What is the goal of capitalism?

[TruthNotBS]

Hilarious

If you want to shut Todd down immediately, just remind him of this:

​

It's like kryptonite.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hilarious

I know. Obama was gonna save students a bunch of money.

How'd that work out?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you want to shut Todd down immediately, just remind him of this:

​

It's like kryptonite.

That's outrageous!

Off to the gulag with you!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Commies make me tired. I thought we were going to sell them the rope.
Then Reagan kicked them onto the ash heap of history.
Now they're tired losers.

Reagan was the best thing that ever happened to us. He demonstrated how capitalism doesn't work without socialism. The trickle-down doesn't trickle.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That's outrageous!

Off to the gulag with you!

The robots are coming. That's the end of capitalism MUAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan was the best thing that ever happened to us. He demonstrated how capitalism doesn't work without socialism. The trickle-down doesn't trickle.

View attachment 801492

View attachment 801493

View attachment 801494​

Reagan was the best thing that ever happened to us

That's what the USSR said.

Are you still sad that the Berlin Wall fell?

That Eastern Europe was freed?

The trickle-down doesn't trickle.

Supply-side economics works every time it's tried.

 

[Mac-7]

The people who work in the productive enterprise should own it and decide how it's run.

I guess you dont believe in private property

The ones you invested the money to create the company own it

 

[otto105]

Reagan was the best thing that ever happened to us

That's what the USSR said.

Are you still sad that the Berlin Wall fell?

That Eastern Europe was freed?

The trickle-down doesn't trickle.

Supply-side economics works every time it's tried.

Sure, see Kansas and brownback fuckup.

Then get back to us.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Reagan was the best thing that ever happened to us

That's what the USSR said.

Are you still sad that the Berlin Wall fell?

That Eastern Europe was freed?

The trickle-down doesn't trickle.

Supply-side economics works every time it's tried.

In another dimension the trickle-down works, but not in this one. The USSR was the first attempt to establish a socialist society on a national scale. A poor, under-industrialized, agrarian society, with over half of its population, completely illiterate. It was invaded in 1918 by the US and 14 other countries a few months after its founding. There were over 200 thousand foreign troops fighting in Soviet Russia against the socialists, including thousands of American Marines and Soldiers.

It fought foreign invaders and the capitalist elites within its borders, through the 1920s. It wasn't until the late 20s when the Soviets (the red army) had defeated the foreign invaders and most of the Kulaks (feudal lords/capitalists and their "white army"), that it began to heavily industrialize. By the late 1930s, it was an industrial juggernaut. It accomplished in a couple of decades what took the US and other capitalist-run countries over a century of industrialization. Then it was invaded in 1941 by 4 million German Nazis. It lost much of its infrastructure, including 27 million Soviet citizens in WW2. America is surrounded by two vast oceans, we lost 460 thousand people in WW2.

Soviets = 27 million dead.
USA = less than half a million dead.

The US came out of WW2 unscathed compared to Europe, Japan, and the Soviets (we're surrounded by two huge oceans). By the late 1950s, less than 15 years later, the Soviet Union was a nuclear superpower, launching rockets into space. It wasn't until it began to pander, and placate, the US in an attempt to stop the cold war, with its "Perestroika" and "Glastnos" reforms, under an American-Saudi, engineered oil crisis in 1986, that the Soviet Union collapsed, mostly politically, not so much economically. The worst breadlines in Russia, since the early 20s, during its revolutionary war, even worse than WW2, were in the 1980s, when they introduced some "market reforms".

Todd is disingenuous because he pretends that capitalism replaced chattel slavery and feudalism, overnight. With one single swoop of the sword. It took centuries for the mercantile class, and its Republican politics, to defeat the kings and nobles of Europe. For centuries the monarchists and republicans were at each other's throats. The kings and feudal lords, remained in power, until recently. The merchants didn't become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century until the technology was available for mass industrial production. Todd thinks that socialism has to defeat capitalism in a few weeks, in a couple of years, to be a legitimate contender for capitalism's successor.

