why Government regulation is necessary.

[Biker16]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/2004-09-01-1.html

 

 

"The tragedy of the commons" is an economic theory, proven true by many observations. It basically states that when users have joint ownership of a common resource, they often have no incentive to invest in the future good health of the resource.

 

In fact, users will exploit and destroy such a resource as quickly as possible.

 

The classic example is English sheep farmers in the 14th century. The farmers used a "commons", a large field for grazing, which was jointly owned by their entire village.

 

Imagine a farmer, living in such a village. It is growing in population. The commons used to only have a couple dozen sheep on it, but now it's got 100 sheep there. This is maximum capacity.

 

Any more sheep and the grass doesn't have time to recover. The sheep also trample areas down when they walk, they poop, and that takes a while to break down. In short, the environment is at its capacity. With 100, the field can recover; this is the most it can sustain.

 

Our farmer friend has 10 sheep out of the 100 on the commons. This means each sheep he owns represents 1% of the overall herd. However, to him, each sheep is 10% of his worth, so to him each one is pretty darned important.

 

He decides to make more money and add two sheep. With two more sheep, he has a total of 12. He has effectively increased his wealth 20%.

 

Unfortunately, now the overall herd is over the capacity of the commons. This affects every sheep in the herd. However, since the overall herd only increased 2%, the effect is small and hard to notice. Basically, it negatively affects each shepherd about 2%- including our farmer.

 

So he gained 20%, but lost 2%, for a net gain is 18%.

 

Naturally, our farmer thinks he has made out. Sure, the commons can't quite sustain 102 healthy sheep, but what does he care- his wealth has just skyrocketed, and he can now afford some new thatch for his roof!

 

His fellow farmers notice his higher station in life; being only human, they decide to increase their own holdings and wealth as well. So they start increasing the size of their personal flocks.

 

As the commons becomes overloaded, all the farmers see a reduction in their wealth- their flocks get more and more sickly. However, when each farmer considers his own personal situation, it makes sense for him to continue adding more sheep.

 

As more and more farmers add sheep, the overall impact starts getting worse. If 10 farmers add two sheep, the overall impact to the commons is 20% degradation, even though each individual farmer thinks he's "only" adding 2% to the problem.

 

Eventually, what happens is everyone tries to keep adding sheep to improve their own situation; individually, they seem to gain, but overall, the commons is rapidly overloaded and the population experiences a "crash", a breakdown of the system. Sheep get sick and die, and instead of 100 relatively healthy sheep, there are 150 sickly ones.

[rmc523]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/2004-09-01-1.html

"The tragedy of the commons" is an economic theory, proven true by many observations. It basically states that when users have joint ownership of a common resource, they often have no incentive to invest in the future good health of the resource.

 

In fact, users will exploit and destroy such a resource as quickly as possible.

 

The classic example is English sheep farmers in the 14th century. The farmers used a "commons", a large field for grazing, which was jointly owned by their entire village.

 

Imagine a farmer, living in such a village. It is growing in population. The commons used to only have a couple dozen sheep on it, but now it's got 100 sheep there. This is maximum capacity.

 

Any more sheep and the grass doesn't have time to recover. The sheep also trample areas down when they walk, they poop, and that takes a while to break down. In short, the environment is at its capacity. With 100, the field can recover; this is the most it can sustain.

 

Our farmer friend has 10 sheep out of the 100 on the commons. This means each sheep he owns represents 1% of the overall herd. However, to him, each sheep is 10% of his worth, so to him each one is pretty darned important.

 

He decides to make more money and add two sheep. With two more sheep, he has a total of 12. He has effectively increased his wealth 20%.

 

Unfortunately, now the overall herd is over the capacity of the commons. This affects every sheep in the herd. However, since the overall herd only increased 2%, the effect is small and hard to notice. Basically, it negatively affects each shepherd about 2%- including our farmer.

 

So he gained 20%, but lost 2%, for a net gain is 18%.

 

Naturally, our farmer thinks he has made out. Sure, the commons can't quite sustain 102 healthy sheep, but what does he care- his wealth has just skyrocketed, and he can now afford some new thatch for his roof!

 

His fellow farmers notice his higher station in life; being only human, they decide to increase their own holdings and wealth as well. So they start increasing the size of their personal flocks.

 

As the commons becomes overloaded, all the farmers see a reduction in their wealth- their flocks get more and more sickly. However, when each farmer considers his own personal situation, it makes sense for him to continue adding more sheep.

