CDZ RCC Podcast: Failing to Compare

[Andylusion]

Greetings!

This particular post is going to be a bit different, and more of a multi-topic, because it's about people who compare the US to other countries. Now in generally, I think we should compare the US to other countries, and we should be able to glean insight and learn from the experiences of others, and see what policies they have, and what works and what doesn't.

However, what I have noticed over and over, is that people tend to hear something somewhere that someone said, and just take that at face value. And they also seem to assume without any analysis, that whatever works over there, somewhere, will work just the same here.

But what I see constantly, is that people have no idea what they are talking about. In some cases none.
"We should be like Germany!"

Claim:

Germany is highly unionized, with powerful Unions. The Unions don't allow outsourcing to China. They have protectionism, and don't allow imports from low-wage countries like China. They also don't allow immigration, and certainly don't allow high-skilled immigrants to take German jobs. We need to be more like Germany

1. German Union participation rate is just 17%, compared to the US 10%.
Trade Union Density

2. Germany Unions are very pro-company, and often Union officials sit on the Executive board.
Board-level Representation / Germany / Countries / National Industrial Relations / Home - WORKER PARTICIPATION.eu
German Unions are not like American Unions. German Unions are pro-company, whereas American Unions are anti-company.
German labor union playing key role in UAW's latest campaign at Alabama's Mercedes plant
In general, the set-up tends to be more collaborative in Germany, where members of management and the rank and file -- both union and non-union workers -- sit on committees called works councils that discuss workplace issues without being limited by the language of a union contract.
Here in the U.S., there's a more adversarial system marked by collective bargaining between management and a third party, the union, which has been elected by a majority of employees.

American Unions do just about anything they can to ruin the jobs of their members, by driving up labor costs, and preventing advancement of productivity in favor of 'protecting jobs' which results in no jobs. The list of companies that have failed under the hammer of US Unions is endless. GM, Chrysler, Hostess, A&P, Haggen, GS Technologies, and on and on and on.

3. Germany is pro-immigration.
5 Countries That Take the Most Immigrants
Germany received the most immigrants out of all countries in the world, second only to the US.
Government-subsidized language trainings - German courses | Berlitz
Moreover, Germany offers free-language courses to immigrants.
Tepid Welcome: Germany Struggles to Lure Skilled Workers - SPIEGEL ONLINE
And not just low-skilled employees, but specifically seeks high-skilled people, and grants citizenship to them, and their families, to move to Germany, as long as they complete the language and culture learning.

4. Germany is extremely free-trade. Their over all tariff on imported goods, is just over 1%, compared to the US average tariff of 3%.
Germany - Tariff rate
This includes manufactured goods, from their dominate trading partner, China. Germany imports more goods from China than any other country, with the only exception of Netherlands, where Oil imports make up the majority of imports.
Products that Germany imports from China (2013)
Most of the imports from China are technology related, but also include textiles, chemicals, motors, car parts, and even automobiles.

Conclusion: If we really want to be like Germany, then we need to encourage more immigration, offer incentives to people who come here and work, lower trade barriers, and cut import tariffs by 50%. The exact opposite of the claim.

Claim:

But we should have an education system like Finland! Finland education system is amazing, and best in the world, we should adopt their system and have it work here. The only reason we can't is because of those right-wing conservatives.

First off, it's a little difficult to compare Finland to America. They have an extremely homogeneous society. 80% of Finnish self identify as Lutheran Christian. 93% of the population is Ethnic Finnish, and the next largest group is 5% Swedish. Very similar. Moreover, they have only 5 Million people, and 80% or more of children grow up in intact Nuclear families, compared to the US 315 Million, with less than half of children growing up in intact homes.
Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family

And by the way, that does matter.
How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity

Children raise in shack up, broken families, do far worse. Not only is a broken family the number one indicator of drug use, and dropping out of school, but also prison time. 80% of inmates grow up in broken families.
http://www.economist.com/node/11477890
The truth about Finland's education miracle - Spectator Blogs
http://edexcellence.net/commentary/...land-hard-choices-rigorously-implemented.html

But the reality of Finnish education, is not all that difficult to understand. The problem isn't that we can't do what they do, it's simply that we don't want to do what they do.

1. The Finnish government, does not pay for education for children until they are 7 years old.
   
2. The starting public teacher salary is only $29K, nearly 1/4th lower than the US.
   
3. 43% of all Finnish students, do not go to, nor are encouraged to attend higher-education, rather they tend to go to vocational or trade schools.
   
4. Finland spends 30% less per student than the US.
   
5. Finnish schools focus exclusively on academic success, and avoids "social" education.
   
6. Finnish schools, quickly remove all students that are disruptive or have physical problems, are removed from normal classes, and placed into special classes.

Now, can we do all that? Sure. But can you imagine the insane outrage, and media frenzy that would ensue after anyone proposed those changes?

I hear people saying, but but but I know I heard that Finland public school teachers are paid more! They have a system of equality! They have Unions!

Somewhat true... The pay rate for top-end teachers, is higher. They can easily earn 6-figures. But the pay at the low end is lower. Same is true of German auto workers. They talk about how German union auto workers are paid more than the US workers, and that is true, but the entry level worker starts off at $10/hour, much lower.

But as far as equality, far from it. Low end workers are paid less than the US, while top end workers are paid more. The exact opposite of equality. Moreover, children who do not meet the academic requirements, simply don't go to school. They have to go learn a trade, or vocational training. The exact opposite of no child left behind, they intentionally leave them behind. You can't keep up, then you have to go run a different race.
Conclusion: when you look at all those aspects of the Finnish educational system, it's the left-wing that is preventing all those, not the conservative right-wing.

Claim:

....all you capitalists just can't stand it that a socialized system works! Socialism works! I know, I read about it. Switzerland is socialist, and they are the most happy country in the world! We should be like Switzerland!

Now, this one I love. Nothing like looking at a system that has failed in every country that has ever adopted it, and claim that it works, and country X proves it. It failed the USSR, it failed N.Korea, it failed in China, it failed in Cuba, and it is currently failing in Venezuela.... but *you* know that it works, because Switzerland is socialist?

Switzerland is Socialized? Really? Let's investigate that a bit.

1. Top marginal Tax rate in Switzerland, 11.5%, compared to the US 39.6%.
   
2. Average tariffs on imported goods into Switzerland, 0%, compared to the US 3%.
   
3. Debts can not be bankrupted or forgiven, they can only be restructured in a limited fashion.
   
4. Strict property rights, and enforcement.
   
5. Corporate tax rate is only 9%, compared to the US 30%.
   
6. Switzerland has zero minimum wage.
   
7. Switzerland has lower banking requirements and regulations.

So apparently in order to be "Socialist" like Switzerland, we need to cut taxes, cut tariffs, repeal bankruptcy laws, cut corporation taxes and banking regulations, and then repeal the minimum wage. Right?

Conclusion: The reality is Switzerland is higher on the economic freedom index, than even the US. They are number 5 while we're 12th.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
They are more capitalist, than we are.

Claim:

Oh so you like rankings do ya? Well how about the World Health Organizations health care ranking? Clearly that shows socialism works, because all those other systems do better!

While I do on occasion use various rankings in my citations, it normally requires those rankings to be legitimate. For example, the economic freedom index is based on hard numbers. Actual tax rates, real economic policies, legislation, regulations, the ability to open a business, property rights, and controls on investment and so on. Real political aspects that affect the ability to be a capitalist.

However, some rankings are nebulous and subjective, or have attributes that wouldn't matter to the subject. The world happiness report, is a perfect example. Thankfully, in a rare moment of honesty, the report itself admitted the subjective nature of the survey data they used. But not all are so honest.

In 2000, the WHO (world health organization) published a ranking of health care systems by country.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

The ranking listed France as #1. The US as number #37, and Cuba as #39.

Now, at first glance I have a problem with just the concept of trying to compare the US to anyone, as if the US has a monolithic health care system, uniform across the country. It does not. Even between states there are massive differences in funding and private / public clinics, hospitals and individual practices.

Just insurance regulations alone, vary drastically between states. I read where one state requires all health insurance cover alcoholism. I've never had a drink in my life.... but I have to have insurance in case I fall down in front of a liquor store, they pour booze on the wound, and suddenly I'm in rehab. Or another state the required that all insurance must cover marriage counseling. 90 year-old widow, but she's got marriage counseling coverage if she needs it.... any day now.

Even so, we have a massive public sector health system, and a massive private sector health system, and the two over lap everywhere. Again trying to compare the diverse US health care system, to a European country, which is the size of a US state, is near impossible if not ridiculous.

However, putting all that aside, the problem with the WHO report, "The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance", located at the link below, is that the entire ranking system, had very little to do with the quality of the care. Very little.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/

Now the WHO got so much criticism from every direction since this report was released, that the WHO has declined to do any ranking on any World Health Report released since this one, and rightly so. The following is based on Chapter 2, and specifically Box 2.4, of Page 39.
The factors used to rank countries, were completely bonkers.
The factors used, included...

• Health
  
• Health Equality
  
• Responsiveness
  
• Responsive Equality
  
• Fairness of Financing

That seems like a fairly decent comparison, until you dig deeper.

"Health" is dependent on life expectancy, and 'disability-free years of life'. That measurement has nothing to do with the quality of care. For example, Japan has a tiny fraction of the murders and auto-fatalities of the US. As a result their total life expectancy is higher. But what does that have to do with health care? Do you expect doctors to flag down speeders and tackle criminals before anyone is killed?

Equally, obesity is generally caused by people shoving food in their mouth, not by a lack of a checkup. Do you expect doctors to body block the McDonald's drive through, and trash the Hostess isle at the store?

Moreover, they include mortality rates. But mortality rates are determined by incidence rate, as much as the quality of the care. If you have two islands. One Island has 30 cases of breast cancer, all cured but 3 which die. The other island has no health care at all, but only 2 incidences of breast cancer, both of which die. According those the mortality report, the Island with zero health care, would rank higher on the WHO report.

