USA is sick...

[nino_savatte]

I agree, there's nothing new under the sun. But when was the last time you heard a journalist or politician questioning Nu Labour's policies regarding this issue? Any questioning as to why some kids end up turning out this way? No, its almost as if they believe or want to give the impression that people are just born this way and simply have to be "dealt with" so the rest us don't have to worry. What a load of twaddle.

Anyway, it off topic, ill stop my rant.............

Aye, true and in some ways it's like what we see in the US, where the press are too scared to ask the right questions, and in so doing they tacitly conspire with the state to keep the people in ignorance. I think the situation is much worse in the States than it is here. The news in the US is another form of entertainment and Fox have cashed in on this by providing their viewers with invective laden opinion that they present to the public as "news".

 

[kyser_soze]

Well over here in the UK there's currently an unofficial 'war on youth'. Hoodies, baseball caps, stood on the street cos there's fuck all else to do, ASBO's - we're currently in the process of demonising our young people, probably because there's no one else left to demonise. Oh apart from old people, but I dare say that will come as there's 101 reasons why it might. Pensions to name but one.

There's been an unofficial 'war on youth' going on for at least 6 decades - indeed since 'youth' really found it's voice in the post war era - and further back then that (I read some interesting articles on youth gangs in pre-industrial Britain which bear alarming similarities to the situation today). Mods, rockers, tedds, hippies, trendies, casuals, punks, skinheads, ravers...'currently a war on youth'...been around for ages mate...

There used to be a saying about how the young think they invent everything...hell, now some of them are even claiming to have invented the victimhood of teenagers...think yourself lucky you just get ASBOd - 30 years ago you'd have been in Borstal, 40/50 you'd have been a conscript in the army.

 

[nino_savatte]

Cuban are desperately poor with a gdp per capita of $2,800
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/countries/cuba/index.htm

But they have good healthcare.

Communism has decimated Cuban agriculture

But they have good healthcare

Cubans have no independent political parties and a ruler for life.

But they have good healthcare

Cuban currency is worthless and will not buy you anything in any country outside of Cuba.

But they have good healthcare.

That's right, Cubans are healthier than the average Yank - that's a fact. It rather scuppers your idea that the American system is superior but you simply cannot fathom how this has happened and would rather spout the usual line . Are all your 'ideas' based upon the notion that GDP is a sort of Oracle at Delphi?

The US is run by big business and the military-industrial complex who are aided and abetted by the White House and other arms of the federal legislative structure. Most of the federal budget is spent on fighting an invisible, if not mythical enemy.

As Leon said in the film Blade Runner (dir. Ridley Scott; 1981), "It's painful to live in fear". Americans should know all about fear, it's been a way of life for many Americans since the country was founded.

 

[nino_savatte]

There's been an unofficial 'war on youth' going on for at least 6 decades - indeed since 'youth' really found it's voice in the post war era - and further back then that (I read some interesting articles on youth gangs in pre-industrial Britain which bear alarming similarities to the situation today). Mods, rockers, tedds, hippies, trendies, casuals, punks, skinheads, ravers...'currently a war on youth'...been around for ages mate...

There used to be a saying about how the young think they invent everything...hell, now some of them are even claiming to have invented the victimhood of teenagers...think yourself lucky you just get ASBOd - 30 years ago you'd have been in Borstal, 40/50 you'd have been a conscript in the army.

It goes back even further than that. In Robert Elms' book The Way We Wore, he mentions the Costermongers of the late 19th century, who wore distictive dress (clogs, scarves etc) and had a penchant for mindless violence.

 

[kyser_soze]

You know, that might have been the book in fact...was recommended it by Butchers...most interesting insight into pre-Post WW2 youth cultures...

 

[nino_savatte]

You know, that might have been the book in fact...was recommended it by Butchers...most interesting insight into pre-Post WW2 youth cultures...

It probably was. I do remember reading something written by Phil Cohen that talks about the same sort of thing. There were working class neighbourhoods where the police were afraid to go and the general attitude of the police towards the w/c was one of disdain and abuse. He also talks about the fighting culture of the working class and this love of fighting is reflected in their bare-knuckle boxing matches...all of which have been driven underground.

 

[Falcon]

Why has our vaunted free enterprise system -- which has produced such great benefits in delivery of most goods and services -- failed so completely with regard to this most fundamental need?

Feels like a specious question, on a number of grounds.