 

As more and more farmers add sheep, the overall impact starts getting worse. If 10 farmers add two sheep, the overall impact to the commons is 20% degradation, even though each individual farmer thinks he's "only" adding 2% to the problem.

 

Eventually, what happens is everyone tries to keep adding sheep to improve their own situation; individually, they seem to gain, but overall, the commons is rapidly overloaded and the population experiences a "crash", a breakdown of the system. Sheep get sick and die, and instead of 100 relatively healthy sheep, there are 150 sickly ones.

Government regulation for what? Traffic?

 

I'm glad I opened the article too, at least it made some sense after first just reading your post, which made no sense to me.

[Noah Harbinger]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/2004-09-01-1.html

"The tragedy of the commons" is an economic theory, proven true by many observations. It basically states that when users have joint ownership of a common resource, they often have no incentive to invest in the future good health of the resource.

 

He's a Commie!

 

Commie, Commie! Traitor to our Country!

[Biker16]

He's a Commie!

 

Commie, Commie! Traitor to our Country!

 

There must be balance between, regulation and unbridled greed.

 

There must be public awareness that WE share resources in this country. WE all are accountable to how hat resource is exploited.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Biker16

[NickF1011]

There must be balance between, regulation and unbridled greed.

 

There must be public awareness that WE share resources in this country. WE all are accountable to how hat resource is exploited.

 

Well as long as they regulate it PROPERLY. When regulation is put into effect as a means of revenue generation (ie emissions testing) instead of things that will actually make a difference then it really ends up doing nobody any good.

[Fordowner]

There must be balance between, regulation and unbridled greed.

 

There must be public awareness that WE share resources in this country. WE all are accountable to how hat resource is exploited.

 

Yea, lots of different ways to tell or illustrate the common pond theory. Another angle is the 2% loss while spread amongst everyone is huge, but for an individual it isn't so you can't rely on the legal system to enforce or create the solution because the 2% isn't big enough a loss - plus the fact you often can't identify the wrongful act specifically.

 

Did anyone read about the permafrost melting and massive amounts of prehistoric dung will be melting and will release more methane than we create on this planet - something like that at least. Why is this just news today? I'd expect my government to figure out a way to harness this methane release. I don't know, i think global warming is has the potential to not be a gradual thing but a sort of fall off the cliff thing with a rapid succession of events triggering each other, creating a cascading effect - sort of like the small leak in the damn leading to fairly quick system failure.

 

This permafrost issue just being one example.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Fordowner

[Biker16]

Well as long as they regulate it PROPERLY. When regulation is put into effect as a means of revenue generation (ie emissions testing) instead of things that will actually make a difference then it really ends up doing nobody any good.

 

 

Well te articale was about LGA (laguardia airport) in New york city. burdened with only 2 runways, that cross each other is still one of the highest volume airport in the US.

 

It was the first airport that used landing slots that were, were bided on by airlines. this drove up the landing fees and reducing congestion and Decreased Delays.

 

Flash forward to today, We are again seeing delays at LGA. why? even though the Terminal itself is under capacity, the airlines have increased the number of landings by Smaller Regional Jets, which Were excluded in the original 1960s regulations. The Result is that the Average number of passengers on each flight is down, And when there is any weather around LGA, the delays at LGA mount, and when LGA or any NYC airport has delays the entire Air system has delays.

 

the lesson is that the airlines like the Auto industry, ill exploit any loopole when it can make them more money. It is not that they are bad or evil, it is that they are profit driven. and It is hard to see the long term consequences when you are making record profits.

 

The analogy can be used to explain alot of unsustainable practices.

 

and put the burden on the government to regulate those practices, when in the public's best interest.

 

"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"

Edited September 17, 2007 by Biker16

[Biker16]

Yea, lots of different ways to tell or illustrate the common pond theory. Another angle is the 2% loss while spread amongst everyone is huge, but for an individual it isn't so you can't rely on the legal system to enforce or create the solution because the 2% isn't big enough a loss - plus the fact you often can't identify the wrongful act specifically.

 

Did anyone read about the permafrost melting and massive amounts of prehistoric dung will be melting and will release more methane than we create on this planet - something like that at least. Why is this just news today? I'd expect my government to figure out a way to harness this methane release. I don't know, i think global warming is has the potential to not be a gradual thing but a sort of fall off the cliff thing with a rapid succession of events triggering each other, creating a cascading effect - sort of like the small leak in the damn leading to fairly quick system failure.

 

This permafrost issue just being one example.

 

another example is the lack of ice, at the north pole.

