Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

(02-07-2020 01:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 12:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 11:26 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  You can't have a meaningful poll regarding socialism since the word is undefined or at best extremely ambiguous and weaponized. Poll the people on whether they believe Europe, Australia and Japan are the same as Venezuela ... I doubt many would agree they are.

Europe, Australia, and Japan are not socialism. They are fully capitalist economies with a social safety net. Everybody benefits, and everybody pays. They do not practice socialist redistribution of income and wealth. Their income tax rates are generally flatter (less progressive) and often lower than ours, and they rase 20-30% of their tax revenues through regressive consumption taxes.
Venezuela and Cuba are different. They are socialist/communist redistributionist economies. And those economies do not work.

This.
I wonder Owl how many months it would take for Cuba to revert to prosperity if it abandoned its current paradigm and moved to one more mixed with capitalism? Id bet it would not take long. Venezuela is though imo...a disaster that would take decades to change.

Cuba is still much further away from prosperity than VZ. Cuba is still literally stuck in the 60's. The only thing Cuba could offer it tourism and the rest of the Caribbean is already light years ahead of them. Caracas is called Havana South for a reason.

Venezuela was the most prosperous country in South America before the Chavez/Maduro regimes. Cuba has never really enjoyed that kind of prosperity. They were kind of a tropical playground for the US northeast at one time, and they could probably get back there.

Venezuela has oil. One problem is that it's not very good oil, and in a world where oil is not in short supply, they are probably the first to get shut in. That doesn't mean they are dead, but it does mean that they will have a difficult time getting all the way back to where they once were.

I wouldn't say the prospects for either are great prosperity, but I would say that both would clearly do far better under a different economic philosophy.

(02-07-2020 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

Ok so thru all that rambling nonsense where you think I don't understand that buying my iPhone is engaging in capitalism did you ever explain thru what means you could can get a private business to willfully do something that hurts their own bottom line. There are no means to do that in pure capitalism. Prices are 100% driven by supply and demand, which is fine as long as you don't have an inelastic product. It's a huge problem when you have an inelastic product (when the price goes up, consumers' buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged) and that product is the difference between people living and dying. Gas currently is pretty inelastic. There eventually is a point and price where habits will change but there's pretty wide latitude there. However, you aren't going to literally die if you can't afford gas. If a diabetic doesn't take regular insulin they have a pretty decent chance of death. It's as inelastic a product as you can possibly have. So what's the incentive in pure capitalism for whatever pharma company to charge less for insulin when the demand is going to remain the same pretty much regardless of price?

(02-07-2020 01:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 12:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 11:26 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  You can't have a meaningful poll regarding socialism since the word is undefined or at best extremely ambiguous and weaponized. Poll the people on whether they believe Europe, Australia and Japan are the same as Venezuela ... I doubt many would agree they are.

Europe, Australia, and Japan are not socialism. They are fully capitalist economies with a social safety net. Everybody benefits, and everybody pays. They do not practice socialist redistribution of income and wealth. Their income tax rates are generally flatter (less progressive) and often lower than ours, and they rase 20-30% of their tax revenues through regressive consumption taxes.
Venezuela and Cuba are different. They are socialist/communist redistributionist economies. And those economies do not work.

This.
I wonder Owl how many months it would take for Cuba to revert to prosperity if it abandoned its current paradigm and moved to one more mixed with capitalism? Id bet it would not take long. Venezuela is though imo...a disaster that would take decades to change.

Cuba is still much further away from prosperity than VZ. Cuba is still literally stuck in the 60's. The only thing Cuba could offer it tourism and the rest of the Caribbean is already light years ahead of them. Caracas is called Havana South for a reason.

Venezuela was the most prosperous country in South America before the Chavez/Maduro regimes. Cuba has never really enjoyed that kind of prosperity. They were kind of a tropical playground for the US northeast at one time, and they could probably get back there.

Venezuela has oil. One problem is that it's not very good oil, and in a world where oil is not in short supply, they are probably the first to get shut in. That doesn't mean they are dead, but it does mean that they will have a difficult time getting all the way back to where they once were.