Japan has a fraction of the breast cancer incidences as the US. But Japan breast cancer survival rates are much lower. Yet even though more die who the cancer, because fewer get the cancer, they look better on the mortality rate.

Bottom line, life expectancy and disability, is a very poor measure of the quality of the care.

Yet the WHO report, makes even that measure even worse, because only half the "Health" score is based on that, the other half is how "Equal" it is. If one group, or one gender, has different health rates, than any other, that causes the health system to be scored lower. In other words, is it "socialized enough"?

Responsiveness, is also a terrible measure, once you dig deeper into what they are really measuring.
Now at first glance, you would think this is a measure of how fast a person is diagnosed, treated, and healed. That would seem a very important factor.

But WHO did not make it that simple. That was included, but they also looked at:

• Respect and dignity
  
• Confidentiality
  
• Autonomy
  
• Prompt attention
  
• Quality of amenities
  
• Social Support Networks
  
• Choice of provider

See any problem there? How many of those are actually measuring the quality of the care? Do I want to be respected before I die? Keep my death confidential? An Autonomous death? Prompt attention to my death? Quality of the TV I'm watching while I die? Access to a social network while dying? I choice of which hospital I die in?

Or maybe I want to be healed, and cured. Maybe that's what I want?

And once again, they made this lousy measurement of health care, even worse by trying to judge how "Fairly" the responsiveness was. Was it fair that I had a TV with a remote, and some guy in another hospital did not? That system would be marked lower. Ridiculous.

And lastly, the 'fairness of financing'.

Which literally was how socialized it was. If person x paid a different price than person y, then it was not fair. Even if one had many problems, and the other did not. Or how equal the cost was spread over society.
So if I opened up a "hospital" that was literally a warehouse with bunk beds, and a nurse with wet-wipes, as long as I charged everyone a very low price, and charged everyone "fairly", that would rank high in the WHO report.

Doesn't matter if they died, as long as it was a "fair" death.

In Conclusion, the entire report is utter trash, and should be ignored.
The very fact that Cuba was even close to the US on the list, proves the entire point. Cuba, has a horrific health care system. Missionaries to Cuba, send back supply requests that include, Aspirin. Because the average Cuban, can't get Aspirin.

Again, I have no problem comparing the US to other countries, but if you want to make those comparison, you have to know something about the topic.

And I get it.... we all don't have time, or even want to spend our time, sifting through information to find out what is what. All of us, at some point or another, have made the mistake of "I heard someone somewhere say something that sounded sort of like......" and out come the garbage.

At least attempt to fact check what you hear. Before running off claiming the grass is greener in some field you've never been to, and don't know anyone who is from there. And that's the RCC perspective.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

 

[Andylusion]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

 

[IcebergSlim]

View attachment 60587

Greetings!

This particular post is going to be a bit different, and more of a multi-topic, because it's about people who compare the US to other countries. Now in generally, I think we should compare the US to other countries, and we should be able to glean insight and learn from the experiences of others, and see what policies they have, and what works and what doesn't.

However, what I have noticed over and over, is that people tend to hear something somewhere that someone said, and just take that at face value. And they also seem to assume without any analysis, that whatever works over there, somewhere, will work just the same here.

But what I see constantly, is that people have no idea what they are talking about. In some cases none.
"We should be like Germany!"

Claim:

Germany is highly unionized, with powerful Unions. The Unions don't allow outsourcing to China. They have protectionism, and don't allow imports from low-wage countries like China. They also don't allow immigration, and certainly don't allow high-skilled immigrants to take German jobs. We need to be more like Germany

1. German Union participation rate is just 17%, compared to the US 10%.
Trade Union Density

2. Germany Unions are very pro-company, and often Union officials sit on the Executive board.
Board-level Representation / Germany / Countries / National Industrial Relations / Home - WORKER PARTICIPATION.eu
German Unions are not like American Unions. German Unions are pro-company, whereas American Unions are anti-company.
German labor union playing key role in UAW's latest campaign at Alabama's Mercedes plant
In general, the set-up tends to be more collaborative in Germany, where members of management and the rank and file -- both union and non-union workers -- sit on committees called works councils that discuss workplace issues without being limited by the language of a union contract.
Here in the U.S., there's a more adversarial system marked by collective bargaining between management and a third party, the union, which has been elected by a majority of employees.

American Unions do just about anything they can to ruin the jobs of their members, by driving up labor costs, and preventing advancement of productivity in favor of 'protecting jobs' which results in no jobs. The list of companies that have failed under the hammer of US Unions is endless. GM, Chrysler, Hostess, A&P, Haggen, GS Technologies, and on and on and on.

3. Germany is pro-immigration.
5 Countries That Take the Most Immigrants
Germany received the most immigrants out of all countries in the world, second only to the US.
Government-subsidized language trainings - German courses | Berlitz
Moreover, Germany offers free-language courses to immigrants.
Tepid Welcome: Germany Struggles to Lure Skilled Workers - SPIEGEL ONLINE
And not just low-skilled employees, but specifically seeks high-skilled people, and grants citizenship to them, and their families, to move to Germany, as long as they complete the language and culture learning.

4. Germany is extremely free-trade. Their over all tariff on imported goods, is just over 1%, compared to the US average tariff of 3%.
Germany - Tariff rate
This includes manufactured goods, from their dominate trading partner, China. Germany imports more goods from China than any other country, with the only exception of Netherlands, where Oil imports make up the majority of imports.
Products that Germany imports from China (2013)
Most of the imports from China are technology related, but also include textiles, chemicals, motors, car parts, and even automobiles.

Conclusion: If we really want to be like Germany, then we need to encourage more immigration, offer incentives to people who come here and work, lower trade barriers, and cut import tariffs by 50%. The exact opposite of the claim.

Claim:

But we should have an education system like Finland! Finland education system is amazing, and best in the world, we should adopt their system and have it work here. The only reason we can't is because of those right-wing conservatives.

First off, it's a little difficult to compare Finland to America. They have an extremely homogeneous society. 80% of Finnish self identify as Lutheran Christian. 93% of the population is Ethnic Finnish, and the next largest group is 5% Swedish. Very similar. Moreover, they have only 5 Million people, and 80% or more of children grow up in intact Nuclear families, compared to the US 315 Million, with less than half of children growing up in intact homes.
Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family

And by the way, that does matter.
How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity

Children raise in shack up, broken families, do far worse. Not only is a broken family the number one indicator of drug use, and dropping out of school, but also prison time. 80% of inmates grow up in broken families.
http://www.economist.com/node/11477890
The truth about Finland's education miracle - Spectator Blogs
Real lessons from Finland: Hard choices, rigorously implemented | The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

But the reality of Finnish education, is not all that difficult to understand. The problem isn't that we can't do what they do, it's simply that we don't want to do what they do.

1. The Finnish government, does not pay for education for children until they are 7 years old.
   
2. The starting public teacher salary is only $29K, nearly 1/4th lower than the US.
   
3. 43% of all Finnish students, do not go to, nor are encouraged to attend higher-education, rather they tend to go to vocational or trade schools.
   
4. Finland spends 30% less per student than the US.
   
5. Finnish schools focus exclusively on academic success, and avoids "social" education.
   
6. Finnish schools, quickly remove all students that are disruptive or have physical problems, are removed from normal classes, and placed into special classes.

Now, can we do all that? Sure. But can you imagine the insane outrage, and media frenzy that would ensue after anyone proposed those changes?

I hear people saying, but but but I know I heard that Finland public school teachers are paid more! They have a system of equality! They have Unions!

Somewhat true... The pay rate for top-end teachers, is higher. They can easily earn 6-figures. But the pay at the low end is lower. Same is true of German auto workers. They talk about how German union auto workers are paid more than the US workers, and that is true, but the entry level worker starts off at $10/hour, much lower.

But as far as equality, far from it. Low end workers are paid less than the US, while top end workers are paid more. The exact opposite of equality. Moreover, children who do not meet the academic requirements, simply don't go to school. They have to go learn a trade, or vocational training. The exact opposite of no child left behind, they intentionally leave them behind. You can't keep up, then you have to go run a different race.
Conclusion: when you look at all those aspects of the Finnish educational system, it's the left-wing that is preventing all those, not the conservative right-wing.

Claim:

....all you capitalists just can't stand it that a socialized system works! Socialism works! I know, I read about it. Switzerland is socialist, and they are the most happy country in the world! We should be like Switzerland!

View attachment 60584

Now, this one I love. Nothing like looking at a system that has failed in every country that has ever adopted it, and claim that it works, and country X proves it. It failed the USSR, it failed N.Korea, it failed in China, it failed in Cuba, and it is currently failing in Venezuela.... but *you* know that it works, because Switzerland is socialist?

Switzerland is Socialized? Really? Let's investigate that a bit.

1. Top marginal Tax rate in Switzerland, 11.5%, compared to the US 39.6%.
   
2. Average tariffs on imported goods into Switzerland, 0%, compared to the US 3%.
   
3. Debts can not be bankrupted or forgiven, they can only be restructured in a limited fashion.
   
4. Strict property rights, and enforcement.
   
5. Corporate tax rate is only 9%, compared to the US 30%.
   
6. Switzerland has zero minimum wage.
   
7. Switzerland has lower banking requirements and regulations.

So apparently in order to be "Socialist" like Switzerland, we need to cut taxes, cut tariffs, repeal bankruptcy laws, cut corporation taxes and banking regulations, and then repeal the minimum wage. Right?

Conclusion: The reality is Switzerland is higher on the economic freedom index, than even the US. They are number 5 while we're 12th.
Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
They are more capitalist, than we are.

Claim:

Oh so you like rankings do ya? Well how about the World Health Organizations health care ranking? Clearly that shows socialism works, because all those other systems do better!

While I do on occasion use various rankings in my citations, it normally requires those rankings to be legitimate. For example, the economic freedom index is based on hard numbers. Actual tax rates, real economic policies, legislation, regulations, the ability to open a business, property rights, and controls on investment and so on. Real political aspects that affect the ability to be a capitalist.

