Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I read that the CEO of United Health routinely makes over $50 million a year, I wonder what the real function of health insurance companies is? They ration and refuse care, and make bundles of money without actually providing any personally.
I wish we could get over our fear of "socialism" and get a single-payer system in this country. Most health care economists agree that it's the most efficient way to deliver health care. (And as an aside, we DO have socialist health care in the U.S. - health care that is run and OWNED by the government; no, not Medicare, which uses private doctors and hospitals - it's the Veterans Administration hospitals.)
Healthcare insurance is a very profitable business, but can only survive by contributing massive dollars into congress so they continue to have favoritism legislation.
The only thing HC insurers do is collect premiums from the patients and pay the healthcare providers. The difference is pure profit. To this point all they have done is collect money from the pool of patients and pay for medical care. They do not provide any care or have expertise in deciding what is best care for the patient.
They increase the profit margin by:
1. Charging higher premiums to patients.
2. Reducing payments for healthcare.
3. Denying care that is considered too new. They often call it experimental.
4. Denying tests that they consider are not needed.
5. Denying coverage due to prior illness or even age. They rather insure the young.
They are just the middle man, that is all they do. And the profits are massive.
I agree, capitalism is natural because ultimately we need resources. As long as the resources are not widely available we will have capitalism. If the resources are available to all then we have less capitalism.
"Widely available" is a relative term balanced on variables, perhaps many, such as the population of consumers relative to the supply of resource. Or the location of the resource.
But resources do not dictate the existence of capitalism, as much as resources are of value in supplying or creating a demand to be filled. Resources dictate factors WITHIN capitalist pursuits, like price, supply and demand, and how those factors in turn influence markets and behavior. Resources also create myriad new peripheral demands - such as the discovery of oil led to the creation of a demand for plastics and mass produced internal combustion engines.
For humans, flower pollen is a specialized commodity necessary for commercial purposes to generate "energy stores" in the form of cash. For honeybees, flower pollen IS an "energy store" in and of itself. Humans have the ability to ACT on the pollen to influence it's natural availability, quantity and quality to ARTIFICIALLY enhance or diminish the economic value of flower pollen for the market.
Honeybees count on the natural supply of flower pollen available to them. Thus, the supply/demand between honeybee and flower is balanced. By death. The force is balanced between humans and flower too, but humans have infinitely more control over the balance. They can avert death. They can also inadvertently commit suicide.
Now, shortage and abundance of resources drive capitalism too of course. But, it is not true to say that the abundance of all resources will diminish capitalism. Capitalism is universal, so it is as much involved in the hunt for resources as in the exploitation of them. And the substitution of them, and the synthesis of them and the recreation, the logistics, the transportation, the distillation and all the other processes that are involved. And all the hundred of peripheral occupations involved in the resource change. If the resource of oil ever runs out, humans won't cease practicing capitalism. They'll just have to adapt to a new paradigm of work/energy existence. If the resource explodes and becomes practically limitless, than producers will merely STOP producing the finished product and level supply to demand on the open market to sustain prices at a level medium.
When all the flowers in one field die, the honeybees go looking somewhere else. They expend energy stored as "wealth" in the honeycombs of their hive to feed themselves and continue the work of incubating new bees until such time as they are able to repair the chain of supply to continue to meet their demand for honey. They find a new field, start bringing more pollen back, and use it to replace the lost reserves.
And then they mulitply and start new hives, and the cycle repeats and repeats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
When all resources follow the route of the cell phone then rich people will have nothing extra to buy with the accumulate wealth they have. Their wealth may become redundant.
This would only hold true in a very primitive situation when all people could hunt/gather or fabricate all their own needs without the need for intermediate help or synthesis. But, they would also be limitlessly rich, because they would be the de facto owners of anything they could consume at will. There would be only the exchange of work for energy store. Unless a competing force stopped them from using resources at will. Market would find balance in short human life spans and resultant populaton control.