Socialism is growing like a rose in a field of capitalist weeds. Many countries in the Western world, that are modern, and industrialized have mixed economies with plenty of socialist policies and political parties. Germany, Spain, and Portugal are three countries in Europe with socialist and even extreme-leftist communist parties. Here in America the FOX News, right-wing MAGA working class is asleep, thinking socialism died 30 years ago. When technology permits, if not necessitates the transition from a profit-driven system of production (capitalism) to a non-profit system of production (socialism), it will happen. With advanced automation and artificial intelligence, socialism is inevitable. Todd knows this, but he's in denial.

Hey Todd..No wage labor or too little of it = no paying consumers or not enough customers. No markets or not a large enough market worth investing in. As robotics become more advanced, the autonomous machines, self-driving cars, and trucks, artificial intelligence..etc, there will be no more need for wage-labor, paying consumers or markets. Adopting a mostly automated, non-profit system of production, becomes inevitable. You're smart enough to figure that out, that's why you shut down and start yawning.

​

 

[Foxfyre]

The argument presented attributes the rise in healthcare costs primarily to the involvement of the federal government through Medicare and Medicaid, and by extension, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It is imperative to scrutinize this claim with a multi-dimensional lens and consider various factors that contribute to healthcare costs.

1. Context and Comparisons: The claim lacks a comparison of the healthcare systems across the world. Almost every developed country, except for the United States, has some form of universal healthcare system, many of which are more heavily government-regulated than the U.S. According to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), these countries often have lower per-capita healthcare expenditures and better health outcomes compared to the United States. This undercuts the notion that government involvement inherently leads to higher costs.
2. Administrative Efficiency: Medicare has been found to have lower administrative costs compared to private insurance. A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that in 2017, administrative costs were 34.2% of total health expenditures for private insurers, compared to only 1.4% for traditional Medicare. This challenges the argument that government programs are inherently less efficient.
3. Cost Controls and Negotiations: One of the major drivers of increasing healthcare costs is the high prices of services and medications. In most countries with universal healthcare, the government has the power to negotiate prices with providers and pharmaceutical companies. In contrast, Medicare is prohibited from negotiating drug prices due to the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. This indicates that it’s not the existence of government programs that are driving costs, but specific policy choices within those programs.
4. Innovation and Services: The argument presented neglects the fact that the cost of healthcare has also risen due to advancements in medical technology and treatments. The introduction of new, often expensive, medical technologies and drugs has contributed significantly to the increase in healthcare costs. This would have happened irrespective of government involvement.
5. Preventive and Comprehensive Care: Government programs like Medicare and Medicaid ensure that more people have access to preventive care which, in the long run, can lead to lower healthcare costs for society as a whole. Many people without access to healthcare end up in emergency rooms for conditions that could have been managed or prevented, which is significantly more expensive.
6. Education Costs as a Comparison: The mention of rising college costs is also a simplification of a complex issue. The decrease in state funding for public universities, increase in administrative positions, and the amenities arms race are among the factors contributing to the rise in tuition costs. Moreover, comparing education and healthcare is akin to comparing apples and oranges; both are complex systems influenced by a myriad of factors.

In conclusion, while government programs are not without flaws, they play a vital role in ensuring access to healthcare for millions of Americans. The issue of rising healthcare costs is multi-faceted and cannot be solely attributed to government involvement. There is a plethora of evidence suggesting that a more coordinated effort between government and the private sector, with an emphasis on value-based care, price negotiation, and preventive services, can lead to more sustainable healthcare costs and improved outcomes.

• 
  OECD Health Statistics- for comparing healthcare systems and expenditures across the world:
  • OECD Health Statistics 2021
• Administrative Efficiency- for information on Medicare having lower administrative costs compared to private insurance:
  • Himmelstein, D. U., & Woolhandler, S. (2020). Medical Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada, 2017. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(2), 134-136. Link to Abstract
• Cost Controls and Negotiations- information on Medicare not being allowed to negotiate drug prices:
  • Medicare Modernization Act
• Innovation and Services- for information on how advancements in medical technology and treatments contribute to healthcare costs:
  • Newhouse, J. P. (1992). Medical care costs: how much welfare loss?. Journal of Economic perspectives, 6(3), 3-21. Link to Full Text
• Preventive and Comprehensive Care- for the role of preventive care in managing healthcare costs:
  • Maciosek, M. V., Coffield, A. B., Edwards, N. M., Goodman, M. J., Flottemesch, T. J., & Solberg, L. I. (2006). Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. American journal of preventive medicine, 31(1), 52-61. Link to Abstract
• Education Costs- for information on factors contributing to the rise in college tuition costs:
  • State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) Report

