Time to read THE LAST CENTURION?

The E wrote:Because you're a moron who makes statements that are easily disproven using the sources you claim to use?

Don't be harsh to him, it's not his fault he's a 'murikun.

n7axw wrote:There is much to what you say, but I think you are over simplifying. So here are a few thoughts.

I am writing a post on forums.davidweber.net, not an economics doctoral thesis.

Upward mobility is still possible here. The key to that is education. Skip out on education and upward mobility vanishes. Even a couple of years in a tech school can help a lot. But all too many young people skip out on education for low paying jobs and then end up stuck. And education is expensive. Mitigating this situation somewhat is the growth of online education making it possible to obtain a degree by working at home and supporting a family at the same time.

Upward mobility is real, yes. Education is a path to it, yes.

But it's not an equal-opportunity path. How successful you are is largely determined by how sucessful your parents were; It takes an extraordinary amount of drive and talent to compensate for a lack of money.

Online education, as great as it can be, lacks things that an in-person education can provide: namely, an environment where you interact with others and develop ideas and connections, so even if you have attained a degree from totallynotascamuniversity.com, you won't have the connections someone else may have.

I disagree that public ownership of the means of production is a good goal. You incentivize capable people by encouraging them to get ahead by doing that to which their hand turns and allowing them to enjoy the fruit of their labor.

And this is where you misunderstand what the phrase means.
Let's define some terms. "Means of production" means anything that a worker needs to turn his capacity for work into something useful to others. In the classic industrial sense, that's stuff like a workbench, tools, access to raw materials, anything that allows a person to practice their trade.
Looking further, it also includes things like access to health care, access to housing, access to food, access to education; a worker that can't stay healthy and can't stay up to date will not be able to perform as well as one who can.

In other words, "public ownership of the means of production" does not mean that you can't own a house, or tools, or a car, or have a good meal: It just means that the tools are available to you out of a public fund if you need them. It doesn't mean that you can't sell what you produce to others, you absolutely can.

What public ownership seeks to avoid is create a situation where people are required to sell their labour to someone who holds access to the means of production over them. It seeks to discourage rent-seeking and middle-men, people whose main business model consists of finding a road to put a toll booth on. This is in direct opposition to neoliberal capitalism, which encourages rent-seeking.

There has been no successful society that has not honored that basic law of human nature. Socialist societies place too much attention to how the pie is divided and not enough to growing the pie. And, the only way for socialist societies to do capital formation is through totalitarian forms of control.

And this is why I describe myself as a social democrat, but do continue.

Marx refers to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The old Soviet Union tried that and eventually it collapsed. China eventually had to introduce a private sector to avoid collapse.

No, the Soviet Union did not try that, neither did China. Both of those societies were built around a revolution led by a vanguard party; the idea was that this group of enlightened people would lead the populace through the various stages of the marxist revolution into actual communism, but guess what? They never did. Instead, they turned into oligarchies organized along lines of assumed ideological purity (which, come to think of it, is oddly similar to a theocracy....)

Sooo, what about us? Capitalism does have its flaws. For one thing, It's predicated on pure greed which can devolve into a nasty form of social Darwinism. Capital formation is all very well, but when it progresses to the point where a tiny group of people control roughly half the country's wealth, things have gone too far. And matters get worse when Washington is unwilling to enforce laws put in place to deal with this. Capitalism really works best when it operates in a regulated environment where the laws on trusts and monopoly are enforced and our markets are regulated to keep the high rollers from rolling over everybody else.

I would add to that that it also requires that workers are empowered and confident in their ability to have their demands and requirements taken seriously.

So to conclude, consider the following about a cow. The Capitalist says, "Stay away from my cow!" The Communist and Socialist say, "Let's shoot the Capitalist, butcher the cow and divide up the meat!" The Liberal says, "Let's milk the cow and skim the top enough to share, but leaving enough for the Capitalist to prosper, thus encouraging capital formation and investment." I am a liberal.

See, I think your little simile isn't very well-constructed, mostly because it misrepresents almost everyone in it.
The capitalist would actually say something along the lines of "This is my cow. I am the only one who has any right to its body, its labour or the milk it produces, but I will sell you a limited-time license to look at it standing on the field for a buck. You want a liter of milk? Well, that'll be a tenner."
The communist would (after shooting the capitalist) say "Right then, this is our cow now. Everyone can look at it for free, but we'll have to work out how to divide up the milk amongst us and set up some sort of feeding schedule; so if everyone who needs milk could form an orderly queue over there and everyone who has hay could form up over there, that'll be great".
I, as a social democrat, would say to the Capitalist "Okay, nice offer, but we both know that your prices are ridiculous. So why don't we agree to something where anyone can still afford the milk but you can still make a bit of profit and we do not shoot you."

