General US Politics

[Res]

4 minutes ago, Lushen said:

But a large portion of the policy was pre-9/11 where, again, we didn't have many problems with Terrorism.   Really all the years before ISIS really took off, the people might have been perfectly fine.  I think there was nothing really wrong with the policy back in 1990 but I don't see how it couldn't be one of the main targets of immigration reform after 9/11.  And "first major crime" is the key phrase.  I imagine there will be a lot of investigation on how the other 49,999*n are doing.  Either way, the idea that we should not vet some individuals just because they basically won a lottery should be seen as stupid for multiple other reasons.  How is merit based immigration controversial?   It seems like common sense to me and I think if Obama was saying it instead of Trump democrats would be nodding their head.

The scary thing about this is that other countries have been having issues with immigrants turning to terrorism for the last couple years.  Most of America thought we were safe from what's going on in Europe but now we see that ISIS is perfectly capable of doing the same things in America.  There was supposed to be a parade not too long before this attack, if he waited till the parade we could have seen as many deaths as Nice.

Immigrants ARE vetted extensively before entering the U.S.

Immigration crime rates are lower than U.S. citizen crime rates; so it would actually be ineffective to more heavily scrutinize immigrant populations than other populations. 

Merit-based-only immigration isn't controversial but it's also not in line with the historical values of the U.S. Conveniently there wasn't merit-based-only immigration when the majority of immigrants were white and European (and within the history of the U.S., it's been white Europeans who have committed the genocides, the mass-murders and the colonization of states). 

In Europe, too, the majority of terrorist attacks are committed by natural-born citizens. The dangers in Europe are also massively exaggerated by the U.S. press in general. 

[Lushen]

6 minutes ago, Res said:

Immigrants ARE vetted extensively before entering the U.S.

Immigration crime rates are lower than U.S. citizen crime rates; so it would actually be ineffective to more heavily scrutinize immigrant populations than other populations. 

Merit-based-only immigration isn't controversial but it's also not in line with the historical values of the U.S. Conveniently there wasn't merit-based-only immigration when the majority of immigrants were white and European (and within the history of the U.S., it's been white Europeans who have committed the genocides, the mass-murders and the colonization of states). 

In Europe, too, the majority of terrorist attacks are committed by natural-born citizens. The dangers in Europe are also massively exaggerated by the U.S. press in general. 

I would argue that in Europe it is under-exaggerated by Europeans due to the fact that a very large portion of them would be Democrats if they were in America and deny it is a problem.  I don't know how you could claim that the US press, who sides with immigrants on everything, would exaggerate the issue and make it look like Islamic Terrorism is worse than it is. Heck the UK declared a state of emergency over it recently.  

But I just said that legal immigrants are doing great.  I have absolutely no issue with the majority of legal immigrants, my issue is with:
1.  Illegal Immigrants
2.  Immigrants that the Gov't allows to bypass the system that is put in place for others.  

Before today, I did not know (2) existed.  But apparently, it does.

 

As for domestic terrorism being more common, I see this all the time.  Guess what?  There are more domestic people by a LONG SHOT.  Of course there's more domestic terrorism.  There's also people who say "Crazy white guys" are just as common.  Well...unless you're implying that Whites have more tendency to be crazy than other races, Islamic people should have the same percent chance to be a "Crazy guy" which is stacked on top of their percent change to be an Islamic terrorist.  I don't see how someone's nationality prevents them from turning into the guy in Vegas who, I believe, lost his mind.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

Yeah, illegal immigrants don't really commit crimes.

If anything, the immigration for the US is far more harsh than it is here - the right-wing might have more to legitimately gripe about. They aren't really 'statistically better' than any other citizens unless you view the fact that they have immigrated illegally as a horrible, unforgivable crime.

Edit: What the hell does 'would be a Democrat if they were in America' mean. You literally have a two party system, of course that would be the case, but quite a lot in Europe would be further left than the Democrats party line.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Edit: What the hell does 'would be a Democrat if they were in America' mean. You literally have a two party system, of course that would be the case, but quite a lot in Europe would be further left than the Democrats party line.

If by left you mean more liberal by America's standards that goes with what I was saying - they would be more likely to dismiss Islamic terrorism in favor of condemning Islamophobia.  Anyways, a quick look will show you that islamic terrorism in Europe has drastically gone up since 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)

 

And in Europe, you often have large groups of people getting arrested for terrorism whereas in America it is usually just one guy.  So I don't see how you could say it is more widespread in Europe than America.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen

[Res]

10 minutes ago, Lushen said:

1.  Illegal Immigrants
2.  Immigrants that the Gov't allows to bypass the system that is put in place for others.  

Before today, I did not know (2) existed.  But apparently, it does.

