Needs more Communism, swamp women, starting gold and ponies.
We need more people who have enough bare common decency to not make light of a political system which led to the death of 100 million people, as this is well within the realms of the utterly depraved and sick.
Spartan
I stopped reading when you said you like profit based healthcare. I hate people having to pay if they get stabbed by someone who's poor because they had to pay to get a bullet taken out of their leg
If you don't want to contribute to the debate better you didn't post at all. Don't post shit on other peoples threads.
Spartan
An interesting article on socialised health and why it is consistently poor as a health care model.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danie ... -fall-ill/
Spartan
Hey all,
There is a puzzle within economics which I have been thinking on for some time and as we have many intelligent people within this community from a large variety of political orientations, I thought I would throw it out there, to see what people suggest and how people would resolve this puzzle.
I would say despite my obvious conservative leanings, there is room in any overall picture, to incorporate lots of different elements, of lots of different learnings. For instance the central state is the best way to run an army, that elected sheriffs the best way to run a police force and (in my eyes) a market method the best way to provide for health care.
The problem is thus: What is the cheapest possible way to provide energy to society?
The background to my question is that in the UK, when energy was nationalised this caused problems, although now energy has been privatised this also brings its own problems, especially with energy taking up an ever increasing proportion of the income of the poorest.
Now in the answer to this question, while I would follow with great interest technical energy innovations (energy science is a deep fascination to me) and physical ways of generating power, the problem that I am really trying to get to grips with is more the organisational side of the problem.
There is the supply part of the problem, the actual production of energy and there is the demand side of the problem the best way possible to get energy to consumers.
Precisely how should energy provision be organised so as to benefit consumers the most.
Here are my starting points, which I welcome anyone to disagree with or argue against, if they see a flaw in my logic, or alternatively resolve, if they can work out an answer to this riddle.
The State Organises Energy Provision
This assumes that the state both produces energy and distributes energy. Or that the state is largely responsible in either the production and distribution of energy.
The advantage of nationalised energy production, was that it enabled the UK to be largely energy self sufficient. We used mostly coal and were less dependent on other nations for energy. This strategically is a good hand to have, as it harder for foreign nations to influence domestic policy and reduces the possibilities of economic blackmail. Furthermore in the case of a serious domestic emergency (like war), it means that supply lines cannot be cut.
This brings some nasty disadvantages also. When the UK had nationalised energy provision, it was relatively expensive in its total costs.
Total costs meaning precisely the overall price the consumer pays for energy. This does not only include the price a consumer pays for energy directly, such as the price for a bag of coal, but also indirect (and less visible costs) such the taxation required, in order for the state to produce this bag of coal. The indirect costs include the price of a pit being sunk into the ground and of course the price of workers.
Not only was this model expensive in total costs, due to large increases in wages (which I would agree were actually fair pay increases up to a point), but militant strike action led to the nation being at times economically paralysed. The problem of this model is that if the state provides for energy and state workers, remove their labour, it means factories and so forth do not have energy and a nation can be brought to its kness. (this actually happened in the UK in the 1970's)
(Just for the record my dad as were most uncles were actually miners, so I don't look at privatisation of energy coldly)
The Privatisation of Energy
While the privatisation of energy lead to the removal of militant unions, and their threat to both the national economy and the government, the consumer is I would argue still losing out, and energy is still relatively expensive.
The reason why this is the case is that despite there being several companies on the market, they are operating effectively as a giant monopoly or to give it its technical name a cartel. This means they are not competing with one another and they are all increasing their prices and the consumer is losing out.
So to return to the original question: What is the cheapest way to provide for energy, when I would argue both the major methods have failed.
Spartan
Does this thread serve a point other then allowing four or five people to argue the same points over and over, annoy the other 99% of us and generally just create a bigger divide between the player base?
If you don't like what is being posted on this forum topic simply ignore it and don't engage in it, no one is twisting your arm to read.
Also I consider discussion and debate healthy, especially between individuals or groups which might have very different points of view, as it enables scrutiny of both sides of an argument.
Nor should having a different political point of view from someone else cause personal conflict, among my family and friends there is a mix of political views, as I am sure there is among most of the people on this server. More of my circle at home is left wing, than conservative.
Finally no one is getting personal with one another, they are merely debating their points of view.
Spartan
Replying to these word walls is frankly a daunting task. I have no hope of replying to every point. I'll just make my own word wall and call it even.
Small sets of data do not prove/disprove any theory, especially when it comes to overall climate change. One cold winter that's unexpected (or even a turn around for a few years) doesn't mean anything when it's the long term trend that's really important.
