Excellent Esquire Article: "Welcome to Idiot America"

[octothorp]

I think a better question is whether efficiency should be your primary objective in a health-care system. I have no doubt that our health care system can be made more efficient, and that the american one can, too. But a free market approach to efficiency is to undersupply a quality product as a way of ensuring that supply never outpaces demand, with increasingly lower-quality products emerging at lower price points. In most industries, even the low end products are going to be priced so that someone cannot afford them. It's a great system for most industries, but just because it works for the automotive or electronics industries doesn't mean that it's right for the healthcare industry.
Besides, even in the US where there are elements of free market efficiency in segments of the healthcare industry, there are also practices that severely restrict it from being effective or free. For example, the pharmaceutical industry's successful efforts to prevent inexpensive asian-manufactured pharmaceuticals from entering the US market. They essentially ensure that no additional pharmaceuticals enter the market at a lower price, thus they minimize supply and maximize their own profits.

I`m not against some elements of a free-market system being incorporated into health care. What I am opposed to is either side placing ideology above concerns for the health of individuals. Saying that we should embrace free market health care system because they are inherently more efficient (or because socialism is evil or flawed) or that we should stick with socialized health care simply because it`s morally superior, either approach glosses over the issues. Pursuing greater efficiency is good, but as soon as the pursuit to become more efficient impacts quality of health care, it ceases to be worthwhile.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That is also a pet peeve of mine when it comes to people's historical knowledge of the slave trade. Revisionists often make it sound like white people went to Africa and enslaved people, when in fact, the slave trade in Africa existed for centuries before Europeans became part of it. Slaves were traded within Africa and to the Middle East. It still exists in some remote regions of Africa.

But it took the Americans long enough to abolish it. They were way behind most nations in that regard. This fear of change and ffear of "liberalism" is still prevalent in many ways in American society.

True, but the British abolished it sixty years before, when it was central to their lucrative sugar economy.

The American situation was quite a bit different. A large federal country divided along such a divisive issue can be a complicated thing to sort out.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Gotta love how Canadians sit on their high horses when they critize Americans for being far on the "crazy religious" side, when they themselves are way too far on the "crazy leftist side" which can be argued is a religion too (with dogmas, saints (Chomsky) etc).

Be careful where you cast that stone, as it is likely to shatter the glass house in which you live. You should be the last to speak of false religions, dogmas and saints. All of the cheap theories you cling to wreak of dogma, and you hold the proponents of these inane arguments as infallable and saint-like. You seem to believe that the theories proposed by the likes of Mises, Hayek through to Friedman are gospel and continue to preach their "truth" to anyone who will listen, no matter how incorrect they prove to be.

As for American constitution, its the greatest piece of a political document ever written.

Believing that Thomas Jefferson was the greatest of the founding fathers, and one of the most pragmatic men to have lived, I would have to agree with you. Unfortunately, the Constitution is a document that completely destroys any and all of your arguments, and you would be wise to distance yourself from it in this, and in future arguments.

The preamble to the Constitution reads, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You'll notice that it does not read "We the capitalists". Nor does it say "promote the general free market". It speaks of providing those desires of all men, for all men. In fact, the entire document reads like a socialist manifesto more than how you represent it. If you have bother to read the Constitution you would recognize that it was extremely anti-free market. Section 8 of the Constitution outlines the powers of congress and explicitly states that they shall be responsible for the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, regulate the flow and value of money, and most importantly to make all laws necessary and proper for execution the foregoing powers. Not very friendly verbage to those who believe the market shall be free to establish norms.

It is ironic that you hold this document in such high regard, considering it preaches equality for all, and does not mention the concepts of capitalism or market economy in the entire document and is pretty socialistic in base concepts. But what would you expect from a bunch of guys that started a revolution because the free market was being unfair and oppressing the masses (the cost of goods were unreasonably high as the duties and taxes were passed onto the consumer making good unaffordable to all but the uber rich). The founding fathers fought for equality for all, not an advantage for the monied, and the Constitution supports that. If you do not believe that premise, you may be advised to spend some time reading another equally important, and just as compelling document, the Declaration of Independence.

Dude, you are a ripe example of what is wrong with today public schools - they produce chronic know-nothings like yourself, who have never heard of socialism calculation debate for example, yet they feel educated enough to make silly WOW statements.

Feel free to look in the mirror. Your education may also come into question based on your focus on such dubious theories. Your belief that they are right does not make them correct. Only the response of the system support or refute the theory and define whether it is more correct than wrong, or vice versa. It is the interpretation of the theory and the systematic response that will define whose education is suspect.

