Printable View
It's called Noblese Oblige, with wealth, power and prestige come responsibilities. Privileges should be balanced by duty to those who lack such privileges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Are you seriously saying that Health care, saving people's lives is less important than roads?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You guys got trashed cuz your dollar went up and we stopped buying paper from you lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiReloaded [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
There's reasons why the US stays so ahead of the curve. One of the reasons is because we reward innovation, we want people to become rich ass mother****ers. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, those 2 google kids Eric and Serghey whats their face. Try to do the same thing in one of the European countries besides Britain and you'll see how much it's gonna hurt.
Sanctuary, are you saying progressive taxes are bad? You're a smart guy, I'm not goin to write a long post here, just three concepts, I'm sure you'll understand how they relate: Marginal Propensity to Consume, Marginal Utility, and Diminishing Returns. Progressive taxation is one ofthe best changes in governance this last century. I'm sure you can figure it out quickly.
To be clear: your argument is not: taxing the rich is unethical (per your response on roads / schools), your argument is that you don't believe healthcare is better for society in the long run, correct?
What the **** is Noblese Oblige lol. The rich already do more than their fair share. Go google 'bar stool economics' for a joke on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Yes, providing free roads is more important than providing free healthcare. It's not great for those people that have to suffer cause they can't afford healthcare, but in the grand scheme of things, I feel roads are more important.
I think you're attaching a value to human life here which is great and all but it can't exactly be measured.
IndiReloaded says:
"Lots of immigrants come to Canada, btw. Also Australia. In fact, I think they rank as the two highest immigration rates in the world. Both countries are great places to live, have decent economies (Canada didn't get nearly as trashed as the US in 2007) and have socialized healthcare."
Australia and Canada also have like 1/10 the population of the US. You cannot use Canada and say "see? We have socialized health care. Therefore, it can work for you too." As the population grows, so does the number of the poor. Where will the money for this 'free' health care come from? All it will accomplish is costing the tax payers more and surrendering our power to the government. This is why I believe a move towards a free market system for health insurance is more realistic.
Well, if a road is more important to you than a person's life, then what more can be said. If you had a choice between a road and letting a few people die and you'd chose a road then there's no debating with you any longer. It's obvious where your priorities lie. Just as long as you know you are way off the moral high ground on this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Yes, the rich don't need all that money if that's what you're saying. They invest it anyway, it's not like they hide it under a mattress.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPlaya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
But I'm saying when progressive taxation starts getting extreme, it provides a disincentive for people to not pursue what they're capable of. If doctors paid 4 times as much as a PA, it's possible that Neo might reconsider (I'm not saying he would and the example is extreme but you get what I mean). And this world would be better if Neo became a doctor instead of a PA.
I came to you before because I want to believe that I'm wrong.
The thing that's causing extreme cognitive dissonance with me is that everything I've read shows that by expanding healthcare, it will most likely lead to a decline in GDP. As a utilitarian, I place that as the top priority of a country. Because when GDP goes up, standards of living go up for everybody. The quality of life for everybody - rich, poor, middle class improves. So in a way, I feel that to save the lives of a few, you're being selfish, and taking away from all those that would benefit from a rise in living standards.
Sanctuary, that's probably the worst argument I've ever seen you make. Just because human life is not quantifiable does not mean we shouldn't factor it into decisions. That argument is one of the worst cop outs I hear: "we can't really measure the human suffering from our corporate practices so let's look at pretty numbers in this piechart instead."
I know you didn't say the latter, but you're not far off from it either.
But doesn't the number of the rich grow as well? Last time I checked US was the richest country in the world with the most amount of richest people.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSeminole [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
The argument should be the other way around. How come the poor Australia and Canada with it's scarcity of rich people can afford to successfully provide free health care and the richest country in the world can not?
Well, all I can say is that when it comes to debates, you have a bigger 'heart' than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPlaya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
But quality of work life does affect the bottom line cuz its a factor in turnovers.
Sanct, I've held off on respondng earlier because I feel we need a longer philosophical discussion than economic one. It's because of some responses insee you give on ethics. Were both obviously atheists who don't believe in "good" or "evil," but I think you are missing a little depth to your philosophy. Well have this discussion in fullater, I kinda left it unfinished. I just can't write long posts on this iPhone, only quick, snide comments.
If you people actually read my argument, instead of selectively choosing to hear what you feel are the flaws, I'm saying one of the reasons we're rich is BECAUSE we don't provide free healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Maybe I'm just not good at clarifying my view. Before someone takes this out of context and tell me that there are countries that are rich and provide free healthcare, I think the main reason why we do well is because of our universities. The rest of the world is catching up, but we're still at the forefront of research and development imo.
But a parting shot if I may, as a professional consultant/economist, why point out the difficulty of quantifying life? The fact that life cannot be measured should show you the shortcomings of economics and arbitrary concepts like GDP; yet, instead, it's only reaffirmed your focus on GDP and the arbitrary nature of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I hope you think this dilemma through more thoroughly.
This is very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by MVPlaya [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I think the true debate between you and I is more along the lines of "which is a better standard of measure for a country's progress - GDP or a measure like the human development or happiness index (don't remember name)".
And to that, there is no right answer.
But you're probably right, I am leaning very much towards one side.
This wasn't in response to you Sanctuary, it was in response to Neo's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanctuary [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
But since you picked it up, are you advocating that US should be rich at expense of quality of life?