The same is true for vegetation, it's not a surprise to me that vegetation is experiencing rapid growth in places where it's allowed to- more CO2, more plants.
Also, in general, before telling me how science works, please get it right. A theory never becomes a fact. There's two things that science looks at, data and explanations. How and What are data, explanations are Why. Mathematical models can do a really good job predicting how and what. Generally these end up being called "laws", which many people misguidedly think is a "proven theory" or "proven hypothesis". Laws and Theories are separate. For example: we have a Law of Gravity that's really pretty good, it tells us how objects are going to move when influenced by the mass of other objects (assuming there aren't too many and the math doesn't get too hard). We have a theory of why that happens that's not so good, really, and is generally left to theoretical types who don't actually do much looking at data. Why is a much more complicated thing, and can never really be "proven", no real scientist has it as a goal. The hope is to find the best answer you can until more information comes along to make you reevaluate things.
The four things I outlined are still true, styxx, you didn't directly address any of them.
CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere, just because it doesn't have the predicted effect doesn't mean it has zero effect. Our atmosphere is a extremely complicated beast that I'd expect models to be constantly wrong about. Hell, our weather modeling is pretty awful, and that has easily identifiable short term data that it generates. Climate change is not so helpful in that regard.
Some increase in biomass doesn't mean the current biomass can sustain the levels of O2 and CO2 present in the atmosphere before we started oil combustion. There were times when there was much more CO2 and less O2 on this planet- it wasn't very comfy habitat for humans.
Your links for the last point don't actually say anything- sea levels not rising as much or as expected for a period of time doesn't mean they aren't or won't, it's very much like arguing that one cold winter means global warming isn't happening. In any case, my fact simply stated that sea level rise would lead to huge implications to our society. If we can pump all the oil into the atmosphere until we run out and the sea levels don't rise at all, then I'll be cheering with everyone else.
Also, why is it that right wingers need to call any little bit of socialism communism, or take it to the extreme? Western democratic industrialized society is quite socialist, and we enjoy a much higher standard of living than any in human history, and much of it is because in general, we help each other out and work together. Does that mean we're communist or even "socialist"? I don't know, but trying to use a descriptive word as a negative label doesn't make for reasonable debate. I don't look at the right and start spouting about people hoping for anarchy. There's obviously a line (hell, an optimal zone, likely) between ensuring good for all and personal freedom. I don't expect that everyone has the same opinion of where that line should be. However, pointing at the extremes all the time just makes one look like they have an axe to grind and no real substance.
Entropy I wasn't intending my words as a personal slur, nor meaning that I thought everyone who holds a left wing view must be a bad person. For clarity I don't consider it the case at all. I think there are probably as many good and bad left and right wingers.
My argument is that socialism as a system will always be inherently hostile to individualism and liberty, even if the advocates and individuals within that system are not.
The reason why I think this is because one of the central pillars of socialism in practice, if basically for the state to be doing more in society. As the state is doing more in society and so thus drawing more power into itself, it can only do this by taking power away the individual.
I think the more the state does for society, the less society is able to do for itself, which I think can enfeeble people, if such a system is left in place for too long. With regards to communism, when I state that communism is socialism taken to its natural conclusion, such is not meant as an arbitrary slur, more so that when society enables the state to do everything for it, it doesn't end in utopia, but more so a dystopian hell.
For any service there are three basic options:
When I am taking a stab at socialism from a economic and organisational point of view, I am meaning society arranged with all the power in the centre of the state, or point one in the three given options.
The moral issue I have with such, is when power is so far removed from the individual, that individual is left relatively powerless and from an economic point of view, a state controlled monopoly is at least as bad as a market monopoly, as it removes choice and competitive pressure, therefore sub optimum results tend to be the case. Furthermore if the state has a monopoly over a service and it is a bad local service, that individual is stuck with that service.
If the market provides a service and an individual is unhappy with that service, that individual can choose another provider and is empowered through choice and as the market must compete, it does mean that the individual is far more likely to get a higher quality service.
With elected officials running services, it is the same story that power is given to the individual. For if an individual and society at large has a direct choice on how a service is run they are thus empowered because if they don't like how a service is run, they can change it.
While it is correct that conservative thinking is in general favour of markets over the state running services, as much as possible, this is down to the power dynamic that allowing the market to run things gives more choice and so thus power to the people.
With regards to global warming I think that these scientists confessing between each other that they are manipulating data and suppressing debate is compelling. No one put those words in their mouths, they spoke them themselves, therefore their words were taken in precisely the correct context, the correct context being what they sincerely thought and what they actually did.
Spartan
@Deadlock:
hi wat is global warming? can we stop it with a sonic rainboom??