I'm sorry but debate via links without summarizing what is in those links just isn't my cup of tea. And the USA is like no other country and today commemorates how the Founders intended to create a country that was like no other which is what Independence Day is all about. They would risk everything they had including their lives to win our right to be different.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm sorry but debate via links without summarizing what is in those links just isn't my cup of tea. And the USA is like no other country and today commemorates how the Founders intended to create a country that was like no other which is what Independence Day is all about. They would risk everything they had including their lives to win our right to be different.

We're definitely like "no other":

​

The notion that the United States is unparalleled in comparison to other industrialized nations is a pervasive myth that can be thoroughly debunked by examining objective data.

First, in terms of healthcare, the United States has been consistently outranked by other industrialized countries. According to a 2021 study by the Commonwealth Fund, the U.S. ranks last out of 11 high-income countries in healthcare system performance. Despite spending the highest percentage of its GDP on healthcare, the U.S. ranks poorly in access, equity, and healthcare outcomes, with a notably higher infant and maternal mortality rate than comparable countries.

Second, in education, the U.S. exhibits a substantial gap. According to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 results, American students scored below the average of developed countries in mathematics. The U.S. ranks 37th in the world for pre-primary education enrollment according to World Bank data, indicating a failure to provide adequate early childhood education.

Third, in terms of standard of living, the U.S. falls behind in several metrics. The 2021 Social Progress Index, which assesses the quality of life, places the U.S. at 28th globally. The U.S. also has higher rates of child poverty compared to other developed nations, as reported by UNICEF.

Fourth, labor rights in the U.S. are less protective compared to other industrialized countries. According to the World Economic Forum, the U.S. ranks poorly in worker protection and rights. Many European countries, for instance, mandate higher minimum wages, more comprehensive worker protections, and guaranteed paid leave, which are largely absent in the U.S.

Fifth, the cost of living in the U.S. is exorbitant, especially concerning higher education and medical expenses. OECD data show that the U.S. has the highest tertiary education costs among developed countries. Furthermore, medical bankruptcies are a uniquely American phenomenon, with a 2019 study in the American Journal of Public Health attributing over 66% of bankruptcies to medical issues.

In conclusion, an impartial analysis of data clearly illustrates that the United States is not the paragon it is often purported to be. Compared to other industrialized nations, the U.S. lags behind in healthcare, education, standard of living, labor rights, and cost of living. These shortcomings necessitate a critical reassessment of the narrative surrounding American exceptionalism.

​

• 
  For the 2021 Commonwealth Fund study on healthcare system performance, you can visit the Commonwealth Fund's official website and search for "2021 International Health Policy Survey".
• For the PISA 2018 results, you can refer to the official website of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) where they publish PISA reports.
• For the 2021 Social Progress Index, you can visit the official website of the Social Progress Imperative.
• For information on child poverty, you can refer to UNICEF's official website where they publish reports and data on child welfare, including child poverty rates in different countries.
• For information on worker protection and rights, you can refer to the reports published by the World Economic Forum on their official website.
• For information on the cost of tertiary education, you can also refer to the OECD's official website, where they publish data on education including tertiary education costs.
• For the 2019 study on medical bankruptcies in the American Journal of Public Health, you can search for the study on the official website of the American Journal of Public Health or use academic databases like PubMed.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's a nice story Foxfyre, I wish there were more clinics like the one you used to work in.
I've seen the charts of healthcare costs, yes , there is a noticeable increase in the market prices since medicare and Medicaid were enacted.
The problem I have with this narrative relates to the following question: who sets the prices in a capitalist system?
Mostly the same question goes for college education. Correct me if I am wrong, but the price of tuition went up long before any government intervention. How can the government be the cause in this specific case?

