It's not my generation's fault. It's your generation's (parents) fault.

I think a number of things. One is in America, we know what it's like to keep a decent portion of your money. So, this change would be big. Conversely, people in these other countries don't know any better, so earning $1000 in a week and only getting to keep $200 is normal. They just do what they always did. 

Then you have your Cubas and Venezuelas. These people can't even get food. It's rationed by the government and they run out and people can't even buy it if they wanted it. 

The lifestyles in Russia and China are not all that great either. China may be getting better. But this socialization leads more to the haves and have nots than capitalism ever will. 

As I said, it works on a limited basis in the Scandinavian countries because they only have around 5 million people in the whole country. Doing this in the US is a completely different ballgame. 

Well, as long as you know it can never work here, I guess we shouldn't try. It's not like public schools, or social security, or medicare actually fixed any problems in the US when they were implemented. Obviously, the fact that every other industrialized country in the world has some sort of socialized medicine that achieves better results on any number of metrics for half what gets spent in the US is likewise evidence that our system is clearly different, and therefore we shouldn't try to change it in any way.

Also, just FWIW, the Scandinavian countries aren't the only ones with robust social welfare systems.  Most of the first world says hi.

There's a reason we currently rank towards the bottom in education - common core & teachers unions. Medicare is not quite social medicine, although it's close. From my understanding, care is not all that great. Look what's gone on with the government run healthcare system called the Veterans Administration. It's a complete nightmare. The United States has been the leader in medical technology and pharmaceuticals because it has run in a private system. No other country in the world has made the strides we have. I've talked to a doctor from Belgium who confirms this. No other country in the world has the sheer volume of medical equipment to take care of its citizens that we do. All this R&D takes money, which is part of why medical costs are higher here. Socialize medicine and you will lose a big chunk of that innovation. 

We obviously see this from completely different perspectives. I think you know how I see it, I think I know how you see it. We're going to have to agree to disagree and move on. I'll try to stay out - this is a baseball board after all. 

Golfman25 posted:

roothog66 posted:

Golfman25 posted:

jacjacatk posted:

bballman posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

But, sometimes people take good things too far. See labor unions for example.

Yep...

Remind me again why labor unions = bad and capital unions (corporations) = good, inherently?

Labor unions are about risk avoidance.  Capital unions are about risk taking.  Show me a labor union who would agree to fluctuate income with profits - up in good times, down in bad time.  It just doesn't happen.  Risk takers get compensated for that risk. 

It shouldn't. Labor should have a certain value regardless of profits. Rarely do corporations increase wages based on increases in profit. Nor do they voluntarily pay more for raw goods or real estate based on profits. They may raise wages slightly in good times, but not in league with profit increases. Labor, therefore, is valued gauged on how cheaply it can be obtained by corporations in coordination with what that labor can demand based on the market. The only question is whether the cost of labor is negotiated in individual units or by unions which bring a far stronger bargaining position to the table.  

Sorry, but these days of ultra price competitiveness all wage increases must be justified by increasing efficiency and thus profits.  Otherwise, it won't be long until there is no business.  The idea that someone should just get an x% increase for showing up is from days gone by.  It's too easy for global competitors to take the work.   

The Union thing is a mute point in a World wide Market anyway. The Union and owners might Debate 8 vs 12 Dollars but there are no Unions in China and they work for two Dollars there. Both Companies and workers can not compete with that.

The kid hits with a MLB scout. A really high up in the org scout. So this kid is in the cage and struggling a little. This man doesn't pull many punches and was on him to pick it up. He stopped the class and told the kids, "this is what we're seeing in you middle/upper class kids. Things don't go your way, you start to struggle a little, and you just give up. Putting in the extra effort is just to much to ask".

My wife and I went down to the DR a couple of years ago on vacation. It was apparent pretty quickly why such a large number of players come from there. The kids aren't distracted by the xbox, computer, smartphone. And the parents aren't on the internet arguing amongst themselves why their kids are unmotivated.  Given the guards on the street corners with AR-14's they're busy trying to make it through the day.