However, some rankings are nebulous and subjective, or have attributes that wouldn't matter to the subject. The world happiness report, is a perfect example. Thankfully, in a rare moment of honesty, the report itself admitted the subjective nature of the survey data they used. But not all are so honest.

In 2000, the WHO (world health organization) published a ranking of health care systems by country.
World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

The ranking listed France as #1. The US as number #37, and Cuba as #39.

Now, at first glance I have a problem with just the concept of trying to compare the US to anyone, as if the US has a monolithic health care system, uniform across the country. It does not. Even between states there are massive differences in funding and private / public clinics, hospitals and individual practices.

Just insurance regulations alone, vary drastically between states. I read where one state requires all health insurance cover alcoholism. I've never had a drink in my life.... but I have to have insurance in case I fall down in front of a liquor store, they pour booze on the wound, and suddenly I'm in rehab. Or another state the required that all insurance must cover marriage counseling. 90 year-old widow, but she's got marriage counseling coverage if she needs it.... any day now.

Even so, we have a massive public sector health system, and a massive private sector health system, and the two over lap everywhere. Again trying to compare the diverse US health care system, to a European country, which is the size of a US state, is near impossible if not ridiculous.

However, putting all that aside, the problem with the WHO report, "The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance", located at the link below, is that the entire ranking system, had very little to do with the quality of the care. Very little.
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Now the WHO got so much criticism from every direction since this report was released, that the WHO has declined to do any ranking on any World Health Report released since this one, and rightly so. The following is based on Chapter 2, and specifically Box 2.4, of Page 39.
The factors used to rank countries, were completely bonkers.
The factors used, included...

• Health
  
• Health Equality
  
• Responsiveness
  
• Responsive Equality
  
• Fairness of Financing

That seems like a fairly decent comparison, until you dig deeper.

"Health" is dependent on life expectancy, and 'disability-free years of life'. That measurement has nothing to do with the quality of care. For example, Japan has a tiny fraction of the murders and auto-fatalities of the US. As a result their total life expectancy is higher. But what does that have to do with health care? Do you expect doctors to flag down speeders and tackle criminals before anyone is killed?

Equally, obesity is generally caused by people shoving food in their mouth, not by a lack of a checkup. Do you expect doctors to body block the McDonald's drive through, and trash the Hostess isle at the store?

Moreover, they include mortality rates. But mortality rates are determined by incidence rate, as much as the quality of the care. If you have two islands. One Island has 30 cases of breast cancer, all cured but 3 which die. The other island has no health care at all, but only 2 incidences of breast cancer, both of which die. According those the mortality report, the Island with zero health care, would rank higher on the WHO report.

Japan has a fraction of the breast cancer incidences as the US. But Japan breast cancer survival rates are much lower. Yet even though more die who the cancer, because fewer get the cancer, they look better on the mortality rate.

Bottom line, life expectancy and disability, is a very poor measure of the quality of the care.

Yet the WHO report, makes even that measure even worse, because only half the "Health" score is based on that, the other half is how "Equal" it is. If one group, or one gender, has different health rates, than any other, that causes the health system to be scored lower. In other words, is it "socialized enough"?

Responsiveness, is also a terrible measure, once you dig deeper into what they are really measuring.
Now at first glance, you would think this is a measure of how fast a person is diagnosed, treated, and healed. That would seem a very important factor.

But WHO did not make it that simple. That was included, but they also looked at:

• Respect and dignity
  
• Confidentiality
  
• Autonomy
  
• Prompt attention
  
• Quality of amenities
  
• Social Support Networks
  
• Choice of provider

See any problem there? How many of those are actually measuring the quality of the care? Do I want to be respected before I die? Keep my death confidential? An Autonomous death? Prompt attention to my death? Quality of the TV I'm watching while I die? Access to a social network while dying? I choice of which hospital I die in?

Or maybe I want to be healed, and cured. Maybe that's what I want?

And once again, they made this lousy measurement of health care, even worse by trying to judge how "Fairly" the responsiveness was. Was it fair that I had a TV with a remote, and some guy in another hospital did not? That system would be marked lower. Ridiculous.

And lastly, the 'fairness of financing'.

Which literally was how socialized it was. If person x paid a different price than person y, then it was not fair. Even if one had many problems, and the other did not. Or how equal the cost was spread over society.
So if I opened up a "hospital" that was literally a warehouse with bunk beds, and a nurse with wet-wipes, as long as I charged everyone a very low price, and charged everyone "fairly", that would rank high in the WHO report.

Doesn't matter if they died, as long as it was a "fair" death.

In Conclusion, the entire report is utter trash, and should be ignored.
The very fact that Cuba was even close to the US on the list, proves the entire point. Cuba, has a horrific health care system. Missionaries to Cuba, send back supply requests that include, Aspirin. Because the average Cuban, can't get Aspirin.

Again, I have no problem comparing the US to other countries, but if you want to make those comparison, you have to know something about the topic.

And I get it.... we all don't have time, or even want to spend our time, sifting through information to find out what is what. All of us, at some point or another, have made the mistake of "I heard someone somewhere say something that sounded sort of like......" and out come the garbage.

At least attempt to fact check what you hear. Before running off claiming the grass is greener in some field you've never been to, and don't know anyone who is from there. And that's the RCC perspective.

Top marginal Tax rate in Switzerland, 11.5%, compared to the US 39.6%.




In 2002, some CHF 134 billion in taxes were levied in Switzerland, of which roughly one third was levied by the Confederation, the cantons and the municipalities, respectively.[59]
The overall fiscal rate was 38.5 percent of GDP in 2002.[60]

Taxation in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Andylusion]

View attachment 60587

Greetings!

This particular post is going to be a bit different, and more of a multi-topic, because it's about people who compare the US to other countries. Now in generally, I think we should compare the US to other countries, and we should be able to glean insight and learn from the experiences of others, and see what policies they have, and what works and what doesn't.

However, what I have noticed over and over, is that people tend to hear something somewhere that someone said, and just take that at face value. And they also seem to assume without any analysis, that whatever works over there, somewhere, will work just the same here.

But what I see constantly, is that people have no idea what they are talking about. In some cases none.
"We should be like Germany!"

Claim:

Germany is highly unionized, with powerful Unions. The Unions don't allow outsourcing to China. They have protectionism, and don't allow imports from low-wage countries like China. They also don't allow immigration, and certainly don't allow high-skilled immigrants to take German jobs. We need to be more like Germany

1. German Union participation rate is just 17%, compared to the US 10%.
Trade Union Density

2. Germany Unions are very pro-company, and often Union officials sit on the Executive board.
Board-level Representation / Germany / Countries / National Industrial Relations / Home - WORKER PARTICIPATION.eu
German Unions are not like American Unions. German Unions are pro-company, whereas American Unions are anti-company.
German labor union playing key role in UAW's latest campaign at Alabama's Mercedes plant
In general, the set-up tends to be more collaborative in Germany, where members of management and the rank and file -- both union and non-union workers -- sit on committees called works councils that discuss workplace issues without being limited by the language of a union contract.
Here in the U.S., there's a more adversarial system marked by collective bargaining between management and a third party, the union, which has been elected by a majority of employees.

American Unions do just about anything they can to ruin the jobs of their members, by driving up labor costs, and preventing advancement of productivity in favor of 'protecting jobs' which results in no jobs. The list of companies that have failed under the hammer of US Unions is endless. GM, Chrysler, Hostess, A&P, Haggen, GS Technologies, and on and on and on.

3. Germany is pro-immigration.
5 Countries That Take the Most Immigrants
Germany received the most immigrants out of all countries in the world, second only to the US.
Government-subsidized language trainings - German courses | Berlitz
Moreover, Germany offers free-language courses to immigrants.
Tepid Welcome: Germany Struggles to Lure Skilled Workers - SPIEGEL ONLINE
And not just low-skilled employees, but specifically seeks high-skilled people, and grants citizenship to them, and their families, to move to Germany, as long as they complete the language and culture learning.

4. Germany is extremely free-trade. Their over all tariff on imported goods, is just over 1%, compared to the US average tariff of 3%.
Germany - Tariff rate
This includes manufactured goods, from their dominate trading partner, China. Germany imports more goods from China than any other country, with the only exception of Netherlands, where Oil imports make up the majority of imports.
Products that Germany imports from China (2013)
Most of the imports from China are technology related, but also include textiles, chemicals, motors, car parts, and even automobiles.

Conclusion: If we really want to be like Germany, then we need to encourage more immigration, offer incentives to people who come here and work, lower trade barriers, and cut import tariffs by 50%. The exact opposite of the claim.

Claim:

But we should have an education system like Finland! Finland education system is amazing, and best in the world, we should adopt their system and have it work here. The only reason we can't is because of those right-wing conservatives.

First off, it's a little difficult to compare Finland to America. They have an extremely homogeneous society. 80% of Finnish self identify as Lutheran Christian. 93% of the population is Ethnic Finnish, and the next largest group is 5% Swedish. Very similar. Moreover, they have only 5 Million people, and 80% or more of children grow up in intact Nuclear families, compared to the US 315 Million, with less than half of children growing up in intact homes.
Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family

And by the way, that does matter.
How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity

Children raise in shack up, broken families, do far worse. Not only is a broken family the number one indicator of drug use, and dropping out of school, but also prison time. 80% of inmates grow up in broken families.
http://www.economist.com/node/11477890
The truth about Finland's education miracle - Spectator Blogs
Real lessons from Finland: Hard choices, rigorously implemented | The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

But the reality of Finnish education, is not all that difficult to understand. The problem isn't that we can't do what they do, it's simply that we don't want to do what they do.

1. The Finnish government, does not pay for education for children until they are 7 years old.
   
2. The starting public teacher salary is only $29K, nearly 1/4th lower than the US.
   
3. 43% of all Finnish students, do not go to, nor are encouraged to attend higher-education, rather they tend to go to vocational or trade schools.
   
