<p>Under capitalism man exploits man;
under socialism the reverse is true.- Polish proverb</p>
<p>You know how long it takes to get actual attention in a country with "universal health care??" Read this:</p>
<p>Also in countries with "universal health care" rationing is increasing according to reports I have read.</p>
<p>"The Europeans have run into a very simple economic rule. If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it. Think of it this way: if food were free, would you eat hamburger or steak? At the same time, health care is a finite good. There are only so many doctors, so many hospital beds and so much technology. If people overconsume those resources, it drives up the cost of health care." </p>
<p>Our system is not perfect but it is definitely preferable to socialist attempts at health care.</p>
<p>You guys can get caught up in silly dogmatic arguments about social arrangements, but the debate doesn't really need to be caught up in these uninformed polemics. </p>
<p>Like the Heritage Foundation is an objective source. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.</p>
<p>Regardless, is it really that unfair to help out the poor with paying for college? That's what this thread is about. I really can't concieve how you guys thing that specific arrangement encourages mediocrity. It is hardly the students' fault that their parents are not able to afford college, and it is probably not the parents' fault either, unless they were raised in the upper-middle class and simple failed. Just the same it is unlikely that rich kids "deserve" to go to elite institutions any more than less wealthy students to, at least according to value we superfically ascribe to American notions of freedom and Democracy.</p>
<p>I consider myself a socialist only as a matter of negation and am not sold on that vision of utopia; rather, I think capitalism on an equal playing field is the ideal world. That said, does it really encourage mediocrity to open college up to those who cannot afford it?
The answer is no, and TO NOT DO SO STIMULATES MEDIOCRITY FAR MORE THAN THIS "SOCIALISM" you are all denouncing. It would create an insular bubble that would allow wealthy kids to underperform, free from competition from those who are priced out of college.</p>
<p>And as a direct response to the Heritage Foundation quote:
1. Healthcare isn't a good like food. To put in "economic rules," it's utility runs short as soon as someone is healthy.
2. To the extent that people are unhealthy and not seeking healthcare, because it has a price tag, it puts the rest of the country at risk through the spread of infectious diseases, and also lowers productivity in the workplace.
3. To the extent that people are so sick that they have to get over the price tag, they often end up in the emergency room. Emergency room costs are astronomical compared to normal doctor visits, so preventative care would drastically cut costs.
4. You can say that providing this preventative care isn't the role of the state, and fine that's a different argument which I addressed in 1 and 2, but currently in California at least, the hospitals are required to provide emergency services even if the patient cannot pay. The state ends up paying anyway. If the state were to pay for preventative care, the costs to taxpayers would be lower</p>
<p>and to MK99:
There's no reason why universal healthcare cannot coexist with a free market system. One method would be a voucher system, similar to that used in Florida schools (which I think is silly for other reasons), or even extended Medicaid (or is it Medicaid? I forgot which ones goes to the poor and which ones goes to the elderly; either way it leaves out the millions of people above the poverty line but who are not provided insurance by their employers and who cannot afford it themselves.)
But a much better alternative I think would be to provide a base level of universal healthcare, which would still allow for private enterprise to exist above this base level. Thus, those wishing to seek higher quality treatment could still do so. The higher quality treatment would be even cheaper than it is now, because it would still likely benefit from the government negotiating with pharmaceutical corporations and a generally healthier populace.</p>
<p>nuveen you talk like a debater...am i right haha??</p>
<p>hahaha yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Socialism isn't a bad thing, unless the money is wasted, which is the case a lot of the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Socialism is flat-out wrong because it undermines the basic rights of the people and it takes away motivation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i guess socialism isn't that bad if everyone agrees to it
[quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe legally, but not morally. And there's no way EVERYBODY is going to agree to it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look at Scandinavia- universal healthcare, higher education that costs next to nothing, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>AND an economy that is growing at a next-to-nothing rate. I love how people always bring up Scandinavia as an example of how "Socialism works." How many wars have the Scandinavians been actively involved in in the last century? None. They have had virtually no real problems in their society. They largely stayed out of the cold war. They spend next to nothing on defense. OF COURSE they have money to burn on welfare, healthcare and all their programs.</p>
<p>How about, look at the USA, one of the most capitalistic economies in the world. The largest GDP (by far) of any country in the world. The strongest military in the world. The undisputed world leader and sole superpower. AND The third-largest GDP per capita in the world, higher than any Scandinavian country except Norway. And that is with all the problems we have! If we were in Scandinavia's geopolitical position with our economical system, we would be even further ahead.</p>
<p>nuveen your idea about expanding medicaid is just a step towards socialism. either embrace socialism or deny it, don't try to play the middle. </p>
<p>also, it would just cause undue stress on the budget to do so. let me guess, are you one of those democrats who wants to expand every social program while somehow balancing the budget ? lol.</p>
<p>if your really interested in the issue i would urge you live in a socialist-type european country. i have, and it will offer you some insight into why socialism is garbage.</p>
<p>Haha MK99, you're acting like O'Reilly now. Political preferences aren't black and white and you can't categorically say "socialism: reject or embrace it," because what the hell does that even mean? "Socialism" means all kinds of different things. It's not like I'm forcing you to reject or embrace capitalism. All economies in the world are mixed. So damn the American economy, the EU, and every single country in the world for "trying to play the middle." </p>
<p>The so-called "spending" Democrats had a president that actually paid back all of the debt Reagan created and left office with a budge SURPLUS, and so-called "fiscally conservative" Republicans through Reagan, H.W. Bush, and W. Bush have cause far more "undue stress" on the budget with their programs. So am I in favor of balancing the budget? Yes. Have the "conservative" Republicans done anything in that direct in the last twenty years? No. Which version of fiscal policy is preferable is up for further debate, but what I have stated here is not a matter of opinion, since I haven't mentioned the superiority of either policy. Beyond what I said was my preference, I have only stated facts.</p>
<p>So, you clearly aren't very informed about the American political economy, at least. Why don't you offer me some insight about your experiences in a "socialist-type European country."</p>
<p>And Ernie H:</p>
<p>"AND an economy that is growing at a next-to-nothing rate."