Resource saturation could never happen in the modern world. Mainly because most resources are not attainable except by a small minority of people. And resources are interrelated. And the cell phone itself never followed the path of absolute abundance. It was reinvented over, and over and over again, unto the 15th generation. Older models went extinct and newer ones keep coming out. Washing over the hordes of world consumers like ocean waves on rocks. And just as ceaselessly.
But, if limitless abundance could happen, you'd merely have the broadest extension of supply and demand to the supply side. Supply of everything would be maxed out, so there would be no demand for anything and thus everything would have no value to consumers, and thus, theoretically, no price.
But if it had no price, production would be halted until such time as there was demand for the product. And resources would dry up. And you'd be back to square one.
Wealth doesn't become "redundant". What happens to "stored energy" when honeybees make more honey than they need for a new generation of honeybees and their own consumption? Well, what miniscule amount of waste there is decomposes and returns to a more elemental state which is then consumed by other life forms for their energy needs, into a cycle of consumption and storage.
The only way to break the capitalist cycle which mirrors the basic work/energy basis of the world would be to invent a machine that creates matter out of thin air. Presuming that you have an infinite supply of X with which to create matter out of thin air. But what would you do when you ran out of X
And the only difference between Communism, Socialism and Burkean Conservatism and Unfettered Laissez Faire Markets is who gets to practice capitalism. And this difference has no analogy outside humanity, because only humans have the capacity to invert or synthesize the work/energy process. They can choose to limit capitalist decisions to only the government, to controlled groups of private individuals, or to everyone with or without restrictions. And any variation between all of these things.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 11-16-2013 at 09:33 PM..
Healthcare insurance is a very profitable business, but can only survive by contributing massive dollars into congress so they continue to have favoritism legislation.
The only thing HC insurers do is collect premiums from the patients and pay the healthcare providers. The difference is pure profit. To this point all they have done is collect money from the pool of patients and pay for medical care. They do not provide any care or have expertise in deciding what is best care for the patient.
They increase the profit margin by:
1. Charging higher premiums to patients.
2. Reducing payments for healthcare.
3. Denying care that is considered too new. They often call it experimental.
4. Denying tests that they consider are not needed.
5. Denying coverage due to prior illness or even age. They rather insure the young.
They are just the middle man, that is all they do. And the profits are massive.
And notice. Under the "new" healthcare reform, none of this is changed. Not a bit. But that's not surprising, because natural law functions as is no matter what distortions are placed upon it to produce an altered but artificial picture.
A primitive man might believe that the airplane wing miraculously changes the laws of physics, so that gravity is defeated by the airplane. But all that needs be done to disprove that theory is turn the engines off.
"Widely available" is a relative term balanced on variables, perhaps many, such as the population of consumers relative to the supply of resource. Or the location of the resource.
I don't disagree, but if something is common, widely available, easy to obtain, and universal------this "something" will not drive the market. It will be taken for granted. Lets look at water which is widely available most of the time. The price related to water has to do with providing the service of delivery and sewer, but this has become the function of the state and the very rich and the very poor have more or less equal access to water.
BTW, I am not a socialist and I don't believe for one second socialism works in this time and age because humans need to be rewarded to be productive. IN other words humans need to evolve.
Quote:
Resources dictate factors WITHIN capitalist pursuits, like price, supply and demand, and how those factors in turn influence markets and behavior. Resources also create myriad new peripheral demands - such as the discovery of oil led to the creation of a demand for plastics and mass produced internal combustion engines.
The average price of Ford Model A in 1928 was between $385 and $1,400 USD ($5,099-$18,545 in todays dollars). With today's exchange it is quite possible to buy a used car with 5k and a new car with 18k. What is really astounding is the percent of of automobile ownership which is likely well over 90-95%.
Quote:
Honeybees count on the natural supply of flower pollen available to them. Thus, the supply/demand between honeybee and flower is balanced. By death. The force is balanced between humans and flower too, but humans have infinitely more control over the balance. They can avert death. They can also inadvertently commit suicide.
The supply is there, but there is also a need for access. With technology the access becomes VERY EASY (see above).