FYI - 

Denmark - 

55.8% personal income tax

8% social security

8% pension tax

That's 71.8% income tax, then another 25% sales tax. 

Finland -

51.6% personal income tax

30.19% social security tax

8.97% pension tax

That's 90.76% tax on their income and add another 25% sales tax when you go out to spend the 10% of your earnings you get to take home. 

Somehow I gotta doubt they like that.  I guess individuality is not big there.

It is a leftist canard out of the Bernie playbook to try to tell us that because we have Medicare, military spending and roads and bridges and public education that the US is some semi- socialist country. 1) we are not close to socialist. 2) U.S. experiments with some collective services have not been a compelling argument for socialism.

Teaching Elder posted:

It is a leftist canard out of the Bernie playbook to try to tell us that because we have Medicare, military spending and roads and bridges and public education that the US is some semi- socialist country. 1) we are not close to socialist. 2) U.S. experiments with some collective services have not been a compelling argument for socialism.

No, you're just doing what many do and misrepresent what democratic socialism is or what it purports to be.

Teaching Elder posted:

It is a leftist canard out of the Bernie playbook to try to tell us that because we have Medicare, military spending and roads and bridges and public education that the US is some semi- socialist country. 1) we are not close to socialist. 2) U.S. experiments with some collective services have not been a compelling argument for socialism.

Like I said before, don't admit it's socialism for things you like, argue it is for things you don't. 

If you want an honest discussion about the merits, admit there are things for which it's worth socializing the costs, and then discuss the merits of those things. 

Or, just demagogue anything to which you're opposed.

Also, try googling effective tax rates. Or maybe think about why there's not a huge Swedish immigration probably anywhere due to hordes of people fleeing their oppressive tax regime.

Matt13 posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

It is a leftist canard out of the Bernie playbook to try to tell us that because we have Medicare, military spending and roads and bridges and public education that the US is some semi- socialist country. 1) we are not close to socialist. 2) U.S. experiments with some collective services have not been a compelling argument for socialism.

No, you're just doing what many do and misrepresent what democratic socialism is or what it purports to be.

Fair enough.   Where did I misrepresent socialism?  Adding Democratic doesn't make it stink less. 

Teaching Elder posted:

Matt13 posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

It is a leftist canard out of the Bernie playbook to try to tell us that because we have Medicare, military spending and roads and bridges and public education that the US is some semi- socialist country. 1) we are not close to socialist. 2) U.S. experiments with some collective services have not been a compelling argument for socialism.

No, you're just doing what many do and misrepresent what democratic socialism is or what it purports to be.

Fair enough.   Where did I misrepresent socialism?  Adding Democratic doesn't make it stink less. 

 

The two are not the same. You're proving my point.

Is Scandinavia Democratic-capitalistic since there is the buying and selling of goods for profit in their countries as well as they sell their products to other countries?  Or will we be not admitting it's capitalism for things that we like, such as actually having income that comes from selling ones goods to others for profit?

Once again, it's a Bernie Sanderite canard to suggest that the US is semi-socialist.  It's called a false equivalence fallacy.  "A and C are the same. B shares some characterists with A.  Therefore, B and C are the same."  No.

Entering into some elements for common good does not make a nation socialist, democratic socialist or semi- socialist.   Socialism is an economic system not an ala- cart selection of a few things that some feel work well collectively.  

Furthermore, America has praciced some things collectively since it's modern inception, hence the articles of confederation and later the Constitution.  No credible observer or historian has ever claimed that the US was semi- socialist or any other type because of it.  

Matt13 posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

Matt13 posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

It is a leftist canard out of the Bernie playbook to try to tell us that because we have Medicare, military spending and roads and bridges and public education that the US is some semi- socialist country. 1) we are not close to socialist. 2) U.S. experiments with some collective services have not been a compelling argument for socialism.

No, you're just doing what many do and misrepresent what democratic socialism is or what it purports to be.

Fair enough.   Where did I misrepresent socialism?  Adding Democratic doesn't make it stink less. 

 

The two are not the same. You're proving my point.

