This can't be right...

[Lateralus]

I thought universal health care was supposed to make sure incidents like these never took place. This stuff only happens in the US.

Man's death in Winnipeg ER 'preventable': chief medical examiner (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/09/24/sinclair-death.html?ref=rss)

[ajblaise]

Maybe the conservative PM Steve Harper isn't putting enough money towards health care? Or maybe health care cuts.

Universal health care + Conservative leadership don't mix.

This wouldn't happen if there were more doctors/nurses/hospitals...

[Lateralus]

How much is enough?

[Jack Flak]

Well, considering the inefficiency of government, which is by its very nature not profit-driven and lacks incentive to become efficient, I'd say a 90% universal tax rate (perhaps more for the super-rich) should cover our health care expenses.

[ajblaise]

Well, considering the inefficiency of government....blah blah..

NASA? NSA? CIA?

You don't become the first nation to the moon with inefficiency. We can do that, we can provide health care lol.

[Jack Flak]

I don't think any of those are very efficient. Lots of waste, correct?

Any idea how much money was spent on Mercury/Gemini/Apollo? I don't know, but I bet it was a F'n tidy sum.

[ajblaise]

How much is enough?

I like the progressive taxation system of places like Denmark and Norway. Maybe even more taxes for the high earners, but it should be done gradually so we can see how it works out.

[ajblaise]

I don't think any of those are very efficient. Lots of waste, correct?

Any idea how much money was spent on Mercury/Gemini/Apollo? I don't know, but I bet it was a F'n tidy sum.

Any large organization will have lots of waste. But no one else is going to go to the moon, give health care to people with no money (besides charities), gather intelligence on China... unless the government does it, because there is no profit incentive.

I mean, would you ever scrape NASA or the CIA?

[Jack Flak]

Any large organization will have lots of waste. But no one else is going to go to the moon, give health care to people with no money (besides charities), gather intelligence on China... unless the government does it, because there is no profit incentive.

I mean, would you ever scrape NASA or the CIA?
The CIA should probably remain government for obvious reasons.

NASA? I don't know. I like the idea of government sponsored private work. Mars missions (and beyond) might be too much for private industry to handle.

[ptgatsby]

System sometimes fails. People generalise. News at 11.

[ajblaise]

I like the idea of government sponsored private work

Too much room for corruption. We don't have to attach a dollar sign to everything on earth.

[Jack Flak]

Too much room for corruption. We don't have to attach a dollar sign to everything on earth.
LOL (A good hearty LOL at that). Man, there's just as much room for corruption in government. No question about it. And there's more room for sloppy, useless expenditures.

[ajblaise]

LOL (A good hearty LOL at that). Man, there's just as much room for corruption in government. No question about it. And there's more room for sloppy, useless expenditures.

uhhh, and even more room when government is mixed with profit-seeking companies, obviously.

And didn't Blackwater or Halliburton just "lose" a billion dollars? Over-billing is a big issue too.

[Oberon]

You don't become the first nation to the moon with inefficiency. We can do that, we can provide health care lol.

Eh. I've seen government housing and government education. No government health care for me, thanks. :hi:

[Jack Flak]

And didn't Blackwater or Halliburton just "lose" a billion dollars? Over-billing is a big issue too.
I would assume it was Halliburton? I don't have knowledge of it though.

Something to consider is that if a private company fails, only the company fails (unless there's some bullshit government corporate wellfare involved). If the government biffs something big, we all take a bite of that sandwich.

[ajblaise]

I would assume it was Halliburton? I don't have knowledge of it though.

Something to consider is that if a private company fails, only the company fails (unless there's some bullshit government corporate wellfare involved). If the government biffs something big, we all take a bite of that sandwich.

Private companies fail when they stop making money or lose money. Government doesn't have this problem. And fortunately, if the government messes up a certain project, the money that gets wasted isn't so much yours and mine, but the top 5% of wealth holders. And if the government messes up, lets say a housing project, after the failure, the government is still there and hardly effected, it's a big fucking sandwich. No one company has the resources the government has.

[Jack Flak]

Private companies fail when they stop making money or lose money. Government doesn't have this problem. And fortunately, if the government messes up a certain project, the money that gets wasted isn't so much yours and mine, but the top 5% of wealth holders. And if the government messes up, lets say a housing project, after the failure, the government is still there and hardly effected, it's a big fucking sandwich. No one company has the resources the government has.
Have you taken a good economics class, or read a great econ. book or two? I don't mean to insult you, but it sounds as if your knowledge of the field relates to a Che brochure.

When a company fails at a job, a job which society wanted done, there is a gap in the market. Other businesses tend to notice these gaps as ways to make money, and take up the slack.

If you look at the Soviet Union, when a job done by the government was done horribly (or just wasn't done) you had to just sit there and eat the sandwich. Wait, I forgot, no bread.

[ajblaise]

When a company fails at a job, a job which society wanted done, there is a gap in the market. Other businesses tend to notice these gaps as ways to make money, and take up the slack.

Not really disagreeing with this. What's you're point? And how exactly do you disagree with my last post?

[Jack Flak]

Not really disagreeing with this. What's you're point? And how exactly do you disagree with my last post?
I was under the impression you were still arguing your thesis.

[ajblaise]

If you look at the Soviet Union, when a job done by the government was done horribly (or just wasn't done) you had to just sit there and eat the sandwich. Wait, I forgot, no bread.

The Soviet Union could have done better when it came to standards of living. But they did go from a backwards nation to the number 2 economic superpower in the world. Give credit where credit is due.

[pure_mercury]

When something is government-run or government-paid-for, shortages are inevitable. I believe there are more MRI machines in the state of Washington (population: 6 million) than there are in Canada (population: 33 million). We Americans go to Canada to buy cheap, subsidized drugs, and Canadians come down here for specialists and for surgical procedures that are effectively unavailable up there, due to budgetary concerns.

[Jack Flak]

The Soviet Union could have done better when it came to standards of living. But they did go from a backwards nation to the number 2 economic superpower in the world. Give credit where credit is due.
I give the credit to the incredible amount of natural resources and very large population. (Not to mention some morally questionable strategies--another story.)