Illegal immigrants also commit fewer crimes, percentage-wise, than U.S citizens.

They only bypass the initial requirements; it's really not 'bypassing the system'. They still have to submit a clean police report. To pass an interview. To prove they have access to an income while in the U.S. (which is pretty high, by the way). To be educated. To know English at a passable level. Literally all it means is they might not have a degree and they might not be related or engaged to a U.S. citizen. If anything, the easiest path to U.S. immigration for most people is to date a U.S. citizen. 

[blah the Prussian]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

There seems to be a misconception that Liberals are the only ones who talk about equality.  Actually this isn't true.  Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity - that High School should be a public service, for example.  Conservatives, in my view, has always been the party of equality of opportunity, while liberals are the party of equality of race, gender, etc.  They don't seem to care as much about opportunity, they care more about equality between races (hence, Affirmative Action which gives whites less equality of opportunity than blacks)

1 hour ago, Res said:

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean shit if the thing you're having the opportunity to do is work all your life and fail because someone else was a little better than you. Capitalism is a zero sum game; that isn't an opinion, it's a fact. To not be prepared to deal with the implications of that is foolishness. I'm not saying the competent shouldn't be allowed to succeed, I'm saying those that fail shouldn't be punished for it.

[Phoenix Wright]

58 minutes ago, Lushen said:

If you're talking about the gender wage gap, it does not actually exist and has been debunked by plenty of credible sources.

you gave me a worse reply than what i was already expecting. 

firstly, the wage gap absolutely exists, but is not as extreme as women make 77% as much as men. well, that is true, but it's the national average, which isn't a useful measure in the context it's usually used to debate in. rather, looking at how much women make vs men in a particular career. you'll find that a wage gap typically exists on the order of 5-10 cents on the dollar. sometimes wages are extreme, like 15-20 cents (like what tryhard was talking about). 

secondly, there is a crucial difference between income and wealth. wealth is the total value of a person's assets: vehicles, property, liquid assets, bonds, investments. income is cash only.

income inequality alone is enough to persuade against social darwinism (which, i cannot stress this enough, is a really dumb belief to hold). the wealth inequality in this country is depressing. the top 10% own more than 1,000,000% that of the bottom 50%. how is this fair to you? in what fucking world do you think someone born in the bottom 50% has anywhere near the resources to compete with the top 10%? 

[Lushen]

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean shit if the thing you're having the opportunity to do is work all your life and fail because someone else was a little better than you. Capitalism is a zero sum game; that isn't an opinion, it's a fact. To not be prepared to deal with the implications of that is foolishness. I'm not saying the competent shouldn't be allowed to succeed, I'm saying those that fail shouldn't be punished for it.

Capitalism is the exact opposite of a zero sum game.  The 'fact' is that capitalism promotes innovation more than any other form of economy.  Plenty of socialistic/communism countries benefit from mass production, but no one comes close to capitalism when it comes to the creation of new products.  There seems to be a misconception with "Everything is made in China".  Well...yea, everything is manufactured in China.  But which companies are being truly innovative?  Let's look at computers.  The vast majority of computers are powered by either Intel or AMD processors.  Both american.  Without American innovation, you wouldn't have these and computers would be much more expensive and much less productive (and they actually are outside of the US).  You like Video Games?  AMD and Nvidia, American companies.  Xbox 360 (American) and PS4 (Powered mostly by American AMD APUs)

Let's look at smartphones.  The majority of smartphones originate from America.  Android is based on Google software which is an American company.  Samsung may make the phones, but many of the innovated parts come from America (such as Qualcomm Processors and Google's software).  IPhones are manufactured (and their software created) by Apple, another American capitalistic company.  

America has more medical patents than any other country.

America has the longest 5 year cancer survival rate.

 

Who benefits from these innovations?  Everyone.  I can buy a Google Home for $100.00.  If you saw a Google Home only 5 years ago, you would have said it's "Rich people crap".  But it's fairly cheap.  IPhones are being handed out by the Gov't to the poor.  Farms are benefiting from genetically altered crops which means more food which means cheaper food for everyone.  EVERYONE benefits from innovation which is encouraged by capitalism more than any other economy.  