Well, why don't you straighten out the misrepresentations then?

bballman posted:

There's a reason we currently rank towards the bottom in education - common core & teachers unions. Medicare is not quite social medicine, although it's close. From my understanding, care is not all that great. Look what's gone on with the government run healthcare system called the Veterans Administration. It's a complete nightmare. The United States has been the leader in medical technology and pharmaceuticals because it has run in a private system. No other country in the world has made the strides we have. I've talked to a doctor from Belgium who confirms this. No other country in the world has the sheer volume of medical equipment to take care of its citizens that we do. All this R&D takes money, which is part of why medical costs are higher here. Socialize medicine and you will lose a big chunk of that innovation. 

We obviously see this from completely different perspectives. I think you know how I see it, I think I know how you see it. We're going to have to agree to disagree and move on. I'll try to stay out - this is a baseball board after all. 

Actually many of the top pharma Companies are from europe (roche, Bayer, novartis). Pharma is still a Billion Dollar Business no matter how it is paid.

Btw the USA do not rank badly in education, their elite universities are about the Best in the world.  But of course Other Countries that are ranked high like scandinavian countries or Japan and Korea have Highly government Regulated systems so i think the issue is less how it is organized and more how much money flows into it generally.

Btw  generally i agree that socialism is Bad but public healthcare and education have proven to work very Well in many countries.

Teaching Elder posted:

Matt13 posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

Matt13 posted:

Teaching Elder posted:

It is a leftist canard out of the Bernie playbook to try to tell us that because we have Medicare, military spending and roads and bridges and public education that the US is some semi- socialist country. 1) we are not close to socialist. 2) U.S. experiments with some collective services have not been a compelling argument for socialism.

No, you're just doing what many do and misrepresent what democratic socialism is or what it purports to be.

Fair enough.   Where did I misrepresent socialism?  Adding Democratic doesn't make it stink less. 

 

The two are not the same. You're proving my point.

Well, why don't you straighten out the misrepresentations then?

Why don't you stop saying them? Why don't you stop being obtuse?

Dominik85 posted:

bballman posted:

There's a reason we currently rank towards the bottom in education - common core & teachers unions. Medicare is not quite social medicine, although it's close. From my understanding, care is not all that great. Look what's gone on with the government run healthcare system called the Veterans Administration. It's a complete nightmare. The United States has been the leader in medical technology and pharmaceuticals because it has run in a private system. No other country in the world has made the strides we have. I've talked to a doctor from Belgium who confirms this. No other country in the world has the sheer volume of medical equipment to take care of its citizens that we do. All this R&D takes money, which is part of why medical costs are higher here. Socialize medicine and you will lose a big chunk of that innovation. 

We obviously see this from completely different perspectives. I think you know how I see it, I think I know how you see it. We're going to have to agree to disagree and move on. I'll try to stay out - this is a baseball board after all. 

Actually many of the top pharma Companies are from europe (roche, Bayer, novartis). Pharma is still a Billion Dollar Business no matter how it is paid.

Btw the USA do not rank badly in education, their elite universities are about the Best in the world.  But of course Other Countries that are ranked high like scandinavian countries or Japan and Korea have Highly government Regulated systems so i think the issue is less how it is organized and more how much money flows into it generally.

Dom,

Since the tracks and wheels fell off this thread about a 100 posts ago...do you know where most of the profits come from these Euro Pharma? If we look at their global sales numbers, I am sure the stars and stripes would be a big chunk of their Billion dollar valuation.

2022NYC posted:

Dominik85 posted:

bballman posted:

There's a reason we currently rank towards the bottom in education - common core & teachers unions. Medicare is not quite social medicine, although it's close. From my understanding, care is not all that great. Look what's gone on with the government run healthcare system called the Veterans Administration. It's a complete nightmare. The United States has been the leader in medical technology and pharmaceuticals because it has run in a private system. No other country in the world has made the strides we have. I've talked to a doctor from Belgium who confirms this. No other country in the world has the sheer volume of medical equipment to take care of its citizens that we do. All this R&D takes money, which is part of why medical costs are higher here. Socialize medicine and you will lose a big chunk of that innovation. 

