US oil consumption

[Meister]

One thing I dont understand is how can a person be a against free medical treatment, even the "american inspired" parites in europe support free medical help.
But I think that Obama should increase the taxes to give the state more income and reduce the debts, why has he not done that?

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, Euro, there is no such thing as "free medical treatment". Not one country has "free medical treatment".
The problem with Obama is that he just wants to raise taxes on the top 5% that are paying 70% of the taxes now. The bottom 47% doesn't pay taxes and a percentage of those get money from our government called "Earned Income Credit".
I don't think that raising taxes will equate with reducing the debt with our government, it will more than likely equate to more spending.

I agree with you that not only the top 5% should get increased taxes, but increased taxes is nescessary to controll the debt.
But why is increasing taxes wrong if you feel that you get something good back from the taxes you pay. I think I get many benefits from the taxes I pay.
Isnt it good to help sick poor people to heal. Or for instance, if you had become sick by a snake bite you would have to pay a 140.000$ medical bill. An average american tax bill i about 26-27k$ a year.
I would definetly chosen to pay a bit more in taxes, lets say 5% that will make an average american tax bill 28-29k$. Instead of risking a snake bite that would give me 140.000$ medical bill.
I would have chosen to a pay bit more in taxes instead of being in debt for a long time because of a snake bite.

It's obvious that you have grown up in a socialist country. In Europe....have you seen how things are becoming more and more unsettled? It's because of their economy, they can't afford all the give aways. The EU is in some serious trouble.
You must think the "average American" is making a hell of a lot of money if you think the average tax is between 26-27 thousand a year.
I can get much better healthcare in a timely manner than that of a state run operation like you enjoy.
Bottom line....and I know you wont be able to understand this but, the "average American" doesn't like the government to put mandates and forcing people to buy something they don't want. I know...that's just crazy

 

[uscitizen]

We cannot continue our current oil consumption rates.

 

[Meister]

We cannot continue our current oil consumption rates.

drill, drill, drill.

 

[Unkotare]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, Euro, there is no such thing as "free medical treatment". Not one country has "free medical treatment".
The problem with Obama is that he just wants to raise taxes on the top 5% that are paying 70% of the taxes now. The bottom 47% doesn't pay taxes and a percentage of those get money from our government called "Earned Income Credit".
I don't think that raising taxes will equate with reducing the debt with our government, it will more than likely equate to more spending.

I agree with you that not only the top 5% should get increased taxes, but increased taxes is nescessary to controll the debt.
But why is increasing taxes wrong if you feel that you get something good back from the taxes you pay. I think I get many benefits from the taxes I pay.
Isnt it good to help sick poor people to heal. Or for instance, if you had become sick by a snake bite you would have to pay a 140.000$ medical bill. An average american tax bill i about 26-27k$ a year.
I would definetly chosen to pay a bit more in taxes, lets say 5% that will make an average american tax bill 28-29k$. Instead of risking a snake bite that would give me 140.000$ medical bill.
I would have chosen to a pay bit more in taxes instead of being in debt for a long time because of a snake bite.

It's obvious that you have grown up in a socialist country. In Europe....have you seen how things are becoming more and more unsettled? It's because of their economy, they can't afford all the give aways. The EU is in some serious trouble.
You must think the "average American" is making a hell of a lot of money if you think the average tax is between 26-27 thousand a year.
I can get much better healthcare in a timely manner than that of a state run operation like you enjoy.
Bottom line....and I know you wont be able to understand this but, the "average American" doesn't like the government to put mandates and forcing people to buy something they don't want. I know...that's just crazy

I don't think this sock has ever been anywhere near europe.

 

[Euro]

Both China and Russia have less personal vehicles owned by private citizens. China has A lot more people, and you didn't specify where the trains were going to or from in Siberia...

Both governments are socialists/communists.. Meaning there is no real private ownership of property. Which means the actual people themselves do not have the ability or funds to pay for their own medical treatment nor a car they can use to drive across the country. And for that matter I am pretty sure you will need governmental permission to do the traveling anyway.

Socialism/communism and all its flavors are what I call the grand illusion of equality. They do not bring the masses up to the same levels, but rather place them at mutual poverty. The illusion is in the belief that everyone in the "ism" is better because they are all the same now.

"East Siberian Railway, an electrified high-class railroad with modern means of communication, electric interlocking of railroad switches, and remote dispatching system. This section of the railway provided a new access to Kuzbass, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia from the regions of the Russian Far East and Siberia. In the early 1970s, they finished the construction of the northbound line from the Khrebtovaya railway station to Ust-Ilimsk Hydroelectric Powerplant (214 km/133 mi)."
Im not very strong in russian geography but i found this on wikipedia

You should have a balance between a free market and a monopoly. Some buisness such as power,oil that will give the state large incomes. This incomes can be spent on providing services that no one wil start up in the US because they are not profittable. For instance the public high schools in the US needs more money, if youd had a better quality on the public schools you would have produced more talented and skilled workers that could have been useful in creating growth. I had mates that were exchange students in the US, they said the quality were poor compared to europe.

So if youd spent more money on public education you would have produced more skilled workers. For instance the US lacks 1.75 million engineers. The engineers are those that create the economic growth. Why do you think the US lacks 1.75 million enginereers thats because of poor public schools that cant offer good courses that could have created skilled workers.

I belive that a mix between a free market and some goverment owned companies is the best way to run a state. Socialism alone has a lot of benefits and so does a free market, but with a mixed system you can maximise the benefits and eliminate the disadvanteges for both systems.

Kazakhstan is another country. That railway was to connect central Asian areas like Kazakhstan to Russia. Not exactly a commuter train now is it...

I think you aren't really thinking this through here...

Most manufacturing jobs went to third world countries now due to cost of workers here. This was directly related to unions, healthcare, benefits and taxes put on those businesses by the government at the behest of the liberal socialists like yourself pressuring for more and more. It had nothing to do with education..

A monopoly? WTH are you talking about? Dude you are losing my interest now...

State owned utilities is all well and good in theory just like a lot of communistic ideals, in practice they fail... State run utilities feeds big government and that's the truth of it. I do not see any sign of an abundance of this wealth in the news... Matter of fact Russia especially does pretty poorly when it comes to finances...

Please explain this mixed system you are talking about....

Monpoly=state owned utility.
Yes state own utilities feeds big governments, but that can be a good thing if the government spend those money wisely at for instance useful things like education, (tax payed free medcial treatment),culture. Giving things back to the people for the tax money they pay.
Russia is corrupt as hell thats why they do poorly and people are not getting anything back and Putin and his friends are running away with the money.

Ok US does pretty good on GDP rank pr inhabitant in the world, they are ranked 7. But countries like Quatar,Singapore,Luxembourg,Norway,Brunei and United Arab Emirates does better.
I know that both Norway and Luxembourg uses a mix between socialism(state owned) and conservatism(free market). And they do better than US on GDP pr inhabitant.
In Singapore they have a socialliberal ideology. They spend money on welfare. I dont know how it is in the arab states but usually some sheiks gets away with a lot of money and nothing goes back to the people so they practice a dictatory but they have so large amount of resources pr. inhabitant.

