[mike777]

mycroft, on 2016-July-14, 11:31, said:

As always when I point out that U.S. politics is, to the rest of the world, a fight between the hard right and the Republicans, someone comes out with incredulity.

By preference (not always, especially when unite against the Right is more important than policy), I vote NDP. Look it up sometime. Boggle. Enjoy.

So avoid the question and dont tell us what the far left is for and what is its policies.

If you just want to complain and tell us you are for fairness and justice...equality....great...

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-July-14, 11:20, said:

Again they are not socialist countries...they are capitalists.

The problem with these type of posts are posters dont know what socialism or capitalism is.

The Nordic countries are neither pure capitalist nor socialist: they might best be called social capitalists.

From Wikepedia:

Quote

Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.

I cannot imagine any current Republican agreeing that labor and employer negotiations should be mediated by the government, so in that sense the Nordic Model of capitalism is much more liberal than the U.S. version.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-July-14, 11:20, said:

Again they are not socialist countries...they are capitalists.

The problem with these type of posts are posters dont know what socialism or capitalism is.

Just as some religious types will claim that all opinion is equal, therefore belief based on faith is equivalent to belief based on evidence, so some will try to claim that all types of capitalism are the same.

[cherdano]

mycroft, on 2016-July-14, 11:24, said:

On a side note: why "Bernie", "Hillary" and "Trump"? Similarly, why "Barack" (and poor misspellings of same) and "Romney" or "McCain"? Nobody ever talked about "George", either.

Yes, I can see that we need to make clear which Clinton (George, anyone?) but using given, rather than family names, is (among other things) a way to address inferiors.

Given the other language games (like always referring to the Democrat Party rather than their preferred, Democratic Party) that it seems the Republicans are very good at getting the media to use, I wonder if this is a deliberate choice.

In the case of Clinton and Sanders, this is a deliberate choice - by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Just have a look at their official campaign webpages. (I don't see Obama referred to as "Barrack" very often.)

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2016-July-14, 12:40, said:

The Nordic countries are neither pure capitalist nor socialist: they might best be called social capitalists.

From Wikepedia:



I cannot imagine any current Republican agreeing that labor and employer negotiations should be mediated by the government, so in that sense the Nordic Model of capitalism is much more liberal than the U.S. version.

Winston as usual another of your strawman posts...I did not say pure capitalist...I said they are capitalist countries, not socialist. The confusion remains posters dont know what capitalism or socialism means.


As for social capitalism...it seems to be defined as everything or nothing by people and posters.


I really dont mind if you or others want to advocate for social capitalism but at the very least if you advocate something then provide:
1) some generally accepted definition.
2) some generally accepted standard of measurement so we can compare and contrast and discuss.

What the heck I may even vote for it once posters tell us what exactly it is.

[shyams]

BTW, what is Capitalism in the view of Republican Americans? And does this Republican view differ from that of the "Tea Party"?

[kenberg]

olegru, on 2016-July-14, 10:13, said:

As a person who have lived noticeable part of his life in socialistic country I am terrified (not sure if this word is strong enough to express my feelings) by this.

This was Re:

Quote

I'm an academic, of course there are many. Except those who think he is too conservative.

You can relax, I just intended to play a bit off the popular view of academics as crazy lefties. Sort of an inside joke, I didn't mean it to be taken seriously.

It is probably true, although I am not certain, that Sanders would have done better if only math profs got to vote. But Republicans do better if only people in the Chamber of Commerce get to vote.

You can relax.

[mike777]

shyams, on 2016-July-14, 14:17, said:

BTW, what is Capitalism in the view of Republican Americans? And does this Republican view differ from that of the "Tea Party"?

Great question, my best guess is American Republican voters know about as much about capitalistic economics as Democrats...in other words...very little.

One of the most difficult sub sections is the role, indeed the crucial role, of creative destruction when it comes to jobs, companies and at rare moments the destruction of an entire industry. Voters just hate this and demand the government step in and stop it.
Another big misunderstood issue is trade, global trade and global immigration.


