Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 21 Nov 2006 04:25 In article <1164101047.711452.220630(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > >> Ken Smith wrote: >> > In article <MPG.1fcae9c9199518f8989c01(a)news.individual.net>, >> > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> > >> >>In article <ejqve0$fgo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >> >>says... >> >> >> >>>In article <6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>[.....] >> >>> >> >>>>The original error starts with you two clowns failing to >> >>>>appreciate that capitalism has a soul. >> >>> >> >>>(Boggle) Capitalism is a cold hard logical system. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>To define a term >> >>>>"fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to >> >>>>embrace freely and without external (read governmental) >> >>>>imposition. >> >>> >> >>>It is beyond the capacity of capitalism to define what "fair profit" >> >>>really means. >> >> >> >>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone >> >>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If >> >>not it is not "fair". > >There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one >particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or >services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for >an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't >get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did >for the same journey and ticket. > >Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not >compelled to buy it. Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples where unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong.
From: Lloyd Parker on 21 Nov 2006 04:24 In article <ejtv5q$9su$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <MPG.1fcae9c9199518f8989c01(a)news.individual.net>, >krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>In article <ejqve0$fgo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>says... >>> In article <6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> [.....] >>> >The original error starts with you two clowns failing to >>> >appreciate that capitalism has a soul. >>> >>> (Boggle) Capitalism is a cold hard logical system. >>> >>> > To define a term >>> >"fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to >>> >embrace freely and without external (read governmental) >>> >imposition. >>> >>> It is beyond the capacity of capitalism to define what "fair profit" >>> really means. >> >>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone >>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If >>not it is not "fair". > >No, there are situations where the market does not work. Drugs are an >example. You do not have the choice of going with a different drug if >only the patented one will save your life and you don't have the option of >waiting. That makes the market is not free since you are under duress. > >> >>> Is it 7% or 15%? >> >>Who cares, other than someone who wants to control others lives? > >I don't want to control others lives. I want to prevent others from >controlling. > >> >>> More importantly, who gets to decide and >> >>Exactly! > >Yes, exactly. Who. Do the shareholders in a company decide that it is ok >if half the people who catch some disease die because that it the price >point the maximizes the stock value? Does the CEO of the company or the >marketing department? It is a question of who decides who's life is not >worth saving. > > > >>> how do you deal, in the short term, with those who choose not to make only >>> a "fair profit"? >> >>Apparenlty you think *you* should be the arbiter. ...sounds >>totalitarian to me! > >No, you have suggested that the market will deal with it. It doesn't. >How do you propose to solve the problem? There are lots of things that >the market doesn't do well. For those we form governments. You can have >tyranny in many forms. One is where corporations control everything. > Or people jacking up the price of water after a disaster. Most states have laws against price-gouging like that.
From: Lloyd Parker on 21 Nov 2006 04:31 In article <ejuug2$8qk_001(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>What percentage do you think the government has to take? >> >>Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. > >I don't believe this. That may be the Federal percentage. The >state percentage also has to be included. There is no state % for Medicare. You're thinking of Medicaid. It is a fact that Medicare has a lower % of administrative costs than private insurers. > >> This is much less than an >>insurance company. I am sure that part of the reason that both Canada and >>the UK pay less for "health care" is because their governments require a >>smaller overhead than the 20% of the US insurance companies. The 20% >>alone isn't enough to explain it because they actually pay about 60% not >>80% of what the US pays. > >They pay "less" because 1. less is provided 2. it a monopoly and >can coerce medical suppliers to discount their prices. > >Let us take the latter. Those companies have to recoup their >costs or they go out of business. At the moment, the US is >paying. What will the rest of you in this world do if the >US stops paying the costs of development by also limiting >prices? > > Why would these companies sell their products in a country if they