The fact is, Capitalism smashed Socialism in the cold war, all because of economics.

[ptgatsby]

When something is government-run or government-paid-for, shortages are inevitable. I believe there are more MRI machines in the state of Washington (population: 6 million) than there are in Canada (population: 33 million). We Americans go to Canada to buy cheap, subsidized drugs, and Canadians come down here for specialists and for surgical procedures that are effectively unavailable up there, due to budgetary concerns.

Sounds rather inefficient... which would be what the data tends to suggest, I believe?

[ajblaise]

I give the credit to the incredible amount of natural resources and very large population. (Not to mention some morally questionable strategies--another story.)

uhhh they had those things when they were a backwords country, what's your point?

Under Central Planning, they saw one of largest economic and power comebacks ever, of any nation.

[Jack Flak]

uhhh they had those things when they were a backwords country, what's your point?

Under Central Planning, they saw one of largest economic and power comebacks ever, of any nation.
I'll have to let someone with more specific Soviet knowledge field this question, but I do have some vague memory that their economy was in serious trouble in the 80s.

[Oberon]

uhhh they had those things when they were a backwords country, what's your point?

Under Central Planning, they saw one of largest economic and power comebacks ever, of any nation.

More than half of that is due to them building an oil spigot to western Europe. What you're seeing isn't the wonders of central planning, but rather the wonders of getting petroleum to an export market.

[pure_mercury]

uhhh they had those things when they were a backwords country, what's your point?

Under Central Planning, they saw one of largest economic and power comebacks ever, of any nation.


That's totally false. The Soviet Union was pretty damn poor for a country of the size, population, and natural resources. It certainly was NOT the "Number 2 economic superpower in the world." Military, yes. Economic, not even close. The United States, Japan, England, France, and West Germany all had bigger and more productive economies than did the Soviet Union. In fact, in the 1970s, the CIA regularly used to overestimate the size of the Soviet economy (they believed it was something around 60-70% of ours). It turned out to be approximately 28%, IIRC. You've been misinformed on this issue.

[pure_mercury]

I'll have to let someone with more specific Soviet knowledge field this question, but I do have some vague memory that their economy was in serious trouble in the 80s.

Gladly. ;)

[ajblaise]

"Prior to its dissolution the USSR had the second largest economy in the world after the United States"

Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)

[Jack Flak]

"Prior to its dissolution the USSR had the second largest economy in the world after the United States"
Everyone knows that already. But if after the revolution they'd copied the US Constitution, they would have been first.

[Enyo]

I thought universal health care was supposed to make sure incidents like these never took place. This stuff only happens in the US.

Man's death in Winnipeg ER 'preventable': chief medical examiner (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/09/24/sinclair-death.html?ref=rss)

Heh. Not hardly. Typical wait in an emergency room can be 2-6 hours. I never waited that long for emergency treatment in the States. Instead of triage-ing in the logical way (worst assessment = fastest treatment), the local hospital here seems to work on a first come, first serve basis, unless the patient comes in an ambulance.

[ajblaise]

Heh. Not hardly. Typical wait in an emergency room can be 2-6 hours. I never waited that long for emergency treatment in the States. Instead of triage-ing in the logical way (worst assessment = fastest treatment), the local hospital here seems to work on a first come, first serve basis, unless the patient comes in an ambulance.

Are you aware of Harper making health care budget cuts?

A universal health care system is only as good as the number of doctors/nurses they hire and hospitals they build.

[pure_mercury]

"Prior to its dissolution the USSR had the second largest economy in the world after the United States"

Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)

That is completely and totally wrong. And I've read the "Economy of the Soviet Union" one, too. Also ridiculous. I have noticed a concerted attempt to slant information on wikipedia in the past year or so, and this is another attempt. I am pretty close to stopping referring to wikipedia for anything political or historical at this point.

[Enyo]

Are you aware of Harper making health care budget cuts?

A universal health care system is only as good as the number of doctors/nurses they hire and hospitals they build.

Are you aware that this 2-6 hour wait was also before Harper? I live in it. I haven't seen any impact to the quality of health care received. I was waiting for 2-6 hours under Martin and Chretien, too.

[ajblaise]

That is completely and totally wrong. And I've read the "Economy of the Soviet Union" one, too. Also ridiculous. I have noticed a concerted attempt to slant information on wikipedia in the past year or so, and this is another attempt. I am pretty close to stopping referring to wikipedia for anything political or historical at this point.

Slant information? I believe it was the 1990 CIA world factbook that says it, that's what wiki cites.

What's your source saying they weren't the 2nd largest? The WND.com commentary section?

[Enyo]

"Prior to its dissolution the USSR had the second largest economy in the world after the United States"

Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)

You realize that Wiki is only as good of a resource as its writers, correct?

The fact that it can (and often is) very easily be wrong is exactly why it is not acceptable to use as a source in anything academic.

[ajblaise]

You realize that Wiki is only as good of a resource as its writers, correct?

The fact that it can (and often is) very easily be wrong is exactly why it is not acceptable to use as a source in anything academic.

Again, the quote is from the CIA World Factbook.

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact90/world12.txt

[pure_mercury]

Slant information? I believe it was the 1990 CIA world factbook that says it, that's what wiki cites.

What's your source saying they weren't the 2nd largest? The WND.com commentary section?

Did you not see when I said that the CIA regularly overestimated the size of the Soviet economy in the 1970s just a few minutes ago? Documentation released post-Soviet collapse proves that they lied about production levels, and our intelligence was bad (it happens a lot, doesn't it?). Seriously, their economy was less than 1/3rd the size of the United States'. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's true.

[reason]

ajblaise,

China has a larger economy than Switzerland. However, a better indicator of a country's well-being is something like GDP per capita. China comes in at about $12,000, whereas Switzerland at about $55,000.

The USSR would have had a large economy simply because it has an abundance of natural resources, and a huge population. What the size of the economy doesn't tell you is how well the average person was doing, or how much corruption and waste there is. For example, in the USSR, the black market was huge, and accounted for a great deal of its economic activity--despite central planning, not because of it.