Quote:
If the resource of oil ever runs out, humans won't cease practicing capitalism. They'll just have to adapt to a new paradigm of work/energy existence. If the resource explodes and becomes practically limitless, than producers will merely STOP producing the finished product and level supply to demand on the open market to sustain prices at a level medium.
As of know the supply energy is limited and hence I agree with you, this will be fertile ground for capitalism. Michio Kaku defines the level of technological advancement in a society by the ability to extract energy. As long as we rely of fossil fuels capitalism will be king. And the fossil industry will try to prolong the fossil fuel age for as long as possible. However, we are destined to tap greater sources of clean energy which is not what the OIL industry wants. Technological advance is often sacrificed in the name of the profit margin.
Quote:
Resource saturation could never happen in the modern world. Mainly because most resources are not attainable except by a small minority of people.
If you were to tell someone in the year 1800 that one day there would be tap water, electricity, Internet, GPS, cell phones, air travel, air conditioning/heat, etc---------they would label you a lunatic. You are underestimating the power of technology.
Quote:
And resources are interrelated. And the cell phone itself never followed the path of absolute abundance. It was reinvented over, and over and over again, unto the 15th generation. Older models went extinct and newer ones keep coming out. Washing over the hordes of world consumers like ocean waves on rocks. And just as ceaselessly.
Yes, but a no frills cell cell phone can be had for almost nothing. The first cell phone was several thousand dollars and only available to a few. You are making my point.
Quote:
Supply of everything would be maxed out, so there would be no demand for anything and thus everything would have no value to consumers, and thus, theoretically, no price.
The only way to avoid this is to keep levels artificially low which in itself is crony capitalism rather than REAL capitalism.
Quote:
But if it had no price, production would be halted until such time as there was demand for the product. And resources would dry up. And you'd be back to square one.
This is correct, for capitalism to die humans would have to be willing to work with no reward or profit in sight. As of know humans want a reward so capitalism rules.
Quote:
Wealth doesn't become "redundant". What happens to "stored energy" when honeybees make more honey than they need for a new generation of honeybees and their own consumption? Well, what miniscule amount of waste there is decomposes and returns to a more elemental state which is then consumed by other life forms for their energy needs, into a cycle of consumption and storage.
People store their wealth all the time and it grows into more wealth. Some folks like Bill Gates give their money away. They simply have redundant wealth and cannot spend the money they have made.
I don't disagree, but if something is common, widely available, easy to obtain, and universal------this "something" will not drive the market. It will be taken for granted. Lets look at water which is widely available most of the time. The price related to water has to do with providing the service of delivery and sewer, but this has become the function of the state and the very rich and the very poor have more or less equal access to water.
Utility water is not a good example since governments provide it universally on a non-market consideration. A better example would be something like toothpaste. It meets all your conditions. But to say it is "taken for granted so it isn't driven by market forces" is erroneous. Toothpaste is "taken for granted" as readily available, but it is a simple commodity with a supply driven by demand, just like any other product. It is easy to make, cheap and plentiful - and very necessary (as my children are instructed repeatedly) - and thus the market is in easy equilibrium. But equilibrium, however balanced, is still "driven" appropriate to the relationship between supply and demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
BTW, I am not a socialist and I don't believe for one second socialism works in this time and age because humans need to be rewarded to be productive. IN other words humans need to evolve.
Marx' adage was "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." Marxists are GOOD at making people work - but they arent good at making work pay off. The old Soviet joke was "The state pretends to pay us... so we pretend to work."
I don't think you said you were a socialist. But I do honestly think you've absorbed a lot of what could be construed as socialist oriented economic thinking. It's natural in today's climate. And lots of economists complain about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
As of know the supply energy is limited and hence I agree with you, this will be fertile ground for capitalism. Michio Kaku defines the level of technological advancement in a society by the ability to extract energy. As long as we rely of fossil fuels capitalism will be king. And the fossil industry will try to prolong the fossil fuel age for as long as possible. However, we are destined to tap greater sources of clean energy which is not what the OIL industry wants. Technological advance is often sacrificed in the name of the profit margin.