Stating that the free enterprise system has 'failed' begs its own question by presupposing that it is the role of the free enterprise system to deliver excellent health outcomes. It is the role of the free enterprise system to enable people to make choices. Some people use that freedom to make choices which you would prefer they didn't - such as a lifestyle based on TV and a diet of pizza and coke. One response to that might be to help them to use their freedom in a more informed way. Another might be to take that freedom away. Either way, for those people, neither the free enterprise system, nor any deficiencies in the free enterprise system, have 'caused' their health problems. (In the interests of disclosure, I would rather be free to choose to eat myself into an early grave, than to be protected from myself by an intrusive state, but I don't claim there is any absolute moral basis to that preference).

There are other potential causal factors varying between the U.S. and Cuba. Iatrogenesis is, almost by definition, a feature of advanced societies - which societies based on systems other than the free enterprise rarely are. This is a feature of the medical system, not of the 'free enterprise system'. The medical system and economic system are relatively independent choices. In fact, the free enterprise system confers the advantage that freedom of choice allows the suitably informed to guard against iatrogenesis - the combination of iatrogenesis and a coercive i.e. socialist state is, for many, a nightmarish prospect.

I doubt many rational people would dispute the concern about commerical firms' manipulation of the food industry and schools, which is a manifestation of the free enterprise system. But killing the free enterprise system to cure the food companies is like killing the dog to cure fleas ...

 

[dennisr]

"health outcomes" ... "to make choices" ... "freedom" ... "freedom to make choices" ... "lifestyle" ... "use their freedom" ... "freedom" ... "free enterprise system"

feck

 

[Barking_Mad]

There's been an unofficial 'war on youth' going on for at least 6 decades - indeed since 'youth' really found it's voice in the post war era - and further back then that (I read some interesting articles on youth gangs in pre-industrial Britain which bear alarming similarities to the situation today). Mods, rockers, tedds, hippies, trendies, casuals, punks, skinheads, ravers...'currently a war on youth'...been around for ages mate...

There used to be a saying about how the young think they invent everything...hell, now some of them are even claiming to have invented the victimhood of teenagers...think yourself lucky you just get ASBOd - 30 years ago you'd have been in Borstal, 40/50 you'd have been a conscript in the army.

Yeah, like I said, nothing new under the sun. I just meant that it's currently one of the 'in vogue' headlines.

 

[kyser_soze]

Why has our vaunted free enterprise system -- which has produced such great benefits in delivery of most goods and services -- failed so completely with regard to this most fundamental need?

Well for one thing, the US is the only significant economy to not have at least some form of socialised healthcare, so if you want to start talking about the failure to deliver then you need to look at the socialistic, top down hierarchies that exist in current health systems.

The point Falcon makes about health and lifestyle is a good one - 'free enterprise' doesn't force people at any level of income to eat badly (ref millions of threads on cheap eating and good diet), which is one cause of healthcare issues, especially among those on lower incomes.

I don't agree with everything in his post, but he does make a couple of good points...you just need to look past the word lifestyle dennisr

 

[Falcon]

feck

I'll confess, even if I were to re-write the post on the "free enterprise system" (the poster's choice of term) to accommodate what I presume is your discomfort, I'd find it hard to do so without using the terms "free enterprise system", and derivatives of the word "free".

Sorry.

Are you suggesting that the opposing outcomes of spending an equivalent sum on apples or Pringles does not involve a choice of some sort?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Blake Fleetwood's (authour of the article quoted in the OP) choice of term, actually.

About this 'freedom to make choices', thing...

Do you subscribe to "revealed preferences theory"?

(Post #9 in the 'Petroleum Geologist' thread will get you up to speed on my views on that. )

Here's the relevant bit:

#1. Economists are trained to believe that people are "rational utility maximizers" (calculate decisions according to "Bayes' Theorem"; i.e., Bentham's old "Felicity Calculus" in a new bottle). Although this belief was common one hundred years ago, only economists are still taught it: "Neoclassical economics is based on the premise that models that characterize rational, optimizing behavior also characterize actual human behavior." (R. Thaler, 1987). This premise was shown to be false several years ago. [[11]] Thus, the entire modern economic edifice is nothing but junk!