Russia and its people were almost destroyed by the conceit of central planners.

[ajblaise]

Did you not see when I said that the CIA regularly overestimated the size of the Soviet economy in the 1970s just a few minutes ago? Documentation released post-Soviet collapse proves that they lied about production levels, and our intelligence was bad (it happens a lot, doesn't it?). Seriously, their economy was less than 1/3rd the size of the United States'. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's true.

1970's? This is from 1990.

Show some of your sources.

[pure_mercury]

1970's? This is from 1990.

Show some of your sources.

SOVIET ECONOMY: Assessment of How Well the CIA Has Estimated the Size of the Economy. (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA344823)

Evolution in Europe; C.I.A. Accused of Overestimating Soviet Economy - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D81F3DF930A15754C0A9669582 60)

[Lateralus]

The Soviet Union was great at overestimating (lying) about its production. Heads of industry would have quotas for production. Let's say you were in control of the bolt industry and you were graded based on how many tons of bolts you produced. After a while, you realize that instead of making all different sizes of bolts, you could more easily meet your quota if just made gigantic bolts. Of course, those bolts are useless, but that was better than being sent to the Gulag. Scenarios like this actually existed.

Also, the Soviets would count resources several times over. They'd count the steel, they'd count the steel again after it was cut into sheets, then they'd count it again in the finished product.

[ajblaise]

That first link was interesting, though it did posit that the overestimate could be offset by errors in ruble estimation.

I think we can all agree that under Central Planning, the USSR made great economic and power gains, where, despite their natural resources and labor force, they weren't able to make before.

[Lateralus]

That first link was interesting, though it did posit that the overestimate could be offset by errors in ruble estimation.

I think we can all agree that under Central Planning, the USSR made great economic and power gains, where, despite their natural resources and labor force, they weren't able to make before.
No, we don't all agree. They may have improved certain industries, but they did so at the expense of other segments of the economy. They were HORRIBLY inefficient.

[pure_mercury]

That first link was interesting, though it did posit that the overestimate could be offset by errors in ruble estimation.

It had nothing to do with rubles vs. dollars. The so-called "experts" here simply believed the Soviets were bigger and mightier than they were.

I think we can all agree that under Central Planning, the USSR made great economic and power gains, where, despite their natural resources and labor force, they weren't able to make before.

Under the czarist system, it was bad. Under the Soviets, it was bad. If they had been able to pursue liberal democracy and free trade, they would have been far better off. I really don't give the Soviet Union much credit for what they did economically. Large-scale capital goods and military weaponry may wow the economically tone-deaf, but domestic demand and the ability of capital and labor to move efficiently are what make an economy go. I will continue to disagree with you, because the evidence points to your assertion being inaccurate in many ways.

[ajblaise]

No, we don't all agree. They may have improved certain industries, but they did so at the expense of other segments of the economy. They were HORRIBLY inefficient.

What? Overall, we all know they progressed economically, no one disputes that.

Do you know how big their economy and world influence was pre-USSR?

[reason]

I think we can all agree that under Central Planning, the USSR made great economic and power gains, where, despite their natural resources and labor force, they weren't able to make before.Who made great economic and power gains? The USSR, or its ruling class? The ordinary people who weren't murdered or sent to Gulags, enjoyed very little of these "great economic and power gains". The USSR used its military might to subdue, conquer and exploit neighbours, while the ruling classes either received special treatment, or bought what they needed on the black market. Everyone else, meanwhile, learned that hard work doesn't pay, an attitude which even persists today, a cultural artifact of the USSR.

Such incredible waste at the expense of so many others.

[Modern Nomad]

Central planned economies work up to the point of where details become more and more important. Then u need all the people to have motivation to care about the details.

im more likely to argue that it was the soviet philosophy and culture that led to its rise as a real challenger to usa. not necessarily central planning all by itself.

for the strangest reason, i've gotten along pretty well with every russian person i met. i don't know why...

i think its good to have competing philosphies under a democracy though, then like locke said, you do lock yourself into a social contract by whereforth you know the rules...

[pure_mercury]

Central planned economies work up to the point of where details become more and more important. Then u need all the people to have motivation to care about the details.


History has proven this false. Command economies are fatally flawed because there is no way ever to have enough information to set production levels. When you leave out the element of prices, you are unable to have the information needed on the supply side of the economy.

[Modern Nomad]

History has proven this false. Command economies are fatally flawed because there is no way ever to have enough information to set production levels. When you leave out the element of prices, you are unable to have the information needed on the supply side of the economy.


LOL

i agree... i hope u read what i wrote carefully. ;)

i like to think of the tension between "socialism" and "capitalism" as an ebb and flow. you have to have ebb and flow to ensure long term survival...

[ajblaise]

Who made great economic and power gains? The USSR, or its ruling class? The ordinary people who weren't murdered or sent to Gulags, enjoyed very little of these "great economic and power gains". The USSR used its military might to subdue, conquer and exploit neighbours, while the ruling classes either received special treatment, or bought what they needed on the black market. Everyone else, meanwhile, learned that hard work doesn't pay, an attitude which even persists today, a cultural artifact of the USSR.

Such incredible waste at the expense of so many others.

They were terrible when it came to protecting the average person's quality of life. I'm not sure Czar life was much better though.

[pure_mercury]

LOL

i agree... i hope u read what i wrote carefully. ;)

i like to think of the tension between "socialism" and "capitalism" as an ebb and flow. you have to have ebb and flow to ensure long term survival...

The Soviets HAD "motivation to care about all the details." The motivations were ideological commitment and fear of being sent to the gulag. They were still unable to make correct decisions because of the price problem. Hell, even under capitalism, no one can always make the right decision. Look at Wall Street circa-now.

I also think that "ebb and flow" is over. If the 20th Century proved nothing else, it proved that fascism/communism/Nazism/socialism don't work. Command economies just can't hack it long-term.

[ajblaise]

i like to think of the tension between "socialism" and "capitalism" as an ebb and flow. you have to have ebb and flow to ensure long term survival...