Capitalism as a reflection of natural work/energy economic process will be king, no matter what type of fuel we use. I understand why you see it otherwise - this a prime example of that "socialist oriented thinking" I referenced earlier. The fossil fuel industry didn't invent capitalism, and neither is the Oil industry trying to "block" competing energies. They couldn't do it anyway. It's a myth promulgated by various agencies with an ideological slant driving their worldview. And, it's a common teaching in the school system. Essentially what we see are critical theory arguments being used to attack the energy industry by an assortment of genuine Leftists, along with assorted useful idiots with pure environmentalist motives and evil profiteers like Al Gore who are merely trying to take advantage of his prior insider status to become a billionaire on green energy alternatives.
But not to say that Al Gore's capitalist efforts are not going to be beneficial in the long run - even if he is only playing the "crony socialist" subsidy seeker role to avoid taking actual market risks himself.
Natural market forces will drive each and every aspect of any equation: from coal, to solar to nuclear to fusion to hydroelectric to whatever. All aspects of discovery, recovery, processing, refining, regulating, logistics, finance, whatever. Millions of seperate "markets" tying into yet another giant knitted "matrix" of economic activity all based in supply and demand. But, that's what drives the market: The ability to balance supply and demand in a cost effective manner that the mass market can sustain purely on sales.
Oil companies are massively invested in developing alternative energy. It's what they plan to sell you in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
If you were to tell someone in the year 1800 that one day there would be tap water, electricity, Internet, GPS, cell phones, air travel, air conditioning/heat, etc---------they would label you a lunatic. You are underestimating technology.
But, you have me telling this to someone in 1800 and them calling ME a lunatic. It wouldn't be me underestimating the power of technology. But, that's not at all what I was saying in the issue of resource saturation. I was talking about your implication that all RESOURCES could go the way of the cell phone. Not commodities, but, let's include that too. Resource saturation could never happen because not everyone can produce or have all the resources they need at any given time. Commodities saturation could never happen for those reasons and more. That's the natural way of things. In no way do I underestimate the power of technology. Indeed, what I'm discussing is the interrelationship between technology and capitalism. You should be taking note of the fact that it is PRECISELY the supply/demand market force that caused the cell phone to become universally available. But not saturated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Yes, but a no frills cell cell phone can be had for almost nothing. The first cell phone was several thousand dollars and only available to a few. You are making my point.
No, you were making a point about "absolute abundance" and of resources becoming like the cell phone. Not about price becoming cheaper, which was absolutely predictable.
Heres what I said again: "And the cell phone itself never followed the path of absolute abundance. It was reinvented over, and over and over again, unto the 15th generation. Older models went extinct and newer ones keep coming out. Washing over the hordes of world consumers like ocean waves on rocks. And just as ceaselessly."
The point is, there is no "absolute abundance" of resources OR commodities. Despite that fact, a key precept of Marxism if you read Das Kapital involved the precept that absolute abundance of finished goods would be inevitable, resulting in mass worker displacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
The only way to avoid this is to keep levels artificially low which in itself is crony capitalism rather than REAL capitalism.
There's only one kind of economics on planet Earth. What you are addressing as "crony capitalism" is the reality of corruption to create negative results. You are right to address this problem... but the problem is you address it in a typically Left wing way, whether you know it or not. The tendency to advance the notion that the natural laws "don't work" or are intrinsically corrupt.... so wouldn't it be wonderful if we could abolish private property and allow only select elites to practice capitalism?
Now that you mention it, I think you could be a LOT more socialist than you realize. But then again, lots of people are nowadays.... and then you go on to say....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
This is correct, for capitalism to die humans would have to be willing to work with no reward or profit in sight. As of know humans want a reward so capitalism rules.
People store their wealth all the time and it grows into more wealth. Some folks like Bill Gates give their money away. They simply have redundant wealth and cannot spend the money they have made.