And as I read your post so are you. We both want enough wealth held back to care for the folks who for whatever reason can't compete, knocking the rougher edges off of Capitalism's heedless ways.

The part where we seemingly differ is that I believe that this is something that, ultimately, needs to be backed by a threat of force. We can't rely on capitalists being reasonable or non-greedy, so we need to make the cost of greed high enough that people who can make rational decisions are discouraged from engaging in it too much.

Perhaps socialism is a term that is ok in Europe. But on this side of the pond it is a poison pill, most wisely avoided,

The stigma that word has in american political discussions is something I consider silly and will poke at whenever I can. After all, it has such a nice triggering effect on people, you can get people like TFLY and Imaginos to make such magnificent fools of themselves, it's quite a sight to see.

Economic theory and its application can be endlessly complex, but interesting.

One that those from the right often quote is that "Governments can't produce wealth, just spend it". Historically in many countries governments have provided the original infrastructure, like railways, telecommunications, ports, and such, even in some cases primary industry.
Sensible governments then eventually sell these QUANGOES (Quasi autonomous government enterprises), and reinvest the capital in new "greenfield" enterprises. However in the meantime, they have actually produced stuff and paid a profit back to the tax payers.
As to efficiencies, it does appear that in some cases (telecommunications), capitalism is the way to go but in others (health) government is better.
Defence is an interesting one, in that in the US private enterprise and government have got so far into bed together, that there seems to be no demarcation anymore.

Back to the original topic. The world is rushing to develop a vaccine for covid-19, and the sooner the better, however many are hoping that it isn't a US company that gets the first successful one out, as they will price gouge.

Michael Everett wrote:

The E wrote:Because you're a moron who makes statements that are easily disproven using the sources you claim to use?

Don't be harsh to him, it's not his fault he's a 'murikun.

Kudos sir, for coming up with the one word that so aptly describes his diatribe.
I had intended to answer his question, and as so often it would have been too wordy:. “…because you are an unmitigated bigot &%/#”…etc”
Had to look for the meaning, and found it right here on in this forum:
A 'murikun is someone who instantly resorts to insults when errors in their logic fail!

Arne

It staggers the imagination, that here at a time when not just the United States but the whole world face an unprecedented crisis, that instead of calling for international co-operation Trump is doing the opposite and repeatedly introducing divisiveness. A crisis where even one of President Trump’s staunches proponents on forum has written:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:...We are threatened by a pandemic that could kill hundreds of millions of people if we don't get it under control...

It has often been stated that the struggle against Covid-19 can be likened to a war. So what does Trump do, he wants to cut off the legs of the one international health organization (The World Health Organization!) that can spearhead the fight against the pandemic. This same organization that since the very start of the epidemic in Wuhan, has been trying to alert the world community to the consequences of inaction.
Again liking it to a war, it’s akin to one of the members of an alliance suddenly saying it won’t be a part anymore!

Daryl wrote:SNIP

Back to the original topic. The world is rushing to develop a vaccine for covid-19, and the sooner the better, however many are hoping that it isn't a US company that gets the first successful one out, as they will price gouge.

Emphasis mine.

... Because other countries will DEMAND that the company in the US that created it - using almost entirely their own capital - give it to them for free. Regardless of what it cost to develop it. Out of the goodness of their heart.

Yes, there is SOME government investment/money being applied to the problem. But NOT full funding. At least in the US. I can't speak to what other countries are doing because I haven't done any research into it.

IMHO the company that produces it should open their books and fully disclose the full cost to do all the research, development, and production. No ifs, ands, or buts. Then, determine the full number of people who will need to get a vaccination. Divide A by B and derive the true cost per dose. Allow for a nominal profit (note the use of the word "Nominal"). Do NOT allow patent coverage - if the vaccine is needed in the future, then others can make it and charge what they want (zero to whatever). The SAME price per dose is paid by EVERYONE. No matter where they are in the world. Some will pay "More than they're comfortable with" and some will pay less. Some will think the price is too high and won't pay... Too bad... Wailing and gnashing of teeth for sure "Ohhh It's not fair!!!" Tough. You're a member of the human race, so you pay the same amount as any other person who is a member of the human race.

And now I open up the floor for the inevitable trolling.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Given the well documented lethality rate in other countries, I have no doubt that Germany is intentionally undercounting Coronavirus related fatalities to make themselves feel superior.

Ehh...

Damn, you discovered our dark secret. Hats off to you, Sir. You're completely right, we do underreport our deaths to feel superior. Because feeling superior is all what matters in these dark times. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:As usual, you are full of feces. As documented on the Worldmeters web site, the rate of testing in the US is getting very close to the testing rate in Germany or even Italy.

Is it?

Let's check!



Oh. By "getting very close" you apparently meant "still at less than half the number of tests per capita".

Given the well documented lethality rate in other countries, I have no doubt that Germany is intentionally undercounting Coronavirus related fatalities to make themselves feel superior.