I think most people realize that a mixed market middle ground is the way to go.

[Modern Nomad]

i can't imagine that, when the director's job is to ensure his department's survival is to overproduce and "look good", that being not accurate with numbers is what sends you to the gulag. i'd imagine its not pleasing the director, who wants to puff themselves up in the war with the usa...


I also think that "ebb and flow" is over. If the 20th Century proved nothing else, it proved that fascism/communism/Nazism/socialism don't work. Command economies just can't hack it long-term.

i think the basic tenets of capitalism and socialism have existed for a very long time, more than the past millenium. just not under the labels that adam smith and marx denoted.

soviet gov't did auction off extra goods with market prices in extreme situations. and us did also ration goods during times of war. you can find examples where one philosophy did not totally dominate every decision the 20th century gov'ts made.

[pure_mercury]

i think the basic tenets of capitalism and socialism have existed for a very long time, more than the past millenium. just not under the labels that adam smith and marx denoted.

soviet gov't did auction off extra goods with market prices in extreme situations. and us did also ration goods during times of war. you can find examples where one philosophy did not totally dominate every decision the 20th century gov'ts made.

Oh, I am not saying there was no capitalism in the Soviet Union (they had an awesome black market in consumer goods), nor that there is no socialism in the United States, but the argument regarding the two is over, and capitalism kicked socialism's ass. It was like a Globetrotters-Generals game. Capitalism was bouncing the ball off socialism's chest and dunking with ladders and trampolines.

[ajblaise]

Oh, I am not saying there was no capitalism in the Soviet Union (they had an awesome black market in consumer goods), nor that there is no socialism in the United States, but the argument regarding the two is over, and capitalism kicked socialism's ass. It was like a Globetrotters-Generals game. Capitalism was bouncing the ball off socialism's chest and dunking with ladders and trampolines.

Ever since the 30's, we've been slowly leaning closer and closer to socialism, or "liberalism" I should say.

[Jack Flak]

Oh, I am not saying there was no capitalism in the Soviet Union (they had an awesome black market in consumer goods), nor that there is no socialism in the United States, but the argument regarding the two is over, and capitalism kicked socialism's ass. It was like a Globetrotters-Generals game. Capitalism was bouncing the ball off socialism's chest and dunking with ladders and trampolines.
More hearty LOLs.

[Enyo]

Ever since the 30's, we've been slowly leaning closer and closer to socialism, or "liberalism" I should say.

No, I think you have it right at "socialism". And many of the economic conservatives (including myself) are not convinced that this is a good thing.

[ajblaise]

No, I think you have it right at "socialism". And many of the economic conservatives (including myself) are not convinced that this is a good thing.

The nation's multi-millionaires agree with you. Or actually, I think liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

[Jack Flak]

The nation's multi-millionaires agree with you. Or actually, I think liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.
I'm not wealthy, yet I'm fiscally conservative as well. I estimate that the average standard of living, even for the less-well-to-do, is lower under socialism. Look around the world.

[ajblaise]

I'm not wealthy, yet I'm fiscally conservative as well. I estimate that the average standard of living, even for the less-well-to-do, is lower under socialism. Look around the world.

There's really no actual large-scale examples of pure socialism, communism, or capitalism out there.

When it comes to standard-of-living, the center-left western nations reign supreme.

[Enyo]

I'm not wealthy, yet I'm fiscally conservative as well. I estimate that the average standard of living, even for the less-well-to-do, is lower under socialism. Look around the world.

Quite frankly, I don't see any point in busting my ass to get ahead under a strictly socialist system. Seriously, what's the point? I'll work hard and not do any better than the lazy bastards that I live next door to. My hard work should benefit my family much more than it benefits my next door neighbors.

[Jack Flak]

aj: In recent history there are. Look at them! Look at them!

[ajblaise]

aj: In recent history there are. Look at them! Look at them!

Name one. Communist Party =/= communism.

[ajblaise]

Quite frankly, I don't see any point in busting my ass to get ahead under a strictly socialist system. Seriously, what's the point? I'll work hard and not do any better than the lazy bastards that I live next door to. My hard work should benefit my family much more than it benefits my next door neighbors.

blah blah, no one here is advocating strict socialism.

[Sarcasticus]

Ever since the 30's, we've been slowly leaning closer and closer to socialism, or "liberalism" I should say.

More like from the early 1930s to about 1970. That was the golden age of liberalism, as you put it. The pendulum has been swinging back the other way ever since.

[pure_mercury]

There's really no actual large-scale examples of pure socialism, communism, or capitalism out there.

When it comes to standard-of-living, the center-left western nations reign supreme.

Standard-of-living and quality-of-life ratings are always questionable, at best.

[Enyo]

blah blah, no one here is advocating strict socialism.

No? Too many of the plans out there are getting too close to strict socialism for my tastes. Not to mention every post that I see from you. :P

I think it's a slippery slope. You yourself stated that the US has been getting more and more socialist since the 30's.

[ajblaise]

More like from the early 1930s to about 1970. That was the golden age of liberalism, as you put it. The pendulum has been swinging back the other way ever since.

Socially, laws have gotten more liberal from 1970 on. Economically, just look at spending and the size of government.

[Lateralus]

More like from the early 1930s to about 1970. That was the golden age of liberalism, as you put it. The pendulum has been swinging back the other way ever since.
I'd say we're headed toward corporate socialism, rather than back toward free markets. Lefties (not directed at you) can't seem to understand the difference between the two. It's frustrating when people view issues only as dichotomies.

[pure_mercury]

Socially, laws have gotten more liberal from 1970 on. Economically, just look at spending and the size of government.

It's gotten a lot bigger. Carter deregulated and privatized a little. Reagan cut a decent amount (outside of defense). The federal budget even shrank for real in the Clinton/Gingrich Era, but the government tends to grow ever larger.

[Enyo]

Socially, laws have gotten more liberal from 1970 on. Economically, just look at spending and the size of government.

Yeah, the government spending has radically increased, and so has the size of the government. I fail to see how this is can be considered a good thing.