 

Ice reflects

 

Ocean absorbs

[TomServo92]

Well as long as they regulate it PROPERLY. When regulation is put into effect as a means of revenue generation (ie emissions testing) instead of things that will actually make a difference then it really ends up doing nobody any good.

 

A prime example of that is the use of ticket cameras at intersections. It has been proven that extending the yellow light a couple of seconds is far more effective at reducing collisions than photographing and ticketing those that run red lights. However, extending the yellow doesn't generate revenue so basically our wonderful city governments would rather make money than actually make our roads safer.

[NickF1011]

Did anyone read about the permafrost melting and massive amounts of prehistoric dung will be melting and will release more methane than we create on this planet - something like that at least. Why is this just news today? I'd expect my government to figure out a way to harness this methane release. I don't know, i think global warming is has the potential to not be a gradual thing but a sort of fall off the cliff thing with a rapid succession of events triggering each other, creating a cascading effect - sort of like the small leak in the damn leading to fairly quick system failure.

 

Next thing we know giant hurricanes will be covering the entire atlantic and helicopters will start to freeze in mid-flight! :rolleyes:

[suv_guy_19]

Next thing we know giant hurricanes will be covering the entire atlantic and helicopters will start to freeze in mid-flight! :rolleyes:

 

 

Yeah, and we'll really know we're in trouble when ships start floating down wider NY streets and "even" Dodges start getting stuck in the snow.

[BlackHorse]

Biker, where does this absurd naivety that Government is somehow this omnipotent disinterested third party who's only agenda is to introduce all that is right and pure and good into our lives come from? You are a fool son. Government is force and it is power, it is the tool by which the wealthy and elite seek to control the masses. Rendering over to government more control over the many is never in the best interest of the many. As surely as they have done it time and again in the past, they will tell you that their only concern is to serve the public good, right up until the time some wealthy business man shows up and reminds them that he has both money and sway. Then the public good in government is replaced with the same greed you are so adamantly opposed to. In every instance where government control and regulation has been introduced to make life better for the rank and file, it has invariably made it worse. But like junkies hooked on your favorite drug you liberals keep coming back for more of the same, ever convinced that government is the cure for all that ills us. You still don't get it. Government is what ills us.

[Biker16]

Biker, where does this absurd naivety that Government is somehow this omnipotent disinterested third party who's only agenda is to introduce all that is right and pure and good into our lives come from? You are a fool son. Government is force and it is power, it is the tool by which the wealthy and elite seek to control the masses. Rendering over to government more control over the many is never in the best interest of the many. As surely as they have done it time and again in the past, they will tell you that their only concern is to serve the public good, right up until the time some wealthy business man shows up and reminds them that he has both money and sway. Then the public good in government is replaced with the same greed you are so adamantly opposed to. In every instance where government control and regulation has been introduced to make life better for the rank and file, it has invariably made it worse. But like junkies hooked on your favorite drug you liberals keep coming back for more of the same, ever convinced that government is the cure for all that ills us. You still don't get it. Government is what ills us.

 

"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"

 

 

Then government only does what we want it to do. Thier power is given to them by the american people.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Biker16

[BlackHorse]

"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"

Then government only does what we want it to do. Thier power is given to them by the american people.

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

 

Thomas Jefferson

 

 

By the way, old Thomas there was one of the signers of the Constitution.

[Biker16]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

 

Thomas Jefferson

By the way, old Thomas there was one of the signers of the Constitution.

 

 

But there is still a place for government.

 

entitlment mentality, reigns supreme.

 

Conseravtive, want tax cuts

 

dems want welfare.

[BlackHorse]

But there is still a place for government.

 

entitlment mentality, reigns supreme.

 

Conseravtive, want tax cuts

 

dems want welfare.

 

You're damned right I want tax cuts. On average nearly half of all incomes end up as taxation in the hands of the various federal, state and local governments. HALF!!!! Half of the peoples wealth ends up in the hands of the government who are ever telling us that it's not enough, that they need more to function. Fiscal responsibility within the government is an alien concept. Like the frog that slowly boils to death Americans seem content to give a little more, and little more until the next thing you know you're giving so much you can't afford to live. Do I have entitlement mentality? Hell yes I'm entitled to my money. To top it all off, Hillary announced a plan today for national health care, to the tune of $110 billion a year cost. Which really means about $300 billion a year by the time they actually enacted such a nightmare. Where do you think they want to get that money from?