My point is that state-owned utilities can be a good thing to some(small) extent but not in a to large extent. Basically I think that a free market is the best solution in most utilities but some state owned utilities in for instance oil and power could be good.The income from this utilities can be spent on services that are useful but not economical profitable. For instance culture,education,medical etc. that not would have been started up in free market because no one wants to.

Its hard to measure the economic benefits of having a population of educated,fresh and cultural-rich people but I think that is an advantage but its hard to measure in $. But countries that prcatises this system a hybrid between a free-market(mostly) but with some state owned utilities they get some extra services that no one will start up in free market because they are not profitable for themselves but they are profitable for the people of the country economically in a long term run.
I think a free market has a lot of advanteges, but the problem with a free market is that you dont get any extra services started up that are useful for the countries economy and the population but not the individual that starts up this service, so then the state has to do it. (This is in a small extent because a free market has a lot of benefits, but it dosent generate this extra services that are useful)

 

[Euro]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, Euro, there is no such thing as "free medical treatment". Not one country has "free medical treatment".
The problem with Obama is that he just wants to raise taxes on the top 5% that are paying 70% of the taxes now. The bottom 47% doesn't pay taxes and a percentage of those get money from our government called "Earned Income Credit".
I don't think that raising taxes will equate with reducing the debt with our government, it will more than likely equate to more spending.

I agree with you that not only the top 5% should get increased taxes, but increased taxes is nescessary to controll the debt.
But why is increasing taxes wrong if you feel that you get something good back from the taxes you pay. I think I get many benefits from the taxes I pay.
Isnt it good to help sick poor people to heal. Or for instance, if you had become sick by a snake bite you would have to pay a 140.000$ medical bill. An average american tax bill i about 26-27k$ a year.
I would definetly chosen to pay a bit more in taxes, lets say 5% that will make an average american tax bill 28-29k$. Instead of risking a snake bite that would give me 140.000$ medical bill.
I would have chosen to a pay bit more in taxes instead of being in debt for a long time because of a snake bite.

It's obvious that you have grown up in a socialist country. In Europe....have you seen how things are becoming more and more unsettled? It's because of their economy, they can't afford all the give aways. The EU is in some serious trouble.
You must think the "average American" is making a hell of a lot of money if you think the average tax is between 26-27 thousand a year.
I can get much better healthcare in a timely manner than that of a state run operation like you enjoy.
Bottom line....and I know you wont be able to understand this but, the "average American" doesn't like the government to put mandates and forcing people to buy something they don't want. I know...that's just crazy

Actually I have grown up in a country that practises a hybrid between a free market and socialism. (We mostly practice free market but we have some state-owned utilities that gives the state large incomes that we spend on providing extra services that are not possibily to give in a free market becaues it is not economical profittable for the person that starts it up, but it causes benefits for the population. A fresh, educated population is definetly a benefit that is hard to measure in $.

I am very satisified with the healt-care i have gotten so far so I dont complain.

As foreigners traveling through the United States occasionally note, the phrases “we are the best” and “America is No.1″ are often uttered with deep conviction by citizens who have never set foot outside their country and therefore lack a direct way of comparison. (They are in the majority: only one in five Americans has a passport). Do you have a passport?

A dollar spent on sending a teenager to prison adds as much to GDP as a dollar spent on sending him to college.

 

[Toro]

I agree with you that not only the top 5% should get increased taxes, but increased taxes is nescessary to controll the debt.
But why is increasing taxes wrong if you feel that you get something good back from the taxes you pay. I think I get many benefits from the taxes I pay.
Isnt it good to help sick poor people to heal. Or for instance, if you had become sick by a snake bite you would have to pay a 140.000$ medical bill. An average american tax bill i about 26-27k$ a year.
I would definetly chosen to pay a bit more in taxes, lets say 5% that will make an average american tax bill 28-29k$. Instead of risking a snake bite that would give me 140.000$ medical bill.
I would have chosen to a pay bit more in taxes instead of being in debt for a long time because of a snake bite.

It's obvious that you have grown up in a socialist country. In Europe....have you seen how things are becoming more and more unsettled? It's because of their economy, they can't afford all the give aways. The EU is in some serious trouble.
You must think the "average American" is making a hell of a lot of money if you think the average tax is between 26-27 thousand a year.
I can get much better healthcare in a timely manner than that of a state run operation like you enjoy.
Bottom line....and I know you wont be able to understand this but, the "average American" doesn't like the government to put mandates and forcing people to buy something they don't want. I know...that's just crazy

Actually I have grown up in a country that practises a hybrid between a free market and socialism. (We mostly practice free market but we have some state-owned utilities that gives the state large incomes that we spend on providing extra services that are not possibily to give in a free market becaues it is not economical profittable for the person that starts it up, but it causes benefits for the population. A fresh, educated population is definetly a benefit that is hard to measure in $.

I am very satisified with the healt-care i have gotten so far so I dont complain.

As foreigners traveling through the United States occasionally note, the phrases “we are the best” and “America is No.1″ are often uttered with deep conviction by citizens who have never set foot outside their country and therefore lack a direct way of comparison. (They are in the majority: only one in five Americans has a passport). Do you have a passport?

A dollar spent on sending a teenager to prison adds as much to GDP as a dollar spent on sending him to college.

What?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think Obama does a good job and applies many good ideas, but i feel kinda sorry for him that has to clean up in all the shit caused by Bush.

He's not cleaning up anything. Gitmo is still open, were still in the 2 countries that Bush got us into. He shoved obamacare down eveyone's throat through bribes. He's got us up to 14+ trillion of debt. You have really set your bar low....

One thing I dont understand is how can a person be a against free medical treatment, even the "american inspired" parites in europe support free medical help.
But I think that Obama should increase the taxes to give the state more income and reduce the debts, why has he not done that?

Free medical treatment?
FREE MEDICAL TREATMENT?
FREE MEDICAL TREATMENT?

Maybe you should use some of that to get your brain examined?
The one you have isn't working very well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"East Siberian Railway, an electrified high-class railroad with modern means of communication, electric interlocking of railroad switches, and remote dispatching system. This section of the railway provided a new access to Kuzbass, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia from the regions of the Russian Far East and Siberia. In the early 1970s, they finished the construction of the northbound line from the Khrebtovaya railway station to Ust-Ilimsk Hydroelectric Powerplant (214 km/133 mi)."
Im not very strong in russian geography but i found this on wikipedia

You should have a balance between a free market and a monopoly. Some buisness such as power,oil that will give the state large incomes. This incomes can be spent on providing services that no one wil start up in the US because they are not profittable. For instance the public high schools in the US needs more money, if youd had a better quality on the public schools you would have produced more talented and skilled workers that could have been useful in creating growth. I had mates that were exchange students in the US, they said the quality were poor compared to europe.

So if youd spent more money on public education you would have produced more skilled workers. For instance the US lacks 1.75 million engineers. The engineers are those that create the economic growth. Why do you think the US lacks 1.75 million enginereers thats because of poor public schools that cant offer good courses that could have created skilled workers.

I belive that a mix between a free market and some goverment owned companies is the best way to run a state. Socialism alone has a lot of benefits and so does a free market, but with a mixed system you can maximise the benefits and eliminate the disadvanteges for both systems.