Redistribution of wealth would be the definition of a zero sum game because it does not create new wealth, it just redistributes it.

edit:  Also it doesn't even really matter that Samsung makes phones, because Samsung is based in South Korea - another Capitalistic society.  Sony is also based in Japan (Capitalism) and they make the PS4 (with American APUs)

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

32 minutes ago, Lushen said:

If by left you mean more liberal by America's standards that goes with what I was saying - they would be more likely to dismiss Islamic terrorism in favor of condemning Islamophobia.  Anyways, a quick look will show you that islamic terrorism in Europe has drastically gone up since 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)

 

And in Europe, you often have large groups of people getting arrested for terrorism whereas in America it is usually just one guy.  So I don't see how you could say it is more widespread in Europe than America.

I meant that there would be a decent portion of Tory voters (Conservatives) that would be Democrats in the US, because they don't want to be marred by Republicans and their insanity. These people aren't exactly quiet about their feelings of Islam (and immigration, which was previously both the Polish and Bulgarians, too), either.

Let me put it this way: my sister was in the vicinity of the Nice attack and had to flee with her children. She is a Muslim who lives there. Radical Islam is not something I'm scared to talk about or condemn, but how would you have me conduct myself in terms of my views of Muslims?

Edited November 1, 2017 by Tryhard

[blah the Prussian]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Capitalism is the exact opposite of a zero sum game.  The 'fact' is that capitalism promotes innovation more than any other form of economy.  Plenty of socialistic/communism countries benefit from mass production, but no one comes close to capitalism when it comes to the creation of new products.  There seems to be a misconception with "Everything is made in China".  Well...yea, everything is manufactured in China.  But which companies are being truly innovative?  Let's look at computers.  The vast majority of computers are powered by either Intel or AMD processors.  Both american.  Without American innovation, you wouldn't have these and computers would be much more expensive and much less productive (and they actually are outside of the US).  You like Video Games?  AMD and Nvidia, American companies.  Xbox 360 (American) and PS4 (Powered mostly by American AMD APUs)

Let's look at smartphones.  The majority of smartphones originate from America.  Android is based on Google software which is an American company.  Samsung may make the phones, but many of the innovated parts come from America (such as Qualcomm Processors and Google's software).  IPhones are manufactured (and their software created) by Apple, another American capitalistic company.  

America has more medical patents than any other country.

America has the longest 5 year cancer survival rate.

 

Who benefits from these innovations?  Everyone.  I can buy a Google Home for $100.00.  If you saw a Google Home only 5 years ago, you would have said it's "Rich people crap".  But it's fairly cheap.  IPhones are being handed out by the Gov't to the poor.  Farms are benefiting from genetically altered crops which means more food which means cheaper food for everyone.  EVERYONE benefits from innovation which is encouraged by capitalism more than any other economy.  

Redistribution of wealth would be the definition of a zero sum game because it does not create new wealth, it just redistributes it.

edit:  Also it doesn't even really matter that Samsung makes phones, because Samsung is based in South Korea - another Capitalistic society.  Sony is also based in Japan (Capitalism) and they make the PS4 (with American APUs)

What I am proposing is Capitalism. I am not proposing redistribution of wealth, I'm proposing slightly higher taxes and more public works. You're also over-ascribing innovation to low taxation. Japan and South Korea are innovators, yes, but both have more liberal healthcare systems than the US(In Japan for example you pay less if your income is less and if you're sufficiently poor you don't pay at all); it's not free, but it's also more than what America has. As for Western Europe, the reason less innovation exists there is not because they have free healthcare. Western Europe has been economically dependent on the US since after WWII. Of course American corporations would outcompete them. You're using correlation, not causation. Give me a logical argument why free healthcare and higher taxes leads to less innovation; keep in mind that you still have the reward of getting rich at the end.

[Lushen]

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

What I am proposing is Capitalism. I am not proposing redistribution of wealth, I'm proposing slightly higher taxes and more public works. You're also over-ascribing innovation to low taxation. Japan and South Korea are innovators, yes, but both have more liberal healthcare systems than the US(In Japan for example you pay less if your income is less and if you're sufficiently poor you don't pay at all); it's not free, but it's also more than what America has. As for Western Europe, the reason less innovation exists there is not because they have free healthcare. Western Europe has been economically dependent on the US since after WWII. Of course American corporations would outcompete them. You're using correlation, not causation. Give me a logical argument why free healthcare and higher taxes leads to less innovation; keep in mind that you still have the reward of getting rich at the end.