Nothing to worry about Deadlock. I think a sonic rainboom will almost certainly fix it, as a fictional solution, is all that is needed to deal with a fictional problem! : D
In reply to Entropy Mu:
Firstly the general point that ice levels are receding was only correct to a few years ago, they ice caps did shrink, then enlarged again, the latter of the related points being the pertinent one and the one often ignored by 'so called' climate research scientists.
While the Earth was heating up, for a few decades, it has been cooling for the last ten years. This is despite that man made greenhouse gases have been on the increase into the atmosphere. In particular China and India have been industrialising at break neck speed.
Therefore if the hypothesis that: Releasing greenhouse increased the Earth's temperature was correct and so therefore fact, the Earth should not only have continued to heat up, but the rate of its heat up should also have increased.
In Great Britain, last Winter we should have boiled, we had on the record one of the coldest winters of the last few decades. This is something all Britis could see with their own two eyes, as being true. It is wrong headed to suggest that the Earth is getting warmer and we are on our way to environmental Armageddon when people can see for themselves, it is getting colder.
With regards to the scientific community and 98% of climate scientists agreeing that global warming is occurring (ok that was someone else) this is also entirely inaccurate.
With climategate one of the most startling revelations, was how far East Anglia University had gone in repressing dissenting views, even in the face of scientific fact. This does mean that all along, there was plenty of scientists that did contest the state of climate research and plenty of dissent. What was disgraceful and what very much did come to light, was how far these pseudo-scientists at East Anglia had gone in suppressing the argument.
Real science means starting with an hypothesis, testing an hypothesis through experimentation and when an hypothesis is shown to be consistently true, only then does it become fact. Instead what actually happened was when the East Anglia University academics found themselves to be incorrect in their original hypothesis, was that they covered it up.
That they covered it up isn't part of some conspiracy theory or anything colourful, I think their reasons, are a lot more basic, those of self preservation.
Lets be frank, not many people at all, working at a academic institution, which is dependent on the state for grants, will turn around to the state and say 'Hi guys, sorry seems we were wrong all along about this global warming business, the Earth is now cooling, we don't need any grants or our salaries paying.'
Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, academics who depend on the belief of the state that global warming is real for their livelihoods, will not try and change the states mind and make themselves unemployed.
What made the CLimategate incident all the more important, was that East Anglia University provided information used all across the world, and by climate institutions and governments everywhere.
Therefore when their research was discredited and shown to be false, it also fatally discredited the man made global warming myth.
Finally socialism has never been shown 'in practice' to benefit everyone and society as a whole. Communism is really socialism taken to its full conclusion and communism has also been shown to be the most evil and murderous ideology ever imagined, with a total death count, somewhere in the region of 100 million souls, and that is of other communists.
I would happily recommend to any left winger they read 1984 or Animal Farm by George Orwell, a former communist, to understand the realities of socialism taken to its conclusions.
Even with so called democratic socialism, when it is implemented it always ends in a nation going broke and civil rights being severely trampled upon. In the UK, as I am sure is the case in other nations, it is the left which so often leads the censorship brigade as it does try and control society.
Government should only ever exist to lead society and guide society and not be a master over society.
Spartan
Haha, yes academia really isn't the institution it once was. But then the left wanted to get rid of all those silly ideas like right and wrong (as it is hurtful that someone has to lose), empirical evidence (climategate anyone) or open debate (the reason why it took climategate to expose the cranks).
For those who want to read about climategate:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/
Something I love about Great Britain, is that we have some of the best newspapers in the world. Our papers have real balls our largest papers especially.
The nutshell of climategate was that East Anglia University, the single institution which has and still does have, the most influence on climate change, was caught red handed manipulating data and actively supressing the objective facts that the worlds climate has 'cooled' not warmed up, over this last decade.
Seriously I worry about the state of some universities, as they seem more and more to swim against Enlightenment principles, those of reason, fact and objectivity.
If you're going to take your scientific information from bloggers, it's worthwhile checking if the person in question possesses the requisite expertise to be reporting on the subject. James Delingpole is an English Lit grad who has no scientific acumen whatsoever.
The emails do not provide examples of manipulating the data or suppressing the facts, which is why after a thorough investigation, the Science and Technology Select committee recommended the reinstatement of Phil Jones who was at the centre of the supposed conspiracy. Have you examined the contexts of those emails or their authors, or are you relying on bloggers to interpret the snippets?
Was the person who wrote "we can't account for the lack of warming", for example, engaging in deceit, by privately expressing thoughts contrary to their public scientific claims?
No. Actually, in that very same email, Delingpole conveniently ignores that the author cited their publicly published paper expressing his dismay at the inadequacies of a particular temperature tracking system, whilst also stating that there are many other more reliable indicators of ongoing warming, such as the melting of the polar ice caps and rising sea levels.