[ajblaise]

Yeah, the government spending has radically increased, and so has the size of the government. I fail to see how this is can be considered a good thing.

Well there's good/bad spending and good/bad/wasteful things government employees can do.

If you look at were we were in the 30s compared to now, we just keep on getting more free and more prosperous.

[Sarcasticus]

Socially, laws have gotten more liberal from 1970 on. Economically, just look at spending and the size of government.

There's of course a difference between economic and social liberalism. As this is an economic discussion, I was referring to the former. There's been a steady tendency of reversing the trends of the 1930-1970 period since then. Such as a reversal of the progressive tax code, attempts at dismantling the social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. An increase in military expenditure. Greater wealth transference from the middle class to the upper 1%-ers. Corporate welfare and yes, bailouts. Rampant deregulation. Privatization of government services. Disregard for and dismantling of environmental safeguards in deference to industry and corporate pressure.

And is government spending your yardstick for liberalism? GWB has grown the government more than Clinton. Reagan grew the government too. Yet both of these guys said big government was bad.

[pure_mercury]

And is government spending your yardstick for liberalism? GWB has grown the government more than Clinton. Reagan grew the government too. Yet both of these guys said big government was bad.

I don't remember GWB saying "big government is bad." However, I clearly DO remember Bill Clinton saying "The Era of Big Government is over." We so wish.

[Enyo]

Well there's good/bad spending and good/bad/wasteful things government employees can do.

If you look at were we were in the 30s compared to now, we just keep on getting more free and more prosperous.

I'm not seeing a whole heck of a lot of good spending going on. And what spending could be considered "good" is also tied to so much waste and inefficiency that the "good" aspect tends to be lost in the inefficiency.

[ajblaise]

I'm not seeing a whole heck of a lot of good spending going on. And what spending could be considered "good" is also tied to so much waste and inefficiency that the "good" aspect tends to be lost in the inefficiency.

Good spending doesn't make it on the nightly news.

[Sarcasticus]

I'd say we're headed toward corporate socialism, rather than back toward free markets. Lefties (not directed at you) can't seem to understand the difference between the two. It's frustrating when people view issues only as dichotomies.

That's a pretty big generalization. All "lefties" do this? :)

Corporate fascism would be more accurate.

I don't recall saying anything about free markets. But yes, under Bush in particular there has been a great deal of deregulation heading us towards
less government oversight. And that has played a role in the current mess we're in.

But I agree there has been a great rise in Corporatism that is deeply troubling to me.

[ajblaise]

I think it's a slippery slope. You yourself stated that the US has been getting more and more socialist since the 30's.

The good thing about gradual change is that, if liberalization becomes too much or stops working for whatever sector of gov't or society, we go "hey wait a minute" and it stops and changes eventually.

[Enyo]

Good spending doesn't make it on the nightly news.

Good thing that I don't rely on the nightly news as my information source.

[pure_mercury]

That's a pretty big generalization. All "lefties" do this? :)

Corporate fascism would be more accurate.

I don't recall saying anything about free markets. But yes, under Bush in particular there has been a great deal of deregulation heading us towards
less government oversight. And that has played a role in the current mess we're in.

Dead wrong. There has NOT been a great deal of deregulation under Bush. The major problem is that he and his cronies have made hack political appointments to important positions at the federal level.

[ptgatsby]

I don't remember GWB saying "big government is bad."

Wasn't that his campaign platform against Kerry (the evil lefty spender!)?

Anyway, that's beside the point. The 'left' has far more fiscal responsibility than the 'right', in the US, and has for a long time. But neither the left or the right are 'free market', and both are generally exploitive. Fortunately that's the case, IMO, since I'd hate to see a real libertarian take power.

Mind you, there is a very different attitude outside the US. The US is fairly unique in how it views government, and what the government can do. I mean, on one hand you can't sell universal medicare, even after huge studies of the deadweight loss, lost efficiency, worse care/marginal care, and at the same time, blame those that want it in as thieves and actively campaign against them, despite that their history shows they are vastly more responsible in growing the government.

Really doesn't make sense - voting against the ones that would spend the money responsibly and on social issues, or... the alternative, which is exactly the opposite. Shouldn't be a tough choice, and yet, there it is.

(Notably, there is no third choice - reduce government spending. This was more just a comment on how the left is small government, while the right is large government, in the US.)

[pure_mercury]

Wasn't that his campaign platform against Kerry (the evil lefty spender!)?

No. They called him a "flip-flopper," attacked his post-service anti-war rhetoric, painted him as an out-of-touch elitist, and harped on 9/11.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The 'left' has far more fiscal responsibility than the 'right', in the US, and has for a long time. But neither the left or the right are 'free market', and both are generally exploitive. Fortunately that's the case, IMO, since I'd hate to see a real libertarian take power.

Mind you, there is a very different attitude outside the US. The US is fairly unique in how it views government, and what the government can do. I mean, on one hand you can't sell universal medicare, even after huge studies of the deadweight loss, lost efficiency, worse care/marginal care, and at the same time, blame those that want it in as thieves and actively campaign against them, despite that their history shows they are vastly more responsible in growing the government.

Really doesn't make sense - voting against the ones that would spend the money responsibly and on social issues, or... the alternative, which is exactly the opposite. Shouldn't be a tough choice, and yet, there it is.

(Notably, there is no third choice - reduce government spending. This was more just a comment on how the left is small government, while the right is large government, in the US.)


The left is not small government in the United States by any stretch of the imagination. Where are you getting this stuff?

[Enyo]

Wasn't that his campaign platform against Kerry (the evil lefty spender!)?

Anyway, that's beside the point. The 'left' has far more fiscal responsibility than the 'right', in the US, and has for a long time. But neither the left or the right are 'free market', and both are generally exploitive. Fortunately that's the case, IMO, since I'd hate to see a real libertarian take power.

Mind you, there is a very different attitude outside the US. The US is fairly unique in how it views government, and what the government can do. I mean, on one hand you can't sell universal medicare, even after huge studies of the deadweight loss, lost efficiency, worse care/marginal care, and at the same time, blame those that want it in as thieves and actively campaign against them, despite that their history shows they are vastly more responsible in growing the government.