were not making a profit? >> >> >>> It is a much >>>larger organization and it has to soothe political feathers. The >>>politics is the number one goal. >> >>Keeping the voters happy is the goal. > >Apparently all the politicians have to do is waft hot air at >them. > >> In the insurance case it is keeping >>the shareholders happy that is the goal. The NHS is a very bad system but >>nearly as bad as all the other options. > >NHS is a social system. It will eventually deteriorate as all social >systems do. >> Society is a social system. Civilization is a social system. >> >>[....] >>>>>Look at how this happened in the HMOs. These are small organizations >>>>>compared to one that is a single-payer. >>>> >>>>In the HMO case, the insurance company is in the business to make a >>>>profit. >>> >>>HMO? That wasn't insurance when it got started. They were non-profits. >> >>Actually, they were not-for-profit insurance companies. It still was a >>system of spreading the risk. > >I did not think that they had the classification of insurance. I though >the whole point of creating this kind of business was to avoid >the constraints of insurance laws. >> >>>> It only provides the care needed to cause there to be a profit. >>>>A NHS system is quite different in this regard. >>> >>>Right. Instead of profits, the extra monies are called graft or >>>payoffs. There is no accounting involving these monies so nobody >>>has an idea of what the real cost of delivery service is. >> >>The US has the example of medicare vs insurance. The graft and corruption >>in medicare perhaps accounts for some part of the 3%. > >You sure are stuck at 3% . I don't believe that figure even more. > >>Who knows what >>portion of the %20 the insurance companies skim is graft and corruption,
From: Lloyd Parker on 21 Nov 2006 04:27 In article <ejus5u$8ss_006(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ejsl9k$9gs$12(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ejs81b$8qk_001(a)s952.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ejr4o4$k7c$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <ejhpc1$8qk_001(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <ejckm3$mf9$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>In article <ejcg0c$8ss_016(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>[.....] >>>>>>>I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone >>>>>>>to have insurance is the latest idiocy. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you are going to have an insurance based system and not let the dead >>>>>>bodies of those without insurance clutter the streets, you really need to >>>>>>make sure everyone has insurance. If you don't then an irresponsible >>>>>>fraction of society can become a burden on the rest. >>>>> >>>>>The same problems will still exist. >>>> >>>>No, the irresponsible people will not longer be a burden. >>>> >>>> >>>>> So everybody has a piece >>>>>of paper that says "insurance". That will not create any >>>>>infrastructure needed to deliver the services. >>>> >>>>Agreed but if you wish to hang onto an insurance based system rather than >>>>a NHS like system, this is a completely seperate problem. >>> >>>I don't want either. Insurance should be only for extraordinary >>>circumstances. Instead what we have is a "insurance" that is >>>expected to pay for everything. As a result, it does pay for >>>everything and becomes a Ponzi scheme. >>> >> >>My employer offers both -- an insurance plan with low premiums and very high >>deductibles and copays (and so for extraordinary circumstances) and one with >>higher premiums and lower deductibles anc copays (and thus pays for more >>routine things). Choice is good. > >Choice is very good. An NHS will eliminate choice. No it won't. A national health insurance would in all likelihood cover just the basics. You could buy additional insurance to cover other things. Like Social Security. Almost everybody participates, but if you're smart, you also have pension, IRA, savings, etc. >Watch the >politics and administrations of Massachusetts' latest brain >fart. We'll see what methods the politico social workers use >to force all of us to have insurance. > >/BAH
From: Eeyore on 21 Nov 2006 10:21
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >Has your house been shifting ? > >> >> > >> >> Of course! All houses shift and creak and swell and shrink and > >> >> react to the seasons. > >> > > >> >You don't have decent foundations ? > >> > >> What does that have to do with the minor configuration changes done > >> by temperature changes and gravity? > > > >In Britain it would be poor foundations that give rise to movement of a house > >as the ground swells and contracts with water content. > > Your windows never creak from the sun heating them and then cooling > when the sun goes out? No. > >> >What style of construction is this btw ? > >> > >> Wood frame built on fieldstone. > > > >That explains it. There are very few wood houses here. > > But you have to mortar your masonry, don't you? I don't know what you mean. > Isn't that the same kind of shifting that I'm seeing? Moden brick houses are built with hard mortar and large foundations. They don't move. Older ones like mine only have 'footings' but the mortar is soft lime mortar which allows some movement without difficulties. The movement is small and quite slow typically though. Graham |