Terry
Capitalism is an outworking of evolution.
LOL. Yeah, so is parasitism.
A welfare state is an emergent characteristic of an advanced society. Capitalism might be advantagous to certain individuals, but its net benefit is lower than a welfare state. Why not join your more evolved, fitter bretheren?
Ross
Oh, and btw, not everyone who lives outside the USA lives in a socialist/communist state...
Nice one comrade Little Toe. We need to lull the capitalist running dogs of Amerika into a false sense of security and blind them to our pinko-commie nefariousness. Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Ha! Huh?
Eyebrow
For socialist countries, perhaps...but I wonder if the entrepreneurial spirit that we have in the US is as strong in Socialist countries. Is it as easy to start a business in socialist countries? I don't know...I am asking
Sorry Eyebrow, you need to actually learn about European politics. Your use of 'Socialist' make it obvious you equate modern European Social Democracies with Soviet Socialism - this is wrong.
Just because one doesn't agree with you on this issue doesn't make the other person bitter or unsympathetic with another's plight.
Yes it does; if person a supports public heathcare for all, and person b supports a private system where some people would suffer from lack of heathcare, person b is being unsympathetic with those people's plight. It's completely your right to feel this way, but there are logical consequences.
LDH
Hi ya!
Isn't it great how Americans are so devoted to capitalistic principles? A company employing people at will is socially derilict. Yes, it maximises their potential flexibility and arguably profitability, but minimises social obligations. Obviously the fact I think employers have social obligations is my opinion.
People put up with it because the laws that make such a thing possible also mean they might also get into a position where they will be able to use people like expendible work-units and make loads of money.
So few do, yet just on the slim chance they might benefit greatly, they support a system where they are likey to suffer from the freedoms allowed employers.
Damn, I wish I was that free...
At the end of the day I feel it is a simple choice. One can choose to allow massive profits to be made providing a vital public service. That profit is not supplying better quality health-care. It is supplying houses, holidays, golf-club memberships, share dividends, etc.. There will ALWAYS, rightly, be the requirement of a profit.
A state system can have inefficiency. That inefficientcy is not supplying better quality healthcare. That inefficiency can be improved upon. The British government have tried to introduce competiton for resourses (i.e. capitalism) into public health care by allowing those more succesful centres to attract more funding. It's a good idea, even if it still needs working on. The savings don't go to shareholder profits. They go to improved healthcare, or more money for other public needs.
Obviously those skilled professionals the medical profession requires can still make good money for houses, holidays, golfclub memberships - as they should. But the heathcare industry is operated on the principle of providing healthcare, rather than profit, whilst allowing those actually working in the profession to live as well as they deserve for their hard work and years of study.
As I commented to Terry, capitaliam and parasitism have some features in common.
