Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

I heartily support what you say above.

But two comments nonetheless:
* As regards healthcare - there is no way that healthcare can be provided by "markets". The Demand very greatly outstrips the Supply. Which is why ordinary GPs in the US earn $200K a year on average. And, when manipulated by private Insurance Companies, the cost worsens since the blood-seekers want their generous cut as well. I'm a Yank living in France, a country well known for its very good National Health-care System. Its cost per person (all included) is half that of the US! So let's not forget, you and I pay for one another's health-care whenever we buy a product or a service.
* Pension schemes should be established by companies according to a common set of rules established by a government. Not all people should get the same pension, obviously. There are a number of factors that enter. (For instance, pilots that take more of a risk on-the-job than an insurance-broker deserve more in their pensions.) Which is why a common "set of rules" is necessary.

 

So are you saying that healthcare can only be provided via violence?

 

Great way to expand the mooching class even further!

 

Only in the planet on which you live ... evidently ...

Healthcare is provided by means of a National Service in the European Union, where 715 million individuals benefit from it. (US population, 329 million.)

So Europe is doing more good for more people health-wise than "private markets" are in the US.

For your edification: Life expectancy vs Healthcare Expenditure over time


Hoping for a nice long-life free of illness at a reasonable cost?

Don't bet on it in the US ...

 

Amusing comment, given Friedman's negative income tax proposal

 

It seems you never get tired of looking bad and losing debates. Friedman was for a negative income tax to replace the panoply of crippling welfare programs that our poor people labor under. I would have no trouble with that whatsoever. Do you want to be a libcommie all your life?

 

Of course, violent government is the only thing a liberal can imagine because they lack the intelligence to understand how capitalism would work. A conservative or libertarian is made to feel like a kindergarten teacher when talking to a liberal. Sad. We no longer have a democracy, we have the intelligent teaching the dumb which is a very sad anti democratic state to have reached.

 

Chortle chortle, you don't understand that it creates the same overall outcome as a basic income guarantee do you?

 

Why do you never tire of losing debates? A negative income tax would be in place of all the other crippling overlapping inefficient welfare programs and be a huge step forward and usually require work.It’s the kind of smart government that conservatives and libertarians would look favorably upon.

 

Again you show your lack of understanding. Both the basic income guarantee and the negative income tax integrate tax and benefit systems. Both necessarily create a minimum income.

Weird how little you know about Friedman!

 

The minimum income in the U.S. is currently $7.25 an hour, perhaps we just need to apply a minimum number of hours worked each year?

 

I am not a wealthy man, but you will forcibly redistribute the property of my better off countrymen to me over my dead body.

 

If I denied they created a minimum income I will pay you $10,000.bet? Do you know what a strawman is

 

Obviously not true or there would’ve been no reason for Friedman to propose such a totally different approach. This is actually not rocket science so why does it confuse you so much?You we’re better off in your i have a communist academic who agrees with me days.

 

This is a painfully inept reply. The negative income tax, by integrating tax and benefit systems, is aimed at avoiding poverty and unemployment traps (ie effective marginal rates of tax that approach, or even exceed 100%). That integration, by definition, generates a minimum income.

Perhaps you need to get your crayons out? Do the following:

(1) Draw axis. Label horizontal line 'pre welfare income' and vertical line 'post welfare income

(2) Draw a 45 degree line.

(3) Draw negative income tax line which is shallower than 45 degree line.

(4) Add labels: minimum income (where the NIT line crosses the vertical axis); tax effect (use slope of NIT line) and threshold (where NIT line crosses the 45 degree line, such that you have the income where net welfare effect is zero)

Use coloured crayons if it helps!

 

But it's ok with you that the government is forcibly redistributing YOUR property to wealthy corporate elite? Or don't you realize this is happening and has been for many decades?

 

So be it.

Dumb is as dumb does ...

 

Please elaborate.

 

Not at all mate, I've been very outspoken against corporatism. I vehemently oppose all direct subsidies, I would entirely abolish patents and IP on which the entire pharmaceutical industry is based, I want to tear down barriers to market entry, I want to abolish cartels in industries like transportation.

I am of the view that we decided in the late 19th century that monopolies based on market power are unacceptable, and that only monopolies gained through rampant collusion with government are permissible. I find this notion laughable.

Free markets mean free markets for all, not just the corporate elite.

 

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

 

Your free market utopia has never existed nor can it without ruthless harm to the people. In the US we were close to that in the opening years of the 20th century and the working class was being crushed until they organized and fought back.

 

No utopia, I am quite pragmatic. I think we could all agree that no matter the system we choose, it shouldn't be corporatist. So you can ascribe malicious intent all you want and make me into some sort of bogeyman, but I'd wager we largely agree on this issue.

The US was not close to what I want in the early years of the 20th century. The period is one of my least favourite.

In terms of political organisation they were close to what I wanted in the period between 1777 and 1789. I favor heavily decentralised republican government. I feel that was more closely realised under the Articles of Confederation than the constitution, which has centralised power beyond anything the framers could have imagined at the time of its writing.

If you would like to have a reasonable discussion I am open to it, but first you have to concede that I'm not some evil bogeyman out to enslave the proletariat.

 

Free markets are neither achievable or desirable. They are, mind you, used by the corporate elite to manipulate the gullible

 

We agree that it shouldn't be "corporatist" but there are two problems with that wish. 1) Corporatism is an "evolutionary" step of capitalism. Capitalism reaches a point where there is enough political power due to wealth among capitalists that they can begin to buy small, incremental changes that lead in the direction they want and need ("corporatist direction" IOW) because at some point, without corporatism developing, the leading contingent of capitalists cannot grow their businesses any larger, and growth is necessary in capitalism, and 2) no matter what modifications to capitalism "we" choose, "we" have little to say about it because "we" have no real control. This is one point that I wish posters and the public would get straight! - "WE" don't have the power to get what "WE" want! We have to beg, petition, fuss, and hope politicians do what we want, but without being organized we get what politicians want.

Oh, ok. Then at what period in history did we have what you want and advocate?

Ok, that's when. And one additional thing people don't realize and factor in.... contrary to popular ignorance.... -I mean belief, .... politics don't have a free life independent of economics. There is little to no freedom to mold politics to be what you or I want within the system of capitalism. Politics ALWAYS arises in service to the economic foundation that determines everything. Yes, there is some minor flexibility to, say, tax the value appreciation on home sales or not, or to declare medical care to be a right, etc, but when it comes to decisions affecting the course of capitalism and the prosperity of the most powerful, richest capitalist, there is little flexibility available. When the richest capitalist are worth $10 million as they were a long time ago, they can get minor concessions from government but still they are concessions that the public could not stop without being highly organized. And the concessions are obscure. For example, who objected to the S.C. saying corporations' prime objective was no longer that of providing a social good, but in now the obligation to maximize profits for shareholders? Who objected to corporate lawyers banding together and forming A.L.E.C. and "inviting" lawmakers to sit in on their sessions? Who objected to allowing corporations to to issue back-dated options to the CEO and Board members? They all initially sounded pretty harmless but they turned out to be devastating.

Now the richest capitalists are worth hundreds of billions and spending $100 million on politicians and candidates is chicken feed to them, but the public can't compete with it. So now we're screwed. -which brings us back to the issue of "we".

You got it. And I apologize for my "vigorous resistance" to what I saw to be an issue.

 

Dictatorship, me arse.

If you had the slightest understanding of how our country is structured (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) you would know that a dictatorship without military intervention is impossible ...

But you don't ...