For example just look at the role of creative destruction, global trade and immigration when it comes to BBO and its history.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-July-14, 13:46, said:

Winston as usual another of your strawman posts...I did not say pure capitalist...I said they are capitalist countries, not socialist. The confusion remains posters dont know what capitalism or socialism means.


As for social capitalism...it seems to be defined as everything or nothing by people and posters.


I really dont mind if you or others want to advocate for social capitalism but at the very least if you advocate something then provide:
1) some generally accepted definition.
2) some generally accepted standard of measurement so we can compare and contrast and discuss.

What the heck I may even vote for it once posters tell us what exactly it is.

Then by your own definition of socialism (Socialism is an economic system where the government owns and controls the means of production and the distribution of goods), there can be no degrees of socialism - where the government might control some but not all means of production and distribution of goods. But capitalism is allowed to have a high degree of social conscience by your take.

I would submit your problem is a faulty premise - that capitalism is a cure-all.

[awm]

The discussion of capitalism is somewhat ridiculous -- basically everyone believes in a mixed economy these days where a few parts of the economy are government controlled and others are private (with varying degrees of government regulation). The arguments are mostly a matter of degree -- for example in the US democrats would like the government to control health insurance and to more heavily regulate energy generation in order to protect the environment. Republicans would like to reduce regulation on energy production and financial firms. But no significant group is endorsing complete government control of the economy (communism) or a complete lack of regulation (sometimes called laissez-faire capitalism).

[mike777]

If a mixed economy means:
1) I can sign up for free college sign me up
2) live on campus for free sign me up
3) free medical...sign me up
4) attend free college functions...sign me up
5) I dont see anything in the rules about grades or getting up early so great


I lived in Urbana where future world champions Chip and Cheri taught me bridge so all of this mixed economy stuff free college/medical stuff sounds great. You got my vote


btw just for the record while Chapel Hill or Duke are great I am opened minded and am willing to go to my "safety school" on the beach in Wilmington. My long time neighbor two doors down is moving there and i hear it is a great town and school for people of a certain age.

[awm]

mike777, on 2016-July-14, 23:56, said:

If a mixed economy means:
1) I can sign up for free college sign me up
2) live on campus for free sign me up
3) free medical...sign me up
4) attend free college functions...sign me up
5) I dont see anything in the rules about grades or getting up early so great

You seem to enjoy mocking the idea of free college. You might want to keep in mind a quick comparison of the present day versus 50 or so years ago (when many bridge players were in school):

1. 50 years ago, state colleges in California were free (room and board were not free, but there was no tuition and essentially no fees). In most other states you did have to pay for college, but a good state college cost only a few weeks wages at the minimum wage, meaning a student could work a summer job and basically pay his or her costs. Today, yearly tuition even at state schools exceeds a year's full-time wages at the minimum wage! A student trying to pay his or her own way through school (without money from parents or assistance from scholarships) will come out with as much as 100k in debt. This doesn't seem particularly fair to today's kids, does it?
2. 50 years ago, education through 12th grade was free in the US (as it is today), funded by the government. However, back then there were many jobs for a high school graduate, where he (yes it helped to be male) could support a family even on a single income. Today nearly all such jobs require a college degree. Since supporting a family virtually requires a college degree now (for the vast majority, sure there are cases of people who had some great invention in high school or something), it makes sense to extend government funding through college doesn't it?

As for health care, some of us believe it's immoral to allow our fellow citizens to die of something easily curable simply because they do not have much money. Obviously some people disagree with this view (although I'm not sure how they can claim to be the "Christian party" when they want to let poor people die).