Average Cost of College Over Time: Yearly Tuition Since 1970

The average cost of college by year, expressed in current dollars and adjusted for inflation, itemized and broken down by institution type.

educationdata.org

It wasn't a clinic. It was a full service hospital. And being in the business office I saw all the prices and costs involved in providing health benefits. As I did in my next hospital job that was much larger in a much larger city but still costs were still manageable. otto105 wants to believe people were being ruined by healthcare costs but it just wasn't happening in either of those towns. Sure those who had insurance fared better but even insurance was more affordable before the federal government got involved because it didn't have to cover everything but covered only those things most expensive for people. We expected to pay routine health care out of pocket.

By the time I got to my last hospital job, prices were spiraling out of reach for many and insurance was imperative.

The GI bill didn't raise college rates because the states embraced it and the returning servicemen weren't that large a percentage of the student bodies. But when the government started funding everybody else and guaranteeing loans for college students, tuition and fees and housing costs rapidly rose too and it became almost impossible to work your way through college which I did fairly easily. My kids paid a lot of their own way and we helped as much as we could but they still had hefty student loans by the time they completed their formal educations.

The government has deep pockets and people being who they are, they'll take as much as they can get whether or not it drives prices so high few can afford them without government help.

In the free market system, they have to keep prices affordable for the customers or they can't sell what they have to sell.

 

[Mexicano]

It wasn't a clinic. It was a full service hospital. And being in the business office I saw all the prices and costs involved in providing health benefits. As I did in my next hospital job that was much larger in a much larger city but still costs were still manageable. otto105 wants to believe people were being ruined by healthcare costs but it just wasn't happening in either of those towns. Sure those who had insurance fared better but even insurance was more affordable before the federal government got involved because it didn't have to cover everything but covered only those things most expensive for people. We expected to pay routine health care out of pocket.

By the time I got to my last hospital job, prices were spiraling out of reach for many and insurance was imperative.

Ok Foxfyre.
I'll grant you this on the helthcare part: meidicaid and medicare were not the best solution for providing helathcare for those in need.

The GI bill didn't raise college rates because the states embraced it and the returning servicemen weren't that large a percentage of the student bodies. But when the government started funding everybody else and guaranteeing loans for college students, tuition and fees and housing costs rapidly rose too and it became almost impossible to work your way through college which I did fairly easily. My kids paid a lot of their own way and we helped as much as we could but they still had hefty student loans by the time they completed their formal educations.

Here you are not making things clear.
Let's establish a timeline.
Looking at the chart from the link , prices started spiraling up by 1990.
When did the government "started funding everybody else"?
When did it started "guaranteeing loans for college students"?
Let's be precise about the chain of events.

I will skip the housing part for the time being, that's a separate matter. Different market as well as different factors shaping the market.

The government has deep pockets and people being who they are, they'll take as much as they can get whether or not it drives prices so high few can afford them without government help.

In the free market system, they have to keep prices affordable for the customers or they can't sell what they have to sell.

 

[otto105]

It wasn't a clinic. It was a full service hospital. And being in the business office I saw all the prices and costs involved in providing health benefits. As I did in my next hospital job that was much larger in a much larger city but still costs were still manageable. otto105 wants to believe people were being ruined by healthcare costs but it just wasn't happening in either of those towns. Sure those who had insurance fared better but even insurance was more affordable before the federal government got involved because it didn't have to cover everything but covered only those things most expensive for people. We expected to pay routine health care out of pocket.

By the time I got to my last hospital job, prices were spiraling out of reach for many and insurance was imperative.

The GI bill didn't raise college rates because the states embraced it and the returning servicemen weren't that large a percentage of the student bodies. But when the government started funding everybody else and guaranteeing loans for college students, tuition and fees and housing costs rapidly rose too and it became almost impossible to work your way through college which I did fairly easily. My kids paid a lot of their own way and we helped as much as we could but they still had hefty student loans by the time they completed their formal educations.

The government has deep pockets and people being who they are, they'll take as much as they can get whether or not it drives prices so high few can afford them without government help.

In the free market system, they have to keep prices affordable for the customers or they can't sell what they have to sell.

You’re living in a dream world.

 

[TruthNotBS]

It wasn't a clinic. It was a full service hospital. And being in the business office I saw all the prices and costs involved in providing health benefits. As I did in my next hospital job that was much larger in a much larger city but still costs were still manageable. otto105 wants to believe people were being ruined by healthcare costs but it just wasn't happening in either of those towns. Sure those who had insurance fared better but even insurance was more affordable before the federal government got involved because it didn't have to cover everything but covered only those things most expensive for people. We expected to pay routine health care out of pocket.