You don't sound happy about this. All living things want a reward. Plants, parameciums, and my kid who expects to be paid tomorrow for mowing my lawn. Work/energy exchange and storage. The essence of capitalism.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 11-23-2013 at 12:37 AM..
What a lot of nonsense has been off-loaded here. Capitalism is an economic system that worships capital. In the belief that ever more capital will lead to ever greater social wealth and well-being, profit and capital formation are the chief objectives of capitalism. It has nothing to do with ownership or freedom or markets or any other such thing. It is a system driven by a focus on capital formation. End of story.
Utility water is not a good example since governments provide it universally on a non-market consideration. A better example would be something like toothpaste. It meets all your conditions. But to say it is "taken for granted so it isn't driven by market forces" is erroneous. Toothpaste is "taken for granted" as readily available, but it is a simple commodity with a supply driven by demand, just like any other product. It is easy to make, cheap and plentiful - and very necessary (as my children are instructed repeatedly) - and thus the market is in easy equilibrium. But equilibrium, however balanced, is still "driven" appropriate to the relationship between supply and demand.
I agree, water is not a good example. But, the point I am trying to make is that technology is a HUGE player in improving the lives of the poor. And today's poor have more available things than a middle class person in the 19th century
Quote:
Marx' adage was "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need." Marxists are GOOD at making people work - but they arent good at making work pay off. The old Soviet joke was "The state pretends to pay us... so we pretend to work."
I am in agreement. Marx made a HUGE error and did not understand human nature. As I said MAN needs a reward.
I don't think you said you were a socialist. But I do honestly think you've absorbed a lot of what could be construed as socialist oriented economic thinking. It's natural in today's climate. And lots of economists complain about it.
Quote:
Capitalism as a reflection of natural work/energy economic process will be king, no matter what type of fuel we use. I understand why you see it otherwise - this a prime example of that "socialist oriented thinking" I referenced earlier. The fossil fuel industry didn't invent capitalism, and neither is the Oil industry trying to "block" competing energies. They couldn't do it anyway. It's a myth promulgated by various agencies with an ideological slant driving their worldview. And, it's a common teaching in the school system. Essentially what we see are critical theory arguments being used to attack the energy industry by an assortment of genuine Leftists, along with assorted useful idiots with pure environmentalist motives and evil profiteers like Al Gore who are merely trying to take advantage of his prior insider status to become a billionaire on green energy alternatives.
OK, I cannot disagree with the above. But, I want to mention that just last week they has a mini-documentary in the TV show "60 minutes" about how many of the most wealthy people in the planet plan to give away a lot of the wealth they accumulated. Gates wants to give away 95% and Murdock 99%. In a sense they prove my views on redundant wealth.
Quote:
Natural market forces will drive each and every aspect of any equation: from coal, to solar to nuclear to fusion to hydroelectric to whatever. All aspects of discovery, recovery, processing, refining, regulating, logistics, finance, whatever. Millions of seperate "markets" tying into yet another giant knitted "matrix" of economic activity all based in supply and demand. But, that's what drives the market: The ability to balance supply and demand in a cost effective manner that the mass market can sustain purely on sales.
Oil companies are massively invested in developing alternative energy. It's what they plan to sell you in the future.
Agree!
Quote:
Heres what I said again: "And the cell phone itself never followed the path of absolute abundance. It was reinvented over, and over and over again, unto the 15th generation. Older models went extinct and newer ones keep coming out. Washing over the hordes of world consumers like ocean waves on rocks. And just as ceaselessly."
I here you, but they may come a day when having "google" type glasses or even implanted Internet search engines will be standard in every human.
Quote:
The point is, there is no "absolute abundance" of resources OR commodities. Despite that fact, a key precept of Marxism if you read Das Kapital involved the precept that absolute abundance of finished goods would be inevitable, resulting in mass worker displacement.
I never read Das Kapital. I thought the concept of redundant wealth was my own original idea.