[kenberg]

awm, on 2016-July-15, 01:15, said:

You seem to enjoy mocking the idea of free college. You might want to keep in mind a quick comparison of the present day versus 50 or so years ago (when many bridge players were in school):

1. 50 years ago, state colleges in California were free (room and board were not free, but there was no tuition and essentially no fees). In most other states you did have to pay for college, but a good state college cost only a few weeks wages at the minimum wage, meaning a student could work a summer job and basically pay his or her costs. Today, yearly tuition even at state schools exceeds a year's full-time wages at the minimum wage! A student trying to pay his or her own way through school (without money from parents or assistance from scholarships) will come out with as much as 100k in debt. This doesn't seem particularly fair to today's kids, does it?
2. 50 years ago, education through 12th grade was free in the US (as it is today), funded by the government. However, back then there were many jobs for a high school graduate, where he (yes it helped to be male) could support a family even on a single income. Today nearly all such jobs require a college degree. Since supporting a family virtually requires a college degree now (for the vast majority, sure there are cases of people who had some great invention in high school or something), it makes sense to extend government funding through college doesn't it?

As for health care, some of us believe it's immoral to allow our fellow citizens to die of something easily curable simply because they do not have much money. Obviously some people disagree with this view (although I'm not sure how they can claim to be the "Christian party" when they want to let poor people die).

I have a busy morning so I might make this a two part response. The opportunity for a decent education is perhaps the highest item on my wish list. I generally agree with what you say, but I see some of the details differently.

First, about the need for college. No doubt it can help but it is not so simple. My older daughter has a Ph.D. and has a good job. My younger daughter has a high school diploma and is a part owner of a boarding kennel for dogs (and the occasional cat and others). She didn't invent anything so she is not rich, but she is comfortably self-supporting. After she had been out of high school for a while, her mother and her husband, and Becky and I, had a discussion about supporting Leslie if she was now interested in going on to college. She wasn't. It isn't for everyone, it simply isn't. Maybe she coould have struggled through in some major that held no interest for her but why should she? These studies that show college grads make more money do not, from what I have seen, get at an important point. Does the person who has little interest in academics still do better if s/he spends the crucial years of transition from adolescence to adulthood in an environment that holds no interest for them?

So that's the first point. It is not that you must go to college or else do something unusual such as invent something or become a successful boxer.


Second point. I did go to college and yes, in 1956 when I started at the University of Minnesota the world was a very different place. I lived in St. Paul and, after some discussion,my parents informed me that if I wanted to go to college I could continue to live at home without paying rent. I got a scholarship that covered tuition and books, with a bit left over. By the time I was a senior I could no longer stand it at home so, rent free or not, I got out and wished I had done it earlier. I worked. During the summer of course but I worked quite a bit during the school year as well. By the time I finished grad school I had some debt, but not unmanageable. Part of this was from the different way society was back then, part of it, I think, is the way I approached the issue.

Got to go, but this is a huge issue with me and I will probably say more later.

[kenberg]

A few more words.

I have seen, in fact it is common enough to no longer surprise me, young people borrow to the hilt with little or any concern for what they are seeking or what lies down the road. Some schools act as enablers. I very much wish for a young person to get himself/herself off to college if this is a reasonable path for him/her. I think, however, that the years from 17-21 are critical in a person's life. Wasting those years because someone gives you generic advice such as "Go to college, major in something" or "Get into a STEM area" or "Get a business degree" or whatever is disastrous. Four or maybe five or maybe six years later the person maybe has a degree in something, graduating with a 2.0001 grade point average, no better prepared to do useful work than s/he was when s/he graduated from high school.

Of course it is the responsibility of the individual to choose a reasonable course of action but we are all only so good at this, and while I strongly support making college accessible I think the concern I raise about tempting people to waste precious years is a very real problem.

I have a bridge game this afternoon and some things to do beforehand but I may say yet more.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-July-15, 04:50, said:

So that's the first point. It is not that you must go to college or else do something unusual such as invent something or become a successful boxer.

There are also lots of examples of people who lived into their 80's and 90's, despite smoking most of their lives. You wouldn't use that to endorse smoking, would you (unless you're a tobacco company)?

The simple fact is that as automation of menial jobs increases, there's less opportunity for people without a good education to get decent jobs. There are of course exceptions, like your daughter, but for most people college will put them in a much better position to be successful.

[barmar]

awm, on 2016-July-15, 01:15, said:

As for health care, some of us believe it's immoral to allow our fellow citizens to die of something easily curable simply because they do not have much money. Obviously some people disagree with this view (although I'm not sure how they can claim to be the "Christian party" when they want to let poor people die).

