 |
| |
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If a 7 figure net worth is all you have to go by, there's not much of a "rise," is it? |
Given that we are talking about poverty and the lack of, what other figures do I "have to go by" if not net worth?
Every ancestor prior to my grandparents was either a farmer, coal miner, or a low-paid immigrant worker of the sort that people on this board like to ***** about/for. On both sides of my family. Not a single person graduated with a college education until 1953, not a one completed high school before 1948. On both sides. They settled in West Virginia which has never been a crossroads of the Rich and Connected. (Trust me on this.)
However, we were not raised to whine and we were raised to work and save our money* - I was installing mobile homes at the age of 8, for example. By the time of my (maternal) grandparents death, we calculated that out of 7 distinct couples/individuals (we have a very small family - Dad was an only child, my mother had a brother who remained childless; so I had no cousins) 6 of them were worth 6 figures (net worth), of those, 4 were worth 7, and of those, 2 were worth 8.
My brother is slightly retarded but he still pulls in $40+k a year driving trucks. He doesn't save his money worth ****, but then he doesn't have to - we've taken care of his needs already, so when he can't work anymore, he won't have to.
*My wife once described us as a "bunch of charming workaholics." That was before she met my uncle, and she did offer a caveat re: my stepmother. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
My point was that the only reason why we have Capitalism, free-market economics and Globalisation as 'principals', is because in the past they had to be enshrined as superior to a system that specificaly promised social justice. If it weren't for that, people would still buy and sell, and occasionaly governments would protect, and tax and invest, and people wouldn't be afraid to touch the holy cow (the markets) in order to persue other priorities (like the health service (for instance the US health system is set up to benifit insurance companies and their shareholders) or education).
|
Right, that's why Canadians flock across the border to get our healthcare, and droves of Canadian doctors are leaving their country to practice in the US. Universal Healthcare is useless if you have to wait six months to get an MRI.
Problem_child, you are just one immature arrogant brat who knows **** about reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
This is why healthcare system is such a mess right now:
Because human lives are valued supreme, FDA has to impose draconian drug policies.
Because draconian drug policies, pharmacauticals have to spend decades and billions just to get to the clinical trial stage. Then after bilions more, only 1 out of 10 drugs will be approved by FDA on average. Since a patent lasts only 17 years, drug companies have only a few years to recoup the R&D costs on open market, and thus drving up drug costs like mad.
At same time, hospitals and doctors have to pay outrageous insurance premiums to protect themselves from those monstrous malpractice ligitations. A doctor pays at least 30k a year for malpractice insurance. To compensate for that, they have to raise their premiums.
Meanwhile, the health insurance companies have to raise their premiums to compensate for the rising drug and medical costs, finally screwing over consumers in the end. And because healthcare costs are so expensive, it's a absolute nightmare to get sick without an insurance.
There are only 2 solutions to this problem:
1. Cap the malpractice, punitive damage, and all kinds of litigation costs. Given how much human lives are values in our society, this is not likely to happen.
2. Lower the R&D costs of healthcare related products. Unfortunately, biological sciences are largely 'black magic', meaning there is a long way to go. Once drug and medical equipment can be developed as fast as today's electronics, you will be surprised about how low healthcare costs can go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Because draconian drug policies, pharmacauticals have to spend decades and billions just to get to the clinical trial stage. Then after bilions more, only 1 out of 10 drugs will be approved by FDA on average. Since a patent lasts only 17 years, drug companies have only a few years to recoup the R&D costs on open market, and thus drving up drug costs like mad.
|
On the contrary, the fact that a patent lasts only 17 years is good, since after that, you get them dirt cheap.
The bottom line is that you people don't have all of your population treated. Is that true? The truth is also, that you people pay the most per capita, for health.
I think something is screwed up, since medicine costs are the same here. ( The level of malpractice insurance are crazy, however. OTOH, we don't have no cap, or any such thing, and for some reason, there is no such problem.  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
quote:
Our healthcare providers are the best in the world, if you can pay.
|
what do you mean by that? basic treatment? could be true, could be not. the simpler hospital procedures? could be true could be not. |
Our hospitals and doctors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger Check out the Ginni Index, when you have time. |
The Gini Index essentially measures what percentage of the world's income is accounted for by what percentage of the world's population. If all the world's income were distributed equally, this graph would be a straight line. Since income is not equally distributed, the curve is convex.
1. The Gini Index measures relative income, and can be misleading to the point of uselessness when you have wide variations in growth rates. Consider the following World Bank Data on real GDP per capita from 1960 to 1999.
Japan +433%
China +381%
Indonesia +262%
India +132%
US +117%
The first four countries account for the vast majority of Asia's population, and a good chunk of the world's population. The size and growth of these countries alone would have made other developing countries look poorer on a relative basis even if every other developing country on the planet had grown as fast as the United States.
2. Since the Gini measures relative income, it can hide actual growth in income. For example, Nigeria and South Africa, the two most populous countries in sub-Saharan Africa had increases in real per capita GDP of 70 percent and 42 percent respectively. Much of sub-Saharan Africa has 20-30 percent increases in real per capita GDP over the period. It would be very helpful if their growth were greater, but these countries are certainly better off then they were at independence 40 years ago.
3. Growth clearly varies by region and/or type of government. Five of the six fastest growing countries are Asian: Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan. These countries, with little other resources than their labor, clearly "get it". Midrange countries include Mexico, India, and Chile, all in the 130-140 percent range. (Which, incidentally, is greater than the growth of per capita GPD in the US and most major industrialized countries in the period.) These mid-range countries don’t appear to be doing badly at all, regardless of what anti-globalization advocates might tell you. Lastly there is the bottom end of the range, countries with growth in real per capita GDP of less than 10 percent between 1960 and 1999. These countries include Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Benin, Central African Republic, Burundi, etc. With growth rates of under 10 percent over the period, these countries are treading water or perhaps regressing a bit. Since other countries in the region have done better, on wonders if poor government has played a role here.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Peter Triggs
|
|
Gone Fishin, Canada
Jan 2000
time: 05:31
|
|
Up until the 1980's, not only was University Education free here (no tuition fees), but also the Government (i.e., the taxpayer) would pay you to go to university, in the form of a grant. The catch was that the entry requirements were very very high: a far smaller percentage of the population could pursue their education compared to most other developed countries. Mrs. Thatcher decided to open up tertiary education to a broader base. The increased costs involved in this have meant that ever since, and this includes her Labour successors, there have been cutbacks in the grants system. I'm not sure if the government still pays your tuition fees but the actual grants have been cut back to the bone and supplemented with a student loan scheme.
In any case, you do things differently there. I believe that there are more scholarships (funded by American companies?) available. I know a bloke who, after he finished his first degree at Edinburgh, had the choice of doing a Ph.D either at London or at Rutgers. He couldn't get funding to go to London, but could at Rutgers, so that's where he went.
IMO, social mobility is probably higher in the U.S., largely because of the value placed on entrepreneurial skills in American culture. I believe that people who take risks there are more respected, even if they fail, so that they can usually try again. On the other hand, for what it's worth, according to the Sunday Times 753 of the richest 1000 people here are self-made millionaires.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2003 21:34
|