Edited September 17, 2007 by BlackHorse

[suv_guy_19]

You're damned right I want tax cuts. On average nearly half of all incomes end up as taxation in the hands of the various federal, state and local governments. HALF!!!! Half of the peoples wealth ends up in the hands of the government who are ever telling us that it's not enough, that they need more to function. Fiscal responsibility within the government is an alien concept. Like the frog that slowly boils to death Americans seem content to give a little more, and little more until the next thing you know you're giving so much you can't afford to live. Do I have entitlement mentality? Hell yes I'm entitled to my money. To top it all off, Hillary announced a plan today for national health care, to the tune of $110 billion a year cost. Which really means about $300 billion a year by the time they actually enacted such a nightmare. Where do you think they want to get that money from?

 

 

Yeah, giving health care to people that can't afford it is an awful thing. Ameicans have no right to complan about taxes as you have some of thelowest in the world. the level o service you are provided is only achieved because of your large population. Be thankful for what you have. And you may be entitled to your money, but people in my opinion, are entitled to gevernment services, espcially health services.

 

Oh, and despite what people think, most government money is spent very wisely. If they say they need more money, they probably do. Of course, none of that would be a problem if the US were not fighthing a was that they never should have started and instead finnished the one that was just and reasonable.

Edited September 17, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[focus05]

One way to look at it, though, is that it presents an opportunity for someone to come in and take care of the field for a fee.

 

Imagine it this way, if the common space is now sold off to a private industrialist who maintains the field him/herself, they can charge a nominal fee per sheep that uses it. The farmers, less efficient at actually maintaining the field together than the single owner, will gladly pay the fee. Now, when farmers want to increase their herds, the owner of the field may start charging higher rates to keep the sheep healthier. At some point, the farmers no longer has a marginal benefit to adding sheep.

 

That's economics. It might turn out that with efficient management of the system, it can support 132 sheep, and the farmers can bid and pay for slots and eventually reach equilibrium somewhere around 132.

 

Now, the only cases where government regulation is needed are when there is no competition or information isn't open. So, for example, if farmers have to let their sheep into this area, but it is degrading and the owner is just getting richer, then the government has the right and responsibility to dictate the conditions the field must be in. However, if there is another common area that the farmers can use, the fields can compete with each other and keep themselves in equilibrium as long as information about their fields is open to the farmers. If not, the government should regulate the information be exposed and leave it to the farmers to choose.

 

The next level beyond this is if the field usage is creating a biohazard to the general community not involved in sheep hearding. If it turns out that sheep manure is polluting drinking water and must be disposed of properly, the government has the right and responsibility to regulate how manure is handled, even if it is more expensive to the field owners. They will pass it to the sheep hearders who will pass it to consumers. An opposite, but less efficient way, is to tax consumers up front and then supplement the cost of sheep's milk and wool, but the effect would be similar. If, however, one of the field managers is inefficient, the more efficient one can make a lot of money. Assuming the fixed costs to entry are low enough or the new competitor is from Glastonbury instead of Wells, new competitors into the field-owning business can emerge, and eventually the less efficient farm will either go out of business or restructure and create better competition. The result is, in the long run, that the more efficient field-owners remain and charge an equilibrium price for use of the land. The government regulations are baked in uniformly, and if implemented correctly, at the lowest price possible for consumers. Consumption, however, will only shift slightly in the medium term and will continue to grow long term as long as your PPP continues to increase.

 

If, however, sheep manure has to be drastically reduced permanently because there are terrible impacts associated with it, the most efficient way is to tax sheep products on the consumer side. This will force consumers to change their demands, which will shift the supply curve artificially, but be far more efficient than regulating the industry directly (because consumers will still demand, which leads to black markets and price gouging, etc, etc).

 

There is always room and need for government rules, regulations and taxes; however, blind government control is probably close to as bad as blatant market liberalization where our sidewalks and streets are privatized and price and profit constitute the only values.

 

In the case of environmental impact, which we are facing, it would be prudent to change consumer demands and not saddle industry with artificial mandates that will create dead-weight losses. Shifting requirements to automakers will eventually just get us back to where we are and cost billions of dollars and thousands of jobs in the process. Taxes on the consumer side - either directly on the vehicle or on the product that is the perfect compliment (gas) - is the most effective way for the government to regulate our concerns with CO2.

[BlackHorse]

Yeah, giving health care to people that can't afford it is an awful thing. Ameicans have no right to complan about taxes as you have some of thelowest in the world. the level o service you are provided is only achieved because of your large population. Be thankful for what you have. And you may be entitled to your money, but people in my opinion, are entitled to gevernment services, espcially health services.