We obviously see this from completely different perspectives. I think you know how I see it, I think I know how you see it. We're going to have to agree to disagree and move on. I'll try to stay out - this is a baseball board after all. 

Actually many of the top pharma Companies are from europe (roche, Bayer, novartis). Pharma is still a Billion Dollar Business no matter how it is paid.

Btw the USA do not rank badly in education, their elite universities are about the Best in the world.  But of course Other Countries that are ranked high like scandinavian countries or Japan and Korea have Highly government Regulated systems so i think the issue is less how it is organized and more how much money flows into it generally.

Dom,

Since the tracks and wheels fell off this thread about a 100 posts ago...do you know where most of the profits come from these Euro Pharma? If we look at their global sales numbers, I am sure the stars and stripes would be a big chunk of their Billion dollar valuation.

They make billions here too does not matter who pays for the pills.

2022NYC posted:

Dominik85 posted:

bballman posted:

There's a reason we currently rank towards the bottom in education - common core & teachers unions. Medicare is not quite social medicine, although it's close. From my understanding, care is not all that great. Look what's gone on with the government run healthcare system called the Veterans Administration. It's a complete nightmare. The United States has been the leader in medical technology and pharmaceuticals because it has run in a private system. No other country in the world has made the strides we have. I've talked to a doctor from Belgium who confirms this. No other country in the world has the sheer volume of medical equipment to take care of its citizens that we do. All this R&D takes money, which is part of why medical costs are higher here. Socialize medicine and you will lose a big chunk of that innovation. 

We obviously see this from completely different perspectives. I think you know how I see it, I think I know how you see it. We're going to have to agree to disagree and move on. I'll try to stay out - this is a baseball board after all. 

Actually many of the top pharma Companies are from europe (roche, Bayer, novartis). Pharma is still a Billion Dollar Business no matter how it is paid.

Btw the USA do not rank badly in education, their elite universities are about the Best in the world.  But of course Other Countries that are ranked high like scandinavian countries or Japan and Korea have Highly government Regulated systems so i think the issue is less how it is organized and more how much money flows into it generally.

Dom,

Since the tracks and wheels fell off this thread about a 100 posts ago...do you know where most of the profits come from these Euro Pharma? If we look at their global sales numbers, I am sure the stars and stripes would be a big chunk of their Billion dollar valuation.

The same drug has a different cost in each country. My mother was paying 5k per year for two medications. I did a little research. They are now ordered from Canada at a cost of about 2k per year. 

I realize there is some major R&D that goes into drugs (cousin is a PharmD researcher). But they are then often mass produced in second world countries. 

2022NYC 

Dom,

Since the tracks and wheels fell off this thread about a 100 posts ago...do you know where most of the profits come from these Euro Pharma? If we look at their global sales numbers, I am sure the stars and stripes would be a big chunk of their Billion dollar valuation.

When I visited a 3rd world country, I was surprised at how inexpensive medical costs were.  Insurance was literally $3 a month and you could buy it before you walked into the hospital from a guy working a table just outside the doors.  Medication was generic or rebranded, made in another country like India but costs pennies on the dollar.  For example the epipen was $5.  

Been a while for this topic, but we talked a little about the millennial sat dinner tonight at the dinner table. Me, my wife, my 21 year old son, my 23 year old son and his girlfriend. My 21 year old sent me this link. It's certainly interesting food for thought. A little long, but worth the watch. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.p...26872420%2F&_rdr

bballman posted:

Been a while for this topic, but we talked a little about the millennial sat dinner tonight at the dinner table. Me, my wife, my 21 year old son, my 23 year old son and his girlfriend. My 21 year old sent me this link. It's certainly interesting food for thought. A little long, but worth the watch. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.p...26872420%2F&_rdr

Millenials don't exist.

I'd guess you could find a version of an interview given by someone in the 80s, or a grainier version made in the 60s (I can almost imagine William F. Buckley as the star) with essentially the same things to say about the generation du jour.