Whereas the US isn't doing any undercounting?
See, the problem with your theory here is that our health care system is better than yours. There is no reluctance to get to a doctor or to a clinic when things go bad, thus people with respiratory illnesses will be more likely to get tested earlier than they are in the US. I have no doubt that there are "hidden" deaths, people who contracted corona and die in their homes without getting the help they need, but I am also pretty sure that that number will not be as egregious as it turned out to be in Italy or the US.

Also: We do not need to do any intentional undercounting to prove that we are handling this situation better than the US is. We are doing better on every relevant metric that measures outcomes, and we aren't consigning millions of people to joblessness and all the unpleasantness that implies in the process.

And you wonder why I refer to you as Eurotrash.

Because you're a moron who makes statements that are easily disproven using the sources you claim to use?

There you go being a moron again. Yes the testing rate in the US is half the testing rate in Germany. However; your testing rate is only a bit more than 1% of your population. Both countries have high enough testing rates to be reasonably confident in their infection rate. Your suggestion that the US is grossly understating our infection rate because we aren't testing enough is absurd. You are the hate mongering bigot.

Daryl wrote:Don, a possibly better comparison would be between the US and Australia. Sure there are about 13 times as many of you, but comparing rates per million takes care of that.
Both countries are English speaking, have free press and elections, and somewhat similar systems.
According to the NYT the US death toll is currently 32 per million and Australia's is 2 (incidentally NZ has 0.2).
Why is this so? While we have more defensible borders we also had more Chinese visitors.
Theories (that I agree with) are that most of our workers have sick pay available so would not go to work if sick, we have national universal health care so people aren't worried about the cost of tests or treatment, we have a universal national welfare net so the mechanism is in place for income support, and much as I have to say it we have effective leadership.
In regard to your comment about individualism, I believe it is more that a percentage of your population have bought into a myth.
I was on an other writer's blog last night for the first time (it's OK as David supports Taylor Anderson), and was struck by one of the contributor's comments on covid-19, and the response to its treatment. Despite reasoned responses he was almost incoherent with rage about people suggesting "socialist and communist" approaches like national health and welfare nets. That's not rugged individualism, that's stupidity. Somewhat akin to "prying ma gun out of ma cold dead hand". Every developed country has had national welfare and health systems for many decades, and we haven't gone communist or lost our freedoms.

Maybe Australia has such a low infection rate because the Chinavirus was unleashed when it was Summer in the Southern hemisphere? You do realize that the normal Flu is seasonal because it is more infectious in the damp and cold?

Don't worry about a greedy US company developing a vaccine for the Coronavirus then price gouging for it. I have no doubt that the Chinese already had a vaccine developed even before the virus was unleashed. They are just waiting for it to mill more people so that you will pay whatever they demand for it.

In the mean time, let me remind you of how China enabled the pandemic:

https://www.axios.com/timeline-the-earl ... 5faab.html

In spite of the truth, you Eurotrash will just blame Trump and 'Mericuns."

TFLYTSNBN wrote:There you go being a moron again. Yes the testing rate in the US is half the testing rate in Germany. However; your testing rate is only a bit more than 1% of your population. Both countries have high enough testing rates to be reasonably confident in their infection rate. Your suggestion that the US is grossly understating our infection rate because we aren't testing enough is absurd. You are the hate mongering bigot.

Well, no.

See, the thing is, because we have a functional health care system that actively encourages being used, anyone who exhibited serious enough symptoms or symptoms close to covid got tested, which in turn means that the number of people who die to covid without being tested in some way is going to be relatively small. Therefore, the "Total deaths" column in the current data set is reasonably accurate to what the actual death toll is.
Secondly, we've been testing harder for longer. The disease has officially been in Germany and the US for about the same amount of time, plus or minus a few days, but because we were doing more testing earlier, we were able to get a more accurate picture of the situation and isolate people earlier. It seems likely to me that the number of undetected cases, and more importantly undetected deaths, in the US is much higher than it is in Germany because of those factors.

And that leaves aside the completely unavoidable fact that, on a per capita basis, the number of cases that ended in death is almost twice in the US what it is in Germany.

So, in conclusion: Because of mismanagement and structural issues, the raw numbers for the US are not as reliable as european data is.


And let's not lose sight of one very important metric here: Right now, 2349 people in Germany have died to COVID-19, over the entire course of this pandemic thus far; at this point in time, we expect about 150 people to die each day.
In the US, going by the raw data which, as pointed out above, is not really reliable, 7 times as many people have died. Right now, over 1000 people are expected to die today. Your health care system, which some people still, unfathomly, believe to be the best in the world, is failing at its main reason for existance.
Please, TFLY, explain to me how twice the number of deaths per capita, almost 7 times the number of deaths total, shows how you are actually doing great in comparison.