Kazakhstan is another country. That railway was to connect central Asian areas like Kazakhstan to Russia. Not exactly a commuter train now is it...

I think you aren't really thinking this through here...

Most manufacturing jobs went to third world countries now due to cost of workers here. This was directly related to unions, healthcare, benefits and taxes put on those businesses by the government at the behest of the liberal socialists like yourself pressuring for more and more. It had nothing to do with education..

A monopoly? WTH are you talking about? Dude you are losing my interest now...

State owned utilities is all well and good in theory just like a lot of communistic ideals, in practice they fail... State run utilities feeds big government and that's the truth of it. I do not see any sign of an abundance of this wealth in the news... Matter of fact Russia especially does pretty poorly when it comes to finances...

Please explain this mixed system you are talking about....

Monpoly=state owned utility.
Yes state own utilities feeds big governments, but that can be a good thing if the government spend those money wisely at for instance useful things like education, (tax payed free medcial treatment),culture. Giving things back to the people for the tax money they pay.
Russia is corrupt as hell thats why they do poorly and people are not getting anything back and Putin and his friends are running away with the money.

Ok US does pretty good on GDP rank pr inhabitant in the world, they are ranked 7. But countries like Quatar,Singapore,Luxembourg,Norway,Brunei and United Arab Emirates does better.
I know that both Norway and Luxembourg uses a mix between socialism(state owned) and conservatism(free market). And they do better than US on GDP pr inhabitant.
In Singapore they have a socialliberal ideology. They spend money on welfare. I dont know how it is in the arab states but usually some sheiks gets away with a lot of money and nothing goes back to the people so they practice a dictatory but they have so large amount of resources pr. inhabitant.

My point is that state-owned utilities can be a good thing to some(small) extent but not in a to large extent. Basically I think that a free market is the best solution in most utilities but some state owned utilities in for instance oil and power could be good.The income from this utilities can be spent on services that are useful but not economical profitable. For instance culture,education,medical etc. that not would have been started up in free market because no one wants to.

Its hard to measure the economic benefits of having a population of educated,fresh and cultural-rich people but I think that is an advantage but its hard to measure in $. But countries that prcatises this system a hybrid between a free-market(mostly) but with some state owned utilities they get some extra services that no one will start up in free market because they are not profitable for themselves but they are profitable for the people of the country economically in a long term run.
I think a free market has a lot of advanteges, but the problem with a free market is that you dont get any extra services started up that are useful for the countries economy and the population but not the individual that starts up this service, so then the state has to do it. (This is in a small extent because a free market has a lot of benefits, but it dosent generate this extra services that are useful)

Ok US does pretty good on GDP rank pr inhabitant in the world, they are ranked 7. But countries like Quatar,Singapore,Luxembourg,Norway,Brunei and United Arab Emirates does better

4 of your 6 examples are sitting on huge deposits of oil.
Let me know when France surpasses our GDP per capita.

 

[gslack]

"East Siberian Railway, an electrified high-class railroad with modern means of communication, electric interlocking of railroad switches, and remote dispatching system. This section of the railway provided a new access to Kuzbass, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia from the regions of the Russian Far East and Siberia. In the early 1970s, they finished the construction of the northbound line from the Khrebtovaya railway station to Ust-Ilimsk Hydroelectric Powerplant (214 km/133 mi)."
Im not very strong in russian geography but i found this on wikipedia

You should have a balance between a free market and a monopoly. Some buisness such as power,oil that will give the state large incomes. This incomes can be spent on providing services that no one wil start up in the US because they are not profittable. For instance the public high schools in the US needs more money, if youd had a better quality on the public schools you would have produced more talented and skilled workers that could have been useful in creating growth. I had mates that were exchange students in the US, they said the quality were poor compared to europe.

So if youd spent more money on public education you would have produced more skilled workers. For instance the US lacks 1.75 million engineers. The engineers are those that create the economic growth. Why do you think the US lacks 1.75 million enginereers thats because of poor public schools that cant offer good courses that could have created skilled workers.

I belive that a mix between a free market and some goverment owned companies is the best way to run a state. Socialism alone has a lot of benefits and so does a free market, but with a mixed system you can maximise the benefits and eliminate the disadvanteges for both systems.

Kazakhstan is another country. That railway was to connect central Asian areas like Kazakhstan to Russia. Not exactly a commuter train now is it...

I think you aren't really thinking this through here...

Most manufacturing jobs went to third world countries now due to cost of workers here. This was directly related to unions, healthcare, benefits and taxes put on those businesses by the government at the behest of the liberal socialists like yourself pressuring for more and more. It had nothing to do with education..

A monopoly? WTH are you talking about? Dude you are losing my interest now...

State owned utilities is all well and good in theory just like a lot of communistic ideals, in practice they fail... State run utilities feeds big government and that's the truth of it. I do not see any sign of an abundance of this wealth in the news... Matter of fact Russia especially does pretty poorly when it comes to finances...

Please explain this mixed system you are talking about....

Monpoly=state owned utility.
Yes state own utilities feeds big governments, but that can be a good thing if the government spend those money wisely at for instance useful things like education, (tax payed free medcial treatment),culture. Giving things back to the people for the tax money they pay.
Russia is corrupt as hell thats why they do poorly and people are not getting anything back and Putin and his friends are running away with the money.

Ok US does pretty good on GDP rank pr inhabitant in the world, they are ranked 7. But countries like Quatar,Singapore,Luxembourg,Norway,Brunei and United Arab Emirates does better.
I know that both Norway and Luxembourg uses a mix between socialism(state owned) and conservatism(free market). And they do better than US on GDP pr inhabitant.
In Singapore they have a socialliberal ideology. They spend money on welfare. I dont know how it is in the arab states but usually some sheiks gets away with a lot of money and nothing goes back to the people so they practice a dictatory but they have so large amount of resources pr. inhabitant.

My point is that state-owned utilities can be a good thing to some(small) extent but not in a to large extent. Basically I think that a free market is the best solution in most utilities but some state owned utilities in for instance oil and power could be good.The income from this utilities can be spent on services that are useful but not economical profitable. For instance culture,education,medical etc. that not would have been started up in free market because no one wants to.

Its hard to measure the economic benefits of having a population of educated,fresh and cultural-rich people but I think that is an advantage but its hard to measure in $. But countries that prcatises this system a hybrid between a free-market(mostly) but with some state owned utilities they get some extra services that no one will start up in free market because they are not profitable for themselves but they are profitable for the people of the country economically in a long term run.
I think a free market has a lot of advanteges, but the problem with a free market is that you dont get any extra services started up that are useful for the countries economy and the population but not the individual that starts up this service, so then the state has to do it. (This is in a small extent because a free market has a lot of benefits, but it dosent generate this extra services that are useful)

Yeah their GDP says one thing but the way of life and financial well-being of the people says another... Which goes back to my point about it feeding big government...

Its really easy to say their GDP shows wealth, but where does that wealth go? Seriously my brother is a former Russian Linguist and their cities and infrastructure do not show any of that.