I'm sure that if you take the time to thoroughly investigate the emails controversy, the simplistic view presented by certain figures in the media, is shown for the distortion it truly is.
Meerkat, absolutely nothing you have said changes the facts
that the release of the emails categorically and resolutely demonstrates that those as East Anglia University had suppressed evidence that the Earth was cooling. And worked to try and prevent and open debate and true empirical study of climate change.
You should again read what was in the article, in particular the admission from the climategate scientists (ok scientist is a push in their case) that they were trying to hide that global warming was not happening.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/
Their own words are especially damning and illuminating.
Thats the difference between the left and right, conservatives work on facts, the left works on dogma.
Same with the world economy, as left wingers believe so dogmatically in the power of the state which requires lots and lots of spending, that are both unable and unwilling to accept, that this generally weakens the economy and makes people poorer, despite the overwhelming and clear evidence that big spending leads to big debts and a big increase in poverty.
Spartan
@Deadlock:
Don't the Brits already have Obamacare? It's called Obamacare there too right?
No its called a negligent health system. Seriously guys I wouldn't wish a state controlled health system on my worst enemy, let alone the nation I have the highest opinion of after my own…
The Daily Heil is a hate-mongering tabloid rag renown for its distorted, sensationalist reporting. I wouldn't deign to wipe my arse with it. Every single healthcare system in the world has alarming individual stories which you can adduce to speciously condemn them with, but it's the overall picture, the agglomerated whole, with which you should be most concerned about. And when you look at it that sense, America's healthcare system regularly fails in its provisions for the disadvantaged and unfortunate.
You seem under the impression that socialised healthcare eliminates competition, but as anyone working in the NHS can tell you, with their endless slew of targets and the continual vying with other primary healthcare trusts' and private healthcare providers, people working in the NHS are expected to provide their best - if not vocationally because they have a duty of care, but also because their jobs depend on it.
Neither the Heil nor the Torygraph, arguably the most right-wing, conservative papers in the UK (along with the Express), support the disestablishment of the NHS in favour of a for-profit medical industry, where the poor will and do get left behind. For those of us who see day in day out what the NHS do for the needy, no matter what their background or their financial status, it just sounds insane. It's like suggesting that the taxpayer-funded, socialised military, or the taxpayer funded socialised primary and secondary education be replaced by the private sector. It's just fucking barmy.
By sensationalist stories, do you mean the facts that a major British hospital managed to kill 1200 people? As the preservation of life is the first and most important function of a hospital, I think when a hospital manages to kill over a thousand people, it must be objective viewed as a complete and absolute failure. The press didn't make this up, this happened, nothing you can say, can change that this happened.
Nor are criticisms of the British health care system limited to right wing paper. The liberal left news station channel 4, in a program called dispatches, investigated the state of many doctors surgeries and the competence of those operating within them. It made for pretty grim viewing. Information on this show and this issue can be found here:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches
Look at the doctors stories on the right hand side of the main page.
Nor is it correct to state, as you imply, that only a state funded health care system, is the only way to care for the health of the poor. The vast overwhelming majority of the Western world, notably does not have a state controlled health care system. Yet you will also find, that the poor are still usually cared for and no hospital can refuse to give treatment to someone who clearly needs it.
With regards to the paperwork that medical staff are doing and targets, this is largely part of the problem. Precisely it is that because medical personnel were spending so much time trying to 'look like' they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, instead of focusing on care, which has led to so much purely needless loss of life.
As for why the Conservative Party and the right wing press, is not as a whole, pushing for a private health care system, it is not because they think that private health care isn't better, they all know it is better, it is purely because the political fall out, would be fatal for the party if they did it, and this in turn is because of the ill informed judgements of the political left and that the left would rather 'dogmatically' stick by a socialised health system and score points on the state knowing best, rather than save lives.
As for education the new Conservative led government, is introducing private educational providers, alongside what we have to improve educational standards. While such school will be free at the point of use, competition is being introduced into the educational system, and private firms will be paid by the state to improve educational standards.
This is in complete contrast to the one choice only and that choice is the state system, which we had under Labour. Under this system incidentally, educational standards dropped like a lead weight, with it being fairly well known, that British educational standards dropped dramatically fell down the international league tables.
I wouldn't want to privatise the police, military or court system, the private sector really cant run these, purely because these institutions have power to take away freedom and life, which is not compatible with a free market model.
I do believe though in elected sheriffs and elected judges however. The Conservative led government incidentally is introducing elected sheriffs, despite both major left wing parties opposing this move.
Spartan