Really doesn't make sense - voting against the ones that would spend the money responsibly and on social issues, or... the alternative, which is exactly the opposite. Shouldn't be a tough choice, and yet, there it is.

(Notably, there is no third choice - reduce government spending. This was more just a comment on how the left is small government, while the right is large government, in the US.)

What? Where do you get that the left is for smaller government? This is actually an impossible ideal, because the left favors an expansion of social programs. Those social programs require administration, which requires larger government.

[Lateralus]

(Notably, there is no third choice - reduce government spending. This was more just a comment on how the left is small government, while the right is large government, in the US.)
Both parties are for big government.

[pure_mercury]

Both parties are for big government.

Seconded. Bush is closer to LBJ and Woodrow Wilson in policy than he is to Goldwater or even to Reagan. That should have been his slogan for the 2004 campaign: "I want the worst of all worlds!"

[Enyo]

Both parties are for big government.

Yup. And this is why they both suck. :P

[ptgatsby]

What? Where do you get that the left is for smaller government? This is actually an impossible ideal, because the left favors an expansion of social programs. Those social programs require administration, which requires larger government.

Statistics > rhetoric, I'm afraid. The right overspends and grows government, and has for the better part of a century.

It's not an impossible ideal, either. The left simply wants to spend money on social care - in theory, they want to spend it to improve social costing for inefficient areas of the economy. This redistribution doesn't have be any larger or smaller than any other preference of spending.

The right simply prefers to spend more on whatever it is they prefer (which appears to be military, wars and corporate socialism).

[ptgatsby]

No. They called him a "flip-flopper," attacked his post-service anti-war rhetoric, painted him as an out-of-touch elitist, and harped on 9/11.

I'm pretty sure you will find lots of references to Kerry being "for big government", as said by GWB... granted, that's indirect. Lots of 'wants to empower the government' stuff, as I recall. And the debates framed Kerry as 'big government' every time I watched them, putting GWB as the 'conservative'.


The left is not small government in the United States by any stretch of the imagination. Where are you getting this stuff?

The US budget, debt growth, growth of government employees... the usual.

[pure_mercury]

I'm pretty sure you will find lots of references to Kerry being "for big government", as said by GWB... granted, that's indirect. Lots of 'wants to empower the government' stuff, as I recall. And the debates framed Kerry as 'big government' every time I watched them, putting GWB as the 'conservative'.

I can assure you, you're wrong. Bush didn't even ATTEMPT to call his style of governance "conservative" in that election. The only truly conservative thing about him is that he likes to cut taxes. However, as we all know, cutting taxes does nothing to limit the size of the government.

BTW, just how the hell do debates "frame" as a man as "big government" or "conservative?"


The US budget, debt growth, growth of government employees... the usual.[/QUOTE]

Obama, for one, is not a small government man. Neither is Hillary Clinton. Nor Ralph Nader. Exactly which center-left and left politicians and policies are you talking about?

[ptgatsby]

I can assure you, you're wrong. Bush didn't even ATTEMPT to call his style of governance "conservative" in that election. The only truly conservative thing about him is that he likes to cut taxes. However, as we all know, cutting taxes does nothing to limit the size of the government.

Hmm, I'm not about to rewatch them all again. I'm probably thinking about the Gore election anyway.


BTW, just how the hell do debates "frame" as a man as "big government" or "conservative?"


By espousing ideology - like Bush being about tax cuts, implying Kerry would spend through increases in medical care, etc. That is, the various jabs at each other frame Bush as a conservative (even though it's a joke) and Kerry as big government.


Obama, for one, is not a small government man. Neither is Hillary Clinton. Nor Ralph Nader. Exactly which center-left and left politicians and policies are you talking about?

Absolutely none. I was talking about the actual outcome from having the party in power. And I was saying 'smaller', not 'small'.

[pure_mercury]

It's not an impossible ideal, either. The left simply wants to spend money on social care - in theory, they want to spend it to improve social costing for inefficient areas of the economy. This redistribution doesn't have be any larger or smaller than any other preference of spending.

Again, bullshit. The left is just as tied to its special interests as is the right. Besides, your hypothesis that the right has grown the government more than has the left in the past century does not hold water. At least, not in the United States. The biggest increasers of the federal government's size as a percentage since 1908 have been Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Dubya. All had grand visions for the country, and all fought at least one war during their terms.

[pure_mercury]

Hmm, I'm not about to rewatch them all again. I'm probably thinking about the Gore election anyway.

The joke in that election was that Bush and Gore were basically the same candidate, one a little sunnier and to the right socially, the other boring and into the environment. Oh, how naive we all were.


By espousing ideology - like Bush being about tax cuts, implying Kerry would spend through increases in medical care, etc. That is, the various jabs at each other frame Bush as a conservative (even though it's a joke) and Kerry as big government.

Tax cuts are Bush's answer for everything. Tax cuts and taking away civil rights.


Absolutely none. I was talking about the actual outcome from having the party in power. And I was saying 'smaller', not 'small'.

So what you're saying is that an Obama administration, with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, would be better for smaller government than would be a McCain administration with a Republican or divided Congress? I really find that hard to believe. The best administration in terms of small government that we've had in generations was moderate Democratic president (Clinton) and rightish Republican Congress (1995-2001). Gridlock and peace are the only things that slow down or stop government growth in 21st Century USA. Or a major political realignment, but I am not holding my breath.

[Lateralus]

Gridlock and peace are the only things that slow down or stop government growth in 21st Century USA. Or a major political realignment, but I am not holding my breath.
I'm hoping for gridlock. It's the best thing that can happen to us.

[Falcarius]

Socially, laws have gotten more liberal from 1970 on. Economically, just look at spending and the size of government.

Yeah, the government spending has radically increased, and so has the size of the government. I fail to see how this is can be considered a good thing.

I seriously want to know where people are getting their statistics on American public spending. The last time I read the statistics, it said public spending in America has more or less been the same for the last 30 years, it is the most static it has been since the depression. Feel free to prove my statistics wrong.