None of what I was saying has anything to do with health care.  I was responding to your comments on Capitalism being "a zero sum game", which is untrue.  You didn't mentioned healthcare and so neither did I.

Either way, there is another huge misconception that US healthcare sucks.  It doesn't.  It may not be as available to the public as it is to other countries and it may not be as affordable, but it is certainty one of the most innovative.  It is known as health care's world leader when it comes to new medicine and innovations.  As this innovation continues, you can expect health care to be cheaper and cheaper much like the innovation of TVs brought 50' 1080p tvs down to only $300.00.  

 

Let's actually use TVs an example.  Not too long ago, you would be considered rich if you had more than one TV.  These TVs were crap by today's standards and most people could only afford to have one, if any.
- Socialist/Communists are able to mass produce these TVs like crazy which would bring the cost down considerably.  But, they would still use cathode ray tubes and use considerably more materials than TVs do today.  They would still look ugly in a living room and the screen would still look terrible.  And really, they would be reliant on sweat shops because their automation systems are not as good.  This is because Socialists/Communists are very good at mass production, but they don't innovate well.
- Capitalists made entirely new TVs.  These TVs looked better and were considerably cheaper.  Eventually this drove TV prices down a lot more than mass production ever would have.  They also invent new robots that are capable of manufacturing TVs quicker than ever before with less human labor.

You can expect the same with medicine.  You say Western Europe is economically dependent on the US and that's very true.  The entire world is very dependent on the US when it comes to health care which is why the US's system is so expensive - we're doing all the work when it comes to innovation.  Then other countries mass produce products and practices originally invented in the US which are used to treat and detect disease which brings down their cost because many of them aren't financing innovative medicine like the US is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

If you look at South Korea and Japan you're right that they are innovators and you're right that they have socialistic health care systems.  But you know what?  They are not innovative when it comes to health care, because their healthcare is socialistic.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Lushen

[SullyMcGully]

My biggest issue with illegal immigrants is that if America can't find jobs for all of the people who are currently in this country, we really shouldn't be letting too many others in. We should really only be letting in refugees from desperate situations. I've known and worked alongside several illegal immigrants in my life, and while they are very nice people most of the time, it doesn't make a lot of since for them to be here working when they aren't supposed to be while other Americans are trying to get jobs but can't. Then again, a lot of employers (myself included) actually prefer them. You can pay an alien Latino the same thing you would pay a white teen and get one thing that kids these days rarely have: work ethic.  

[Lord Raven]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

Either way, there is another huge misconception that US healthcare sucks.  It doesn't.  It may not be as available to the public as it is to other countries and it may not be as affordable, but it is certainty one of the most innovative.  It is known as health care's world leader when it comes to new medicine and innovations.  As this innovation continues, you can expect health care to be cheaper and cheaper much like the innovation of TVs brought 50' 1080p tvs down to only $300.00.

Then why have premiums shot up in the last 25 years? It was only through government intervention that premiums actually slowed their rate of increase, because premiums are still increasing and millions of people did not have healthcare because they couldn't afford it. Many others go into massive debt to get life-saving surgery out of their control. Healthcare is where the market has failed entirely -- and there's no way to call US healthcare the best in the world if it cannot insure its people without bankrupting them.

Also a lot of this is based in regulated capitalism... which you seem to be against for some reason.

[The Geek]

The free market doesn't work for healthcare because the free market is based on choice but you can't choose what illness you have, and if you have an emergency you can't control what hospital you go to.

[Lushen]

Again, individual's access to healthcare isn't the only thing that matters.  If we could all get doctors but the doctor couldn't treat us, what would be the point?

People that live in Canada and Western Europe should be cheering free market healthcare along in America because it's the innovation that comes from free market healthcare that Europeans and Canadians are enjoying.  As I said earlier, no one comes close to the US when it comes to the innovation of medicine and heatlh care equipment.  The reason it's much cheaper in other countries is because America is floating the bill for innovation and other countries are feeding off America's technology.

 

A direct comparison could be seen with phones.  There's the infamous OnePlus line of phones.  They are $500.00 as opposed to Google's $750-1000.00 phone.  Why is it so much cheaper?  Because OnePlus is a copycat phone - they didn't have to pay people to design it.  Health care is very similar.  Most of the practices, medicines, and machines used in other countries come from America.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

10 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

My biggest issue with illegal immigrants is that if America can't find jobs for all of the people who are currently in this country, we really shouldn't be letting too many others in. We should really only be letting in refugees from desperate situations. I've known and worked alongside several illegal immigrants in my life, and while they are very nice people most of the time, it doesn't make a lot of since for them to be here working when they aren't supposed to be while other Americans are trying to get jobs but can't. Then again, a lot of employers (myself included) actually prefer them. You can pay an alien Latino the same thing you would pay a white teen and get one thing that kids these days rarely have: work ethic.  