The CIA estimates Sweden's growth rate for 2006 to be 4.2% and the United States' to be 3.2%. SOURCE: <a href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html%5B/url%5D">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html</a>
But more importantly, if you knew ANYTHING about economics, you would know that GDP growth is a concept that is mentioned a lot, but there is nothing inherently good about a high GDP. It has not intrinsic connection to general social welfare.</p>
<p>What your consciousness doesn't grasp is the extent to which the United States' economic "success" is tied to the "problems" that it faces. War and economic power are not independent phenomenon, and that's a mere historical fact. The Cold War was basically the key to American economic success, not an obstacle to it</p>
<p>nuveen no mention of how reagans supply-side economic tax-cuts or how the early internet-era economy saved the democrats? any political analyst could tell you they were in the right place at the right time.</p>
<p>look for example on past presidents who have kept nice balanced budgets while the american economy declined. there is a lot more to it. balanced budgets don't always = good economy.</p>
<p>the o'reilly comparison is particularly brutal. however, mixing socialism and capitalism just seems pointless to me. while both have their errors, why mix their errors together to cause more problems ? mixing capitalism and socialism is not a great idea. capitalisms goal is to produce wealth with little government intervention and hoping that somehow distribution turns out okay. socialism is trying to take the current wealth and re-distribute it equally ( at least in theory.. this rarely happens in practice)</p>
<p>they are too different to work together imo ... while USA/europe/other countries try to combine them, it doesn't really work. if you look at every major capitalist gain,(industrialization of england,america, recent economc explosion of china and india) they took place in market economies. </p>
<p>every great economic leap seems to come from countries that haven't mixed their economies much... while this does lead to giant wealth gaps, especially in developing countries, it is food for economic thought.</p>
<p>
[quote]
AND an economy that is growing at a next-to-nothing rate."
The CIA estimates Sweden's growth rate for 2006 to be 4.2% and the United States' to be 3.2%. SOURCE: <a href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications.../2003rank.html%5B/url%5D">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications.../2003rank.html</a>
But more importantly, if you knew ANYTHING about economics, you would know that GDP growth is a concept that is mentioned a lot, but there is nothing inherently good about a high GDP. It has not intrinsic connection to general social welfare.</p>
<p>What your consciousness doesn't grasp is the extent to which the United States' economic "success" is tied to the "problems" that it faces. War and economic power are not independent phenomenon, and that's a mere historical fact. The Cold War was basically the key to American economic success, not an obstacle to it.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li>in the long run, CONVENTIONAL wars usually end up helping economies that are already well-established. They can devastate weak economies. But I'm sorry, neither the our current Iraq war nor the Cold War is/was a conventional conflict. Not the Vietnam War either. These are the types of conlicts that drain recources without really providing more job and investment opportunities. "The Cold War was basically the key to American economic success, not an obstacle to it." Right. So before the 1950s America wasn't the world's strongest economy? Look at a history book. In the last half-century, America's monopoly on the world economy has DECREASED.</li>
</ol>
<p>Have the Swedes experienced anything recently like 9/11? Katrina? ANY social unrest at home? Nope. These are the kinds of things that affect economies, ecpecially socialistic ones in which private initiative is discouraged. And even with these setbacks, the American economy has grown faster than Denmanrk and Norway. I'm not counting Finland, because their system is much less socialistic then the others'.</p>
<p>Oh, and another thing nuveen, the US's growth was 3.4%, not 3.2%. Which actually counts for a larger growth per capita than sweden's since the US had a larger PPP to start with.</p>
<p>nuveen kicks oratory ass.</p>
<p>I think hitting somewhere "in the middle" is entirely possible. these are major political systems we're talking about. i highly doubt any of you could single-handedly figure out the "right formula". well not by blabbing on like this about what you hear your dad and the news say. </p>
<p>Go and do some widespread research, read more history books and stop watching TV. </p>
<p>Right now it seems you're fighting over whether DVDs are better or VHS ... there's gotta be a Blueray disc around somewhere that kicks all their asses. </p>
<p>i hope you understand my purposely stupid analogy LOL</p>
<p>This isn't going to go anywhere, so I'll be brief.