I wouldn't say the prospects for either are great prosperity, but I would say that both would clearly do far better under a different economic philosophy.

Cuba was pretty prosperous prior to Castro, but that was so long ago. People in VZ still remember how to run companies there. The large contractors are still there (although their families have left). Virtually all of the manufacturing and distribution was taken over by the government......but some of the people who built the companies and former employees are still around or doing something in Colombia/Brazil/US/Chile etc. If the oil engineering operations of American/Euro companies, that were confiscated, were returned that would be a good first start. Same for the international manufactures who plants were confiscated. If Gaudio took over today and Maduro was gone, along with his thugs, I think VZ could be semi back to normal in 5 years.

Cuba is so far behind that any sort of modern agriculture is obsolete. They import 80% of their food. They have no infrastructure, energy, manufacturing etc. The only thing they did well was train people to be doctors and sent them abroad to make $$$ for the regime.

(02-07-2020 02:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 12:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Europe, Australia, and Japan are not socialism. They are fully capitalist economies with a social safety net. Everybody benefits, and everybody pays. They do not practice socialist redistribution of income and wealth. Their income tax rates are generally flatter (less progressive) and often lower than ours, and they rase 20-30% of their tax revenues through regressive consumption taxes.
Venezuela and Cuba are different. They are socialist/communist redistributionist economies. And those economies do not work.

This.
I wonder Owl how many months it would take for Cuba to revert to prosperity if it abandoned its current paradigm and moved to one more mixed with capitalism? Id bet it would not take long. Venezuela is though imo...a disaster that would take decades to change.

Cuba is still much further away from prosperity than VZ. Cuba is still literally stuck in the 60's. The only thing Cuba could offer it tourism and the rest of the Caribbean is already light years ahead of them. Caracas is called Havana South for a reason.

Venezuela was the most prosperous country in South America before the Chavez/Maduro regimes. Cuba has never really enjoyed that kind of prosperity. They were kind of a tropical playground for the US northeast at one time, and they could probably get back there.

Venezuela has oil. One problem is that it's not very good oil, and in a world where oil is not in short supply, they are probably the first to get shut in. That doesn't mean they are dead, but it does mean that they will have a difficult time getting all the way back to where they once were.

I wouldn't say the prospects for either are great prosperity, but I would say that both would clearly do far better under a different economic philosophy.

Cuba was pretty prosperous prior to Castro, but that was so long ago. People in VZ still remember how to run companies there. The large contractors are still there (although their families have left). Virtually all of the manufacturing and distribution was taken over by the government......but some of the people who built the companies and former employees are still around or doing something in Colombia/Brazil/US/Chile etc. If the oil engineering operations of American/Euro companies, that were confiscated, were returned that would be a good first start. Same for the international manufactures who plants were confiscated. If Gaudio took over today and Maduro was gone, along with his thugs, I think VZ could be semi back to normal in 5 years.

Cuba is so far behind that any sort of modern agriculture is obsolete. They import 80% of their food. They have no infrastructure, energy, manufacturing etc. The only thing they did well was train people to be doctors and sent them abroad to make $$$ for the regime.

I guess my view was due to the close proximity to our mainland and change would occur very fast with our help. Sounds worse than I have been lead to believe.

(02-07-2020 12:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Who is advocating for a Venezuela system?

Anyone advocating for socialism.

Tis sad that our higher "education" in the government run schools has so corrupted and so poorly educated more than 40% of our populace.

I guess the Jerry Springer reruns are entertaining for them tho'.

(02-07-2020 12:54 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Who is advocating for a Venezuela system?

It was Sanders that previously voiced that he admired both systems..just sayin.