A) if illegals are getting these jobs, then clearly we need more programs to ensure that our people are competitive;

B) the majority of illegals are people who overstay a work visa, they're not taking jobs from other Americans because other Americans are likely not trained on that type of work;

C) there's a study showing that these illegals don't really take jobs from Americans, and our unemployed base does not match up with the number of illegals we have no matter how you slice it;

D) kids these days have a shitload of work ethic and it makes sense they do because we are entering moments in history where descendants have a lower quality of life than their parents in the US, related to a wide variety of reasons (budget cuts everywhere including education and the housing market). The mentality that kids don't work as hard as the previous generation used to is resultantly toxic, because they'll have to work twice as hard in order to make half as much as their parents -- and the housing market is still going to get worse.

 

im on mobile so I can't edit this into my previous post. But I would also like to state that the free market fucking FAILED for housing, given the 2008 crash.

@Lushen What the fucks the point of having great healthcare if the average person can't access it because a) premiums are too high or b) they go bankrupt getting surgery?

And what's your source on American healthcare being superior? By what metric? I would also like to point out that innovation is vague terminology. What specific innovations is the US solely responsible for?

It's such a vague response that it's not even worth me addressing -- you have a romantic view of the US that it's mind boggling. Seriously you literally argued earlier in this thread that nobody cared about healthcare before Obama except healthcare has been an issue that even the Nixon administration tried to acknowledge... which makes me wonder if you have any factual sources to back it up.

The US is far from the only country that does medical research and other countries spend significantly less as a percentage of their GDP on healthcare. And I'm not talking medical research; I'm talking about healthcare.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Phoenix Wright]

so you're just gonna ignore my post? ok lmao

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

Capitalism is the exact opposite of a zero sum game. 

if you're gonna use game theory terminology, at least stay within the realm of game theory. there is no exact opposite of a zero sum game; it either is or is not. it's a formulation of net utility of a system, essentially. no economic system in existence is a zero sum game, because that would result in implosion. and before you say anything, communism is an economic system, not a political system--current regimes implode typically for political reasons. this isn't an argument in favor of communism, by the way, but it's important to understand these points.

Quote

The 'fact' is that capitalism promotes innovation more than any other form of economy.

source. no purely capitalist society currently exists. and, the closer you get to one, the more the general populace is forced to manufacture for the top echelons of society.

Quote

Plenty of socialistic/communism countries benefit from mass production, but no one comes close to capitalism when it comes to the creation of new products.

source.

Quote

There seems to be a misconception with "Everything is made in China".  Well...yea, everything is manufactured in China.  But which companies are being truly innovative?  Let's look at computers. 

this is a loaded response. you can point at any single innovations and make this argument for any country. you need to take resources into account. the united states is far and away the single most resource-rich nation in existence, save russia. and guess what, they're arguably the other major power in the world. your analyses so far have been shallow; dig deeper.

Quote

The vast majority of computers are powered by either Intel or AMD processors.  Both american.  Without American innovation, you wouldn't have these and computers would be much more expensive and much less productive (and they actually are outside of the US).  You like Video Games?  AMD and Nvidia, American companies.  Xbox 360 (American) and PS4 (Powered mostly by American AMD APUs)

the russian space agency is responsible for our ability to get to space. we use their engines for many launches. spacex and other private space corps. are helping to alleviate this dependency, but are far from actually doing it. you like doing astrophysics? russia is how you do it. and i hope i don't need to explain why space research is necessary.

Quote

Let's look at smartphones.  The majority of smartphones originate from America.  Android is based on Google software which is an American company.  Samsung may make the phones, but many of the innovated parts come from America (such as Qualcomm Processors and Google's software).  IPhones are manufactured (and their software created) by Apple, another American capitalistic company.  

America has more medical patents than any other country.

America has the longest 5 year cancer survival rate.

what is a "capitalistic" company?

again, our resources make this much easier. it's not like there aren't smart people around the world, dude. also patent laws are different everywhere. this is a silly comparison.