I'm hoping for gridlock. It's the best thing that can happen to us.

In that case 'proportional representation' should help.:)

[ajblaise]

I'm hoping for gridlock. It's the best thing that can happen to us.

So you like things the way they are?

[ptgatsby]

So what you're saying is that an Obama administration, with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, would be better for smaller government than would be a McCain administration with a Republican or divided Congress? I really find that hard to believe. The best administration in terms of small government that we've had in generations was moderate Democratic president (Clinton) and rightish Republican Congress (1995-2001). Gridlock and peace are the only things that slow down or stop government growth in 21st Century USA. Or a major political realignment, but I am not holding my breath.

Well, it just depends on if you believe rhetoric or past actions, or if they indicate what is probable here.

I put my trust in the past trends more than what they say.

Again, bullshit. The left is just as tied to its special interests as is the right. Besides, your hypothesis that the right has grown the government more than has the left in the past century does not hold water. At least, not in the United States. The biggest increasers of the federal government's size as a percentage since 1908 have been Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Dubya. All had grand visions for the country, and all fought at least one war during their terms.

*sigh* I know this may invoke some cognitive dissonance, but I'm not hypothesising. You keep throwing in strawmen - I'm not saying the left in the US isn't corrupt. I said exactly what I meant - that the right grows the government more than the left. Even above, all I'm saying that this doesn't have to be ideologically impossible. The left could have less net spending simply by limiting their choices to socially responsible ones (at the cost, of say, military/security). The whole point is that it is rhetoric that is speaking, not logic and not history.

Here, you can read it from Mises/Rockwell if you need to, since I believe that would be the camp you wouldn't think is biased - Republicans and Big Government - James Ostrowski - Mises Institute (http://mises.org/story/895).

I mean, I could bring up tons of interesting facts about how the country grew more under democrats, consistantly more so than under republicans. It's not exactly hard to bash republicans, because as far as I can tell, they fail every metric that has been measured.

But fundamentally, both spend a lot of money, which was my original point. You can't compare the left and the fight as big/small government. What you can compare is the two together, and it isn't 'left' ideology that is the problem.

[pure_mercury]

I seriously want to know where people are getting their statistics on American public spending. The last time I read the statistics, it said public spending in America has more or less been the same for the last 30 years, it is the most static it has been since the depression. Feel free to prove my statistics wrong.

Image:Us federal spending(4).png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_federal_spending(4).png)


This is a wikipedia citation about which I am fairly confident.

[Lateralus]

So you like things the way they are?
Ideally, no. But I don't think either administration would improve the situation if they had congressional support. Imo, the less they do, the better.

[pure_mercury]

Well, it just depends on if you believe rhetoric or past actions, or if they indicate what is probable here.

I put my trust in the past trends more than what they say.

Whose actions have shown them to be for smaller government? I can think of perhaps five members of Congress.


*sigh* I know this may invoke some cognitive dissonance, but I'm not hypothesising. You keep throwing in strawmen - I'm not saying the left in the US isn't corrupt. I said exactly what I meant - that the right grows the government more than the left. Even above, all I'm saying that this doesn't have to be ideologically impossible. The left could have less net spending simply by limiting their choices to socially responsible ones (at the cost, of say, military/security). The whole point is that it is rhetoric that is speaking, not logic and not history.

Here, you can read it from Mises/Rockwell if you need to, since I believe that would be the camp you wouldn't think is biased - Republicans and Big Government - James Ostrowski - Mises Institute (http://mises.org/story/895).

I mean, I could bring up tons of interesting facts about how the country grew more under democrats, consistantly more so than under republicans. It's not exactly hard to bash republicans, because as far as I can tell, they fail every metric that has been measured.

But fundamentally, both spend a lot of money, which was my original point. You can't compare the left and the fight as big/small government. What you can compare is the two together, and it isn't 'left' ideology that is the problem.

You're really stretching here. I think your assertion that the right grows the government more than the left is wrong. You haven't cited one example of that thus far, excepting the widely-acknowledged fact that GWB is a big government maniac. Furthermore, you haven't addressed MY hypothesis that peace (or, at least, lack of war) is the surest way to slow or to stop government growth in the United States. Pre-GWB, the major American wars of the 20th Century tended to occur during the adminstrations of Democratic presidents, often working with Democratic congresses. That article is interesting, but it narrows spending increases to domestic spending. Foreign aid and war budgeting count the same amount as domestic spending, in my book.

Also, I also defy you to name one strawman argument I have made thus far. I never even called the left "corrupt." I'm the strawman killer? Seriously?

[Falcarius]

Image:Us federal spending(4).png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_federal_spending(4).png)


This is a wikipedia citation about which I am fairly confident. I read it in some book I can't remember right now, but this website (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1902_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy09&chart=F0-total&stack=1&size=m&title=) says more or less the same thing. When you factor in GDP, spending in real terms has not gone up all that much, as it has not risen as much a economic growth.

[pure_mercury]

I read it in some book I can't remember right now, but this website (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1902_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy09&chart=F0-total&stack=1&size=m&title=) says more or less the same thing. When you factor in GDP, spending in real terms has not gone up all that much, as it has not risen as much a economic growth.

The graph there has the amount spent in 2007 dollars. That accounts for inflation. Are you talking about as a percentage of GDP? That isn't a very good criterion. If the economy is humming along and growth is high, the government could grow quickly, but not as quickly as the economy, and it would still be much larger while the percentage of GDP is actually lower. In other words, the federal government was almost 40% of the U.S. economy at the height of WWII (most healthy men away fighting, less jobs, government demanding most capital goods). However, it spent FAR less money then than it does now, even adjusting for inflation.

[ptgatsby]

Whose actions have shown them to be for smaller government?

I give up. If you care to know the history, just get the debt data and plot it against presidential or congress held periods. Do the same with jobs, with growth, with government jobs... Whatever you wish. Or google, there are people who have done it for you.