You have about a third the knowledge of even a minimal understanding of socialism in Russia or anywhere else. Your pretense of "free medical care" shows this all too clearly. Dude you just went from wanting government controlled utilities in one post, to some government controlled utilities in this one. You used Russia as an example of how it should be, and then call them corrupt and ripping off the people in this one...

Seriously make a clear stand on something...

 

[gslack]

I agree with you that not only the top 5% should get increased taxes, but increased taxes is nescessary to controll the debt.
But why is increasing taxes wrong if you feel that you get something good back from the taxes you pay. I think I get many benefits from the taxes I pay.
Isnt it good to help sick poor people to heal. Or for instance, if you had become sick by a snake bite you would have to pay a 140.000$ medical bill. An average american tax bill i about 26-27k$ a year.
I would definetly chosen to pay a bit more in taxes, lets say 5% that will make an average american tax bill 28-29k$. Instead of risking a snake bite that would give me 140.000$ medical bill.
I would have chosen to a pay bit more in taxes instead of being in debt for a long time because of a snake bite.

It's obvious that you have grown up in a socialist country. In Europe....have you seen how things are becoming more and more unsettled? It's because of their economy, they can't afford all the give aways. The EU is in some serious trouble.
You must think the "average American" is making a hell of a lot of money if you think the average tax is between 26-27 thousand a year.
I can get much better healthcare in a timely manner than that of a state run operation like you enjoy.
Bottom line....and I know you wont be able to understand this but, the "average American" doesn't like the government to put mandates and forcing people to buy something they don't want. I know...that's just crazy

Actually I have grown up in a country that practises a hybrid between a free market and socialism. (We mostly practice free market but we have some state-owned utilities that gives the state large incomes that we spend on providing extra services that are not possibily to give in a free market becaues it is not economical profittable for the person that starts it up, but it causes benefits for the population. A fresh, educated population is definetly a benefit that is hard to measure in $.

I am very satisified with the healt-care i have gotten so far so I dont complain.

As foreigners traveling through the United States occasionally note, the phrases “we are the best” and “America is No.1″ are often uttered with deep conviction by citizens who have never set foot outside their country and therefore lack a direct way of comparison. (They are in the majority: only one in five Americans has a passport). Do you have a passport?

A dollar spent on sending a teenager to prison adds as much to GDP as a dollar spent on sending him to college.

And what country is that?

Whats wrong with people being proud of being american? Ever heard a Frenchman? I have had to work with several, and I have never met anybody as utterly full of themselves and their own culture in my life. According to those guys I worked with, France made winning WWII possible, invented cuisine and fine dining, is the center of art in the world, invented the test for the AIDS virus, and basically make the world better just cause they are in it.... Gimme a break...

If you were born or raised in a socialist hybrid like you claim, and it was France that would explain a lot....

 

[Euro]

Kazakhstan is another country. That railway was to connect central Asian areas like Kazakhstan to Russia. Not exactly a commuter train now is it...

I think you aren't really thinking this through here...

Most manufacturing jobs went to third world countries now due to cost of workers here. This was directly related to unions, healthcare, benefits and taxes put on those businesses by the government at the behest of the liberal socialists like yourself pressuring for more and more. It had nothing to do with education..

A monopoly? WTH are you talking about? Dude you are losing my interest now...

State owned utilities is all well and good in theory just like a lot of communistic ideals, in practice they fail... State run utilities feeds big government and that's the truth of it. I do not see any sign of an abundance of this wealth in the news... Matter of fact Russia especially does pretty poorly when it comes to finances...

Please explain this mixed system you are talking about....

Monpoly=state owned utility.
Yes state own utilities feeds big governments, but that can be a good thing if the government spend those money wisely at for instance useful things like education, (tax payed free medcial treatment),culture. Giving things back to the people for the tax money they pay.
Russia is corrupt as hell thats why they do poorly and people are not getting anything back and Putin and his friends are running away with the money.

Ok US does pretty good on GDP rank pr inhabitant in the world, they are ranked 7. But countries like Quatar,Singapore,Luxembourg,Norway,Brunei and United Arab Emirates does better.
I know that both Norway and Luxembourg uses a mix between socialism(state owned) and conservatism(free market). And they do better than US on GDP pr inhabitant.
In Singapore they have a socialliberal ideology. They spend money on welfare. I dont know how it is in the arab states but usually some sheiks gets away with a lot of money and nothing goes back to the people so they practice a dictatory but they have so large amount of resources pr. inhabitant.

My point is that state-owned utilities can be a good thing to some(small) extent but not in a to large extent. Basically I think that a free market is the best solution in most utilities but some state owned utilities in for instance oil and power could be good.The income from this utilities can be spent on services that are useful but not economical profitable. For instance culture,education,medical etc. that not would have been started up in free market because no one wants to.

Its hard to measure the economic benefits of having a population of educated,fresh and cultural-rich people but I think that is an advantage but its hard to measure in $. But countries that prcatises this system a hybrid between a free-market(mostly) but with some state owned utilities they get some extra services that no one will start up in free market because they are not profitable for themselves but they are profitable for the people of the country economically in a long term run.
I think a free market has a lot of advanteges, but the problem with a free market is that you dont get any extra services started up that are useful for the countries economy and the population but not the individual that starts up this service, so then the state has to do it. (This is in a small extent because a free market has a lot of benefits, but it dosent generate this extra services that are useful)

Yeah their GDP says one thing but the way of life and financial well-being of the people says another... Which goes back to my point about it feeding big government...

Its really easy to say their GDP shows wealth, but where does that wealth go? Seriously my brother is a former Russian Linguist and their cities and infrastructure do not show any of that.

You have about a third the knowledge of even a minimal understanding of socialism in Russia or anywhere else. Your pretense of "free medical care" shows this all too clearly. Dude you just went from wanting government controlled utilities in one post, to some government controlled utilities in this one. You used Russia as an example of how it should be, and then call them corrupt and ripping off the people in this one...

Seriously make a clear stand on something...

Ok about free medical care i will try to explain: We have a maximum price on medical treatment. If i get sick an get a larger bill than 300$ the state will pay the rest. But up to that I have to pay the market price. If I for instance get seriously injured in an accident I pay the maximum amount that is 300$. The maximum pay for medical treatment is 300$ and uo to that limit we use a free market economic theory. But if I get bigger medical bill than 300$ for one year the state will pay the rest for me. Thats called a mixed economy system. You have a free market up to a maximum limit 300$ and if you get a larger bill than 300$ a year the state will pay the rest. And then I dont need healt insurance.
If I get a bit sick, just a cold I would have to pay full market price for the treatment at the same level as you would without health insurance. But if I use more than 300$ a year on medical treatment the state will pay the amount that comes over 300$ but I pay 300$ which is the maximum amount. The maximum amount is regulated every year through demand and supply data in a mixed economy system.

So if a poor person gets seriously sick (bill lareger than 300$) without health insurance he will get good treatment and has to pay a maximum amount of 300$.
If he gets a cold he has to pay the market price. In that way we can treat people that are poor and make them healthy(hopefully).
But for small consultations that most people use the doctor for like a cold, a bad knee or things like that we pay the full market price up to the maximum amunt.
If I dont use the doctor for a whole year I pay 0.
Its an advanced system but it takes the best from free market and mix with solidarity that helps seriously sick people that are to poor for insurance. But the poor guy do have to pay the market price if the amount comes under 300$ for lets say a consultation for a bad knee.
Dosent this mixed system sound like something you could adapt?