#2. Economists are trained to believe that "money" has nothing to do with politics and is simply a medium of exchange. But even the casual observer can see that money is social power because it "empowers" people to buy and do the things they want -- including buying and doing other people: politics. Money is, in a word, "coercion", [[12]] and "economic efficiency" is correctly seen as a political concept designed to conserve social power for those who have it -- to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer.

#3. Economists are trained to believe that people always "benefit" from free market transactions. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman explains: "Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit." [[13]]

Since economists do not explicitly define "benefit", one wonders how Friedman could possibly know? In fact, he doesn't. Friedman is brainwashing his students to further his own personal political agenda. Economic professors like Friedman resort to meaningless, circular arguments to turn his students into robotic broadcasting devices.

Economists assume people make "rational" [[14]] decisions but abstain from testing that assumption. Instead of testing, economists invoke "revealed preferences theory" which states that choices are rational because they are based on preferences that are known through the choices that are made. [[15]] In other words, meaningless, circular arguments.

I take on board what you are saying about killing the dog, though. My personal belief is that a 'free market' could indeed work were it not for the fact that the 'money' we use is a political tool used for cohersion - rather than a neutral medium of exchange (see here for a better idea of what I'm on about).

You raise an interesting point WRT 'information':

One response to that might be to help them to use their freedom in a more informed way.

I'd be interested to hear any ideas regarding how that might be achived within the framework of 'free enterprise'.

 

[Falcon]

Do you subscribe to "revealed preferences theory"?

I can't visualise what the utility functions that describe the process of choosing between a healthy or terminal lifestyle look like, so I will need to duck the question.

My personal belief is that a 'free market' could indeed work were it not for the fact that the 'money' we use is a political tool used for cohersion - rather than a neutral medium of exchange

You'd have to explain that one a bit more. I was raised by a single mother in the 60's who had to make hard choices every day. I don't believe she would have allowed anyone to use money as a political tool - she just prioritised what limited resource she did have on what mattered most (my health, followed by her health, followed by everything else), and got on with it. As she said, there weren't 15 varieties of social services queueing up at her door, and if there had she would have been less inclined to take responsibility.

I do believe that some people need support from time to time - but I also believe that bad things happen once you have created a nation of people who believe that the responsibility for their health lies with someone else, irrespective of their own choices... and that theories of money as a political tool are what we have to invent now to avoid the difficult task of confronting that.

[I'm swapping between the U.S. and the U.K. here, which is wrong. Over 40 million people in the U.S. have no health insurance, which is wrong. But that, of itself, is not evidence that a system based on health insurance is wrong.]

I'd be interested to hear any ideas regarding how that might be achived within the framework of 'free enterprise'.

The French took their entire budget for treating birth defects and other issues associated with drinking during pregnancy, and spent it on a public education campaign highlighting the dangers of drinking during pregnancy. They halved the number of medical cases. Not a single Cuban was harmed (or required) during the experiment.

Take burgers and chips off the menu at schools. Incredibly, they tried that at my sons school, and the parents started sending their kids to school with cold burgers and chips from last night's dinner in plastic boxes in a half-witted 'protest'. That isn't political manipulation - that is Darwinian stupidity and we should be a little less politically correct and a little more ready to set some standards and condemn those who don't meet them. Instead, the authorities put chips back on rather than go blind filling in paperwork explaining their actions to the council. No wonder we have the highest rate of heart disease in Europe, but it has little to do with systematic repression of anyone ...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

One way to look at money as a political tool is the view that there is now a fairly reliable formula for taking power in a democracy. A formula which requires the services of a suitably charismatic party leader, some expensive PR people and the support of the media, but which can reliably deliver political power to anyone who can subscribe enough for it.

This has been the model for the UK since Thatcher.

 

[Falcon]

One component of the formula you omit is a sufficiently pliant and docile electorate. One of the unintended (but not unexpected) consequences of encouraging the individual to believe that someone else is responsible for his/her welfare is that the same degree of manipulation can be achieved at lower levels of charisma in the manipulator. At the limit, a sufficiently tranquilised individual could be manipulated by a penniless donkey.

In short, the observation that people are manipulated is not sufficient evidence that money is the tool.

 

[Julie]

Well over here in the UK there's currently an unofficial 'war on youth'. Hoodies, baseball caps, stood on the street cos there's fuck all else to do, ASBO's - we're currently in the process of demonising our young people, probably because there's no one else left to demonise. Oh apart from old people, but I dare say that will come as there's 101 reasons why it might. Pensions to name but one.