It's hard to argue for allowing people to die, but to play Devil's Advocate, health care goes far beyond just saving lives. Most of the things we go to the doctor for, or even the hospital, are hardly life threatening. Maybe the Republicans wouldn't have had as much of an argument if Obamacare only covered critical conditions -- it probably would have prevented the controversy over contraception.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2016-July-15, 08:50, said:

It's hard to argue for allowing people to die, but to play Devil's Advocate, health care goes far beyond just saving lives. Most of the things we go to the doctor for, or even the hospital, are hardly life threatening. Maybe the Republicans wouldn't have had as much of an argument if Obamacare only covered critical conditions -- it probably would have prevented the controversy over contraception.

To take this further, the most cost-effective healthcare is sometimes said to be preventative. If everyone did an hour of intensive exercise a day, it could potentially save health services an enormous amount of money. Add in initiatives such as reducing smoking and drinking, or improving diet and you are talking about a huge impact that does not involve any doctors at all.

[Winstonm]

awm, on 2016-July-14, 23:29, said:

The discussion of capitalism is somewhat ridiculous -- basically everyone believes in a mixed economy these days where a few parts of the economy are government controlled and others are private

I don't think you have seen enough posts of Mike777.

[mycroft]

Free medical? Well, it isn't exactly "free" (in particular, dental and prescription drugs are not covered), but to USAnians it is. That's a holdover from - oh yes, right, the NDP and its first leader, Tommy Douglas. And as I wouldn't be alive without it (or under crippling debt load and possibly not stabilized), I kind of like the idea. As I am a respected(?) TD and a useful IT drone, I believe it is a net win for society, too.

Free college? Well, when I went to University (not 50 years ago, but 30), tuition started at $350/term; when I left, it was $500/term. Oh, and that was the "20% extra rate" because I was in Engineering where students expected to make more money after graduation (Medical studies had yet a higher cost, maybe 10% more?) Now, post-secondary education was and is subsidized more in Canada than the U.S. (again, thanks primarily to the NDP and other left-leaning parties), but what is it now in the US? 50 to 100x (not percent) increase? And wages have increased what - 2 times?

Free roads, policing, a floor to how far you can fall if you are unable to work, whatever environmental protections (like asbestos regs, tobacco, PCBs, dioxins, tailing ponds,...) and structural protections (construction guidelines, work health regs, time and other labour law) haven't been gutted by the Conservatives either by allowing industry capture of the regulators or just starving them for funds so the chance of being audited is effectively zero - I like all of that, too. If you look at the (no longer Progressive, thanks Preston!) Conservative Party of Canada policy ideas (by far the farthest right of mainstream Canadian Politics), you'll find them happily ensconced in the Democratic Party's world (okay, maybe not with "The Harper Government" Harper, and there is as much underground rumblings of the Social Conservatives here as in the U.S., but they won't *act* on their beliefs anymore, and it's still political suicide to *say* them).

As far as my personal politics goes, I don't trust companies. Or rather, I do trust companies to do whatever we don't forbid them to do to exploit their workers, their customers, and the environment. When the conditions that make free-market capitalism effective for all exist, I am happy for it - but I want the government around to make sure that the companies don't have their fingers too hard on the scales - because it's been proved, time and time again, they will try anything and see what they can get away with. And like bridge, if you don't clamp down hard on what is imProper, those that follow the Laws and Proprieties get pushed down. Unlike bridge, they can't just find another game.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-July-15, 09:21, said:

To take this further, the most cost-effective healthcare is sometimes said to be preventative. If everyone did an hour of intensive exercise a day, it could potentially save health services an enormous amount of money. Add in initiatives such as reducing smoking and drinking, or improving diet and you are talking about a huge impact that does not involve any doctors at all.

I'm not sure: are you arguing for free health care that includes gym memberships and smoking cessation programs? Or saying that people should take better care of themselves so that health care would be more affordable for everyone, and the government wouldn't need to provide it (except for the indigent, who cant' afford most necessities of life)?