(02-07-2020 01:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

Ok so thru all that rambling nonsense where you think I don't understand that buying my iPhone is engaging in capitalism did you ever explain thru what means you could can get a private business to willfully do something that hurts their own bottom line. There are no means to do that in pure capitalism. Prices are 100% driven by supply and demand, which is fine as long as you don't have an inelastic product. It's a huge problem when you have an inelastic product (when the price goes up, consumers' buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged) and that product is the difference between people living and dying. Gas currently is pretty inelastic. There eventually is a point and price where habits will change but there's pretty wide latitude there. However, you aren't going to literally die if you can't afford gas. If a diabetic doesn't take regular insulin they have a pretty decent chance of death. It's as inelastic a product as you can possibly have. So what's the incentive in pure capitalism for whatever pharma company to charge less for insulin when the demand is going to remain the same pretty much regardless of price?

If you would like insulin managed like the flu vaccine that is something plausible. What people are balking at it the fact you want the entire healthcare industry managed in that fashion. Accommodations can be made for discrete physical items. The plan breaks down when trying to apply it to services because the consumers lifestyle plays a great deal into the diagnosis and treatment needed.

With Cuba, I wonder if we could do something like we have done with Vietnam. We have a large number of Vietnamese refugees here in the Houston area, and a huge number of them have businesses going on with the home country.

There is so much bad blood that I'm not sure it could be done, but if we could set up a situation where the Cuban expats in Miami and elsewhere would put up the capital to redevelop Cuba, with their investment guaranteed, it might be possible to transition the island in a hurry. I know oil is right now not in short supply, but I've seen estimates that if the Cuban sugar cane industry ramped back up, it could supply enough sugar cane ethanol to replace about 2 million gallons of gasoline a day. That would be significant.

(02-07-2020 01:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

Ok so thru all that rambling nonsense where you think I don't understand that buying my iPhone is engaging in capitalism did you ever explain thru what means you could can get a private business to willfully do something that hurts their own bottom line. There are no means to do that in pure capitalism. Prices are 100% driven by supply and demand, which is fine as long as you don't have an inelastic product. It's a huge problem when you have an inelastic product (when the price goes up, consumers' buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged) and that product is the difference between people living and dying. Gas currently is pretty inelastic. There eventually is a point and price where habits will change but there's pretty wide latitude there. However, you aren't going to literally die if you can't afford gas. If a diabetic doesn't take regular insulin they have a pretty decent chance of death. It's as inelastic a product as you can possibly have. So what's the incentive in pure capitalism for whatever pharma company to charge less for insulin when the demand is going to remain the same pretty much regardless of price?

competition

(02-07-2020 01:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 12:48 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 11:26 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  You can't have a meaningful poll regarding socialism since the word is undefined or at best extremely ambiguous and weaponized. Poll the people on whether they believe Europe, Australia and Japan are the same as Venezuela ... I doubt many would agree they are.

We have some measure of socialist policies now and Im fine with that..but..we mix them heavily with pure capitalism. What we are fighting against are those that want to lean it more toward what has happened in Venezuela where they view capitalism as evil and the power of the State as the savior.

It is a undeniable fact...Capitalism has created more prosperity for more people on this planet than any other idea ever conceived. We must not forget this.

You aren't wrong about that, but capitalism by it's very nature is only concerned about 1 thing, how to make the most possible profit. In most areas that's perfectly fine, and especially in industries with low barriers for entry and robust competition it results in better outcomes for consumers. The problem is always going to be in instances where the public health and safety and maximizing profit do not align. Pretending you can ever make capitalism care about the public good over profit is just deluding yourself. Private businesses care about the public good insomuch as it affects their bottom line, which is fine when you are talking about selling mattresses or computers but is a real issue when you are talking about medications people need to live. I'm happy to listen to how you think you can come up with a way to convince pharma companies to drastically lower prices using pure capitalist principles, but I just don't see it.

Im not in favor of trying to convince or coerce/force a drug company to lower prices any more than any other industry. That should be left to the marketplace and competition. However... As I stated in my opening sentence..Im fine with a level of socialist policies...like the subsidies we give all over the place to deflate prices in certain markets. I see no reason that could not apply to this industry as well in some fashion to help with high costs. We piss away plenty of money on things much less important.

