|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
Razzmatazz:
The US economy is not a disaster. Chris L Peterson: That does, of course, depend on the metrics we use to evaluate it. I don't place much value on GDP, on employment. We have massive and growing wealth disparity, we have massive amounts of capital being held out of circulation by corporations, we have a significant percentage of our population living under poorer conditions than their parents lived under, we have crumbling infrastructure, we spend more than we collect. By my assessment, that's a disaster. It's unsustainable, and when it collapses it isn't going to be pretty. I agree with your assessment in general, but I don't believe that a precipitous collapse is coming. My experiences while living in the Third World for quite a few years tell me that a nation can be in decline socially, morally, and (for the masses) economically for a very long time without their being a crisis point. You and I have to try to come to terms with the fact that this is no longer "our" -- yours and my -- country. Americans in sufficient numbers have rejected liberal democracy, embraced racism (now permitted to be manifested openly) and xenophobia, rejected education (elitist) and embraced misogyny and theocracy. I don't see that changing. I wish I could get to the point where I just say "I've got mine, screw everyone else." That's very hard for a life-long idealist. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:09:40 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Chris L Peterson: By my assessment, that's a disaster. It's unsustainable, and when it collapses it isn't going to be pretty. I agree with your assessment in general, but I don't believe that a precipitous collapse is coming. My experiences while living in the Third World for quite a few years tell me that a nation can be in decline socially, morally, and (for the masses) economically for a very long time without their being a crisis point. You and I have to try to come to terms with the fact that this is no longer "our" -- yours and my -- country. Americans in sufficient numbers have rejected liberal democracy, embraced racism (now permitted to be manifested openly) and xenophobia, rejected education (elitist) and embraced misogyny and theocracy. I don't see that changing. I wish I could get to the point where I just say "I've got mine, screw everyone else." That's very hard for a life-long idealist. I also agree broadly with your comments here. I do think that on the whole the morality of the country has been steadily improving over the last century, and continues to do so. Unfortunately, the decline in education and general awareness is resulting in monumental problems. Whether or not there will be a rapid collapse remains to be seen. A decline in a third world country may not be a good model for a decline in a developed one. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
On Saturday, 31 March 2018 19:17:34 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Whether or not there will be a rapid collapse remains to be seen. A decline in a third world country may not be a good model for a decline in a developed one. There is usually a trigger event which causes a sudden major collapse. It just has to hit one of the countless fault lines in a hideously unequal society. The continuing appeal of superheroes is a clear indicator of a severe lack of social justice. Religion is basically an appeal to a higher authority for social justice where absolutely none exists. The huge and growing disparity in wealth is set up like a hurdle to trip the US nation. Now add increasing disparity, universal robotics and AI to this tottering skittle in a maelstrom of change. It is not the insane sociopathy of commercial health care which threatens most. But the massive overburden of lawyers which may crush the last vein of creative human resources into worthlessness. Human society is constantly exposed to the get-rich-quick syndrome. Where only luck or criminality are seen as the only possible way upwards for most. The irony is that the conspiracy theorists are half right. They just don't know which half or whom is their very real devil. Is Trumpet really "The Joker??" Or a cold and brutal, criminal mastermind? Perhaps, more importantly, what can possibly follow his reign of deeply damaging chaos? When the appeal to vote for the next "highest authority" has patently and repeatedly failed to produce social justice and freedom from poverty.. what then? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 5:54:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
One of the problems may be that we as US citizens expect more in healthcare than the country can afford. Well, naturally. Obviously, it is wrong, wicked, and contradictory to all our tenets of morality and ethics, to stand by while someone is dying when we can save that person's life. So if we have the technical knowledge to save lives, we must apply it, though it may cost millions of dollars to save a single life. Part of the problem, though, is that right now new drugs, for example, are researched by private enterprise. And so they have to recoup their costs by charging more than the marginal cost of production of those drugs. Had the research and development been funded by the taxpayer *in the first place*, there would be no need to demand high prices of the sick, as the research would already have been paid for. And surely it's as important to cure every disease as it was to build the atomic bomb, so how can one object? If the money came from taxpayer's pockets in the first place, rather than from private companies whose stockholders could then be pillaged by new legislation, perhaps the country might confront how much it is willing to pay for health care? Socialism is less bad when the voters are taxing their own pockets than when they are robbing someone else and thus destroying incentive. John Savard |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 9:56:13 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 5:54:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: One of the problems may be that we as US citizens expect more in healthcare than the country can afford. Well, naturally. .... Part of the problem, though, is that right now new drugs, for example, are researched by private enterprise. And so they have to recoup their costs by charging more than the marginal cost of production of those drugs. Had the research and development been funded by the taxpayer *in the first place*, there would be no need to demand high prices of the sick, as the research would already have been paid for. John, TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (or more grammatically, TINSTAAFL). Many potential drugs don't pan out, but you have to wade through many, many possibilities to find the jewels. That costs MONEY. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, it MUST be spent. And do you REALLY believe gov't bureaucrats would spend the money as wisely as corporations? And do you REALLY believe gov't leaders would allocate sufficient funds to do all the necessary work? The present system actually works because drug treatments are subsidized by the gov't. And surely it's as important to cure every disease as it was to build the atomic bomb, so how can one object? The bomb project was a crash program and very wasteful, but it had a time limit. Diseases are almost infinite and new ones show up all the time. That may seem comparable to further bomb research, but it's much, much more expensive. Take a look at ALL the biotech companies in the stock markets. They lose money every year yet investors keep pouring more money into them hoping to strike it rich. Most go broke, but who do you think pays for that? It's not the gov't. If the money came from taxpayer's pockets in the first place, rather than from private companies whose stockholders could then be pillaged by new legislation, perhaps the country might confront how much it is willing to pay for health care? Socialism is less bad when the voters are taxing their own pockets than when they are robbing someone else and thus destroying incentive. John Savard The money ALWAYS comes from the taxpayers in the present setup as well as ANY alternative, except the "just let them die" option. I believe private enterprise is generally more efficient than government. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 05:14:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: And do you REALLY believe gov't bureaucrats would spend the money as wisely as corporations? In general, yes. Public funding is pretty much the only thing that has ever worked for scientific research that was long term or which didn't promise immediate commercial results (or in some cases, didn't suggest any commercial results at all). |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
Razzmatazz wrote in
: On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: Until Mommy and Daddy pass away, and you can't live in the basement any more, anyway. You know something, I know many things. what you wrote above could be taken as an indication of a lack of intellect, You are stupid, yes. and sets a very poor example if you really want to convince people of your ideas. Y'all must be new around here, if you believe that I'm trying to convince anyone of anything. Why not elevate your dialog What would be the point of that? and come out looking reasonably intelligent instead of acting like a 3rd grader. See, here's the thing, son: I'm imitating you. So if I look childish, you're looking in a mirror. Debate the ideas and forget the insults. Debate requires honest, well informed dialog from both sides. Neither you nor Chris is capable of such, so your attempt to troll the master has failed. You can't win. The only way to not lose is to not play. You played. -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 10:41:14 AM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Razzmatazz wrote in : On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 5:49:29 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: Until Mommy and Daddy pass away, and you can't live in the basement any more, anyway. You know something, I know many things. what you wrote above could be taken as an indication of a lack of intellect, You are stupid, yes. and sets a very poor example if you really want to convince people of your ideas. Y'all must be new around here, if you believe that I'm trying to convince anyone of anything. Why not elevate your dialog What would be the point of that? and come out looking reasonably intelligent instead of acting like a 3rd grader. See, here's the thing, son: I'm imitating you. So if I look childish, you're looking in a mirror. Debate the ideas and forget the insults. Debate requires honest, well informed dialog from both sides. Neither you nor Chris is capable of such, so your attempt to troll the master has failed. You can't win. The only way to not lose is to not play. You played. -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. Your point is? The top of your head perhaps? Razzy |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 03:25:42 UTC+2, Razzmatazz wrote:
Your point is? The top of your head perhaps? Razzy He has no need of a head. He never uses it so why bother having one? One the other hand.. https://www.health.harvard.edu/disea...-duct-diseases |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Tabby's Star Dimming Again
On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:37:42 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 05:14:19 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: And do you REALLY believe gov't bureaucrats would spend the money as wisely as corporations? In general, yes. Public funding is pretty much the only thing that has ever worked for scientific research that was long term or which didn't promise immediate commercial results (or in some cases, didn't suggest any commercial results at all). Agreed ... for long-term vs. short term. But long term is already being funded by the gov't. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Comet McNaught Dimming? | Don Bruns | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | January 15th 07 04:45 PM |
Dimming Down Red Headlight | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 13 | July 3rd 06 06:29 AM |
Global Dimming | zaax | UK Astronomy | 0 | January 7th 05 12:46 AM |
Online star map / star chart / star atlas | Excalibur | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 12th 03 07:25 PM |
Online star map / star chart / star atlas | Excalibur | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 12th 03 07:25 PM |