 

Oh, and despite what people think, most government money is spent very wisely. If they say they need more money, they probably do. Of course, none of that would be a problem if the US were not fighthing a was that they never should have started and instead finnished the one that was just and reasonable.

 

No one in this country is denied health care based on income, that is a buzz phrase that is used by pro-nationalized health care advocates. It is simply not true. Second, I don't know what you consider high taxes, but at 50% of my income it is far too high. I couldn't care less what the rest of the world pays, that's their problem and we don't want to be like them. Finally, I'm damned thankful for what we have in this country and I'm smart enough to realize it was achieved not because of our government but because of the determination of hard working private citizens at a time when government was smart enough to stay out of our way.

[suv_guy_19]

No one in this country is denied health care based on income, that is a buzz phrase that is used by pro-nationalized health care advocates. It is simply not true. Second, I don't know what you consider high taxes, but at 50% of my income it is far too high. I couldn't care less what the rest of the world pays, that's their problem and we don't want to be like them. Finally, I'm damned thankful for what we have in this country and I'm smart enough to realize it was achieved not because of our government but because of the determination of hard working private citizens at a time when government was smart enough to stay out of our way.

 

But many of the things that we have were achieved because of the government. People cannot function without a system and semblance of order. People are perhaps not denied healthcare, but how are they supposed to pay once they get it. A heart attack can run you anywhere for 80000 to 250000. Could you afford that without insurance? Can everyone afford to be insured. I think not. If the government pays for it then there is no preferential treatment, no huge bills, and it becomes accessible to all. Maybe your government could lower some of its outrageously high unfair agricultural subsidies to pay for it. the state of ND receives about 1.4 billion in agriculture subsidies per year. Western Canada's 4 provinces receive only about 1 billion all together. There are always ways to fund something, and not all of them involve large tax raises.

 

Yes, people achieved a great deal, but have you noticed the advances over the last 50 years, as government has become more and more involved? We make great strides every day because of our governments. taxes are necessary and Govt. is necessary.

[NickF1011]

But many of the things that we have were achieved because of the government. People cannot function without a system and semblance of order. People are perhaps not denied healthcare, but how are they supposed to pay once they get it. A heart attack can run you anywhere for 80000 to 250000. Could you afford that without insurance? Can everyone afford to be insured. I think not. If the government pays for it then there is no preferential treatment, no huge bills, and it becomes accessible to all. Maybe your government could lower some of its outrageously high unfair agricultural subsidies to pay for it. the state of ND receives about 1.4 billion in agriculture subsidies per year. Western Canada's 4 provinces receive only about 1 billion all together. There are always ways to fund something, and not all of them involve large tax raises.

 

Yes, people achieved a great deal, but have you noticed the advances over the last 50 years, as government has become more and more involved? We make great strides every day because of our governments. taxes are necessary and Govt. is necessary.

 

Our founding fathers were never against government itself. They were against governing from afar. What was once England ruling the American colonies is now Washington, DC ruling the rest of the United States. There is a complete disconnect between what the US government THINKS Americans need and what local politicians and governments are trying to accomplish. We don't necessarily need a smaller government overall, but we DO need a much smaller FEDERAL government, with much of its power put back in the hands of local governments that actually know what the heck is going on in their own back yards.

 

Would you rather send $100 to someone living 2000 miles away and trusting them to spend it wisely for you, or would you rather give the same $100 to your neighbor who is facing many of the same problems you are? Heck, on top of that, the neighbor could probably accomplish the same thing for $80.

[Fordowner]

One way to look at it, though, is that it presents an opportunity for someone to come in and take care of the field for a fee.

 

......

Taxes on the consumer side - either directly on the vehicle or on the product that is the perfect compliment (gas) - is the most effective way for the government to regulate our concerns with CO2.

 

That would work, except the common field is an analogy for the entire united states, so for instance it would be tough to sell the air above NY for one person to own to make sure we were not messing it up.

 

I've always like the idea of a revenue neutral tax on Gas. Who was that presidential candidate years and years ago (the 80's) who proposed the 50 cent per gallon gas tax? Car travel is heavily subisdized by the government via zoning (that often has minimum parking requirements which ends up providing free parking), policing, insurance etc. So increase on Gas tax is offset with a decrease in income tax - in such a fashion so as to fairly reflect whose paying the increased tax rate. Granted it may be best to do it slowly to allow people to adjust their lifestyles, like if we had started at a nickle a year back in the 80's. Though not sure I'd want total revenue neutrality, for instance if back in the 80's we would have used funds to harness the methane that will be coming from the melting Dinasor Dung we'd be set now. :shades:

 

And true the government in capitalist systems are tools of the rich - they wouldn't be rich if not for the government - Mad Maxx would be - true I prefer the current system.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Fordowner

[BlackHorse]

If the government pays for it then there is no preferential treatment, no huge bills, and it becomes accessible to all.