(02-07-2020 02:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 02:17 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 12:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This.
I wonder Owl how many months it would take for Cuba to revert to prosperity if it abandoned its current paradigm and moved to one more mixed with capitalism? Id bet it would not take long. Venezuela is though imo...a disaster that would take decades to change.

Cuba is still much further away from prosperity than VZ. Cuba is still literally stuck in the 60's. The only thing Cuba could offer it tourism and the rest of the Caribbean is already light years ahead of them. Caracas is called Havana South for a reason.

Venezuela was the most prosperous country in South America before the Chavez/Maduro regimes. Cuba has never really enjoyed that kind of prosperity. They were kind of a tropical playground for the US northeast at one time, and they could probably get back there.

Venezuela has oil. One problem is that it's not very good oil, and in a world where oil is not in short supply, they are probably the first to get shut in. That doesn't mean they are dead, but it does mean that they will have a difficult time getting all the way back to where they once were.

I wouldn't say the prospects for either are great prosperity, but I would say that both would clearly do far better under a different economic philosophy.

Cuba was pretty prosperous prior to Castro, but that was so long ago. People in VZ still remember how to run companies there. The large contractors are still there (although their families have left). Virtually all of the manufacturing and distribution was taken over by the government......but some of the people who built the companies and former employees are still around or doing something in Colombia/Brazil/US/Chile etc. If the oil engineering operations of American/Euro companies, that were confiscated, were returned that would be a good first start. Same for the international manufactures who plants were confiscated. If Gaudio took over today and Maduro was gone, along with his thugs, I think VZ could be semi back to normal in 5 years.

Cuba is so far behind that any sort of modern agriculture is obsolete. They import 80% of their food. They have no infrastructure, energy, manufacturing etc. The only thing they did well was train people to be doctors and sent them abroad to make $$$ for the regime.

I guess my view was due to the close proximity to our mainland and change would occur very fast with our help. Sounds worse than I have been lead to believe.

If a reliable electrical grid and significant infrastructure was realized there.....maybe more tourism and some appeal for a 2nd home condo for Americans/Canadians. Their tourism there has been mostly Canadians and then Cuban Americans.

BTW Cuban Americans have some sort of lawsuit against Hotel Resort operators in Cuba. I think they are Euro or Canadian companies. The suit claims these operators are squatting on their real estate which was stolen from them.

(02-07-2020 01:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

Ok so thru all that rambling nonsense where you think I don't understand that buying my iPhone is engaging in capitalism did you ever explain thru what means you could can get a private business to willfully do something that hurts their own bottom line. There are no means to do that in pure capitalism. Prices are 100% driven by supply and demand, which is fine as long as you don't have an inelastic product. It's a huge problem when you have an inelastic product (when the price goes up, consumers' buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged) and that product is the difference between people living and dying. Gas currently is pretty inelastic. There eventually is a point and price where habits will change but there's pretty wide latitude there. However, you aren't going to literally die if you can't afford gas. If a diabetic doesn't take regular insulin they have a pretty decent chance of death. It's as inelastic a product as you can possibly have. So what's the incentive in pure capitalism for whatever pharma company to charge less for insulin when the demand is going to remain the same pretty much regardless of price?

Ok, so in a sense you're pinning the price of medicine to Trumps administration. Fine, you can do that but only if you admit that the problem was there during Oblunder's administration. Nothing got done then either so why is it all of a sudden Trump's problem. You also realize that most of those socialist countries would kill to have the medicine in the first place. Read books BJ, study the history of socialism/communism. You'll find that it's not the Utopia that Bernard and his fans say it is. I'm 71 years old I've seen and read about Russia's, China's, Cuba's socialist reigns and it ain't good. Believe me when you see pictures from Liberal news sites like Time and Newsweek of people standing in lines for something that they don't even know why they're there, it's pretty telling how great the Socialist model is. No thanks, I'd rather bust my ass off and knowing that through hard work I would get paid and not have to rely on a government that might run out of money because the teat ran out of milk, aka, every socialist country we've known. I also will applaud the person who had the guts to go into business not even knowing if it would succeed.

By the way BJ, how old are you? Don't tell me if you're ashamed of your lack of life's experiences.

(02-07-2020 03:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

Ok so thru all that rambling nonsense where you think I don't understand that buying my iPhone is engaging in capitalism did you ever explain thru what means you could can get a private business to willfully do something that hurts their own bottom line. There are no means to do that in pure capitalism. Prices are 100% driven by supply and demand, which is fine as long as you don't have an inelastic product. It's a huge problem when you have an inelastic product (when the price goes up, consumers' buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged) and that product is the difference between people living and dying. Gas currently is pretty inelastic. There eventually is a point and price where habits will change but there's pretty wide latitude there. However, you aren't going to literally die if you can't afford gas. If a diabetic doesn't take regular insulin they have a pretty decent chance of death. It's as inelastic a product as you can possibly have. So what's the incentive in pure capitalism for whatever pharma company to charge less for insulin when the demand is going to remain the same pretty much regardless of price?

competition

There you go that is an answer, the correct one in most circumstances. Now feel free to tell me how you create competition in the Pharma industry? Eliminate/shorten the length of patents so genetics can hit the market sooner? Eliminate/greatly shorten the required amount of testing a drug must undergo to reach market? You are talking about an industry with an insanely high barrier to entry, it takes millions of dollars, years of research, and many multiple failures before you get even 1 drug to market. I’m all ears how you create competition and lower prices with zero outside interference.

(02-07-2020 03:23 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

Ok so thru all that rambling nonsense where you think I don't understand that buying my iPhone is engaging in capitalism did you ever explain thru what means you could can get a private business to willfully do something that hurts their own bottom line. There are no means to do that in pure capitalism. Prices are 100% driven by supply and demand, which is fine as long as you don't have an inelastic product. It's a huge problem when you have an inelastic product (when the price goes up, consumers' buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged) and that product is the difference between people living and dying. Gas currently is pretty inelastic. There eventually is a point and price where habits will change but there's pretty wide latitude there. However, you aren't going to literally die if you can't afford gas. If a diabetic doesn't take regular insulin they have a pretty decent chance of death. It's as inelastic a product as you can possibly have. So what's the incentive in pure capitalism for whatever pharma company to charge less for insulin when the demand is going to remain the same pretty much regardless of price?

Ok, so in a sense you're pinning the price of medicine to Trumps administration. Fine, you can do that but only if you admit that the problem was there during Oblunder's administration. Nothing got done then either so why is it all of a sudden Trump's problem. You also realize that most of those socialist countries would kill to have the medicine in the first place. Read books BJ, study the history of socialism/communism. You'll find that it's not the Utopia that Bernard and his fans say it is. I'm 71 years old I've seen and read about Russia's, China's, Cuba's socialist reigns and it ain't good. Believe me when you see pictures from Liberal news sites like Time and Newsweek of people standing in lines for something that they don't even know why they're there, it's pretty telling how great the Socialist model is. No thanks, I'd rather bust my ass off and knowing that through hard work I would get paid and not have to rely on a government that might run out of money because the teat ran out of milk, aka, every socialist country we've known. I also will applaud the person who had the guts to go into business not even knowing if it would succeed.

By the way BJ, how old are you? Don't tell me if you're ashamed of your lack of life's experiences.

Did I even mention Trump or Obama? I asked a simple economics question, which is how do you decrease the price of an inelastic product without government interference in a high barrier to entry market? This is Macroeconomics 101 stuff, so with your 71 years of life it should be a simple question to answer.