4. Finland spends 30% less per student than the US.
   
5. Finnish schools focus exclusively on academic success, and avoids "social" education.
   
6. Finnish schools, quickly remove all students that are disruptive or have physical problems, are removed from normal classes, and placed into special classes.

Now, can we do all that? Sure. But can you imagine the insane outrage, and media frenzy that would ensue after anyone proposed those changes?

I hear people saying, but but but I know I heard that Finland public school teachers are paid more! They have a system of equality! They have Unions!

Somewhat true... The pay rate for top-end teachers, is higher. They can easily earn 6-figures. But the pay at the low end is lower. Same is true of German auto workers. They talk about how German union auto workers are paid more than the US workers, and that is true, but the entry level worker starts off at $10/hour, much lower.

But as far as equality, far from it. Low end workers are paid less than the US, while top end workers are paid more. The exact opposite of equality. Moreover, children who do not meet the academic requirements, simply don't go to school. They have to go learn a trade, or vocational training. The exact opposite of no child left behind, they intentionally leave them behind. You can't keep up, then you have to go run a different race.
Conclusion: when you look at all those aspects of the Finnish educational system, it's the left-wing that is preventing all those, not the conservative right-wing.

Claim:

....all you capitalists just can't stand it that a socialized system works! Socialism works! I know, I read about it. Switzerland is socialist, and they are the most happy country in the world! We should be like Switzerland!

View attachment 60584

Now, this one I love. Nothing like looking at a system that has failed in every country that has ever adopted it, and claim that it works, and country X proves it. It failed the USSR, it failed N.Korea, it failed in China, it failed in Cuba, and it is currently failing in Venezuela.... but *you* know that it works, because Switzerland is socialist?

Switzerland is Socialized? Really? Let's investigate that a bit.

1. Top marginal Tax rate in Switzerland, 11.5%, compared to the US 39.6%.
   
2. Average tariffs on imported goods into Switzerland, 0%, compared to the US 3%.
   
3. Debts can not be bankrupted or forgiven, they can only be restructured in a limited fashion.
   
4. Strict property rights, and enforcement.
   
5. Corporate tax rate is only 9%, compared to the US 30%.
   
6. Switzerland has zero minimum wage.
   
7. Switzerland has lower banking requirements and regulations.

So apparently in order to be "Socialist" like Switzerland, we need to cut taxes, cut tariffs, repeal bankruptcy laws, cut corporation taxes and banking regulations, and then repeal the minimum wage. Right?

Conclusion: The reality is Switzerland is higher on the economic freedom index, than even the US. They are number 5 while we're 12th.
Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
They are more capitalist, than we are.

Claim:

Oh so you like rankings do ya? Well how about the World Health Organizations health care ranking? Clearly that shows socialism works, because all those other systems do better!

While I do on occasion use various rankings in my citations, it normally requires those rankings to be legitimate. For example, the economic freedom index is based on hard numbers. Actual tax rates, real economic policies, legislation, regulations, the ability to open a business, property rights, and controls on investment and so on. Real political aspects that affect the ability to be a capitalist.

However, some rankings are nebulous and subjective, or have attributes that wouldn't matter to the subject. The world happiness report, is a perfect example. Thankfully, in a rare moment of honesty, the report itself admitted the subjective nature of the survey data they used. But not all are so honest.

In 2000, the WHO (world health organization) published a ranking of health care systems by country.
World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

The ranking listed France as #1. The US as number #37, and Cuba as #39.

Now, at first glance I have a problem with just the concept of trying to compare the US to anyone, as if the US has a monolithic health care system, uniform across the country. It does not. Even between states there are massive differences in funding and private / public clinics, hospitals and individual practices.

Just insurance regulations alone, vary drastically between states. I read where one state requires all health insurance cover alcoholism. I've never had a drink in my life.... but I have to have insurance in case I fall down in front of a liquor store, they pour booze on the wound, and suddenly I'm in rehab. Or another state the required that all insurance must cover marriage counseling. 90 year-old widow, but she's got marriage counseling coverage if she needs it.... any day now.

Even so, we have a massive public sector health system, and a massive private sector health system, and the two over lap everywhere. Again trying to compare the diverse US health care system, to a European country, which is the size of a US state, is near impossible if not ridiculous.

However, putting all that aside, the problem with the WHO report, "The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance", located at the link below, is that the entire ranking system, had very little to do with the quality of the care. Very little.
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Now the WHO got so much criticism from every direction since this report was released, that the WHO has declined to do any ranking on any World Health Report released since this one, and rightly so. The following is based on Chapter 2, and specifically Box 2.4, of Page 39.
The factors used to rank countries, were completely bonkers.
The factors used, included...

• Health
  
• Health Equality
  
• Responsiveness
  
• Responsive Equality
  
• Fairness of Financing

That seems like a fairly decent comparison, until you dig deeper.

"Health" is dependent on life expectancy, and 'disability-free years of life'. That measurement has nothing to do with the quality of care. For example, Japan has a tiny fraction of the murders and auto-fatalities of the US. As a result their total life expectancy is higher. But what does that have to do with health care? Do you expect doctors to flag down speeders and tackle criminals before anyone is killed?

Equally, obesity is generally caused by people shoving food in their mouth, not by a lack of a checkup. Do you expect doctors to body block the McDonald's drive through, and trash the Hostess isle at the store?

Moreover, they include mortality rates. But mortality rates are determined by incidence rate, as much as the quality of the care. If you have two islands. One Island has 30 cases of breast cancer, all cured but 3 which die. The other island has no health care at all, but only 2 incidences of breast cancer, both of which die. According those the mortality report, the Island with zero health care, would rank higher on the WHO report.

Japan has a fraction of the breast cancer incidences as the US. But Japan breast cancer survival rates are much lower. Yet even though more die who the cancer, because fewer get the cancer, they look better on the mortality rate.

Bottom line, life expectancy and disability, is a very poor measure of the quality of the care.

Yet the WHO report, makes even that measure even worse, because only half the "Health" score is based on that, the other half is how "Equal" it is. If one group, or one gender, has different health rates, than any other, that causes the health system to be scored lower. In other words, is it "socialized enough"?

Responsiveness, is also a terrible measure, once you dig deeper into what they are really measuring.
Now at first glance, you would think this is a measure of how fast a person is diagnosed, treated, and healed. That would seem a very important factor.

But WHO did not make it that simple. That was included, but they also looked at:

• Respect and dignity
  
• Confidentiality
  
• Autonomy
  
• Prompt attention
  
• Quality of amenities
  
• Social Support Networks
  
• Choice of provider

See any problem there? How many of those are actually measuring the quality of the care? Do I want to be respected before I die? Keep my death confidential? An Autonomous death? Prompt attention to my death? Quality of the TV I'm watching while I die? Access to a social network while dying? I choice of which hospital I die in?

Or maybe I want to be healed, and cured. Maybe that's what I want?

And once again, they made this lousy measurement of health care, even worse by trying to judge how "Fairly" the responsiveness was. Was it fair that I had a TV with a remote, and some guy in another hospital did not? That system would be marked lower. Ridiculous.

And lastly, the 'fairness of financing'.

Which literally was how socialized it was. If person x paid a different price than person y, then it was not fair. Even if one had many problems, and the other did not. Or how equal the cost was spread over society.
So if I opened up a "hospital" that was literally a warehouse with bunk beds, and a nurse with wet-wipes, as long as I charged everyone a very low price, and charged everyone "fairly", that would rank high in the WHO report.

Doesn't matter if they died, as long as it was a "fair" death.

In Conclusion, the entire report is utter trash, and should be ignored.
The very fact that Cuba was even close to the US on the list, proves the entire point. Cuba, has a horrific health care system. Missionaries to Cuba, send back supply requests that include, Aspirin. Because the average Cuban, can't get Aspirin.

Again, I have no problem comparing the US to other countries, but if you want to make those comparison, you have to know something about the topic.

And I get it.... we all don't have time, or even want to spend our time, sifting through information to find out what is what. All of us, at some point or another, have made the mistake of "I heard someone somewhere say something that sounded sort of like......" and out come the garbage.

At least attempt to fact check what you hear. Before running off claiming the grass is greener in some field you've never been to, and don't know anyone who is from there. And that's the RCC perspective.

Top marginal Tax rate in Switzerland, 11.5%, compared to the US 39.6%.




In 2002, some CHF 134 billion in taxes were levied in Switzerland, of which roughly one third was levied by the Confederation, the cantons and the municipalities, respectively.[59]
The overall fiscal rate was 38.5 percent of GDP in 2002.[60]

Taxation in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your exact source....... this is from the link *YOU* provided....

"This option contributes to Switzerland's status as a tax haven, and has induced many wealthy foreigners to live in Switzerland.
In 2011, the federal income tax varied from a bracket of 1% (for single tax payers) and 0.77% (for married taxpayers) to the maximum rate of 11.5%."

Over all fiscal rate is not income taxes. I specifically said income taxes.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

 

[Andylusion]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You're kidding, right? Blacks became worse off? The poverty rate was approx 55% in the years just before the passage of civil rights legislation. Now it's about 25%.

All change is good and bad. All change has unintended consequences. Radical change to an industry which represents 25% of our economy? Of course there will be major disruptions.

My point is that the race to claim the high ground in all things is a useful goad to countries.

 

[IcebergSlim]

View attachment 60587

Greetings!

This particular post is going to be a bit different, and more of a multi-topic, because it's about people who compare the US to other countries. Now in generally, I think we should compare the US to other countries, and we should be able to glean insight and learn from the experiences of others, and see what policies they have, and what works and what doesn't.

However, what I have noticed over and over, is that people tend to hear something somewhere that someone said, and just take that at face value. And they also seem to assume without any analysis, that whatever works over there, somewhere, will work just the same here.

But what I see constantly, is that people have no idea what they are talking about. In some cases none.
"We should be like Germany!"