I watched this doco a couple of years ago about the deliberate targeting of kids/teens by corporations (e.g. Coke, Sony, Nike, etc) as youth are such massive consumers.

I have friends that don't subscribe to the "must have that, that and that...." mentality that have kids who pressure them all the time to buy stuff. And it's very difficult for these parents to explain to their kids that one of the main reasons they want this stuff is because they're being manipulated by the aforementioned kinds of corporations (and their hired guns, i.e, advertisers) to spend, spend, spend.

I was talking to one of these "kids" recently who's now 19 and asked him how he felt as a kid when his parents wouldn't buy him certain things. More than anything he said he felt a bit embarrassed with regards to his peers because their parents did buy them (pretty much) whatever they wanted and he felt like an outsider. The items typically amounted to whatever was popular at the time, whether it be clothing, shoes, skateboards, computers, portable music players, mobile phones, computer games consoles, etc.

But now? He couldn't give a crap what anyone thinks of what he does and doesn't own and is really grateful to his parents for not encouraging a materialistic mindset.

Very

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> One of the unintended (but not unexpected) consequences of encouraging the individual to believe that someone else is responsible for his/her welfare is that the same degree of manipulation can be achieved at lower levels of charisma in the manipulator.<snip>

You seem to be using the above as a premise to argue from. It's not quite clear, but it sounds like you are asserting something like the following.

'State policies aimed at improving human welfare weaken the recepients' critical immune systems and thus make the people easier to manipulate.'

Is that roughly correct or have I misunderstood you?

Are you making an assumption or stating it as being proven fact?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I can't visualise what the utility functions that describe the process of choosing between a healthy or terminal lifestyle look like, so I will need to duck the question.

Good call.

You'd have to explain that one a bit more...

... and that theories of money as a political tool are what we have to invent now to avoid the difficult task of confronting that.

[I'm swapping between the U.S. and the U.K. here, which is wrong. Over 40 million people in the U.S. have no health insurance, which is wrong. But that, of itself, is not evidence that a system based on health insurance is wrong.]

One might ask what 'choice' those 40 million have.

To really get to grips with the way 'money' is used as a political tool of repression, as opposed to a 'neutral medium of exchange' (as we are indoctrinated into perceiving it) we need to take a step back and look at how 'money' comes into existance in the first place.

<Takes deep breath>

'Money' - as we know it - is borrowed into existence by 'Government' in the form of 'Bonds' - promisory notes - 'sold' to a central bank for their face value, secured against future tax revenues.

These 'bonds' carry a premium - or charge in addition to their face value - generally refered to as their 'yield' or 'interest'.

OK. Lets assume for the purpose of demonstration that we are on an island with a population of 10 individuals in the 'economy' and one Bank(er).

For these 10 individuals to trade goods and services they need a 'medium of exchange', which will be supplied by the Bank - 'lent' onto the 'economy' - at a premium of 10% (to keep the figures simple).

The Bank lends each of our islanders £100, expecting upon maturity of the loan a return of £110 - thats the intitial sum plus the 10% interest. So the Bank stands to make £100 on top of the £1000. With me so far?

OK. So where is that £100 going to come from? The Bank only lent £1000 'into existence'. How is the 10th individual going to find the £110 to pay back to the Bank? Because only £1000 is in 'circulation' within our island 'economy', what we can see here is the mechanism by which our islanders are forced into unnatural 'competition' with each other in order to repay the loan.

By it's very nature, a 'competition' will have a 'loser'. In this case, the 'loser' will be the 10th individual who cannot repay the loan as ther is only £10 left in the 'economy' to do so. 9 X £110 paid back by the 'winners' is £990.

So what options are open to our 'loser'?

Their only option is to either borrow more from the Bank, forfeit property (real wealth) or perhaps engage in some 'overseas adventure' to bring 'wealth' in from some outside 'loser' on another island.

This is the fundamental mechanism that underpins the 'debt based monetary system'. The need for 'growth' is systemic.

A political tool that by it's very nature will concentrate real wealth in the hands of those with at the expense of those without.

...And don't tell me there is 'No Alternative'. If a 'Government' is able to issue a promisory note to a central bank (at interest), there is no reason that they cannot issue the equivalent in debt free currency themselves.

