General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 78

When we were kids we had this mentality that we were all going to be successful with fulfilling lives because teachers and parents shielded life's harsh realities.

 

I know, I'm not saying it's not damn near impossible. Just saying it IS possible. And the more we work raise the standard of living and education, we can all feel we have a shot at being something great. We have a system that makes people feel that in this world they have no chance. We need to make a system where people feel they do, and they will do great things.

 

Ya I agree with that very much. People used to understand the work it took to be successful.

 

Do you think that a person having to work two jobs and still being unable to afford to take of their family or "rise in the ranks" doesn't understand the work it takes to be successful?

They probably understand what "work" means much more than any billionaire hedge fund investor.

 

Never said that. It was more around the point that people are being raised to think they are never going to have two work to jobs to one day be successful. Who knows, maybe that person shows how hard they've worked the last couple of years and applies for a job somewhere as a manager and starts moving up. But again, I'm saying that we need to make it easier for that person.

 

I think Dave is coming at this from a capitalism vs. socialism perspective. He acknowledges that the current system has shortcomings and agrees that the government should work to prevent workers from being taken advantage of. The point of contention is whether or not socialism is the way to achieve this. I would argue that capitalism is still the better system as it allows for more individual freedom and is less likely to evolve into a dictatorship in practice, however we do need government regulations to make sure that workers are protected and that people can survive. If someone is working two jobs and is unable to provide for their family, they can receive government assistance to help with that. There is an argument to be had as to whether or not the current system goes far enough to provide for the less fortunate, however it is hard to make the argument that people in America are starving to death as a result of tyrannical capitalism.

 

Hey thanks guy.

 

Not your guy, buddy.

 

I'm not your buddy, friend.

 

Let's stop this now before it gets out of hand

 

I believe that I tried to get feedback on this on the old site long ago, but, for the leftists here on this site: what are your overall opinions of Muammar Gaddafi and Hugo Chavez as revolutionaries and as resisters of Western neoliberalism?

I've read a fair amount on the latter and am becoming more informed on the former, but would appreciate a more well-rounded perspective. Of course, opinions may be expressed with the foregone assumption of the obvious defects of both men.

 

I think capitalism's role in some of those things is passive and thus people aren't apt to blame it specifically. For example, are people starving to death in America precisely because of capitalism? Perhaps not. But many of those programs that are designed to help the poor are operated at the state level with states having a lot of leeway of how to use the funds and it ends up excluding a lot of people from those programs. That's more a problem with our federalist form of government than anything else, but still shows our government's current limits with alleviating the pains of capitalism. Another example is health care, where our market system of health care ends up "rationing" it, for all intents and purposes. Americans like to say our health care isn't 'rationed' like it is in places with public health care, but it's rationed by price instead of by availability. Instead of 20% of people needing to wait to get their care for weeks or maybe even months, we have 20% of our people who dont' get the care at all due to price concerns. (20% is mostly just a random number to make a point, I think in reality the number of people waiting and/or not getting care is actually higher in both places)

 

It actually was about 15% of Americans that were uninsured until the ACA was passed and in just 2 years since it has gone into effect that has been reduced to about 10%. Of course, it has been less effective in reducing the costs of healthcare, but in terms of increasing coverage it has been pretty successful.

I understand that was just one small part of your post I just wanted to expand on it, and I am not disagreeing with your points.

 

Yes and again, I have said many times, I am very open to us exploring things like universal healthcare. But having universal healthcare doesn't make us socialist. We need to find ways to better use our tax dollars and make sure it's going to the people that need it. We don't need to blow up capitalism to do it, we need to evolve it so it fits with the current economical realities.

 

A lot of people both before and after the ACA still don't seek out medical care even with insurance because of under-insurance though. Prior to the ACA a lot of it was limits on coverage, and now it's the higher deductibles. I think something like half of the bankruptcy claims due to medical bills prior to the ACA were from people who actually had insurance. I haven't seen any updates on those numbers since the ACA passed though.

 

Right, which is why I specifically said the ACA did less to address the costs of healthcare, though it has improved coverage a great deal.

I think its too early to call it a failure, and the ACA was never meant to fix all of the problems in the US healthcare system, but rather, provide a framework to build off of in future legislation.

 

Muammar Gaddafi and "obvious defects" has to be the understatement of the year.

 

There are a lot of things I see wrong with posts that were made lately. I will respond to them later on. Suffice to say @Dave Dykstra , you should read this book:

How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America: Problems in Race, Political Economy, and Society (Third Edition)

 

I wouldn't call it a "failure" yet, just wanted to point out ways in which capitalism can sometimes be the cause behind people "starving" so to speak, even if it doesn't appear to be the overt cause a lot of times.

 

I will if you promise to read something that is pro capitalism, and goes over what it takes to start and run a business.

 

jesus christ

 

that's a pretty face.

 

I've read Hayek and Mises, as well as the Adam Smith and Ricardo, and a whole host of people that argue from the standpoint of capital. It is necessary, to me, in order to have a critique of capitalism. As for having what it takes to start a business, that is something I will address in a later post. I am aware of the mythology behind "risk".

 

PRAXEOLOGY!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ok well you got me there. My guess is you read most going into it wanting to not agree, as I do reading socialist books. I'm excited to see what your arguments around business and risk, but I am sure going into it I will not agree. As far as I've seen in looking into the topic from the other perspective, it is oversimplified to fit a narrative.