Claim:

Germany is highly unionized, with powerful Unions. The Unions don't allow outsourcing to China. They have protectionism, and don't allow imports from low-wage countries like China. They also don't allow immigration, and certainly don't allow high-skilled immigrants to take German jobs. We need to be more like Germany

1. German Union participation rate is just 17%, compared to the US 10%.
Trade Union Density

2. Germany Unions are very pro-company, and often Union officials sit on the Executive board.
Board-level Representation / Germany / Countries / National Industrial Relations / Home - WORKER PARTICIPATION.eu
German Unions are not like American Unions. German Unions are pro-company, whereas American Unions are anti-company.
German labor union playing key role in UAW's latest campaign at Alabama's Mercedes plant
In general, the set-up tends to be more collaborative in Germany, where members of management and the rank and file -- both union and non-union workers -- sit on committees called works councils that discuss workplace issues without being limited by the language of a union contract.
Here in the U.S., there's a more adversarial system marked by collective bargaining between management and a third party, the union, which has been elected by a majority of employees.

American Unions do just about anything they can to ruin the jobs of their members, by driving up labor costs, and preventing advancement of productivity in favor of 'protecting jobs' which results in no jobs. The list of companies that have failed under the hammer of US Unions is endless. GM, Chrysler, Hostess, A&P, Haggen, GS Technologies, and on and on and on.

3. Germany is pro-immigration.
5 Countries That Take the Most Immigrants
Germany received the most immigrants out of all countries in the world, second only to the US.
Government-subsidized language trainings - German courses | Berlitz
Moreover, Germany offers free-language courses to immigrants.
Tepid Welcome: Germany Struggles to Lure Skilled Workers - SPIEGEL ONLINE
And not just low-skilled employees, but specifically seeks high-skilled people, and grants citizenship to them, and their families, to move to Germany, as long as they complete the language and culture learning.

4. Germany is extremely free-trade. Their over all tariff on imported goods, is just over 1%, compared to the US average tariff of 3%.
Germany - Tariff rate
This includes manufactured goods, from their dominate trading partner, China. Germany imports more goods from China than any other country, with the only exception of Netherlands, where Oil imports make up the majority of imports.
Products that Germany imports from China (2013)
Most of the imports from China are technology related, but also include textiles, chemicals, motors, car parts, and even automobiles.

Conclusion: If we really want to be like Germany, then we need to encourage more immigration, offer incentives to people who come here and work, lower trade barriers, and cut import tariffs by 50%. The exact opposite of the claim.

Claim:

But we should have an education system like Finland! Finland education system is amazing, and best in the world, we should adopt their system and have it work here. The only reason we can't is because of those right-wing conservatives.

First off, it's a little difficult to compare Finland to America. They have an extremely homogeneous society. 80% of Finnish self identify as Lutheran Christian. 93% of the population is Ethnic Finnish, and the next largest group is 5% Swedish. Very similar. Moreover, they have only 5 Million people, and 80% or more of children grow up in intact Nuclear families, compared to the US 315 Million, with less than half of children growing up in intact homes.
Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family

And by the way, that does matter.
How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity

Children raise in shack up, broken families, do far worse. Not only is a broken family the number one indicator of drug use, and dropping out of school, but also prison time. 80% of inmates grow up in broken families.
http://www.economist.com/node/11477890
The truth about Finland's education miracle - Spectator Blogs
Real lessons from Finland: Hard choices, rigorously implemented | The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

But the reality of Finnish education, is not all that difficult to understand. The problem isn't that we can't do what they do, it's simply that we don't want to do what they do.

1. The Finnish government, does not pay for education for children until they are 7 years old.
   
2. The starting public teacher salary is only $29K, nearly 1/4th lower than the US.
   
3. 43% of all Finnish students, do not go to, nor are encouraged to attend higher-education, rather they tend to go to vocational or trade schools.
   
4. Finland spends 30% less per student than the US.
   
5. Finnish schools focus exclusively on academic success, and avoids "social" education.
   
6. Finnish schools, quickly remove all students that are disruptive or have physical problems, are removed from normal classes, and placed into special classes.

Now, can we do all that? Sure. But can you imagine the insane outrage, and media frenzy that would ensue after anyone proposed those changes?

I hear people saying, but but but I know I heard that Finland public school teachers are paid more! They have a system of equality! They have Unions!

Somewhat true... The pay rate for top-end teachers, is higher. They can easily earn 6-figures. But the pay at the low end is lower. Same is true of German auto workers. They talk about how German union auto workers are paid more than the US workers, and that is true, but the entry level worker starts off at $10/hour, much lower.

But as far as equality, far from it. Low end workers are paid less than the US, while top end workers are paid more. The exact opposite of equality. Moreover, children who do not meet the academic requirements, simply don't go to school. They have to go learn a trade, or vocational training. The exact opposite of no child left behind, they intentionally leave them behind. You can't keep up, then you have to go run a different race.
Conclusion: when you look at all those aspects of the Finnish educational system, it's the left-wing that is preventing all those, not the conservative right-wing.

Claim:

....all you capitalists just can't stand it that a socialized system works! Socialism works! I know, I read about it. Switzerland is socialist, and they are the most happy country in the world! We should be like Switzerland!

View attachment 60584

Now, this one I love. Nothing like looking at a system that has failed in every country that has ever adopted it, and claim that it works, and country X proves it. It failed the USSR, it failed N.Korea, it failed in China, it failed in Cuba, and it is currently failing in Venezuela.... but *you* know that it works, because Switzerland is socialist?

Switzerland is Socialized? Really? Let's investigate that a bit.

1. Top marginal Tax rate in Switzerland, 11.5%, compared to the US 39.6%.
   
2. Average tariffs on imported goods into Switzerland, 0%, compared to the US 3%.
   
3. Debts can not be bankrupted or forgiven, they can only be restructured in a limited fashion.
   
4. Strict property rights, and enforcement.
   
5. Corporate tax rate is only 9%, compared to the US 30%.
   
6. Switzerland has zero minimum wage.
   
7. Switzerland has lower banking requirements and regulations.

So apparently in order to be "Socialist" like Switzerland, we need to cut taxes, cut tariffs, repeal bankruptcy laws, cut corporation taxes and banking regulations, and then repeal the minimum wage. Right?

Conclusion: The reality is Switzerland is higher on the economic freedom index, than even the US. They are number 5 while we're 12th.
Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
They are more capitalist, than we are.

Claim:

Oh so you like rankings do ya? Well how about the World Health Organizations health care ranking? Clearly that shows socialism works, because all those other systems do better!

While I do on occasion use various rankings in my citations, it normally requires those rankings to be legitimate. For example, the economic freedom index is based on hard numbers. Actual tax rates, real economic policies, legislation, regulations, the ability to open a business, property rights, and controls on investment and so on. Real political aspects that affect the ability to be a capitalist.

However, some rankings are nebulous and subjective, or have attributes that wouldn't matter to the subject. The world happiness report, is a perfect example. Thankfully, in a rare moment of honesty, the report itself admitted the subjective nature of the survey data they used. But not all are so honest.

In 2000, the WHO (world health organization) published a ranking of health care systems by country.
World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

The ranking listed France as #1. The US as number #37, and Cuba as #39.

Now, at first glance I have a problem with just the concept of trying to compare the US to anyone, as if the US has a monolithic health care system, uniform across the country. It does not. Even between states there are massive differences in funding and private / public clinics, hospitals and individual practices.

Just insurance regulations alone, vary drastically between states. I read where one state requires all health insurance cover alcoholism. I've never had a drink in my life.... but I have to have insurance in case I fall down in front of a liquor store, they pour booze on the wound, and suddenly I'm in rehab. Or another state the required that all insurance must cover marriage counseling. 90 year-old widow, but she's got marriage counseling coverage if she needs it.... any day now.

Even so, we have a massive public sector health system, and a massive private sector health system, and the two over lap everywhere. Again trying to compare the diverse US health care system, to a European country, which is the size of a US state, is near impossible if not ridiculous.

However, putting all that aside, the problem with the WHO report, "The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance", located at the link below, is that the entire ranking system, had very little to do with the quality of the care. Very little.
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Now the WHO got so much criticism from every direction since this report was released, that the WHO has declined to do any ranking on any World Health Report released since this one, and rightly so. The following is based on Chapter 2, and specifically Box 2.4, of Page 39.
The factors used to rank countries, were completely bonkers.
The factors used, included...

• Health
  
• Health Equality
  
• Responsiveness
  
• Responsive Equality
  
• Fairness of Financing

That seems like a fairly decent comparison, until you dig deeper.

"Health" is dependent on life expectancy, and 'disability-free years of life'. That measurement has nothing to do with the quality of care. For example, Japan has a tiny fraction of the murders and auto-fatalities of the US. As a result their total life expectancy is higher. But what does that have to do with health care? Do you expect doctors to flag down speeders and tackle criminals before anyone is killed?

Equally, obesity is generally caused by people shoving food in their mouth, not by a lack of a checkup. Do you expect doctors to body block the McDonald's drive through, and trash the Hostess isle at the store?

Moreover, they include mortality rates. But mortality rates are determined by incidence rate, as much as the quality of the care. If you have two islands. One Island has 30 cases of breast cancer, all cured but 3 which die. The other island has no health care at all, but only 2 incidences of breast cancer, both of which die. According those the mortality report, the Island with zero health care, would rank higher on the WHO report.

Japan has a fraction of the breast cancer incidences as the US. But Japan breast cancer survival rates are much lower. Yet even though more die who the cancer, because fewer get the cancer, they look better on the mortality rate.

Bottom line, life expectancy and disability, is a very poor measure of the quality of the care.

Yet the WHO report, makes even that measure even worse, because only half the "Health" score is based on that, the other half is how "Equal" it is. If one group, or one gender, has different health rates, than any other, that causes the health system to be scored lower. In other words, is it "socialized enough"?

Responsiveness, is also a terrible measure, once you dig deeper into what they are really measuring.
Now at first glance, you would think this is a measure of how fast a person is diagnosed, treated, and healed. That would seem a very important factor.