 

This is the biggest lie about nationalized health care that was ever told. There are still huge bills suv-guy, they don't magically just disappear because the government is paying the bill. If anything the huge bills will get even bigger because there is always this tendency when you're spending other peoples money to just go hog wild. That is the problem with the cost of health care under the insurance way of doing things. The only difference will be that, unlike insurance companies, government really doesn't care how much of your money they spend. YOU WILL STILL PAY!! You will pay by means of ungodly high taxes. The money has to come from somewhere and in the nightmare that is nationalized health care, that money comes from the people. There is no such thing as free. To say that the "government pays for it" and somehow that means the people aren't is ignorant. When the government pays for something, they use our money. As far as it being accessible to all, if it were so damned great and wonderful you wouldn't have people from over seas coming here in large numbers to get health care they can't get in their own country under the great and wonderful national health care system.

[NickF1011]

That would work, except the common field is an analogy for the entire united states, so for instance it would be tough to sell the air above NY for one person to own to make sure we were not messing it up.

 

I've always like the idea of a revenue neutral tax on Gas. Who was that presidential candidate years and years ago (the 80's) who proposed the 50 cent per gallon gas tax? Car travel is heavily subisdized by the government via zoning (that often has minimum parking requirements which ends up providing free parking), policing, insurance etc. So increase on Gas tax is offset with a decrease in income tax - in such a fashion so as to fairly reflect whose paying the increased tax rate. Granted it may be best to do it slowly to allow people to adjust their lifestyles, like if we had started at a nickle a year back in the 80's. Though not sure I'd want total revenue neutrality, for instance if back in the 80's we would have used funds to harness the methane that will be coming from the melting Dinasor Dung we'd be set now. :shades:

 

And true the government in capitalist systems are tools of the rich - they wouldn't be rich if not for the government - Mad Maxx would be - true I prefer the current system.

 

The problem of a revenue neutral gas tax is that someone making $25,000 a year likely does about the same amount of driving as someone who makes $150,000 a year. I'd be more for a value-added tax on big ticket items as a means of balancing the playing field in place of an income tax. People who make more money buy more (and more expensive) big ticket items.

[suv_guy_19]

This is the biggest lie about nationalized health care that was ever told. There are still huge bills suv-guy, they don't magically just disappear because the government is paying the bill. If anything the huge bills will get even bigger because there is always this tendency when you're spending other peoples money to just go hog wild. That is the problem with the cost of health care under the insurance way of doing things. The only difference will be that, unlike insurance companies, government really doesn't care how much of your money they spend. YOU WILL STILL PAY!! You will pay by means of ungodly high taxes. The money has to come from somewhere and in the nightmare that is nationalized health care, that money comes from the people. There is no such thing as free. To say that the "government pays for it" and somehow that means the people aren't is ignorant. When the government pays for something, they use our money. As far as it being accessible to all, if it were so damned great and wonderful you wouldn't have people from over seas coming here in large numbers to get health care they can't get in their own country under the great and wonderful national health care system.

 

WHO ratings of world health care systems From 1 to the US. Great system you have, though ours doesn't rate much better. Then again, 2 years ago we were in the spot just above you, so things have inproved greatly.

 

1 France

2 Italy

3 San Marino

4 Andorra

5 Malta

6 Singapore

7 Spain

8 Oman

9 Austria

10 Japan

11 Norway

12 Portugal

13 Monaco

14 Greece

15 Iceland

16 Luxembourg

17 Netherlands

18 United Kingdom

19 Ireland

20 Switzerland

21 Belgium

22 Colombia

23 Sweden

24 Cyprus

25 Germany

26 Saudi Arabia

27 United Arab Emirates

28 Israel

29 Morocco

30 Canada

31 Finland

32 Australia

33 Chile

34 Denmark

35 Dominica

36 Costa Rica

37 United States of America

 

The reality is, that you spend more of your GDP than most of these countries. Yous system is expensive and the cost is passed on to you. You have for profit health care. Most of these system eitehr have publily funded hospitals or a combination of for profit and public bringing in competition keeping the price down.

Edited September 17, 2007 by suv_guy_19