By the time I got to my last hospital job, prices were spiraling out of reach for many and insurance was imperative.

The GI bill didn't raise college rates because the states embraced it and the returning servicemen weren't that large a percentage of the student bodies. But when the government started funding everybody else and guaranteeing loans for college students, tuition and fees and housing costs rapidly rose too and it became almost impossible to work your way through college which I did fairly easily. My kids paid a lot of their own way and we helped as much as we could but they still had hefty student loans by the time they completed their formal educations.

The government has deep pockets and people being who they are, they'll take as much as they can get whether or not it drives prices so high few can afford them without government help.

In the free market system, they have to keep prices affordable for the customers or they can't sell what they have to sell.

We're not living in the 1940s or 50s, we're living in a completely different world, that is high-tech and more capable than ever in providing for all of our needs without capitalism or markets. We don't really have to wait until there's 30%, 40% unemployment and these come out:

We had 23% unemployment in the Great Depression and that almost started a second civil war. If it wasn't for FDR's new deal, our economy and society would've collapsed into extreme violence. That's back then, despite the racism, and bigotry, people were a bit more civilized, in many ways. We were a bit more "cultured". What do you think is going to happen today, if we have 23% unemployment? We're going to have 30%, 45% unemployment due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence. There aren't enough technician jobs to fill the tens of millions of jobs that will be lost. Not to speak of the fact that not everyone can be a technician. Eventually, the technology will repair itself. Full self-diagnostic and self-repair.

The stubborn defenders of capitalism will hold on till the bitter end. Advanced automation and AI = non-profit production. We have to organize production, differently, to meet everyone's needs. People will work 20 hours weekly, supervising the system, and monitoring it. The rest of a person's time can be dedicated to other activities, that they deem meaningful, whatever that might be. Robots work 24/7, they don't rest. High-tech 21st century, democratic socialism, employing technology, and without the US sanctioning and threatening it with war, will eliminate all scarcity. We'll have extreme abundance.

 

[otto105]

Ok Foxfyre.
I'll grant you this on the helthcare part: meidicaid and medicare were not the best solution for providing helathcare for those in need.


Here you are not making things clear.
Let's establish a timeline.
Looking at the chart from the link , prices started spiraling up by 1990.
When did the government "started funding everybody else"?
When did it started "guaranteeing loans for college students"?
Let's be precise about the chain of events.

I will skip the housing part for the time being, that's a separate matter. Different market as well as different factors shaping the market.

If Medicare and Medicaid aren’t the best why does the private market bitch about competing with the programs?

 

[TruthNotBS]

If Medicare and Medicaid aren’t the best why does the private market bitch about competing with the programs?

Hahaha, that's a great point. They're afraid of competing with the government, yet the government supposedly "can't do anything right". This also occurs with utilities, like electricity, gas, and water. etc. When municipalities privatize their utilities, prices go up and customer service goes to poop. Cities, and counties, are much better at running the show when it comes to utilities, than the private sector.

 

[Mexicano]

If Medicare and Medicaid aren’t the best why does the private market bitch about competing with the programs?

Otto, language please... unless you are a high schooler. If so go ahead and continue displaying your teen-language skills.... ah, youth and hormones.

The usual complaint I've heard is that it has increased the amount of money available for health expenditure "creating inflation", the failure, nonetheless is that by having a higher price the providers should expand the supply bringing the market to equilibrium. I haven't heard anything related to "private market 'bitch' about competing with the programs.

That said, a single-payer system seems a better option. Monopsomy

 

[Soupnazi630]

This has nothing to do with profit, so it is not capitalist.
People post here because they are socialist, and want to make society better, at the sacrifice of their time.

Socialists never want to make society better.

They only hate the wealthy. Which of course helps no one.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Capitalism always resorts to force, if allowed.
It always extorts, creates monopolies, destroys alternatives, etc.
Capitalism is the opposite of the inherent social order humans are born with.

Wrong.

Capitalism rejects force as it interferes with trade.

Monopolies only exist when the state protects one business over other.

Humans are not born with an iherent social order