About Russia I used one example of good spenidng from the state.

My point is either free market or monopoly are perfect so I dont have to make a clear standing but I can mix them in a smart way.
A free market should be used in most utilities but in some utilities like explained in medical system you would need a system to help people that are seriously ill without health insurance. The regular bad knee diasese or a cold pays market price up tp 300$ a year as a maximum amunt.

 

[Euro]

He's not cleaning up anything. Gitmo is still open, were still in the 2 countries that Bush got us into. He shoved obamacare down eveyone's throat through bribes. He's got us up to 14+ trillion of debt. You have really set your bar low....

One thing I dont understand is how can a person be a against free medical treatment, even the "american inspired" parites in europe support free medical help.
But I think that Obama should increase the taxes to give the state more income and reduce the debts, why has he not done that?

Free medical treatment?
FREE MEDICAL TREATMENT?
FREE MEDICAL TREATMENT?

Maybe you should use some of that to get your brain examined?
The one you have isn't working very well.

Ok I could have explained it better, read the post I sent to gslack over.

 

[auditor0007]

I am a bit worried about the US oil consumption.
If the consume dosent decrease the economy wil decrease.

US consumes 22.7% of all oil in the world. US only have 2% of the worlds oil reserves and US will be more dependent on import in the future. US only have 4.5% of the worlds total population, but still they consume allmost 1/4 of the worlds oil. US is heavily dependent on oil compared to other countries.

The oil price will increase in the future years and the US oil production is falling and every year they get more and more dependent on oil import.
The whole US transportation system is build up on the idea that every person has its own car, and except from some european like cities like Chicago, NYC, SF their are almost no public transportation excisting. LA most be the worst example of a sustainable city in the world. Their must be a large potential to reduce the oil consumption in a city like this to meet the future.

The cost for transpotation will increase rapidly in the future and this will affect US a lot harder than any country in the world. As far as i know US dont have any electric railway system at all. In europe and Asia almost every railway system is electrified and they have high speed trains and modern railways that can transport large amounts of goods and people. In the future transport of goods and persons with plane and trucks will not be competitive with large scale electric train systems.. The cost for co2 pollution will also increase and this will affect the US economy largely.

Here are som suggestions for a sustaniable future:
**Increase taxes on gasoline a lot. (6$ pr gallon is a fine price as a start and comparable to europe.).( Price today 3.5$ is very low and should be increased)

**Green taxes on cars with low fuel economy (SUVs for instance). In europe US suvs are so heavily taxed that it costs from 200.000$ and up.
**Use the taxes from gasoline and cars to build high speed train networks between all major cities across the country.
++more, their is a large potential for reduction in the transport sector. Building wind and solar etc. is fine but the largest potential is in the transport sector by reducing the consumption.

Is this a good idea as a start?

There are a lot of problems with your analysis. First of all, the US is much different than most of the rest of the industrialized world. In comparison to Europe, the US is spread out over a much larger area while Europe has a much greater population density. A good percentage of the European population could live without a car and it wouldn't create any hardship on them. In fact, many Europeans actually do not own a car. In the US, about the only place you can get away without a car is in New York City, and possibly SF and Chicago. Anywhere else, without a car, you are stranded. As for trains, it may eventually become cheaper to transport more goods by rail, but as far as travel goes, trains are not a good option because again, everything is so spread out.

 

[Euro]

I am a bit worried about the US oil consumption.
If the consume dosent decrease the economy wil decrease.

US consumes 22.7% of all oil in the world. US only have 2% of the worlds oil reserves and US will be more dependent on import in the future. US only have 4.5% of the worlds total population, but still they consume allmost 1/4 of the worlds oil. US is heavily dependent on oil compared to other countries.

The oil price will increase in the future years and the US oil production is falling and every year they get more and more dependent on oil import.
The whole US transportation system is build up on the idea that every person has its own car, and except from some european like cities like Chicago, NYC, SF their are almost no public transportation excisting. LA most be the worst example of a sustainable city in the world. Their must be a large potential to reduce the oil consumption in a city like this to meet the future.

The cost for transpotation will increase rapidly in the future and this will affect US a lot harder than any country in the world. As far as i know US dont have any electric railway system at all. In europe and Asia almost every railway system is electrified and they have high speed trains and modern railways that can transport large amounts of goods and people. In the future transport of goods and persons with plane and trucks will not be competitive with large scale electric train systems.. The cost for co2 pollution will also increase and this will affect the US economy largely.

Here are som suggestions for a sustaniable future:
**Increase taxes on gasoline a lot. (6$ pr gallon is a fine price as a start and comparable to europe.).( Price today 3.5$ is very low and should be increased)

**Green taxes on cars with low fuel economy (SUVs for instance). In europe US suvs are so heavily taxed that it costs from 200.000$ and up.
**Use the taxes from gasoline and cars to build high speed train networks between all major cities across the country.
++more, their is a large potential for reduction in the transport sector. Building wind and solar etc. is fine but the largest potential is in the transport sector by reducing the consumption.

Is this a good idea as a start?

There are a lot of problems with your analysis. First of all, the US is much different than most of the rest of the industrialized world. In comparison to Europe, the US is spread out over a much larger area while Europe has a much greater population density. A good percentage of the European population could live without a car and it wouldn't create any hardship on them. In fact, many Europeans actually do not own a car. In the US, about the only place you can get away without a car is in New York City, and possibly SF and Chicago. Anywhere else, without a car, you are stranded. As for trains, it may eventually become cheaper to transport more goods by rail, but as far as travel goes, trains are not a good option because again, everything is so spread out.

I agree with you that you need a car if you live in rural areas lik Wyoming and Iowa or so.
At the east coast you do have an ok public transportation system in for instance NY,Boston,Washington and cities like that.
But a city like LA must have a large potential for public transport, Houston and Dallas are other example of places that needs a modernisation and more initaitives on building public transport.
In LA a multimiilion city their has to be a lot of potential for public transport, that could reduce the oil consumption to a large extent.
Thats the problem you sholdnt be strandet in city like LA,Houston,Dallas without a car. But I totally agree that you need a car and that its the best solution in rural areas.
How are you gonna handle congestions in LA traffic without a massive prublic transportation system.Their is no reason for a guy living in Pasadena LA to his office in downtown, but he has to to that because of bad public transportation system. And that causes congestion,higher and unesccarry oil consumption.....etc and loss of money because of loss of time sitting in congested traffic. Time is also money, and if you can save time sitting in congested traffic you can produce more.

 

[gslack]

Monpoly=state owned utility.
Yes state own utilities feeds big governments, but that can be a good thing if the government spend those money wisely at for instance useful things like education, (tax payed free medcial treatment),culture. Giving things back to the people for the tax money they pay.
Russia is corrupt as hell thats why they do poorly and people are not getting anything back and Putin and his friends are running away with the money.