Quote

 

Who benefits from these innovations?  Everyone.  I can buy a Google Home for $100.00.  If you saw a Google Home only 5 years ago, you would have said it's "Rich people crap".  But it's fairly cheap.  IPhones are being handed out by the Gov't to the poor.  Farms are benefiting from genetically altered crops which means more food which means cheaper food for everyone.  EVERYONE benefits from innovation which is encouraged by capitalism more than any other economy.  

 

not really. google home works in full capacity in a select number of countries.

Quote

 

Redistribution of wealth would be the definition of a zero sum game because it does not create new wealth, it just redistributes it.

 

you don't understand what a zero sum game is.

Quote

edit:  Also it doesn't even really matter that Samsung makes phones, because Samsung is based in South Korea - another Capitalistic society.  Sony is also based in Japan (Capitalism) and they make the PS4 (with American APUs)

why are you pretending these aren't mixed economies lmao. you wanna know what a capitalist state gets you? a weak government like when we were ran under the articles of confederation and perpetual union. 

capitalism left unchecked is a failed ideology. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Lushen]

23 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

 

@Lushen And what's your source on American healthcare being superior? By what metric? I would also like to point out that innovation is vague terminology. What specific innovations is the US solely responsible for?

The US is far from the only country that does medical research and other countries spend significantly less as a percentage of their GDP on healthcare. And I'm not talking medical research; I'm talking about healthcare.

Medical research and healthcare are highly intertwined.  How much you pay for your healthcare is entirely dependent on the resources you have.  However, when America develops new medicines and equipment other countries are able to benefit off that new technology by simply manufacturing it despite not being involved in R&D.  

 

As for the US being the world leader of medical research by far

- 15 Nobel Peace Prizes in medicine have gone to US workers.  7 have gone from all the countries. 
- The top 6 most important medical innovations of the last 25 years come from America
- About 400,000 European researchers work in the US because they have a higher rate of success here.  
- People who have proper health care in America receive a better experience than other places.
All this from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

I can't remember the source, but I remember reading at one point,
- A single city in the US has more CT scanners than the entire country of Canada.

A more academic article talking about the US's contribution to Medical Research
http://ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf

I found an image from an academic article but I can't find the actual article.  The image is a graph with the caption
"The united states has less than 65% of the population of the EU and Switzerland [the next biggest medical researchers and includes]  but has produced 50% more top medical innovations.

 

The US is doing more for the world when it comes to medical research than any other country by far.  And that is worth "romanticizing".

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

so you're just gonna ignore my post? ok lmao

It's called ninja, why make assumptions?  Our posts were within seconds of one another....

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you don't understand what a zero sum game is.

Using the wikipedia definition of zero sum game redistribution of wealth is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants.  IE, money that goes out of the rich goes into the poor with no new wealth created.  Innovation, however, creates wealth.  

7 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

source. no purely capitalist society currently exists. and, the closer you get to one, the more the general populace is forced to manufacture for the top echelons of society.

source.

the russian space agency is responsible for our ability to get to space. we use their engines for many launches. spacex and other private space corps. are helping to alleviate this dependency, but are far from actually doing it. you like doing astrophysics? russia is how you do it. and i hope i don't need to explain why space research is necessary.

what is a "capitalistic" company?

again, our resources make this much easier. it's not like there aren't smart people around the world, dude. also patent laws are different everywhere. this is a silly comparison.

not really. google home works in full capacity in a select number of countries.

why are you pretending these aren't mixed economies lmao. you wanna know what a capitalist state gets you? a weak government like when we were ran under the articles of confederation and perpetual union. 

The more capitalistic your society gets, the more innovative it gets.  Which leads into the sources you were asking for.  If you google Innovation + Capitalism you will get numerous results.  Innovation being Capitalism's biggest advantage is a fact I learned in middle school and goes with the definition of capitalsm.  Here's one source http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/business/why-innovation-is-still-capitalisms-star.html
If you'd like, you can look at the world's most innovative and the world's most capitalistic countries and see a correlation.  Hell, China has been growing increasing more capitalistic as they are growing more innovative and wealthier.  

This paper talks about how the modern version of socialism that is being proposed may use current resources more effectively but our technological advance would halt and we would eventually fail.  Back to my example, we'd be stuck with a ton of box TVs and never invent the flatscreen. http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Soc_and_Innovation_02.pdf

And... who won the space race?  

Uh, a company that flourishes in a capitalistic society....?

Our resources....that come from capitalistic society...