MK99:
You're entirely missing the point on both levels. All I was trying to tell you was that your notion of fiscally loose Democrats was more based off a pop-culture stereotype than the political reality ever since the rise of neo-conservatism.</p>
<p>And still, all developed economies in the world have mixed economies. I think what you're trying to get at is that those economies CLOSER to pure capitalism experience the greatest growth. That is true (but not that these economies are still MIXED in very key areas), but among many other things, I think that once countries have hit a certain point of industrialize, critical mass is reached, and the high rates of growth simply cannot be sustained, meaning that other issues like social welfare and environmental welfare need to be dealt with. I'm sorry if that's "socialism" to you.</p>
<p>Ernie H:
I'm not sure exactly what criteria you use to determine what kind of war is convential. All wars are aberrations of normalcy to me. Regardless, the Cold War provided the pretext to pump trillions of dollars into the military-industrial complex, creating millions of jobs for Americans (not all Americans, of course). The Cold War provided the pretext for improving America's public education system, which led to a more productive labor force. The Cold War provided the pretext for economic imperialism, in the name of stopping communism, opening world markets for American corporations to both extract resources, and sell goods and services.
By the terms of capitalism, it seems to me that the Cold War was a glaring economic success.
And most people would agree the reason the Swedes have never faced anything like 9/11 is because their economic system isn't so dependent on third-world exploitation (I'm not even saying that we've done anything to the Islamists, but that at the very least our actions elsewhere make us an eminent target for propaganda). Unless you buy the line that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. And you're wrong about no social unrest...just because you aren't familiar with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. haha no countries have no unrest, but the networks only tell us about the unrest that is of major concern to American economic interests.</p>
<p>...I guess I wasn't as brief as I hoped to be. But I probably won't post here anymore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure exactly what criteria you use to determine what kind of war is convential. All wars are aberrations of normalcy to me. Regardless, the Cold War provided the pretext to pump trillions of dollars into the military-industrial complex, creating millions of jobs for Americans (not all Americans, of course). The Cold War provided the pretext for improving America's public education system, which led to a more productive labor force. The Cold War provided the pretext for economic imperialism, in the name of stopping communism, opening world markets for American corporations to both extract resources, and sell goods and services.
By the terms of capitalism, it seems to me that the Cold War was a glaring economic success.
And most people would agree the reason the Swedes have never faced anything like 9/11 is because their economic system isn't so dependent on third-world exploitation (I'm not even saying that we've done anything to the Islamists, but that at the very least our actions elsewhere make us an eminent target for propaganda). Unless you buy the line that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. And you're wrong about no social unrest...just because you aren't familiar with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. haha no countries have no unrest, but the networks only tell us about the unrest that is of major concern to American economic interests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You obviously hold little or no respect for the American system. And that's not a crime, it's your right. Fine, but your unconnected comments about "exploitation" don't help your point. And I don't believe that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom, although that is a part of it. But I won't get into that. And the CW did provide many jobs but it did more damage in that it raised taxes and closed huge markets to American intrests and investments. I think everyone knows what a conventional war is as opposed to a guerrilla war (Vietnam) or a "war on terror" or a "cold war" of economic sanctions and massive armement with no release. I won't go into that either. Bottom line: if America and Sweden were to swap systems, america would go down and sweden would go up, instead of the other way around. I can see your point, nuveen, but in my opinion you are flat out wrong. No hard feelings.</p>
<p>pro and con editorials on the tuition freeze, from the harvard crimson:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516803%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516803</a>
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516804%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516804</a></p>
<p>I agree with the second editorial</p>
<p>I think this debate about capitalism and socialism is pretty meaningless, because it is possible to have a social safety net without harming free enterprise. Canada and Singapore are two good examples of this. Also, there are cases where attempts to maintain a privatised healthcare system have actually been negative in impact. For example, several of the largest American companies are pushing for a more centralised, single-payer healthcare system, so that the burden of paying for employees' healthcare can be shifted from them to the government, and it has been suggested that the reason some European countries are more competitive these days is because companies there are not burdened by such requirements.</p>
<p>Anyway, back on topic, I think the universities are practising price discrimination to maximise profit. I saw an interesting analogy once - it's like charging a million bucks for admission, but cutting the price for everyone who can't afford it. That's exactly what it is. This way, the universities get the most out of everyone who enters, because it can set individual prices according to income.</p>