The debate took place in the 1920s and 1930s. But I suppose there are people out there who act on their beliefs (be they religious, political or otherwise) without bothering to stop, smell the roses, and act on the TRUTH, realize the debate is over and socialism has failed everywhere.

Truth is discretionary. Don't think for a second that what you believe to be truth is universal in acceptance. I actually find it hard to believe that what you consider truth, and hold dear as the foundation for your beliefs, is shared by more than a fringe few. Truth is defined by societal norms, and whether you like it or not, the majority of societies are socialist in nature. If you look at the leading societies (or countries) in the world, they are socialist in nature, and the most successful are closer to pure Socialist political theory than any other, regardless of what some inane debate that took place in the 1920’s and 30’s has to say (ironically at a time when the market economies of the world collapsed).

As to the success or failure of socialism, we are all inherently socialist. It is the way we are wired. Without the social structures, we have anarchy and lawlessness. Our species instinctively fights against lawlessness and anarchy. It is instinctive to be social and work together in socialized structures toward common goals. We have done it for thousands of years, regardless of the popular political theory of the day. Strip away everything and you'll find that we need social order, we strive for social order, and we demand social order. Remove money from the picture, and we are all socialists, because we don't have the skills to survive in any situation other than a collective.

If 100% socialism is impossible to work, because of its inefficiency, trying to build anything upon it means that you are injecting fundamental inefficiency into your system. Which in result means that it cannot function efficiently

Yet there is no pure market economy in the world, because it is inefficient, inequitable, and too unpredictable. Why is that? Because these systems don’t operate in a vacuum. There is nothing pure in this world, especially when it comes to human beings. People will always take what they perceive to be the best of one thing, and add it to the next, hoping to improve upon the system in use.

My personal feeling on the article is that it is sad, because it is very true. The dumbing down of America has reached an all time high, and with it the basic knowledge of the average guy on the streets and all time low. The issues that are irrelevant are the ones that matter, and the ones that should matter are deemed as irrelevant. The media has been producing sensationalistic infotainment for the past six to ten years, and with that went all hope of the average American being in touch with reality. Basic education is in a shambles and the hopes of seeing the country become a leader in anything other than consumerism deminishes with each graduating class. Sadly, the best students in university are primarily from other countries, and the hope of keep them in America, to lead inovation and research, dwindles as the competitive edge swings to the far east. Idiot America may seem a strong term, but its not far off the mark IMO. Ironically, America can blame no one but itself.

[Save Us Sutter]

Geez, where were all you guys last night when I was struggling to argue these exact points!!

[LChoy]

Me being a Poli Sci guy, that was a damn good response Lanny.
It's nice to know there can actually be some really good and informed debates on a forum devoted to the Flames.

[peter12]

As to the success or failure of socialism, we are all inherently socialist. It is the way we are wired. Without the social structures, we have anarchy and lawlessness. Our species instinctively fights against lawlessness and anarchy. It is instinctive to be social and work together in socialized structures toward common goals. We have done it for thousands of years, regardless of the popular political theory of the day. Strip away everything and you'll find that we need social order, we strive for social order, and we demand social order. Remove money from the picture, and we are all socialists, because we don't have the skills to survive in any situation other than a collective.

Social cooperation and order aren't the same thing as so-called Marxist-inspired socialism.

With the Western conception of the social order, individuals are still expected and encouraged to maximize their own efforts and choices. That's where capitalism and the free markets come in, they are simply the best way of creating good outcomes for all of society based upon individual merit. State regulation often distorts that in a poor fashion. What the free market creates, is the ability to choose among a range of competitive options. Nothing wrong with that.

However, the one problem I have with a capitalist system, is when it becomes infused with a spirit of corporatism instead of communitarianism.
Lanny, you're right. Our communities are what make up our cultural identity, it is important that they are nourished.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

Social cooperation and order aren't the same thing as so-called Marxist-inspired socialism.

I thought that was very obvious. That is why I attempted to strip away all of the geo-political pre-conceptions and focus on more of the sociological perspective of what we are. I still contend that if you strip away all the political dogma, Marx was basically acknowledging the nature of our species. We are social animals and survive best when we work together and do not compete for the same resources.

With the Western conception of the social order, individuals are still expected and encouraged to maximize their own efforts and choices. That's where capitalism and the free markets come in, they are simply the best way of creating good outcomes for all of society based upon individual merit. State regulation often distorts that in a poor fashion. What the free market creates, is the ability to choose among a range of competitive options. Nothing wrong with that.

I think what you describe is materialism and greed, more than conceptualization of social order. Again, strip away the money and the perceived prestige involved with many of the bobbles we are hung up on, and we work incredibly well in supporting the collective rather than breaking it down for our own benefit.