Quote:
There's only one kind of economics on planet Earth. What you are addressing as "crony capitalism" is the reality of corruption to create negative results. You are right to address this problem... but the problem is you address it in a typically Left wing way, whether you know it or not. The tendency to advance the notion that the natural laws "don't work" or are intrinsically corrupt.... so wouldn't it be wonderful if we could abolish private property and allow only select elites to practice capitalism?
Now that you mention it, I think you could be a LOT more socialist than you realize. But then again, lots of people are nowadays.... and then you go on to say....
I know I sound like a socialist, but there is a BIG difference. I don't believe for a milisecond socialism works as long as MAN needs to be rewarded for his work.
Quote:
You don't sound happy about this. All living things want a reward. Plants, parameciums, and my kid who expects to be paid tomorrow for mowing my lawn. Work/energy exchange and storage. The essence of capitalism.
Yes, it is frustrating to see people that are driven or motivated for only a monetary reward. At times, it evens sounds like an addiction or an ingrained pattern related to evolution.
And interesting phenomena has happened at our local Walmart that shows that capitalism and the competition that goes with it is usually better for the consumer. Here's what happened. Our local Walmart last month started to make some changes. First, I noticed that some of their prices came down. Their main competition locally is a small regional chain, that has fairly high prices. So Walmart tended to be just under them or the same on many items. But in the last month or so, I've seen some prices come down. Then all of a sudden, their karts, which were typically in terrible shape, all got new wheels and worked fine, almost like new. Then, I went this morning, and they had clerks waiting to check you out. Usually, there were always a couple people in line, and sometimes, even their self check outs had lines. What happened. Costco came to town and is opening this week. Finally they had some competition, so they had to quick slacking off.
Competition makes companies work harder. This is why national health insurance is BAD. If the insurance business and doctors are in competition, they have to work harder for your business. But if there's no competition and the govt. runs the whole thing, just guess what kind of service you'll get. I think we already see that based on how well the ACA roll-out has begun.
Competition is good for business. I think most all will agree with that. However, health care should not be considered a business and run for profit. The competition in healthcare should be in the quality of results. The doctors who receive the highest scores from their patients, the hospitals who receive the highest grades for following "the checklist" which results in fewer hospital related viruses, and medical errors being made, and low mortality rates. Competition for profit in health care is the cause of the US spiraling health care costs. I recommend you read a few books on the subject that explains all of this. You might also like to watch the documentary on Amazon called Escape Fire: The fight to rescue America.
If you have Amazon Prime, you can watch it for free.
What a lot of nonsense has been off-loaded here. Capitalism is an economic system that worships capital. In the belief that ever more capital will lead to ever greater social wealth and well-being, profit and capital formation are the chief objectives of capitalism. It has nothing to do with ownership or freedom or markets or any other such thing. It is a system driven by a focus on capital formation. End of story.
No. The end of YOUR story.
At the very least, your definition is incorrect to assert that capitalism posits "social wealth". Capitalism posits nothing of the sort. That is the domain of the political system dictating the expenditures of revenues within its span of control for social purposes.
The definition of capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. The definition has nothing to do with how profit is spent. And this simple description really doesn't acknowledge the universality of capitalism as a reflection of the natural reciprocity of work and energy necessary to all living things.
In other words, ALL societies practice capitalism, irregardless of whether they are free and open or autocratic and command-control. It cannot be any other way, as long as nations are required to trade for goods and services from other nations. And even if, as Marx envisioned, there were no more nations... it wouldn't matter. The principle is still the same, because nations are just lines drawn on a globe. The only consideration is WHO gets to practice capitalism, and to what degree of freedom, within a defined area of authority.
You will be rid of capitalism only when you are rid of the need to acquire energy via work. When the laws of biology are no longer in operation. Which I assume is never.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 11-24-2013 at 01:42 AM..
I agree, water is not a good example. But, the point I am trying to make is that technology is a HUGE player in improving the lives of the poor. And today's poor have more available things than a middle class person in the 19th century
It seems we are having two different discussions. But nevertheless, it was fun.
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 11-24-2013 at 01:39 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