-

'Debt based' currency is an insidious evil that permeates every aspect of our lives.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Meanwhile, I don't personally think gullibility is the main issue in controlling the outcome of elections. I think the ability to accurately focus political effort on influencing swing voters in a few key marginals (I'm using the UK as an example, but the techniques are originally from the US), is probably much more important.

That requires the correct application of market research and PR technique, expensive software tools and expensive political consultants. It's almost certainly what nuLabour spent most of the money on, that they got off those millionaire backers who were supposed to get seats in the Lords in return.

That's an example of what I had in mind when I said that money is a political tool, because having enough money to do these things is now a pre-requisite for electoral success and while other factors may intervene, all other things being equal, the side that applies these techniques most effectively will win.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Stating that the free enterprise system has 'failed' begs its own question by presupposing that it is the role of the free enterprise system to deliver excellent health outcomes. It is the role of the free enterprise system to enable people to make choices. <snip>

It sounds like you're talking about the goals against which that system optimises itself. I quite agree that the free enterprise system cannot be said to have failed on its own terms when it falls short in maximising public health, because that's not what it optimises for. Wheras that's exactly what a socialised system such as that in Cuba optimises for. So it's not really a big surprise if they end up getting generally better health care.

I'm not sure though, that it is optimised for 'enabling people to make choices'. I think it's optimised for capital accumulation. If it's not optimising for that, then I think the shareholders of its component firms would be suing it.

It might be fair enough to say that it's a side effect that people get to make choices of paying more for better care vs less for worse care, but I think that maximising the number of different options for people to choose from is not what the system is primarily optimised for.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's been an unofficial 'war on youth' going on for at least 6 decades - indeed since 'youth' really found it's voice in the post war era - and further back then that (I read some interesting articles on youth gangs in pre-industrial Britain which bear alarming similarities to the situation today). Mods, rockers, tedds, hippies, trendies, casuals, punks, skinheads, ravers...'currently a war on youth'...been around for ages mate...

There used to be a saying about how the young think they invent everything...hell, now some of them are even claiming to have invented the victimhood of teenagers...think yourself lucky you just get ASBOd - 30 years ago you'd have been in Borstal, 40/50 you'd have been a conscript in the army.

Compulsory schooling was enacted in the late 19th century in Britain because of middle and upper class fears about feckless working class youth. People fear things and situations that they don't have enough control of, energetic youth pretty much embodies those fears.

 

[Falcon]

'State policies aimed at improving human welfare weaken the recepients' critical immune systems and thus make the people easier to manipulate.'

I would choose a less declarative form of words (not all policies weaken their recipient, and not all recipients of weakening policies allow themselves to be weakened by them), but in aggregate outcome, yes.

Folks, I'm setting off on a few days (work) travel (to a part of the world that would find all this agonising about suboptimal health outcomes in the poorest segment of our society a little self indulgent). So can't add much more to the conversation right now.

I think it's optimised for capital accumulation. If it's not optimising for that, then I think the shareholders of its component firms would be suing it.

I'd agree to a certain extent (even more so, now I've watched The Corporation, and I'm a corporation man). However, my belief is that an imperfect free enterprise system regulated by the state to protect the legitimate needs of the weakest results in a better outcome than a coercive state controlling our lives in what it believes are our best interests. After all, a corrupt free enterprise system can, albeit with great difficulty, be corrected. A corrupt coercive state renders us powerless.

 

[ZAMB]

Spot on matey. As much as Mears frustrates me I really do feel genuine sorrow for him. I hope some of what we say touches some part of his soul and that he looks around him and realises there's more to defining yourself than what you can afford to buy.

"Beyond Treason"
I was watching this film online last night, and it was really horrific in parts. The USA goes on so much about 'support our troops' in the war in Iraq, with their car stickers, Flags outside their houses etc. Perhaps Mears would care to take a look at how his government supports/or doesn't support, rather, the health of their troops - as the film blurb says - it seems to be a 'disposable army'. While the health effects on Iraqi's is also mentioned, the main thrust of the film is the abominable lack of care the USA has for the health of their own troops - those guys who are out there 'defending Mears' freedom'!!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13003.htm

Department of Defense documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act expose the horrific underworld of the disposable army mentality and the government funded experimentation upon US citizens conducted without their knowledge or consent.

Is the United States knowingly using a dangerous battlefield weapon banned by the United Nations because of its long-term effects on the local inhabitants and the environment? Explore the illegal worldwide sale and use of one of the deadliest weapons ever invented