However, the one problem I have with a capitalist system, is when it becomes infused with a spirit of corporatism instead of communitarianism. Lanny, you're right. Our communities are what make up our cultural identity, it is important that they are nourished.

Which is why North American culture finds itself at a crossroads and suffering an identity crisis. We have very little cultural identity (Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohen are our cultural icons?) that does not focus on materialistic pursuits and greed. It is corporatism, the likes of Milton Friedman, and good old fashioned greed, that have sold our cultural soul. All of which is a major part of Idiot America.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Which is why North American culture finds itself at a crossroads and suffering an identity crisis. We have very little cultural identity (Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohen are our cultural icons?) that does not focus on materialistic pursuits and greed. It is corporatism, the likes of Milton Friedman, and good old fashioned greed, that have sold our cultural soul. All of which is a major part of Idiot America.

I think this is a very important point. People no longer look up to the intelligent, the creative, the innovative. The dumbing down of our society goes hand in hand with the dumbing down of our idols.

We look up to those who have money, big SUVs and little to no actual substance. How can we expect a young girl to grow up and contribute to her culture if she is emulating herself after these "women".

Is there any way to reverse this trend?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

I think this is a very important point. People no longer look up to the intelligent, the creative, the innovative. The dumbing down of our society goes hand in hand with the dumbing down of our idols.

We look up to those who have money, big SUVs and little to no actual substance. How can we expect a young girl to grow up and contribute to her culture if she is emulating herself after these "women".

Is there any way to reverse this trend?

1. You can thank the media for that.
2. Parents need to take responsibilty....

[MarchHare]

I think this is a very important point. People no longer look up to the intelligent, the creative, the innovative. The dumbing down of our society goes hand in hand with the dumbing down of our idols.

There was a passage in the article linked in the OP where the author remarked that in the 50s and 60s scientists and engineers were greatly admired in American society. Unfortunately, there has emerged is a recent trend of what can only be described as anti-intellectualism. You can see this from the likes of Bill O'Reily, who is now trying to do the same to the words "intellectual" and "secularist" what Rush Limbaugh did so successfully to the word "liberal" in the 80s and 90s; that is, he wants to make those words synonymous with "communist" and "anti-American".

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

1. You can thank the media for that.
2. Parents need to take responsibilty....

You can blame the media I suppose, but if no one watched that crap, they wouldn't put it on.

Parents I agree need to take responsibility. But not in the form of saying "don't watch her/him/them". Telling a kid not to look up to someone is, in a lot of cases, going to encourage them to do it.

They really need to (and this starts at a very young age) help mould their child to be the kind of person who takes a look at Paris Hilton or whoever and realizes that she's a.. well... you know...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

1. You can thank the media for that.

Placing the blame at the feet of the media is a very easy thing to do, but I also think it is inaccurate. I think that the downfall of the media can be tied to the corporatization of the media, more than the media itself. When the corporations started getting into the media, and operating them as cost and profit centers, the management of the media changed. What had traditionally been money losing departments, were transformed into money makers. With that transformation came the birth of infotainment. News organs bodies underwent an rigorous round of surgery and departments were burned to the ground. Their ability to do real investigative journalism was cut out from beneath them as seasoned reporters, who knew how to research and had sources, were cut loose in favor of the Ken and Barbie dolls that are so prolific on the airwaves today. The support departments that did the majority of the reasearch and provided content were also eliminated. The on air personality became more important than the news being reported. The "product" packaging became much more relevant than the content. These inexperienced, underskilled, unintelligent "faces" are incapable of doing their own reporting, and it shows in what information they present. This is the problem with the media. We also must shoulder the blame because we, as consumers, do not demand better coverage of the important events that shape our world. We have to react to the corporate interference in the news media the best way we can, by not watching it, or using the products of the sponsors. Maybe when their revenues slip they will change their methodology.

2. Parents need to take responsibilty....

Agree with this too, but society has coddled these irresponsible parents and even encouraged their bad behavior. Parents no longer can punish their children as they did in the past. When I was growing up, if I stepped out of line, I got the crap smacked out of me. I learned some respect for my elders and the instituations of our society. If I erred, I learned about it the hard way, usually at the end of a wooden spoon. To this day I still take a step back when my mother takes the wooden spoon out of the drawer when she's cooking, and she's an octagenarian. If parents were allowed to discipline their children better I think we could turn things around. But the children have the power. When they can report their parents for abuse, and the police will blindly side with the kids until proven otherwise, it is impossible to curb negative behaviors. Society has to change as much as parenting. Until that happens we set our selves up for a few more generations of holy terrors.