(02-07-2020 03:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

Ok so thru all that rambling nonsense where you think I don't understand that buying my iPhone is engaging in capitalism did you ever explain thru what means you could can get a private business to willfully do something that hurts their own bottom line. There are no means to do that in pure capitalism. Prices are 100% driven by supply and demand, which is fine as long as you don't have an inelastic product. It's a huge problem when you have an inelastic product (when the price goes up, consumers' buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged) and that product is the difference between people living and dying. Gas currently is pretty inelastic. There eventually is a point and price where habits will change but there's pretty wide latitude there. However, you aren't going to literally die if you can't afford gas. If a diabetic doesn't take regular insulin they have a pretty decent chance of death. It's as inelastic a product as you can possibly have. So what's the incentive in pure capitalism for whatever pharma company to charge less for insulin when the demand is going to remain the same pretty much regardless of price?

competition

There you go that is an answer, the correct one in most circumstances. Now feel free to tell me how you create competition in the Pharma industry? Eliminate/shorten the length of patents so genetics can hit the market sooner? Eliminate/greatly shorten the required amount of testing a drug must undergo to reach market? You are talking about an industry with an insanely high barrier to entry, it takes millions of dollars, years of research, and many multiple failures before you get even 1 drug to market. I’m all ears how you create competition and lower prices with zero outside interference.

You don't "create" competition, you allow it. The only sector where they can't seem to figure out how to streamline things these days is the public sector.

They can't design a functioning website, app or manage a vote in one of the smallest states in the country. Now we gonna trust them with our healthcare.

No.

You didn't answer my question but you want me to answer yours? Those questions you asked will not be fixed by a socialist model I can tell you that. Can you name one great medical discovery that was created by a socialist country? There should be many, right (?) as they have no other party to impeded their research. Do you think because Bernie says he'll spend so much that it will fix the problem?

I agree that it will take laws to bring the price of drugs down so why don't you give Trumps administration a chance to do so. We've had this problem for like forever. If pharma can sell the same drugs cheaper in Europe and elsewhere then a law should be passed the same way NATO was forced to equalize military spending. But, the price of drugs is not something socialism would fix as Bernie would run into the same problems that big government face now, uncooperating law makers. Unless Bernie has it in his mind that he will become a full blown dictator (that's the next step as happened in other nations) he cannot force cheaper prices on pharma.

But, answer my questions your wonderful college genius. I will admit that I wasn't a business major or whatever your major is, but I think with 71 years of life experiences and 135 hours of college I'm not exactly a dumb S.

In a nutshell BJ what I'm trying to make you see is that a Socialist/Communist like Bernie will not fix our problems he will only make them worst. Even the Demons don't like him and that's saying a lot seeing how "progressive" the Demoncraptic party is becoming. Even THEY think he's nuts.

(02-07-2020 03:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:05 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ay BJ, you must be very young. Socialism only takes away. It's like the government, it doesn't generate money on its own it takes it away from the taxpayer. We already have that with our politicians who think the money belongs to them to hand out as they wish. If there are government workers it's because WE are paying their salaries.


But, (now it's time to talk like a Demoncrap as they always use the word BUT) Capitalism is the form of government where if it wasn't for people who create the jobs there would be no capital (money) to hand out to anyone who in turn pay the government who hire those government workers. Let's say you have a barrel full of fish and people come to you because they are hungry. You start handing out the fish but guess what(?) that barrel will get empty eventually and the person(s) that was supposed to fill that barrel isn't filling it anymore because there aren't any more fish (money) to bring to the barrel because the government never thought about where the fish would come from if there wasn't any more fisherman or fish (taxpayers) who in turn get the fish from capitalists. You need to provide a service (capitalism) that others (consumers) will dole out money to acquire. You know like what you did when you bought your iPhone. You were actually engaging in capitalism without knowing it.

I'm sorry if this sounds condescending but it seems you have no grasp about how the world works. You're like those panhandlers that couldn't give a flying f**k where the alms that they get comes from. All they know is, it comes until it doesn't, like the fish.