Ok US does pretty good on GDP rank pr inhabitant in the world, they are ranked 7. But countries like Quatar,Singapore,Luxembourg,Norway,Brunei and United Arab Emirates does better.
I know that both Norway and Luxembourg uses a mix between socialism(state owned) and conservatism(free market). And they do better than US on GDP pr inhabitant.
In Singapore they have a socialliberal ideology. They spend money on welfare. I dont know how it is in the arab states but usually some sheiks gets away with a lot of money and nothing goes back to the people so they practice a dictatory but they have so large amount of resources pr. inhabitant.

My point is that state-owned utilities can be a good thing to some(small) extent but not in a to large extent. Basically I think that a free market is the best solution in most utilities but some state owned utilities in for instance oil and power could be good.The income from this utilities can be spent on services that are useful but not economical profitable. For instance culture,education,medical etc. that not would have been started up in free market because no one wants to.

Its hard to measure the economic benefits of having a population of educated,fresh and cultural-rich people but I think that is an advantage but its hard to measure in $. But countries that prcatises this system a hybrid between a free-market(mostly) but with some state owned utilities they get some extra services that no one will start up in free market because they are not profitable for themselves but they are profitable for the people of the country economically in a long term run.
I think a free market has a lot of advanteges, but the problem with a free market is that you dont get any extra services started up that are useful for the countries economy and the population but not the individual that starts up this service, so then the state has to do it. (This is in a small extent because a free market has a lot of benefits, but it dosent generate this extra services that are useful)

Yeah their GDP says one thing but the way of life and financial well-being of the people says another... Which goes back to my point about it feeding big government...

Its really easy to say their GDP shows wealth, but where does that wealth go? Seriously my brother is a former Russian Linguist and their cities and infrastructure do not show any of that.

You have about a third the knowledge of even a minimal understanding of socialism in Russia or anywhere else. Your pretense of "free medical care" shows this all too clearly. Dude you just went from wanting government controlled utilities in one post, to some government controlled utilities in this one. You used Russia as an example of how it should be, and then call them corrupt and ripping off the people in this one...

Seriously make a clear stand on something...

Ok about free medical care i will try to explain: We have a maximum price on medical treatment. If i get sick an get a larger bill than 300$ the state will pay the rest. But up to that I have to pay the market price. If I for instance get seriously injured in an accident I pay the maximum amount that is 300$. The maximum pay for medical treatment is 300$ and uo to that limit we use a free market economic theory. But if I get bigger medical bill than 300$ for one year the state will pay the rest for me. Thats called a mixed economy system. You have a free market up to a maximum limit 300$ and if you get a larger bill than 300$ a year the state will pay the rest. And then I dont need healt insurance.
If I get a bit sick, just a cold I would have to pay full market price for the treatment at the same level as you would without health insurance. But if I use more than 300$ a year on medical treatment the state will pay the amount that comes over 300$ but I pay 300$ which is the maximum amount. The maximum amount is regulated every year through demand and supply data in a mixed economy system.

So if a poor person gets seriously sick (bill lareger than 300$) without health insurance he will get good treatment and has to pay a maximum amount of 300$.
If he gets a cold he has to pay the market price. In that way we can treat people that are poor and make them healthy(hopefully).
But for small consultations that most people use the doctor for like a cold, a bad knee or things like that we pay the full market price up to the maximum amunt.
If I dont use the doctor for a whole year I pay 0.
Its an advanced system but it takes the best from free market and mix with solidarity that helps seriously sick people that are to poor for insurance. But the poor guy do have to pay the market price if the amount comes under 300$ for lets say a consultation for a bad knee.
Dosent this mixed system sound like something you could adapt?

About Russia I used one example of good spenidng from the state.

My point is either free market or monopoly are perfect so I dont have to make a clear standing but I can mix them in a smart way.
A free market should be used in most utilities but in some utilities like explained in medical system you would need a system to help people that are seriously ill without health insurance. The regular bad knee diasese or a cold pays market price up tp 300$ a year as a maximum amunt.

LOL dude how high are you?

I think you are looking over a explanation of a structured medical payment system but do not understand it, so you make up the rest.

What exactly is the so-called "free market economic theory" you keep repeating? You are trying to mix two completely separate concepts here and you don't understand either one. Socialism is a form of a democratic system and Capitalism is a form of an economic system. We here live in a Democratic Republic. That means we are both democratic as in we vote and elect our representation and a Republic in that we the people retain the supreme control of our government (in theory). We also are Capitalistic. Capitalism is our economic system. This system is where the means of production is privately owned and competes in an open market.

Now a system of government based/backed insurance is a different thing altogether. Too many variations to be specific but in general terms, a socialized medical coverage system is basically using the power of government to pay medical treatment and care costs. This can be either whole or partial and the means of this vary drastically. By using the government as a proxy to pay our medical costs, the bill is guaranteed to be paid by the US government, and the costs are shared across society rather than by the persons alone.

Do you understand this? There is no free market that allows competition between hospitals or care facilities or Doctors to force them to compete for business. When have you ever heard of a medical care price war? You haven't and there won't be as long as they do not compete for your medical patronage. You don't go to a Doctor cause he is cheaper, you go to him for care. Do you see a price list at a regular hospital or Doctors office? The medical profession sets their own pricing standard and that is the way it is, be it here or any other country. You can go to mexico and get cheaper care because the Doctors there are less expensive due to the economics of that country. You can't charge beverly hills prices if the average person there makes fruit picker money. Either way their medical profession sets its pricing standards. They have to do this by what the economies dictate.

Just because the government pays it directly or by proxy (through an insurer) it does not set the price. The government WILL pay the price the market demands. They can haggle for a few discounts but they rarely if ever do, and that is because Doctors and medicine is huge business and make large campaign contributions as well as command a a great deal of trust and respect of the people they serve. Would you want to go get major surgery from the lowest bidder or the best one? This isn't a car or a some inanimate object, its a human life and no one wants to haggle a price if the costs could be life or death, sickness or health...

You took this entire concept from a bunch of bits of information here and there about different concepts that are not compatible. I am really growing weary of this nonsensical banter now...

 

[Euro]

He's not cleaning up anything. Gitmo is still open, were still in the 2 countries that Bush got us into. He shoved obamacare down eveyone's throat through bribes. He's got us up to 14+ trillion of debt. You have really set your bar low....

One thing I dont understand is how can a person be a against free medical treatment, even the "american inspired" parites in europe support free medical help.
But I think that Obama should increase the taxes to give the state more income and reduce the debts, why has he not done that?

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, Euro, there is no such thing as "free medical treatment". Not one country has "free medical treatment".
The problem with Obama is that he just wants to raise taxes on the top 5% that are paying 70% of the taxes now. The bottom 47% doesn't pay taxes and a percentage of those get money from our government called "Earned Income Credit".
I don't think that raising taxes will equate with reducing the debt with our government, it will more than likely equate to more spending.

But with a free market economy you will reach apoint where the demand gets bigger than the supply. Then you will get inflation. Being a dollar millionir in the US isnt at is used to be when the dollar was strong.
When you get a large demand in the economy that you cant cover you will get a crack. To prevent this and stabilize you need to to something to prevent it for a temporariy perod or some small adjustments to prevent it. Rising taxes is a good way to decrease the demand in the economy, if you decrease the demand you will reduce the inflation. So you need a more complex economical system than where you mix in some government controll to damp the infaltion and the growth in demand.