But WHO did not make it that simple. That was included, but they also looked at:

• Respect and dignity
  
• Confidentiality
  
• Autonomy
  
• Prompt attention
  
• Quality of amenities
  
• Social Support Networks
  
• Choice of provider

See any problem there? How many of those are actually measuring the quality of the care? Do I want to be respected before I die? Keep my death confidential? An Autonomous death? Prompt attention to my death? Quality of the TV I'm watching while I die? Access to a social network while dying? I choice of which hospital I die in?

Or maybe I want to be healed, and cured. Maybe that's what I want?

And once again, they made this lousy measurement of health care, even worse by trying to judge how "Fairly" the responsiveness was. Was it fair that I had a TV with a remote, and some guy in another hospital did not? That system would be marked lower. Ridiculous.

And lastly, the 'fairness of financing'.

Which literally was how socialized it was. If person x paid a different price than person y, then it was not fair. Even if one had many problems, and the other did not. Or how equal the cost was spread over society.
So if I opened up a "hospital" that was literally a warehouse with bunk beds, and a nurse with wet-wipes, as long as I charged everyone a very low price, and charged everyone "fairly", that would rank high in the WHO report.

Doesn't matter if they died, as long as it was a "fair" death.

In Conclusion, the entire report is utter trash, and should be ignored.
The very fact that Cuba was even close to the US on the list, proves the entire point. Cuba, has a horrific health care system. Missionaries to Cuba, send back supply requests that include, Aspirin. Because the average Cuban, can't get Aspirin.

Again, I have no problem comparing the US to other countries, but if you want to make those comparison, you have to know something about the topic.

And I get it.... we all don't have time, or even want to spend our time, sifting through information to find out what is what. All of us, at some point or another, have made the mistake of "I heard someone somewhere say something that sounded sort of like......" and out come the garbage.

At least attempt to fact check what you hear. Before running off claiming the grass is greener in some field you've never been to, and don't know anyone who is from there. And that's the RCC perspective.

Top marginal Tax rate in Switzerland, 11.5%, compared to the US 39.6%.




In 2002, some CHF 134 billion in taxes were levied in Switzerland, of which roughly one third was levied by the Confederation, the cantons and the municipalities, respectively.[59]
The overall fiscal rate was 38.5 percent of GDP in 2002.[60]

Taxation in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your exact source....... this is from the link *YOU* provided....

"This option contributes to Switzerland's status as a tax haven, and has induced many wealthy foreigners to live in Switzerland.
In 2011, the federal income tax varied from a bracket of 1% (for single tax payers) and 0.77% (for married taxpayers) to the maximum rate of 11.5%."

Over all fiscal rate is not income taxes. I specifically said income taxes.

Most of Europe has a completely different tax structure......there are the equivalent of State and Local, as well as the VAT.......it is a "relative" tax haven insofar as they will allow foreigners to park their money there with minimal tax obligations...the point is that, in the aggregate, the country collects a slightly smaller percentage of GDP in taxes......but they also have the good sense not to drop 4% of GDP on the War Pig....

 

[IcebergSlim]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the Commonwealth Fund studies of national health care systems....

 

[Andylusion]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You're kidding, right? Blacks became worse off? The poverty rate was approx 55% in the years just before the passage of civil rights legislation. Now it's about 25%.

All change is good and bad. All change has unintended consequences. Radical change to an industry which represents 25% of our economy? Of course there will be major disruptions.

My point is that the race to claim the high ground in all things is a useful goad to countries.

Poverty is not a civil right. If you can't do the work, or don't have the skills, or don't want to work... you'll be poor, regardless of if you have civil rights are not.

All the data that I've seen suggests that black poverty fell slower after civil rights, than it was falling before. Black education was rising faster before civil rights, than after.

Education was particularly bad. Before education integration, blacks were taught by teachers who really cared about their success.

But of course that is hard to observe. Instead they focused on whether the walls were painted, or if they had 'new' books. So after integration, blacks are shipped to white schools, where they are taught by white teachers, who often couldn't care less if black students succeeded or not, and often resented them being there.

You tell me... who are you going to learn more from? A teacher who cares, and wants you to succeed, or a teacher who hates you, can couldn't care less?

And then we wonder why stayed in poverty, even to this day.



From what I've read, there were even more blacks in political office, before the Civil Rights movement, than after.

Worse, like Thomas Sowell says in the clip, the affirmative action has had a devastating impact, because now every black person has to wonder if they were promoted or hired because of their own ability, or if they are simply the token black.

 

[Andylusion]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the Commonwealth Fund studies of national health care systems....

I have thanks. Have you? Did you read the one where they discovered that the US has more preventative care than any other country in the world?

Might want to familiarize yourself with that.

 

[IcebergSlim]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the Commonwealth Fund studies of national health care systems....

I have thanks. Have you? Did you read the one where they discovered that the US has more preventative care than any other country in the world?

Might want to familiarize yourself with that.

Really?

And yet the US ranks near last for "preventable mortality" among the nations studied....

 

[Andylusion]

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the Commonwealth Fund studies of national health care systems....

I have thanks. Have you? Did you read the one where they discovered that the US has more preventative care than any other country in the world?

Might want to familiarize yourself with that.

Really?

And yet the US ranks near last for "preventable mortality" among the nations studied....

Yes really. Go read up what they have published. For more cancer screenings, more vaccine usage, over all, than any other country in the world. Yes really.

As for "preventable mortality", again this is another useless stat. Everyone has to make up these strange fruity stats, to make their system look better, and ours look worse.

The last thing they ever want to look at, is simply "survival rates". What is the rate of someone being diagnosed... treated... and still alive in 5 years? You compare US survival rates to anywhere in the world, and we have the best rates of any country.

Preventable Mortality, has nothing to do with how effective the care is. Nothing.

Five top "preventable mortality"

Heart Disease
Stroke
Cancer
Respiratory Diseases
Unintentional Injury

Now again, inherently when you look at mortality rates... those are dependent (obviously), on the incidence rates.

If you have two countries, and one has a million incidences of say Stroke, and the other only has a thousand.... the one that has the million is going to have more mortality from Stroke, than the one that has a thousand, no matter how good, or bad the health care system is.

The better measure is, what is the survival rate of stroke. Your chance of surviving a stroke in the US, is higher than any other country in the world.

Same with all the others.

And many of the others are choices people make. Where I work today, everyone smokes. You can't force them to not smoke. Doctors can't prevent them from smoking. So their chances of having a Respiratory Diseases is much higher, but it's not because our health care system sucks.. It's because they have the ability to choose how they live.

Would they suddenly stop smoking if we adopted a socialized system? No. So how can you say that their choices reflect on the health care system? You can't. Not a logical argument.

And I already discussed unintentional injury. We have more car accidents than Japan, and most of Europe, simply because more people in America are able to afford cars.

How can you blame doctors and hospitals for auto fatalities? Do you think if we changed to a socialized system, that magically people would drive safer?

Worse than all of that, if you look at the actual data, the title is mis-leading. "Preventable Mortality" gives you the impression (as it was intended to), that these are deaths that absolutely could be prevented, if only we had a better system.

And that's exactly what they want you to think, because that will push policy towards giving these people more money.

In reality, if you actually read the reports, these are estimates.... Estimates of "POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE" deaths.

They don't have hard numbers, of actual specific cases where "Person X died, because the hospital didn't have treatment Y". There is no such data.

These are simply guesses, that maybe some of these deaths could potentially be prevented, if only we had more money.

The data they use, is no more specific than that.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The most interesting side-effect of mass media is national embarrassment. Personal embarrassment, like poor Dick Nixon experienced, is also pretty powerful, but when nations are embarrassed it can result in things like Great Britain granting India independence.

On a smaller scale, it's a game of soft power. This is great. It causes us to regard our shortcomings as costly. Haha, the US spends more than anyone on healthcare and is 37th in the WHO rankings! It's a spur to progress.

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You're kidding, right? Blacks became worse off? The poverty rate was approx 55% in the years just before the passage of civil rights legislation. Now it's about 25%.

All change is good and bad. All change has unintended consequences. Radical change to an industry which represents 25% of our economy? Of course there will be major disruptions.

My point is that the race to claim the high ground in all things is a useful goad to countries.

Poverty is not a civil right. If you can't do the work, or don't have the skills, or don't want to work... you'll be poor, regardless of if you have civil rights are not.

All the data that I've seen suggests that black poverty fell slower after civil rights, than it was falling before. Black education was rising faster before civil rights, than after.

Education was particularly bad. Before education integration, blacks were taught by teachers who really cared about their success.

But of course that is hard to observe. Instead they focused on whether the walls were painted, or if they had 'new' books. So after integration, blacks are shipped to white schools, where they are taught by white teachers, who often couldn't care less if black students succeeded or not, and often resented them being there.

You tell me... who are you going to learn more from? A teacher who cares, and wants you to succeed, or a teacher who hates you, can couldn't care less?

And then we wonder why stayed in poverty, even to this day.



From what I've read, there were even more blacks in political office, before the Civil Rights movement, than after.

Worse, like Thomas Sowell says in the clip, the affirmative action has had a devastating impact, because now every black person has to wonder if they were promoted or hired because of their own ability, or if they are simply the token black.

Ah, Fox News, the source authority for the African American community. Civil rights has nothing to do with affirmative action. Civil rights are things like fair housing practices, ending redlining, removing barriers to voting rights. School desegregation failed. Schools are as segregated now as they were before Brown v Bd of Ed.

I've worked in inner city schools, in NYC and in Florida. Your comprehension of the history of inner city education is... seriously flawed. If you wish to believe that blacks were better off before civil rights legislation was passed, whatever. I find the notion hard to take seriously.

 

[Andylusion]

But... if you read the post... the WHO ranking was crap. Just garbage. Our health care system is one of the best in the world by any intelligent measure.

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You're kidding, right? Blacks became worse off? The poverty rate was approx 55% in the years just before the passage of civil rights legislation. Now it's about 25%.

All change is good and bad. All change has unintended consequences. Radical change to an industry which represents 25% of our economy? Of course there will be major disruptions.

My point is that the race to claim the high ground in all things is a useful goad to countries.

Poverty is not a civil right. If you can't do the work, or don't have the skills, or don't want to work... you'll be poor, regardless of if you have civil rights are not.

All the data that I've seen suggests that black poverty fell slower after civil rights, than it was falling before. Black education was rising faster before civil rights, than after.

Education was particularly bad. Before education integration, blacks were taught by teachers who really cared about their success.

But of course that is hard to observe. Instead they focused on whether the walls were painted, or if they had 'new' books. So after integration, blacks are shipped to white schools, where they are taught by white teachers, who often couldn't care less if black students succeeded or not, and often resented them being there.

You tell me... who are you going to learn more from? A teacher who cares, and wants you to succeed, or a teacher who hates you, can couldn't care less?

And then we wonder why stayed in poverty, even to this day.



From what I've read, there were even more blacks in political office, before the Civil Rights movement, than after.

Worse, like Thomas Sowell says in the clip, the affirmative action has had a devastating impact, because now every black person has to wonder if they were promoted or hired because of their own ability, or if they are simply the token black.

Ah, Fox News, the source authority for the African American community. Civil rights has nothing to do with affirmative action. Civil rights are things like fair housing practices, ending redlining, removing barriers to voting rights. School desegregation failed. Schools are as segregated now as they were before Brown v Bd of Ed.

I've worked in inner city schools, in NYC and in Florida. Your comprehension of the history of inner city education is... seriously flawed. If you wish to believe that blacks were better off before civil rights legislation was passed, whatever. I find the notion hard to take seriously.

Yeah and the fact that Obama was covered by CNN, doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

You can't argue with what Thomas Sowell said, can you? That's why you have to point out something irrelevant, like the fact the specific clip was from Fox News. You just admitted you have argument.

Preventing 'redlining' is what caused the sub-prime crash dude. That's not a win for you, nor is it racists.

It's funny that you openly say the school system sucks, but then can't accept the fact that the Civil Rights movement, didn't help.

The schools we have today, are a direct result of the civil rights movement. If they are terrible, then that's the blame.

You should read up on it.



The education was vastly better, especially for Black people, before the civil rights forced 'equality' down people's throats.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Does it matter? As you say, inter-country comparisons are inherently flawed. Happiness indexes? What a bunch of nonsense.

During the Cold War these kind of comparisons were used as a literal weapon of war. No one rational would have preferred the USSR to the USA, but the constant criticism of the treatment of black people in America was a good weapon for the Commies. Good recruiting material. How much did these criticisms factor into our civil rights advancements? Hard to say, but I can't believe it was irrelevant.

Fair or accurate is not what matters. These things either have legs, or they don't. You don't agree with the WHO? You're free to say so on a forum board, but their claims get a little broader dissemination. That's power in the 20th/21st Century. Countries and organizations use their credibility to advance their interests. Sometimes these attempts are laughable, like North Korea, sometimes, whether accurate or not, they gain traction.

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You're kidding, right? Blacks became worse off? The poverty rate was approx 55% in the years just before the passage of civil rights legislation. Now it's about 25%.

All change is good and bad. All change has unintended consequences. Radical change to an industry which represents 25% of our economy? Of course there will be major disruptions.

My point is that the race to claim the high ground in all things is a useful goad to countries.

Poverty is not a civil right. If you can't do the work, or don't have the skills, or don't want to work... you'll be poor, regardless of if you have civil rights are not.

All the data that I've seen suggests that black poverty fell slower after civil rights, than it was falling before. Black education was rising faster before civil rights, than after.

Education was particularly bad. Before education integration, blacks were taught by teachers who really cared about their success.

But of course that is hard to observe. Instead they focused on whether the walls were painted, or if they had 'new' books. So after integration, blacks are shipped to white schools, where they are taught by white teachers, who often couldn't care less if black students succeeded or not, and often resented them being there.

You tell me... who are you going to learn more from? A teacher who cares, and wants you to succeed, or a teacher who hates you, can couldn't care less?

And then we wonder why stayed in poverty, even to this day.



From what I've read, there were even more blacks in political office, before the Civil Rights movement, than after.

Worse, like Thomas Sowell says in the clip, the affirmative action has had a devastating impact, because now every black person has to wonder if they were promoted or hired because of their own ability, or if they are simply the token black.

Ah, Fox News, the source authority for the African American community. Civil rights has nothing to do with affirmative action. Civil rights are things like fair housing practices, ending redlining, removing barriers to voting rights. School desegregation failed. Schools are as segregated now as they were before Brown v Bd of Ed.

I've worked in inner city schools, in NYC and in Florida. Your comprehension of the history of inner city education is... seriously flawed. If you wish to believe that blacks were better off before civil rights legislation was passed, whatever. I find the notion hard to take seriously.

Yeah and the fact that Obama was covered by CNN, doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

You can't argue with what Thomas Sowell said, can you? That's why you have to point out something irrelevant, like the fact the specific clip was from Fox News. You just admitted you have argument.

Preventing 'redlining' is what caused the sub-prime crash dude. That's not a win for you, nor is it racists.

It's funny that you openly say the school system sucks, but then can't accept the fact that the Civil Rights movement, didn't help.

The schools we have today, are a direct result of the civil rights movement. If they are terrible, then that's the blame.

You should read up on it.



The education was vastly better, especially for Black people, before the civil rights forced 'equality' down people's throats.

Right, keep the darkies separate. That's the problem.

As far as the idiot you seem to think is the only source authority you need to consult, he says in his little speech that he tells black kids today they have twice the chance their parents had and ten times the chance their grandparents had. Gee, I wonder why? Jim Crow was much better for blacks than civil rights!

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah.... I see the point your trying to make.... but by any measurement, blacks became worse off after the civil rights movements.

Similarly, I think changes to our health care would do massive harm to our health care system. In fact, I would argue it's already doing harm.

You're kidding, right? Blacks became worse off? The poverty rate was approx 55% in the years just before the passage of civil rights legislation. Now it's about 25%.

All change is good and bad. All change has unintended consequences. Radical change to an industry which represents 25% of our economy? Of course there will be major disruptions.

My point is that the race to claim the high ground in all things is a useful goad to countries.

Poverty is not a civil right. If you can't do the work, or don't have the skills, or don't want to work... you'll be poor, regardless of if you have civil rights are not.

All the data that I've seen suggests that black poverty fell slower after civil rights, than it was falling before. Black education was rising faster before civil rights, than after.

Education was particularly bad. Before education integration, blacks were taught by teachers who really cared about their success.

But of course that is hard to observe. Instead they focused on whether the walls were painted, or if they had 'new' books. So after integration, blacks are shipped to white schools, where they are taught by white teachers, who often couldn't care less if black students succeeded or not, and often resented them being there.

You tell me... who are you going to learn more from? A teacher who cares, and wants you to succeed, or a teacher who hates you, can couldn't care less?

And then we wonder why stayed in poverty, even to this day.



From what I've read, there were even more blacks in political office, before the Civil Rights movement, than after.

Worse, like Thomas Sowell says in the clip, the affirmative action has had a devastating impact, because now every black person has to wonder if they were promoted or hired because of their own ability, or if they are simply the token black.

Ah, Fox News, the source authority for the African American community. Civil rights has nothing to do with affirmative action. Civil rights are things like fair housing practices, ending redlining, removing barriers to voting rights. School desegregation failed. Schools are as segregated now as they were before Brown v Bd of Ed.

I've worked in inner city schools, in NYC and in Florida. Your comprehension of the history of inner city education is... seriously flawed. If you wish to believe that blacks were better off before civil rights legislation was passed, whatever. I find the notion hard to take seriously.

Yeah and the fact that Obama was covered by CNN, doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

You can't argue with what Thomas Sowell said, can you? That's why you have to point out something irrelevant, like the fact the specific clip was from Fox News. You just admitted you have argument.

Preventing 'redlining' is what caused the sub-prime crash dude. That's not a win for you, nor is it racists.

It's funny that you openly say the school system sucks, but then can't accept the fact that the Civil Rights movement, didn't help.

The schools we have today, are a direct result of the civil rights movement. If they are terrible, then that's the blame.

You should read up on it.



The education was vastly better, especially for Black people, before the civil rights forced 'equality' down people's throats.

Right, keep the darkies separate. That's the problem.

As far as the idiot you seem to think is the only source authority you need to consult, he says in his little speech that he tells black kids today they have twice the chance their parents had and ten times the chance their grandparents had. Gee, I wonder why? Jim Crow was much better for blacks than civil rights!

Again, the facts simply don't support your position. They simply don't. The average poverty of black people in America was rising faster under Jim Crow, than it did under civil rights movements. It's just a fact.

And by the way... if you look at other cultures and nations, the same is true there too. Jews flourished under oppressive laws. Ethnic Chinese flourished under anti-chinese laws.

See, what you are not counting in your equation, is two things.... When people believe their advancement will come from their own hard work, instead of politics, then they tend to advance more... even under unfair burdens.

When you change their belief system, to believe that advancement only comes from benefactors in government... then why work hard? Why work smarter? Why put in more effort? Read Clarance Thomas's book My Grandfathers Son. He says that's the difference between his generation and today's.

But equally as important, is when you try and use politics to enforce your will on others. The moment you try and use the power of the government to force people to your view point... even if your view point is in fact right... they will resent it.

That's why fewer and fewer blacks were elected to public office after the civil rights movement. Even those who were not racists, now question the motives of black people in office. They are going to force their views on us, so we oppose them.

Brazil is a perfect example of this. For literally decades, Brazilians never identified themselves by race. They identified themselves as Brazilian. Right? Isn't that what you people on the left claim you want? A color-less society? Brazil had it. No one questioned it. Now it's not perfect.... there is no utopia... but by and large, there was no black Brazilians and white Brazilians, and Native Brazilians. No one thought in those terms.

But a group of black public officials in Brazil, proposed an affirmative action race-based policy to promote minority groups, and INSTANTLY opposition groups sprung up against it, and suddenly the rest of the country feels threatened, and racial hate started springing up.

Now I have not heard whether or not the policy passed, or if the foolish proposal was dismissed.

My argument remains... I would absolutely contend that had the civil rights movement never have happened, everything for minorities would have been far better today. Especially blacks.

 

[Elvis Obama]

You're kidding, right? Blacks became worse off? The poverty rate was approx 55% in the years just before the passage of civil rights legislation. Now it's about 25%.

All change is good and bad. All change has unintended consequences. Radical change to an industry which represents 25% of our economy? Of course there will be major disruptions.

My point is that the race to claim the high ground in all things is a useful goad to countries.

Poverty is not a civil right. If you can't do the work, or don't have the skills, or don't want to work... you'll be poor, regardless of if you have civil rights are not.

All the data that I've seen suggests that black poverty fell slower after civil rights, than it was falling before. Black education was rising faster before civil rights, than after.

Education was particularly bad. Before education integration, blacks were taught by teachers who really cared about their success.

But of course that is hard to observe. Instead they focused on whether the walls were painted, or if they had 'new' books. So after integration, blacks are shipped to white schools, where they are taught by white teachers, who often couldn't care less if black students succeeded or not, and often resented them being there.

You tell me... who are you going to learn more from? A teacher who cares, and wants you to succeed, or a teacher who hates you, can couldn't care less?

And then we wonder why stayed in poverty, even to this day.



From what I've read, there were even more blacks in political office, before the Civil Rights movement, than after.

Worse, like Thomas Sowell says in the clip, the affirmative action has had a devastating impact, because now every black person has to wonder if they were promoted or hired because of their own ability, or if they are simply the token black.

Ah, Fox News, the source authority for the African American community. Civil rights has nothing to do with affirmative action. Civil rights are things like fair housing practices, ending redlining, removing barriers to voting rights. School desegregation failed. Schools are as segregated now as they were before Brown v Bd of Ed.

I've worked in inner city schools, in NYC and in Florida. Your comprehension of the history of inner city education is... seriously flawed. If you wish to believe that blacks were better off before civil rights legislation was passed, whatever. I find the notion hard to take seriously.

Yeah and the fact that Obama was covered by CNN, doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

You can't argue with what Thomas Sowell said, can you? That's why you have to point out something irrelevant, like the fact the specific clip was from Fox News. You just admitted you have argument.

Preventing 'redlining' is what caused the sub-prime crash dude. That's not a win for you, nor is it racists.

It's funny that you openly say the school system sucks, but then can't accept the fact that the Civil Rights movement, didn't help.

The schools we have today, are a direct result of the civil rights movement. If they are terrible, then that's the blame.

You should read up on it.



The education was vastly better, especially for Black people, before the civil rights forced 'equality' down people's throats.

Right, keep the darkies separate. That's the problem.

As far as the idiot you seem to think is the only source authority you need to consult, he says in his little speech that he tells black kids today they have twice the chance their parents had and ten times the chance their grandparents had. Gee, I wonder why? Jim Crow was much better for blacks than civil rights!

Again, the facts simply don't support your position. They simply don't. The average poverty of black people in America was rising faster under Jim Crow, than it did under civil rights movements. It's just a fact.

And by the way... if you look at other cultures and nations, the same is true there too. Jews flourished under oppressive laws. Ethnic Chinese flourished under anti-chinese laws.

See, what you are not counting in your equation, is two things.... When people believe their advancement will come from their own hard work, instead of politics, then they tend to advance more... even under unfair burdens.

When you change their belief system, to believe that advancement only comes from benefactors in government... then why work hard? Why work smarter? Why put in more effort? Read Clarance Thomas's book My Grandfathers Son. He says that's the difference between his generation and today's.

But equally as important, is when you try and use politics to enforce your will on others. The moment you try and use the power of the government to force people to your view point... even if your view point is in fact right... they will resent it.

That's why fewer and fewer blacks were elected to public office after the civil rights movement. Even those who were not racists, now question the motives of black people in office. They are going to force their views on us, so we oppose them.

Brazil is a perfect example of this. For literally decades, Brazilians never identified themselves by race. They identified themselves as Brazilian. Right? Isn't that what you people on the left claim you want? A color-less society? Brazil had it. No one questioned it. Now it's not perfect.... there is no utopia... but by and large, there was no black Brazilians and white Brazilians, and Native Brazilians. No one thought in those terms.

But a group of black public officials in Brazil, proposed an affirmative action race-based policy to promote minority groups, and INSTANTLY opposition groups sprung up against it, and suddenly the rest of the country feels threatened, and racial hate started springing up.

Now I have not heard whether or not the policy passed, or if the foolish proposal was dismissed.

My argument remains... I would absolutely contend that had the civil rights movement never have happened, everything for minorities would have been far better today. Especially blacks.

Astonishing.

Jews flourishing under oppression.

There are those who are wrong, and those who are offensively wrong. Suggesting that inequality and oppression are good for people, though. That takes being offensive to a new level. And you call yourself a Christian? Yeah, Jesus loved oppressive laws.

 

[Andylusion]

Poverty is not a civil right. If you can't do the work, or don't have the skills, or don't want to work... you'll be poor, regardless of if you have civil rights are not.

All the data that I've seen suggests that black poverty fell slower after civil rights, than it was falling before. Black education was rising faster before civil rights, than after.

Education was particularly bad. Before education integration, blacks were taught by teachers who really cared about their success.

But of course that is hard to observe. Instead they focused on whether the walls were painted, or if they had 'new' books. So after integration, blacks are shipped to white schools, where they are taught by white teachers, who often couldn't care less if black students succeeded or not, and often resented them being there.

You tell me... who are you going to learn more from? A teacher who cares, and wants you to succeed, or a teacher who hates you, can couldn't care less?

And then we wonder why stayed in poverty, even to this day.



From what I've read, there were even more blacks in political office, before the Civil Rights movement, than after.

Worse, like Thomas Sowell says in the clip, the affirmative action has had a devastating impact, because now every black person has to wonder if they were promoted or hired because of their own ability, or if they are simply the token black.

Ah, Fox News, the source authority for the African American community. Civil rights has nothing to do with affirmative action. Civil rights are things like fair housing practices, ending redlining, removing barriers to voting rights. School desegregation failed. Schools are as segregated now as they were before Brown v Bd of Ed.

I've worked in inner city schools, in NYC and in Florida. Your comprehension of the history of inner city education is... seriously flawed. If you wish to believe that blacks were better off before civil rights legislation was passed, whatever. I find the notion hard to take seriously.

Yeah and the fact that Obama was covered by CNN, doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

You can't argue with what Thomas Sowell said, can you? That's why you have to point out something irrelevant, like the fact the specific clip was from Fox News. You just admitted you have argument.

Preventing 'redlining' is what caused the sub-prime crash dude. That's not a win for you, nor is it racists.

It's funny that you openly say the school system sucks, but then can't accept the fact that the Civil Rights movement, didn't help.

The schools we have today, are a direct result of the civil rights movement. If they are terrible, then that's the blame.

You should read up on it.



The education was vastly better, especially for Black people, before the civil rights forced 'equality' down people's throats.

Right, keep the darkies separate. That's the problem.

As far as the idiot you seem to think is the only source authority you need to consult, he says in his little speech that he tells black kids today they have twice the chance their parents had and ten times the chance their grandparents had. Gee, I wonder why? Jim Crow was much better for blacks than civil rights!

Again, the facts simply don't support your position. They simply don't. The average poverty of black people in America was rising faster under Jim Crow, than it did under civil rights movements. It's just a fact.

And by the way... if you look at other cultures and nations, the same is true there too. Jews flourished under oppressive laws. Ethnic Chinese flourished under anti-chinese laws.

See, what you are not counting in your equation, is two things.... When people believe their advancement will come from their own hard work, instead of politics, then they tend to advance more... even under unfair burdens.

When you change their belief system, to believe that advancement only comes from benefactors in government... then why work hard? Why work smarter? Why put in more effort? Read Clarance Thomas's book My Grandfathers Son. He says that's the difference between his generation and today's.

But equally as important, is when you try and use politics to enforce your will on others. The moment you try and use the power of the government to force people to your view point... even if your view point is in fact right... they will resent it.

That's why fewer and fewer blacks were elected to public office after the civil rights movement. Even those who were not racists, now question the motives of black people in office. They are going to force their views on us, so we oppose them.

Brazil is a perfect example of this. For literally decades, Brazilians never identified themselves by race. They identified themselves as Brazilian. Right? Isn't that what you people on the left claim you want? A color-less society? Brazil had it. No one questioned it. Now it's not perfect.... there is no utopia... but by and large, there was no black Brazilians and white Brazilians, and Native Brazilians. No one thought in those terms.

But a group of black public officials in Brazil, proposed an affirmative action race-based policy to promote minority groups, and INSTANTLY opposition groups sprung up against it, and suddenly the rest of the country feels threatened, and racial hate started springing up.

Now I have not heard whether or not the policy passed, or if the foolish proposal was dismissed.

My argument remains... I would absolutely contend that had the civil rights movement never have happened, everything for minorities would have been far better today. Especially blacks.

Astonishing.

Jews flourishing under oppression.

There are those who are wrong, and those who are offensively wrong. Suggesting that inequality and oppression are good for people, though. That takes being offensive to a new level. And you call yourself a Christian? Yeah, Jesus loved oppressive laws.

Can I just make up crap that you haven't said, and accuse you of it? Suggesting that eating babies is good, is horrible. What an awful person you are!

Is that how you debate now? Just make up whatever the heck you want, claim the other person said it, and then attack them for it?

If that's the level of discussion you want, find someone else to talk to. I'm here to talk to adults. Not children.