Even wikipedia has a entry highlighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)the differences for the last 30 years. There even may be a few more easy references to the differencesfloating around. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms) If you value the knowledge, it's available. If you want to read about a lot more research, going farther back, by more robust authors, you can probably find a few (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8664.html) or just do it yourself.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I thought universal health care was supposed to make sure incidents like these never took place. This stuff only happens in the US.

Man's death in Winnipeg ER 'preventable': chief medical examiner (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/09/24/sinclair-death.html?ref=rss)

In general the news reports the exception and not the rule. If this is news, then this is actually a testament to how good the Canadian health care system is. The fact that we don't get news like this in the US is a testament to how bad our health care system is.

In Canada a person getting poor health care is "man bites dog", while in the US poor health care is merely "dog bites man".

[Enyo]

In general the news reports the exception and not the rule. If this is news, then this is actually a testament to how good the Canadian health care system is. The fact that we don't get news like this in the US is a testament to how bad our health care system is.

In Canada a person getting poor health care is "man bites dog", while in the US poor health care is merely "dog bites man".

But you do get news like this from time to time in the States. Granted, it's mostly in the form of Nancy Grace, but it's still publicized. I think it was two months ago when she was talking about the lady who died in the ER waiting room after her boyfriend called 911 from the hospital to try to get them to take her to a different hospital.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

But you do get news like this from time to time in the States. Granted, it's mostly in the form of Nancy Grace, but it's still publicized. I think it was two months ago when she was talking about the lady who died in the ER waiting room after her boyfriend called 911 from the hospital to try to get them to take her to a different hospital.

Ah, my fault. I guess news like this does get reported somewhere. I suppose this means that the quality of health care in the US and Canada is about the same (assuming you have access to it).

[Enyo]

Ah, my fault. I guess news like this does get reported somewhere. I suppose this means that the quality of health care in the US and Canada is about the same (assuming you have access to it).

Emergency rooms in the States don't turn people away based on their insurance cards (or lack of them).

BTW, I've lived in both countries. I have to admit, my American doctors were far superior in fixing me to my Canadian doctors.

It wouldn't have taken my American doctor four years to figure out what to do with my headaches.

But I wouldn't have had my skin biopsies done if I'd lived in the States because I wouldn't have wanted to deal with the expense.

[pure_mercury]

I give up. If you care to know the history, just get the debt data and plot it against presidential or congress held periods. Do the same with jobs, with growth, with government jobs... Whatever you wish. Or google, there are people who have done it for you.

Wait. . . Debt data? We've been talking about the size of government for several pages now, and now you mention debt? I was arguing about government outlays the whole time, and you meant budget deficits? You're confusing me now. If it were deficit spending, then the worst presidents were GWB, Reagan, and FDR.

[pure_mercury]

Ah, my fault. I guess news like this does get reported somewhere. I suppose this means that the quality of health care in the US and Canada is about the same (assuming you have access to it).

American health care is superior, but more expensive and many people do not have access. However, if you are not wealthy and need catastrophic care (ER and such), there are things you can do. Hospitals get paid by someone eventually. They almost never take people who owe them to collection, if the patient provides even tiny payments occasionally. If you have an ambulance ride and they stitch you up and it's like $2,000, they'll accept $50 or $100 every once in a while until they get paid.

[Anja]

Our health care system is not only plagued by financial problems. I've worked in both a private and a government-owned hospital and if you knew half the stuff that goes on behind the scenes you wouldn't want any health care at all. . .

[pure_mercury]

Our health care system is not only plagued by financial problems. I've worked in both a private and a government-owned hospital and if you knew half the stuff that goes on behind the scenes you wouldn't want any health care at all. . .

I work at an ophthalmology hospital, so I never see anything gruesome, but the majority of the administration is idiotic.

[Anja]

I work at an ophthalmology hospital, so I never see anything gruesome, but the majority of the administration is idiotic.

Some of them are mad, some are "idiotic," many are chemically dependent and there are those who are so money-focussed they've forgotten the Hippocratic Oath. The rest are hard-working, dedicated, well-educated folks who fight every day to keep their focus on the mission while chaos and staff shortage problems reign.

[Oberon]

Whose actions have shown them to be for smaller government?

People who never ran for office, went about their business, were good neighbors, and paid their own way.

[Anja]

I think so too. Unfortunately those who would govern best aren't interested in playing the politics game. My thought.

[GZA]

It doesn't seem so much that it's due to an underfunded system (although the system is a bit underfunded and needs more doctors), it's just that a homeless man passing out in the corner is less likely to get noticed as families coming in with a kid with broken limbs or car crash victims or whatever -people who can talk or have others to speak for them). This homeless guy just got dropped off and no one could really report him.

Really sad incident though, and we really do need more doctors regardless of why it happened (and I don't believe this incident was caused by lack of doctors, or else there would have been other people waiting 34 hours, too, and to my knowledge there weren't). We need more medical schools or soemthing, I don't know... there are a tonne of qualified people who want to be doctors but there aren't enough spots in the schools.

[Enyo]

We need more medical schools or soemthing, I don't know... there are a tonne of qualified people who want to be doctors but there aren't enough spots in the schools.

Is that how you guys spell it? "Tonne?" I always have a hard time with Canadian spelling, since some words are spelled British and some are spelled American. I think that's why I said "fuck it", and stuck with spelling American, like I'd been taught. ;)

But in all seriousness, UNBC is working on that. In the last couple of years, they've opened a Northern Medical Program, designed to train up some doctors for northern BC and the territories.

[Anja]

As I think of it, I can offer some advice here.

We recently had a family member put on life support and, since he was an adult and we had no power of attorney, we were not given any information on what had happened so it was difficult to provide staff with relevant information which may have helped save a life.

The nurse was very upset about it and made the comment that someone was going to die because of the new extra tight confidentiality laws which have been passed.

We were also upset because we were totally in the dark about what had happened to our loved one.

Since then we have learned that all people who have caring ties should get power of attorney forms on each other and fill them out to avoid finding themselves in this helpless situation.

They can be obtained through a hospital social worker and notarized for a very small fee at a notary public office.

Word up.

Well, that's unless you don't trust your loved ones with your bank account!