 

[gslack]

One thing I dont understand is how can a person be a against free medical treatment, even the "american inspired" parites in europe support free medical help.
But I think that Obama should increase the taxes to give the state more income and reduce the debts, why has he not done that?

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, Euro, there is no such thing as "free medical treatment". Not one country has "free medical treatment".
The problem with Obama is that he just wants to raise taxes on the top 5% that are paying 70% of the taxes now. The bottom 47% doesn't pay taxes and a percentage of those get money from our government called "Earned Income Credit".
I don't think that raising taxes will equate with reducing the debt with our government, it will more than likely equate to more spending.

But with a free market economy you will reach apoint where the demand gets bigger than the supply. Then you will get inflation. Being a dollar millionir in the US isnt at is used to be when the dollar was strong.
When you get a large demand in the economy that you cant cover you will get a crack. To prevent this and stabilize you need to to something to prevent it for a temporariy perod or some small adjustments to prevent it. Rising taxes is a good way to decrease the demand in the economy, if you decrease the demand you will reduce the inflation. So you need a more complex economical system than where you mix in some government controll to damp the infaltion and the growth in demand.

DUDE!!!!

What in the hell are you talking about?

Inflation is when the supply outweighs the demand... jesus dude read something.... Deflation is when the demand outweighs the supply...

Enough already... You are talking shit to hear yourself. You make no sense, have rambled nonsense, and have no concept of anything you have talked about... Another rambling nonsensical clone... How many of these personas are we going to have to deal with? Your last identity did this same thing and wasted enough peoples time.. I am done with your nonsense clone...

 

[Euro]

Yeah their GDP says one thing but the way of life and financial well-being of the people says another... Which goes back to my point about it feeding big government...

Its really easy to say their GDP shows wealth, but where does that wealth go? Seriously my brother is a former Russian Linguist and their cities and infrastructure do not show any of that.

You have about a third the knowledge of even a minimal understanding of socialism in Russia or anywhere else. Your pretense of "free medical care" shows this all too clearly. Dude you just went from wanting government controlled utilities in one post, to some government controlled utilities in this one. You used Russia as an example of how it should be, and then call them corrupt and ripping off the people in this one...

Seriously make a clear stand on something...

Ok about free medical care i will try to explain: We have a maximum price on medical treatment. If i get sick an get a larger bill than 300$ the state will pay the rest. But up to that I have to pay the market price. If I for instance get seriously injured in an accident I pay the maximum amount that is 300$. The maximum pay for medical treatment is 300$ and uo to that limit we use a free market economic theory. But if I get bigger medical bill than 300$ for one year the state will pay the rest for me. Thats called a mixed economy system. You have a free market up to a maximum limit 300$ and if you get a larger bill than 300$ a year the state will pay the rest. And then I dont need healt insurance.
If I get a bit sick, just a cold I would have to pay full market price for the treatment at the same level as you would without health insurance. But if I use more than 300$ a year on medical treatment the state will pay the amount that comes over 300$ but I pay 300$ which is the maximum amount. The maximum amount is regulated every year through demand and supply data in a mixed economy system.

So if a poor person gets seriously sick (bill lareger than 300$) without health insurance he will get good treatment and has to pay a maximum amount of 300$.
If he gets a cold he has to pay the market price. In that way we can treat people that are poor and make them healthy(hopefully).
But for small consultations that most people use the doctor for like a cold, a bad knee or things like that we pay the full market price up to the maximum amunt.
If I dont use the doctor for a whole year I pay 0.
Its an advanced system but it takes the best from free market and mix with solidarity that helps seriously sick people that are to poor for insurance. But the poor guy do have to pay the market price if the amount comes under 300$ for lets say a consultation for a bad knee.
Dosent this mixed system sound like something you could adapt?

About Russia I used one example of good spenidng from the state.

My point is either free market or monopoly are perfect so I dont have to make a clear standing but I can mix them in a smart way.
A free market should be used in most utilities but in some utilities like explained in medical system you would need a system to help people that are seriously ill without health insurance. The regular bad knee diasese or a cold pays market price up tp 300$ a year as a maximum amunt.

LOL dude how high are you?

I think you are looking over a explanation of a structured medical payment system but do not understand it, so you make up the rest.

What exactly is the so-called "free market economic theory" you keep repeating? You are trying to mix two completely separate concepts here and you don't understand either one. Socialism is a form of a democratic system and Capitalism is a form of an economic system. We here live in a Democratic Republic. That means we are both democratic as in we vote and elect our representation and a Republic in that we the people retain the supreme control of our government (in theory). We also are Capitalistic. Capitalism is our economic system. This system is where the means of production is privately owned and competes in an open market.

Now a system of government based/backed insurance is a different thing altogether. Too many variations to be specific but in general terms, a socialized medical coverage system is basically using the power of government to pay medical treatment and care costs. This can be either whole or partial and the means of this vary drastically. By using the government as a proxy to pay our medical costs, the bill is guaranteed to be paid by the US government, and the costs are shared across society rather than by the persons alone.

Do you understand this? There is no free market that allows competition between hospitals or care facilities or Doctors to force them to compete for business. When have you ever heard of a medical care price war? You haven't and there won't be as long as they do not compete for your medical patronage. You don't go to a Doctor cause he is cheaper, you go to him for care. Do you see a price list at a regular hospital or Doctors office? The medical profession sets their own pricing standard and that is the way it is, be it here or any other country. You can go to mexico and get cheaper care because the Doctors there are less expensive due to the economics of that country. You can't charge beverly hills prices if the average person there makes fruit picker money. Either way their medical profession sets its pricing standards. They have to do this by what the economies dictate.

Just because the government pays it directly or by proxy (through an insurer) it does not set the price. The government WILL pay the price the market demands. They can haggle for a few discounts but they rarely if ever do, and that is because Doctors and medicine is huge business and make large campaign contributions as well as command a a great deal of trust and respect of the people they serve. Would you want to go get major surgery from the lowest bidder or the best one? This isn't a car or a some inanimate object, its a human life and no one wants to haggle a price if the costs could be life or death, sickness or health...

You took this entire concept from a bunch of bits of information here and there about different concepts that are not compatible. I am really growing weary of this nonsensical banter now...

But my point is that it is competition in the market for health service. Its not just based on price but also other things like quality, personal chemistry, you choose your doctor in an open market. You are not forced to have one doctor, you can select whoever you want.
In the mixed system you pay a maximum amount of about 300$ pr year, if your medical bill gets bigger than this the state pays the amount that comes over 300$.
From amount from 0-300$ you pay all from your own pocket. If you get a medical bill larger than 300$ the state pays the rest for you.
I think I understand the system very welll.

With free market i mean a market without state invention. Our system is a mixed system with some state invention, but the state has some controll and they have some resources to stabilize it.
About the free market, of course you will get economical growth with free market. But after a time you will reach a point where the demand in the economy gets to big and you get inflation. The market will crack and you get a large fall in the economy which will take long time to recover from. If you have some state controll the growth will of course be smaller, but the fall in the economy will also be smaller. It will be a more stable situation without sudden changes that are as big as with a free market.