Yep.  Like healthcare, other countries benefit from American innovation without actually contributing to it.  That's what I've been saying.  The reason America spends more and life expectancy isn't any higher is because when we have a breakthrough it is shared with other countries.  

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

America isn't resource-rich because it's a capitalist society.  It's resource-rich because the land is resource-rich.

[Res]

It isn't as if no innovation happens in other countries, though.

In the meantime capitalism isn't working for the U.S. healthcare system (it isn't and hasn't ever grown cheaper for the patient) and we have millions of U.S. people receiving inadequate healthcare; the NY Times article you linked you quoted the 'these problems should be addressed' sentence but not what the actual problems are which are:

"American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste."

At some point all the innovation doesn't mean anything if the people aren't benefitting, which was the part of Lord Raven's post you didn't address. What's the point in one U.S. city having more CT scanners than the whole of Canada if a significant portion of the population can't access them?

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Hell, China has been growing increasing more capitalistic as they are growing more innovative and wealthier.  

China isn't really free market capitalist in the spirit of it, though. It's corporatism, also known as crony capitalism in which the government fund corporate welfare over truly "conservative" free market capitalism. Funnily enough, you could say that it is "welfare for big business".

Not that it isn't effective, but worker conditions in China are awful and generally corporatism is seen as a bad thing to free market capitalists.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

45 minutes ago, The Geek said:

America isn't resource-rich because it's a capitalist society.  It's resource-rich because the land is resource-rich.

America's land isn't rich in resources if you're referring to minerals and such.  Which is why we are always looking at Alaska and the Middle East when it comes to getting more natural resources.  The reason people come here is because our society promotes innovation more than most other societies.  

31 minutes ago, Res said:

It isn't as if no innovation happens in other countries, though.

 In medicine, the innovation in other countries does not come close to America.  

31 minutes ago, Res said:

In the meantime capitalism isn't working for the U.S. healthcare system (it isn't and hasn't ever grown cheaper for the patient) and we have millions of U.S. people receiving inadequate healthcare; the NY Times article you linked you quoted the 'these problems should be addressed' sentence but not what the actual problems are which are:

At some point all the innovation doesn't mean anything if the people aren't benefitting, which was the part of Lord Raven's post you didn't address. What's the point in one U.S. city having more CT scanners than the whole of Canada if a significant portion of the population can't access them?

Yes, the article's point is that Health Care isn't perfect (which all americans agree), but moving towards a western european based system would cripple not only American innovation but medical advances around the world.  

My response to Lord Raven's post is to look at the other side of the scenario.  What is the point of having a doctor if the doctor doesn't have CT Scanners to diagnose Cancer?  If every person in the United States had access to health care, but we were in the 1960s from a technological standpoint (which is where I think we would be without American innovation), we would see lower life expectancy, more disease, and less effective care.  This goes back to the TV  - more Cathode Ray TVs is less effective than new kinds of TVs.  Health care has been and will continue to get better the more we innovate.  The more technology we have available to us, the cheaper and more effective treatments will be which will drive prices down. 

For example, let's look at how Bill Gates nearly single-handedly cured Polio.  He could have taken your approach and distributed his money to third world countries to make sure everyone has a doctor.  However, the doctor is just going quarantine patients with Polio and wait for them to die.  Instead, he invested his money in innovation and came up with vaccines that were cheap enough to make it so everyone could get them.  And bam, he hopes to rid the world of Polio by 2018.  Do you want to cure Cancer or just...make sure a Doctor sits next to cancer patients as they die?  Because to cure cancer you need innovation and innovation needs Capitalism. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[Time the Crestfallen]

10 minutes ago, Lushen said:

<snip>

I'm really not understanding your argument here. You keep saying that capitalism=innovation=results, but how would the government subsidising health care have an impact on the innovation of capitalism i.e. the private sector? The reason the US puts out the most changes in regards to medicine has nothing to do with capitalism and more to do with the fact that the US has the most resources to sink into the field.

Also, out of interest, what's your view on the coal industry Lushen?

[Nobody]

27 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Yes, the article's point is that Health Care isn't perfect (which all americans agree), but moving towards a western european based system would cripple not only American innovation but medical advances around the world.  

My response to Lord Raven's post is to look at the other side of the scenario.  What is the point of having a doctor if the doctor doesn't have CT Scanners to diagnose Cancer?  If every person in the United States had access to health care, but we were in the 1960s from a technological standpoint (which is where I think we would be without American innovation), we would see lower life expectancy, more disease, and less effective care.  This goes back to the TV  - more Cathode Ray TVs is less effective than new kinds of TVs.  Health care has been and will continue to get better the more we innovate.  The more technology we have available to us, the cheaper and more effective treatments will be which will drive prices down. 

