislation in state-and-national capitals. Not kissing some candidate's backside, and wishing him/her Godspeed.
*It's a damn shame that state-wide referendums* are not employed more. They are necessary to get people thinking about legislative propositions that affect their lives, and thereby assuming the responsibility for doing so.

POST SCRIPTUM

I have lived in Switzerland where the electorate is consulted annually multiple times by means of referendums regarding local and even national policy. And this has been going on since the inception of the Swiss Nation in 1848. "Representative democracy" has its limits. See here: Pro and Cons of the Swiss Referendum Model. Excerpt:
Switzerland's citizens went to the polls this weekend and voted on a proposed minimum wage and other issues. Is such direct involvement in political decisions a blessing or a curse for democracy?

At least 22 francs per hour (18 euros, or $25) for each worker: This is the minimum wage proposal that the Swiss voted down on Sunday in a referendum.

In addition, they also had a say on whether the Swiss army should get new fighter jets - 53 percent said no; and whether pederosexuals should be banned from working with children or which improvements should be made to the healthcare system. And then there were additional the local referendums in the individual cantons, Switzerland's provinces.

For some it may seem like referendum overdose, but for the Swiss it is the democratic system they are used to. They vote at least four times per year, giving their opinion on issues that in other countries are typically reserved for parliamentarians to decide on. When it comes to important laws, the people of Switzerland always have the last word - and if they gather enough signatures, they can themselves initiate changes to laws and the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom