The Free Market vs. Obama

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Glad I could help.

excuse me PC, but you said that Americans live longer than people in any other industrialized nation...this is what I was commenting on...

Which is simply NOT TRUE.[/quote]

Forbes:If you really want to measure health outcomes, the best way to do it is at the point of medical intervention. If you have a heart attack, how long do you live in the U.S. vs. another country? If you’re diagnosed with breast cancer? In 2008, a group of investigators conducted a worldwide study of cancer survival rates, called CONCORD. They looked at 5-year survival rates for breast cancer, colon and rectal cancer, and prostate cancer. I compiled their data for the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, and western Europe. Guess who came out number one?



U-S-A! U-S-A! What’s just as interesting is that Japan, the country that tops the overall life expectancy tables, finished in the middle of the pack on cancer survival.

Car accidents and homicides don’t tell us much about health care quality Avik Roy, Contributor
Another point worth making is that people die for other reasons than health. For example, people die because of car accidents and violent crime. A few years back, Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa asked the obvious question: what happens if you remove deaths from fatal injuries from the life expectancy tables? Among the 29 members of the OECD, the U.S. vaults from 19th place to…you guessed it…first. Japan, on the same adjustment, drops from first to ninth.

It’s great that the Japanese eat more sushi than we do, and that they settle their arguments more peaceably. But these things don’t have anything to do with socialized medicine

 

[oldfart]

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

You wouldn't happen to hae a source for that would you? The World Health Organization ranks the United States 38th in life expectancy. The last time I looked, Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel, Italy, Iceland, Australia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Macau, France, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Malta, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Costa Rica (Costa Rica beats USA?), Puerto Rico (the ignominy of it!), Luxembourg, South Korea, Chile, Denmark, and Cuba (Cuba?) were considered industrialized countries and had longer life expectancies. At least we beat out Albania, but not by much.

The CIA World Factbook lists the United States at 50 in life expectancy, behind the average for the entire European Union. They count more countries than the WHO so we end up even lower.

And again, we pay more than double what any of these countries spend per capita on health care to come in behind Cuba.

Where do you get your bogus information anyway?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Arthur C. Brooks

You lost me right there.

 

[Care4all]

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

You wouldn't happen to hae a source for that would you? The World Health Organization ranks the United States 38th in life expectancy. The last time I looked, Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel, Italy, Iceland, Australia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Macau, France, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Malta, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Costa Rica (Costa Rica beats USA?), Puerto Rico (the ignominy of it!), Luxembourg, South Korea, Chile, Denmark, and Cuba (Cuba?) were considered industrialized countries and had longer life expectancies. At least we beat out Albania, but not by much.

The CIA World Factbook lists the United States at 50 in life expectancy, behind the average for the entire European Union. They count more countries than the WHO so we end up even lower.

And again, we pay more than double what any of these countries spend per capita on health care to come in behind Cuba.

Where do you get your bogus information anyway?

she's saying without any deaths from homicides and car accidents, we average living the longest....I saw no numbers or documentation showing us or other countries without homicides and accidental deaths to support the theory....

 

[Bfgrn]

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

You wouldn't happen to hae a source for that would you? The World Health Organization ranks the United States 38th in life expectancy. The last time I looked, Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel, Italy, Iceland, Australia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Macau, France, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Malta, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Costa Rica (Costa Rica beats USA?), Puerto Rico (the ignominy of it!), Luxembourg, South Korea, Chile, Denmark, and Cuba (Cuba?) were considered industrialized countries and had longer life expectancies. At least we beat out Albania, but not by much.

The CIA World Factbook lists the United States at 50 in life expectancy, behind the average for the entire European Union. They count more countries than the WHO so we end up even lower.

And again, we pay more than double what any of these countries spend per capita on health care to come in behind Cuba.

Where do you get your bogus information anyway?

She gets her information from right wing think tanks and anti-abortion blogs.

America’s Health Care System at the Bottom of the Heap


A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simply NOT TRUE PC, we rank 50th....
Canada, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, finland, Italy, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, switzerland, Israel, Iceland, Netherlands, Bermuda, New Zealand, Germany, Cayman Islands, Korea, Ireland, etc etc etc etc etc

ALL HAVE LIFESPANS longer than the USA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Yeah, it's true.


Check out post #37



And....for your reading pleasure:

The source of the data you've provided is WHO/UN.

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General


The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.


1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.
And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.


Glad I could help.

excuse me PC, but you said that Americans live longer than people in any other industrialized nation...this is what I was commenting on...

Which is simply NOT TRUE.

I will take the CIA world fact book, over the posted link you gave in post #37....if you take out homicides for the USA, then you have to take them out for all other nations as well PC, and I don't see this anywhere in the article you provided....nor did I see them give any numbers on it, just an opinion on it....

I was highlighting the effects of healthcare,...it is the best in the world.

So....you agree?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

You wouldn't happen to hae a source for that would you? The World Health Organization ranks the United States 38th in life expectancy. The last time I looked, Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel, Italy, Iceland, Australia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Macau, France, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Malta, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Costa Rica (Costa Rica beats USA?), Puerto Rico (the ignominy of it!), Luxembourg, South Korea, Chile, Denmark, and Cuba (Cuba?) were considered industrialized countries and had longer life expectancies. At least we beat out Albania, but not by much.

The CIA World Factbook lists the United States at 50 in life expectancy, behind the average for the entire European Union. They count more countries than the WHO so we end up even lower.

And again, we pay more than double what any of these countries spend per capita on health care to come in behind Cuba.

Where do you get your bogus information anyway?

"You wouldn't happen to hae a source for that would you?"

Sure do.

Posts #37 & #38.



Nothing I post is bogus....when you read the posts....carefully....you'll see that the real question is where the CIA gets its information.

Answer?

The Leftist WHO/UN.

Designed to manipulate the simple-mined.....

Shoe fit?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Arthur C. Brooks

You lost me right there.

You were lost long ago, poosy.

 

[Truthmatters]

Arthur C. Brooks, “The Road to Freedom”

1. How do we leave what Hayek called ‘the road to serfdom”? What he meant was the low-grade, virtual servitude to ever-expanding, unaccountable government that, searching for tax revenues, has appropriated funds that entrepreneurs could have used to grow the economy. A government that has created a protected class of government workers and crony corporations that play by a different set of rules than the rest of us, and has left the nation in hock for generations to come.



2. Then there is ‘Free Enterprise.’ It’s a system of values and laws hat respects private property and limits government, encourages competition and industry, celebrates achievement based on merit, and creates individual opportunity. Under such a system, people can pursue their own ends, and they reap the rewards and consequences, both the positive and the negative, of their own actions. This requires trust in markets to produce the most desirable outcomes for society.

a. No society can advance nor improve without trade, and the excess of disposable income. And this excess is amassed through the production of goods and services necessary or attractive to the masses. A financial system that allows this leads to inequality…one that does not, leads to mass starvation.

b. Money is merely the most efficient way of keeping track of the production of individuals, of their work, and the capacity of that work to benefit their fellows. Government, which doesn’t produce this product, can do little with it but waste it: it cannot allocate it with greater justice than the Free Market. It should provide only those services that the Free Market was incapable of providing, such as the roads, the judiciary, streetlights, Legislature, and the common defense.



3. The alternate view is called ‘statism,’ by which we mean a belief that government is generally the best, fairest, and most trustworthy entity to distribute resources and coordinate our economic lives.

a. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.

4. David Mamet claims that is the free market that is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand. In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc. In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune! All of these minds performing in a manner that, ultimately, benefits society.



5. But what about the abuses of the free market?

a. Some will be corrected by the law, and if there is no current law, the citizenry will demand such. Some abuse run afoul of custom….these will be corrected by censure, withdrawal of custom, or may be criminalized. Alas, some must be endured, as they would be under any system of government, business or administration.



6. In the light of Brooks' thesis....what would propel anyone to vote for an administration that endorses the confiscation of economy-growing capital, by government, in order to "spread the wealth"?

Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFrederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS) is a private, higher-education institution that offers doctoral studies in policy analysis and practical experience working on RAND research projects to solve current public policy problems. Its campus is co-located with the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution in Santa Monica, California. Most of the faculty is drawn from the 950 researchers at RAND.[1] The 2011-12 student body includes approximately 100 men and women from more than 20 countries around the world.[2




this is where your author went to college

 

[PoliticalChic]

Americans live longer than any other industrialized nation.

How much is that worth to you?

You wouldn't happen to hae a source for that would you? The World Health Organization ranks the United States 38th in life expectancy. The last time I looked, Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Israel, Italy, Iceland, Australia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Macau, France, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Malta, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Costa Rica (Costa Rica beats USA?), Puerto Rico (the ignominy of it!), Luxembourg, South Korea, Chile, Denmark, and Cuba (Cuba?) were considered industrialized countries and had longer life expectancies. At least we beat out Albania, but not by much.

The CIA World Factbook lists the United States at 50 in life expectancy, behind the average for the entire European Union. They count more countries than the WHO so we end up even lower.

And again, we pay more than double what any of these countries spend per capita on health care to come in behind Cuba.

Where do you get your bogus information anyway?

she's saying without any deaths from homicides and car accidents, we average living the longest....I saw no numbers or documentation showing us or other countries without homicides and accidental deaths to support the theory....

1. Nations provide whatever figures they like to the WHO....and they simply except same.

As do you.


a. The gross figure of life expectancy is meaningless for that reason...and because it included many factors about which you have no knowledge, not just homicide and auto deaths!
Food, cars, hardships that Americans don't face, lack of counting infant deaths, abortion, unaccountable racial differences, among others.

The biggest problem is that ignorant folks actually believe the propaganda.


b) How about the result of having food? With so much food, so many choices (tell me about it), we Americans are eating ourselves to death: obesity. Is this the fault of poor healthcare?

From a NYTimes article about ‘Sicko,’ and Cuba:
“Because they don’t have up-to-date cars, they tend to have to exercise more by walking,” he said. “And they may not have a surfeit of food, which keeps them from problems like obesity, but they’re not starving, either.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weekinreview/27depalma.html


c) Infant mortality. So, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate? On January 2, 2009 they announced 4.7 out of every 1,000 for 2008. Seem believable? Well, maybe the number, but calculated in 48 hours? It takes the US about two years to get all the data for our. One reason that Cuba has a low infant mortality, and the corresponding high life expectancy, is because they induce abortion at the first sign of possible trouble with a fetus. “Cuba's annual induced abortion rate persistently ranks among the highest in the world, and abortion plays a prominent role in Cuban fertility regulation.”
The Persistence of Induced Abortion in Cuba: Exploring the Notion of an []Abortion Culture[] - B[]langer - 2009 - Studies in Family Planning - Wiley Online Library

And, of course, there are a variety of ways that infant mortality statistics are measured. While 40% of America’s infant mortality rate is due to reporting of infants who die on the day of their birth, many countries don’t register such deaths at all. Other countries require specific size (Switzerland, 30 cm) and weights (Austria and Germany, 500 gms) to be listed as having been born.
Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Rarely reported in comparing infant mortality rates it the negative effect of “very pre-term” babies, whose death rate is far higher than full term. When comparing the US infant mortality rate to such category-stars as in this NYTimes report of 11/4/09:
“If the United States could match Sweden’s prematurity rate, the new report said, “nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.”

We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in not mentioning that race is the reason:

“The use of this example highlights to disingenuousness of the authors. In their supposedly “detailed” report on infant mortality, they fail to analyze the most important detail: race. Unfortunately, African descent is a major risk factor for prematurity, and prematurity is a major cause of infant mortality. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than Sweden. The US has the highest proportion of women of African descent of any first world country. Sweden, of course, has virtually none. So our higher rate of infant mortality does not reflect poor medical care. It reflects factors beyond the control of doctors. Race is an uncontrollable factor; obstetricians and pediatricians have no control over assisted reproductive techniques. In fact, the data actually show obstetricians and pediatricians do a remarkable job of ensuring infant health.”

Infant mortality report neglects the most important detail - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon

One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.
A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare! | Conservative News, Views & Books



Wise up.

 

[Truthmatters]

Your problem is you are such a propaganda whore you cant think a single independent thought

 

[PoliticalChic]

Arthur C. Brooks, “The Road to Freedom”

1. How do we leave what Hayek called ‘the road to serfdom”? What he meant was the low-grade, virtual servitude to ever-expanding, unaccountable government that, searching for tax revenues, has appropriated funds that entrepreneurs could have used to grow the economy. A government that has created a protected class of government workers and crony corporations that play by a different set of rules than the rest of us, and has left the nation in hock for generations to come.



2. Then there is ‘Free Enterprise.’ It’s a system of values and laws hat respects private property and limits government, encourages competition and industry, celebrates achievement based on merit, and creates individual opportunity. Under such a system, people can pursue their own ends, and they reap the rewards and consequences, both the positive and the negative, of their own actions. This requires trust in markets to produce the most desirable outcomes for society.

a. No society can advance nor improve without trade, and the excess of disposable income. And this excess is amassed through the production of goods and services necessary or attractive to the masses. A financial system that allows this leads to inequality…one that does not, leads to mass starvation.

b. Money is merely the most efficient way of keeping track of the production of individuals, of their work, and the capacity of that work to benefit their fellows. Government, which doesn’t produce this product, can do little with it but waste it: it cannot allocate it with greater justice than the Free Market. It should provide only those services that the Free Market was incapable of providing, such as the roads, the judiciary, streetlights, Legislature, and the common defense.



3. The alternate view is called ‘statism,’ by which we mean a belief that government is generally the best, fairest, and most trustworthy entity to distribute resources and coordinate our economic lives.

a. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.

4. David Mamet claims that is the free market that is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand. In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc. In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune! All of these minds performing in a manner that, ultimately, benefits society.



5. But what about the abuses of the free market?

a. Some will be corrected by the law, and if there is no current law, the citizenry will demand such. Some abuse run afoul of custom….these will be corrected by censure, withdrawal of custom, or may be criminalized. Alas, some must be endured, as they would be under any system of government, business or administration.



6. In the light of Brooks' thesis....what would propel anyone to vote for an administration that endorses the confiscation of economy-growing capital, by government, in order to "spread the wealth"?

Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFrederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS) is a private, higher-education institution that offers doctoral studies in policy analysis and practical experience working on RAND research projects to solve current public policy problems. Its campus is co-located with the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution in Santa Monica, California. Most of the faculty is drawn from the 950 researchers at RAND.[1] The 2011-12 student body includes approximately 100 men and women from more than 20 countries around the world.[2




this is where your author went to college

In other words, you were unable to find any errors?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your problem is you are such a propaganda whore you cant think a single independent thought

Luckily I have you, the brightest poster on the board [citation needed] to help!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Arthur C. Brooks, “The Road to Freedom”

1. How do we leave what Hayek called ‘the road to serfdom”? What he meant was the low-grade, virtual servitude to ever-expanding, unaccountable government that, searching for tax revenues, has appropriated funds that entrepreneurs could have used to grow the economy. A government that has created a protected class of government workers and crony corporations that play by a different set of rules than the rest of us, and has left the nation in hock for generations to come.



2. Then there is ‘Free Enterprise.’ It’s a system of values and laws hat respects private property and limits government, encourages competition and industry, celebrates achievement based on merit, and creates individual opportunity. Under such a system, people can pursue their own ends, and they reap the rewards and consequences, both the positive and the negative, of their own actions. This requires trust in markets to produce the most desirable outcomes for society.

a. No society can advance nor improve without trade, and the excess of disposable income. And this excess is amassed through the production of goods and services necessary or attractive to the masses. A financial system that allows this leads to inequality…one that does not, leads to mass starvation.

b. Money is merely the most efficient way of keeping track of the production of individuals, of their work, and the capacity of that work to benefit their fellows. Government, which doesn’t produce this product, can do little with it but waste it: it cannot allocate it with greater justice than the Free Market. It should provide only those services that the Free Market was incapable of providing, such as the roads, the judiciary, streetlights, Legislature, and the common defense.



3. The alternate view is called ‘statism,’ by which we mean a belief that government is generally the best, fairest, and most trustworthy entity to distribute resources and coordinate our economic lives.

a. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange. Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship.

4. David Mamet claims that is the free market that is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand. In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc. In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune! All of these minds performing in a manner that, ultimately, benefits society.



5. But what about the abuses of the free market?

a. Some will be corrected by the law, and if there is no current law, the citizenry will demand such. Some abuse run afoul of custom….these will be corrected by censure, withdrawal of custom, or may be criminalized. Alas, some must be endured, as they would be under any system of government, business or administration.



6. In the light of Brooks' thesis....what would propel anyone to vote for an administration that endorses the confiscation of economy-growing capital, by government, in order to "spread the wealth"?

Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFrederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS) is a private, higher-education institution that offers doctoral studies in policy analysis and practical experience working on RAND research projects to solve current public policy problems. Its campus is co-located with the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution in Santa Monica, California. Most of the faculty is drawn from the 950 researchers at RAND.[1] The 2011-12 student body includes approximately 100 men and women from more than 20 countries around the world.[2




this is where your author went to college

Of course, Brooks doesn't have the resume that you have, Ms. Truthie...

1. Arthur C. Brooks (born May 21, 1964) is an American social scientist and musician. He is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Brooks is best known for his work on the junctions between culture, economics, and politics. Two of his popular volumes, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism and Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America—and How We Can Get More of It, explore these themes in greater depth. He is a self-described independent.

2. Brooks was raised in Seattle's Queen Anne neighborhood. His parents were professors, and his upbringing has been described as "liberal."[1][2][dead link]
After high school, Brooks pursued a career as a professional French hornist, serving from 1983 to 1989 with the Annapolis Brass Quintet in Baltimore, from 1989 to 1992 as the associate principal French hornist with the City Orchestra of Barcelona in Spain, and teaching from 1992 to 1995 at Lynn University's Harid Conservatory of Music.[3]

3. Brooks released his first New York Times bestseller, The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise (Basic Books), on May 8, 2012. The book attempts to explain the paradox discussed in his previous book, The Battle, which stated that even though vast majorities of Americans claim to support a free enterprise system based on limited government, the size and scope of federal and state governments has steadily increased over the past century. Brooks argues that this is because advocates of limited government often rely on complex, data-driven arguments while progressives wrap their arguments in moral language, appealing to Americans hearts rather than their heads. In making this claim, Brooks relied heavily on the work of psychology professor Jonathan Haidt, which shows that humans process moral judgments more quickly than rational ones. The answer, then, according to Brooks, is for the right to defend free enterprise on its moral foundations.
Arthur C. Brooks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Bet Brooks wishes he could be as accomplished as you are......

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your problem is you are such a propaganda whore you cant think a single independent thought

Luckily I have you, the brightest poster on the board [citation needed] to help!

Yes I have asked him many times if he could say just one substantive thing in defense of liberalism. He is not able to and so slinks away each time with his liberal tail between his legs.