Ok so thru all that rambling nonsense where you think I don't understand that buying my iPhone is engaging in capitalism did you ever explain thru what means you could can get a private business to willfully do something that hurts their own bottom line. There are no means to do that in pure capitalism. Prices are 100% driven by supply and demand, which is fine as long as you don't have an inelastic product. It's a huge problem when you have an inelastic product (when the price goes up, consumers' buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers' buying habits also remain unchanged) and that product is the difference between people living and dying. Gas currently is pretty inelastic. There eventually is a point and price where habits will change but there's pretty wide latitude there. However, you aren't going to literally die if you can't afford gas. If a diabetic doesn't take regular insulin they have a pretty decent chance of death. It's as inelastic a product as you can possibly have. So what's the incentive in pure capitalism for whatever pharma company to charge less for insulin when the demand is going to remain the same pretty much regardless of price?

competition

There you go that is an answer, the correct one in most circumstances. Now feel free to tell me how you create competition in the Pharma industry? Eliminate/shorten the length of patents so genetics can hit the market sooner? Eliminate/greatly shorten the required amount of testing a drug must undergo to reach market? You are talking about an industry with an insanely high barrier to entry, it takes millions of dollars, years of research, and many multiple failures before you get even 1 drug to market. I’m all ears how you create competition and lower prices with zero outside interference.

You don't "create" competition, you allow it. The only sector where they can't seem to figure out how to streamline things these days is the public sector.

They can't design a functioning website, app or manage a vote in one of the smallest states in the country. Now we gonna trust them with our healthcare.

No.

Ok then feel free to tell me how you "allow" competition in a market that takes years to get a viable drug to market and costs millions and even upwards of billions of dollars to get that drug to market (and this is assuming the drug actually works and can pass the trials, the vast majority fail)? I'm not a non-believer in capitalism or the free market, far from it, but I am not going to ask or trust for-profit private industry to care about anything else other than their own bottom line. The only mandate any company has is to make as much profit as they possibly can, and that's fine in the vast majority of cases.

The mattress market has been an amazing thing to watch for example. For years you had very little option but to go to one of those big mattress stores and spend a fortune. Now you can order a mattress in a box from a seemingly endless number of pop up companies because the barriers to entry in the market were relatively low. It's caused the price to drastically decrease and the number of choices and options to drastically increase. That's the free market at work in a very positive way. You certainly wouldn't want government intervention to stop innovation or hamstring stuff like that. There is no such thing as a "pop up pharma" company. You can't have a Kickstarter to have a new diabetes medication.

(02-07-2020 03:50 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  You didn't answer my question but you want me to answer yours? Those questions you asked will not be fixed by a socialist model I can tell you that. Can you name one great medical discovery that was created by a socialist country? There should be many, right (?) as they have no other party to impeded their research. Do you think because Bernie says he'll spend so much that it will fix the problem?

I agree that it will take laws to bring the price of drugs down so why don't you give Trumps administration a chance to do so. We've had this problem for like forever. If pharma can sell the same drugs cheaper in Europe and elsewhere then a law should be passed the same way NATO was forced to equalize military spending. But, the price of drugs is not something socialism would fix as Bernie would run into the same problems that big government face now, uncooperating law makers. Unless Bernie has it in his mind that he will become a full blown dictator (that's the next step as happened in other nations) he cannot force cheaper prices on pharma.


But, answer my questions your wonderful college genius. I will admit that I wasn't a business major or whatever your major is, but I think with 71 years of life experiences and 135 hours of college I'm not exactly a dumb S.

In a nutshell BJ what I'm trying to make you see is that a Socialist/Communist like Bernie will not fix our problems he will only make them worst. Even the Demons don't like him and that's saying a lot seeing how "progressive" the Demoncraptic party is becoming. Even THEY think he's nuts.

I actually want to apologize because my post was very condescending. I'm 33 years old BTW. So we actually aren't in complete disagreement because you admit it will take government action to make the price of drugs go down, because there isn't and never would be as currently constructed a free market reason for them to lower them voluntarily.

I'm done, turn off the timer. BJ, go ahead and vote for Bernie but don't expect any of us Republicans to change our minds, but listen to my words. If he wins you will rue the day that he did. (Long shot but history has shown stranger things have happened.)

It'll be like a fellow firefighter who lobbied for the EPFD to take over fire fighting duties at the airport but when the time came that they screwed him he was crying to me and I didn't have any pity and told him so.