When you get growth in the US (free market) you will have the largest growth, but when you get a fall in the market you will fall hard as hell and the state cant help you tp recover because you dont have a safety net when you fall. If you have a safety net youll have something left when the economy cracks which it does in a situation as described over.

Ok you can have a personal insurance of course, I think that you see things very individualistic but sometimes someone need to be helped. They should get a minimum to at least have a shelter and some food.

But I see the advantages with a free market, but some solidarity is needed.

You must understand that youll have to have a balance between personal individuality and social solidarity. When you fall you shouldnt be all alone where no one helps each other.

 

[gslack]

Ok about free medical care i will try to explain: We have a maximum price on medical treatment. If i get sick an get a larger bill than 300$ the state will pay the rest. But up to that I have to pay the market price. If I for instance get seriously injured in an accident I pay the maximum amount that is 300$. The maximum pay for medical treatment is 300$ and uo to that limit we use a free market economic theory. But if I get bigger medical bill than 300$ for one year the state will pay the rest for me. Thats called a mixed economy system. You have a free market up to a maximum limit 300$ and if you get a larger bill than 300$ a year the state will pay the rest. And then I dont need healt insurance.
If I get a bit sick, just a cold I would have to pay full market price for the treatment at the same level as you would without health insurance. But if I use more than 300$ a year on medical treatment the state will pay the amount that comes over 300$ but I pay 300$ which is the maximum amount. The maximum amount is regulated every year through demand and supply data in a mixed economy system.

So if a poor person gets seriously sick (bill lareger than 300$) without health insurance he will get good treatment and has to pay a maximum amount of 300$.
If he gets a cold he has to pay the market price. In that way we can treat people that are poor and make them healthy(hopefully).
But for small consultations that most people use the doctor for like a cold, a bad knee or things like that we pay the full market price up to the maximum amunt.
If I dont use the doctor for a whole year I pay 0.
Its an advanced system but it takes the best from free market and mix with solidarity that helps seriously sick people that are to poor for insurance. But the poor guy do have to pay the market price if the amount comes under 300$ for lets say a consultation for a bad knee.
Dosent this mixed system sound like something you could adapt?

About Russia I used one example of good spenidng from the state.

My point is either free market or monopoly are perfect so I dont have to make a clear standing but I can mix them in a smart way.
A free market should be used in most utilities but in some utilities like explained in medical system you would need a system to help people that are seriously ill without health insurance. The regular bad knee diasese or a cold pays market price up tp 300$ a year as a maximum amunt.

LOL dude how high are you?

I think you are looking over a explanation of a structured medical payment system but do not understand it, so you make up the rest.

What exactly is the so-called "free market economic theory" you keep repeating? You are trying to mix two completely separate concepts here and you don't understand either one. Socialism is a form of a democratic system and Capitalism is a form of an economic system. We here live in a Democratic Republic. That means we are both democratic as in we vote and elect our representation and a Republic in that we the people retain the supreme control of our government (in theory). We also are Capitalistic. Capitalism is our economic system. This system is where the means of production is privately owned and competes in an open market.

Now a system of government based/backed insurance is a different thing altogether. Too many variations to be specific but in general terms, a socialized medical coverage system is basically using the power of government to pay medical treatment and care costs. This can be either whole or partial and the means of this vary drastically. By using the government as a proxy to pay our medical costs, the bill is guaranteed to be paid by the US government, and the costs are shared across society rather than by the persons alone.

Do you understand this? There is no free market that allows competition between hospitals or care facilities or Doctors to force them to compete for business. When have you ever heard of a medical care price war? You haven't and there won't be as long as they do not compete for your medical patronage. You don't go to a Doctor cause he is cheaper, you go to him for care. Do you see a price list at a regular hospital or Doctors office? The medical profession sets their own pricing standard and that is the way it is, be it here or any other country. You can go to mexico and get cheaper care because the Doctors there are less expensive due to the economics of that country. You can't charge beverly hills prices if the average person there makes fruit picker money. Either way their medical profession sets its pricing standards. They have to do this by what the economies dictate.

Just because the government pays it directly or by proxy (through an insurer) it does not set the price. The government WILL pay the price the market demands. They can haggle for a few discounts but they rarely if ever do, and that is because Doctors and medicine is huge business and make large campaign contributions as well as command a a great deal of trust and respect of the people they serve. Would you want to go get major surgery from the lowest bidder or the best one? This isn't a car or a some inanimate object, its a human life and no one wants to haggle a price if the costs could be life or death, sickness or health...

You took this entire concept from a bunch of bits of information here and there about different concepts that are not compatible. I am really growing weary of this nonsensical banter now...

But my point is that it is competition in the market for health service. Its not just based on price but also other things like quality, personal chemistry, you choose your doctor in an open market. You are not forced to have one doctor, you can select whoever you want.
In the mixed system you pay a maximum amount of about 300$ pr year, if your medical bill gets bigger than this the state pays the amount that comes over 300$.
From amount from 0-300$ you pay all from your own pocket. If you get a medical bill larger than 300$ the state pays the rest for you.
I think I understand the system very welll.

With free market i mean a market without state invention. Our system is a mixed system with some state invention, but the state has some controll and they have some resources to stabilize it.
About the free market, of course you will get economical growth with free market. But after a time you will reach a point where the demand in the economy gets to big and you get inflation. The market will crack and you get a large fall in the economy which will take long time to recover from. If you have some state controll the growth will of course be smaller, but the fall in the economy will also be smaller. It will be a more stable situation without sudden changes that are as big as with a free market.

When you get growth in the US (free market) you will have the largest growth, but when you get a fall in the market you will fall hard as hell and the state cant help you tp recover because you dont have a safety net when you fall. If you have a safety net youll have something left when the economy cracks which it does in a situation as described over.

Ok you can have a personal insurance of course, I think that you see things very individualistic but sometimes someone need to be helped. They should get a minimum to at least have a shelter and some food.

But I see the advantages with a free market, but some solidarity is needed.

You must understand that youll have to have a balance between personal individuality and social solidarity. When you fall you shouldnt be all alone where no one helps each other.

Oaky buddy I have to stop you now, you just went retarded for the last time with me. I am done being patient....

INFLATION

Inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.[1] When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. Consequently, inflation also reflects an erosion in the purchasing power of money – a loss of real value in the internal medium of exchange and unit of account in the economy.[2][3] A chief measure of price inflation is the inflation rate, the annualized percentage change in a general price index (normally the Consumer Price Index) over time.

Want a second opinion?
Inflation: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Causes of Inflation

In a nutshell, inflation occurs—that is, the purchasing power of the dollar shrinks—to the extent that the nominal supply of dollars grows faster than the real demand to hold dollars.

Notice that part about supply and demand? Inflation occurs when you have more money in circulation than you have need for or the demand for. Its a fact, like it or not, thats how it is... NOW that is twice now you have tried to claim it was the opposite and when I pointed that out to you, you kept right on talking nonsense.....

You care to address this problem with your concept now or want to continue bullshitting again?