For example, let's look at how Bill Gates nearly single-handedly cured Polio.  He could have taken your approach and distributed his money to third world countries to make sure everyone has a doctor.  However, the doctor is just going quarantine patients with Polio and wait for them to die.  Instead, he invested his money in innovation and came up with vaccines that were cheap enough to make it so everyone could get them.  And bam, he hopes to rid the world of Polio by 2018.  Do you want to cure Cancer or just...make sure a Doctor sits next to cancer patients as they die?  Because to cure cancer you need innovation and innovation needs Capitalism. 

Why do you think the american health care model is the reason america is innovative at medicine rather than the fact that it has the best universities in the world?

Also, what are your sources on bill gates and polio? Polio vaccination was already widespread in the 80s, when Bill Gates wasn't anyone particularly important. And no, I am 100% positive that people with polio weren't just quarantined and left to die in third world countries before vaccination was widespread. Polio isn't even a particularly lethal disease, it might leave sequelae and physical disabilities, but dying due to it is rare.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Nobody

[Lushen]

21 minutes ago, Archer of Red said:

I'm really not understanding your argument here. You keep saying that capitalism=innovation=results, but how would the government subsidising health care have an impact on the innovation of capitalism i.e. the private sector? The reason the US puts out the most changes in regards to medicine has nothing to do with capitalism and more to do with the fact that the US has the most resources to sink into the field.

Also, out of interest, what's your view on the coal industry Lushen?

I'm not talking about small subsidies.  I'm talking about the people on this thread that want the elimination of private sector health care in favor of a single payer system.

My view on the coal industry is mixed.  First off, there is such a thing as clean coal.  That's not some random term Trump throws around, you can filter out sulfur oxides.  Now there's still CO2 production but everything does that.  As for "Coal Miners need to go back to work" I think while some have been shut down due to EPA standards, those are the minority.  Most have shut down because Natural Gas is more efficient from an energy production standpoint (nothing to do with the Environment).  Additionally, many coal miners are out of work because not only are we doing more Nat Gas, but technological advances are requiring less coal miners to work.  I used to visit Industrial plants all the time and you'd see these YUUUUGE parking lots.  There'd be like 10 cars total filling these hospital sized parking lots.  Why?  Because things are getting automated.  That being said, the EPA has no business attacking clean coal when it's probably cleaner than Nat Gas (Nat Gas releases Methane which is supposedly worse than CO2).  Of course, I think any Climate Change scientists are picking up has more to do with converting resources into heat than CO2 or other "Greenhouse Gasses".  

My view on energy as a whole is why the hell are we not going into Nuclear more?  It would make environmental enthusiasts happy because it is a form of clean energy and it would make me happy because I'm tired of people who are scared of Nuclear Power Plants.  For those who don't know, I'm just going to throw it out there - a meltdown just means the walls literally melted down and released an explosion of HEAT.  It has no relation to a nuclear bomb and has killed far less than any other energy source.  U-235 is enriched to 90+% in nuclear weapons whereas it is sometimes not even enriched at all (.07%) in power plants so there is no danger of people using it for nuclear weapons or it "accidentally exploding".  Finally, to those concerned with irradiation of workers, there's something called hormesis which has found that people who are exposed to small amounts of radioactive materials throughout their life have lower risk of cancer than those who do not.  It's likely similar to when people wash their hands all the time and they get sick because they don't develop an immune system.

12 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Also, what are your sources on bill gates and polio? Polio vaccination was already widespread in the 80s, when Bill Gates wasn't anyone particularly important. And no, I am 100% positive that people with polio weren't just quarantined and left to die in third world countries before vaccination was widespread. Polio isn't even a particularly lethal disease.

You're right that it wasn't really exlusive to Bill Gates.  I just have a lot of respect for him (and Steve Jobs).  He did however, play a huge role in it with his charity, spending over $1,000,000.00.  But really my source is just that I have never heard the term polio mentioned without Bill Gates.  Here's some info on what his organization did, he was certainty "particularly important".  https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Polio

Anyways, America doesn't to my knowledge actually have the greatest Universities around the world - they just have affordable universities.  I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of researchers went to school outside of the US.

edit:  Isn't it just laughable that I just said America has affordable college?  Like this is how low the bar is set?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen