Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
... LastLast
  1. #201
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Something is deeply, deeply wrong.
    Yes, and I just showed most of the things that are "deeply, deeply wrong". There are others which I can't come up with at present. Most of them are the result of do-gooder politicians who think their helping, corrupt politicians as well as special interest groupds/lobbyists who are looking to make a buck at the publics expense through government influence.

  2. #202
    Because Demacrats dont do the exact same thing when republicans propose something

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Yes, and I just showed most of the things that are "deeply, deeply wrong". There are others which I can't come up with at present. Most of them are the result of do-gooder politicians who think their helping, corrupt politicians as well as special interest groupds/lobbyists who are looking to make a buck at the publics expense through government influence.
    All you've done is made assertions, which I've batted down with actual evidence. How can you not see how silly you look right now?

  4. #204
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    All you've done is made assertions, which I've batted down with actual evidence. How can you not see how silly you look right now?
    Except you haven't.

    All of the arguments for why costs are higher are correct, but how much they increase costs is another question. And these are not the only reasons that increase costs, but I can't think of any other right now.

    But I guess in your worldview restricting insurance companies from competing over state-borders does not reduce competition and thus increase prices.
    I guess limiting the universities where one can study medicine (and qualify for a license later) does not increase the wages of US doctors.
    I guess giving excisting healthcare centers the power to prevent new entrants from entering the market does not decrease competition and thus increase prices?
    I guess putting mandates on employer healthcare insurance that forces them to cover costs for miscellaneous treatments such as massage, chiropractice or psychiatry does not increase the cost of insurance?
    I guess overregulating what the nurses can do, so that they can't for example deliver babies, does not increase the cost of healthcare?
    I guess Medicare/Medicaid compensating doctors per procedure instead of problem solved does not increase the cost of healthcare?

    All you bring up are some irrelevant arguments about how healthcare costs are the same regardless of state. You then suddenly changed and said that healthcare costs do differ, but they differ in the wrong ways. This is not relevant and I even showed you that NY had high costs because of overly broad mandates on insurance and overcapacity of hospitals.


    Let me ask you: If my reasons are not increasing the cost of healthcare in the US - What is?
    Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2011-11-27 at 02:24 PM.

  5. #205
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Let me ask you: If my reasons are not increasing the cost of healthcare in the US - What is?
    The fact that the US system is neither fish nor fowl. If it was purely a private system, it would be cheaper (but ONLY for the government and those lucky few who never needed it, for the "average Joe/Jane" it would be a financial disaster the moment they needed help that wasn't covered fully by their insurance...provided they could even afford insurance). If it was a purely public system, it would be cheaper (slightly so for the government, substantially so for your "average Joe/Jane").

    What you actually have is a bureaucratic mess that is constantly being tweaked, and serve neither the intrests of the public nor those of the government (those two should be the same, but in the US, it seems that is not to be. Won't go into that now). What it DOES is ensure that the insurance companies get filthy rich. Solution? -Either let it limp along, growing ever worse, or rip the whole thing out and start over (won't happen, I know).

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-27 at 04:23 PM ----------

    Had to reply specifically to some of your claims (the glaringly incomplete ones) as it seems you are somewhat "misinformed" -I'll take the liberty to label your claims for ease of reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    1) I guess limiting the universities where one can study medicine (and qualify for a license later) does not increase the wages of US doctors.

    2) I guess putting mandates on employer healthcare insurance that forces them to cover costs for miscellaneous treatments such as massage, chiropractice or psychiatry does not increase the cost of insurance?

    3) I guess overregulating what the nurses can do, so that they can't for example deliver babies, does not increase the cost of healthcare?

    4)I guess Medicare/Medicaid compensating doctors per procedure instead of problem solved does not increase the cost of healthcare?
    1) Medical training requires specialized facillities where the students can learn procedures, use relevant equipment and meet actual patients, it also requires highly trained lecturers capable of transfering the vital information you need to become a GP, let alone a specialists. These are simply not avaliable in a great abundance. Of course it would be great if they were avaliable in more localities, but that would take a lot of financial investments. In addition, it takes years for a medical school to build a reputation that will draw the students they want.

    2) Chiropracty is vital in returning a injured employee to work, especially in occupations where you are suceptible to injury of the spine and surrounding musculature. Psychological councelling and psychiatry is also vital to several occupations, denying people this or forcing them to cover it themselves could lead to a lot more people ending up on disabillity welfare...or in the worst cases, result in "undetonated bombs" walking around, trying to do a job that they are not psychologically fit for at the time. Denying people treatments such as this would be irresponsible at best, borderline criminal at worst, and would certainly open the way to very expensive lawsuits.

    3) Obstetrician work is HIGHLY specialiced work, work that requires expertise to an equal degree as any other medical work. You may claim that it would be fine for a nurse lacking training to assist in this, but if the doctor was called away, or an emergency arose without the precense of someone capable of recognise it as such, could lead to disaster...with expensive follow-up lawsuits. Once again, anyone doing obstetrician work needs training in it, without doubt.

    4) Seriously...pay them per "problem solved"? That would simply lead to most deciding to avoid the cases that could be chronic, in favour of easily "fixed" problems. Your suggestion is a recipe for disaster.

  6. #206
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    What you actually have is a bureaucratic mess that is constantly being tweaked, and serve neither the intrests of the public nor those of the government
    Oh it's in the interest of those in the government. But not the general population though. The government and the special interest groups are doing good.

    1) Medical training requires specialized facillities where the students can learn procedures
    The amount of doctors are being artificially restricted at this level. It's not about ensuring that the people who come out of the institutions are well qualified, it's that the current doctors union does not want more people as it keeps their wages high. You will find similar trends in almost any line of work around the world.

    Look, here are the facts: It's very profitable to be a doctor in the US. Thus alot of people want to learn and practice medicine. Because of this, the few medical schools that are "approved" have incredibly high tuition fees. This would in any normal market circumstance mean that existing or new universities would start to teach medicine. The following is a very good article, albeit from 2005, discussing the reasons for a shortage of physicians. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...shortage_x.htm

    2) Chiropracty is vital in returning a injured employee to work...
    Ok, you miss the point. It's not what is important and what isn't. The problem is what should be mandated to the employee medical insurances for all workers. You then, depending on where you work, completement the existing insurances with additional services.

    The less people pay out of pocket, the higher the costs go because people who aren't really sick are going to use more of these services without comparing prices. The logic of health insurance is to protect yourself from high-cost low-risk events that you cannot prepare for financially. Not low-cost or predictable events. When you force these overly broad insurances on employees, the costs go up as the employees will not compare prices of any medical services at all anymore.

    3) Obstetrician work is HIGHLY specialiced work...
    Studies have found that it's not any safer to have births with a doctor than with a nurse. Furthermore the whole of Europe pretty much utilizes nurses to deliver babies.

    4) Seriously...pay them per "problem solved"? That would simply lead to most deciding to avoid the cases that could be chronic, in favour of easily "fixed" problems. Your suggestion is a recipe for disaster.
    Now you're just reading too much into it. Ofcourse if it takes tens of hours to do one patient the fee is going to be different from a quick case. The problem is though that right now they only get compensated based on different procedures, regardless if these procedures are actually necessary.

    You somehow seem to think that society has endless resources to spend on healthcare - it doesn't. You have to be effective.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Except you haven't.

    All of the arguments for why costs are higher are correct, but how much they increase costs is another question. And these are not the only reasons that increase costs, but I can't think of any other right now.

    But I guess in your worldview restricting insurance companies from competing over state-borders does not reduce competition and thus increase prices.
    You have not provided any evidence of your claim. What I can say that is that since states with large numbers of private insurers and states with small numbers of private insurers do NOT seem to follow any pattern of cost, then your assertion does not agree with the facts. You can't just keep repeating yourself. Eventually, you either need to provide your own evidence, or explain why the evidence provided doesn't agree with you

    I can also tell you that the reason insurers are separated by state is that each state has the right to govern itself. If you allowed the purchase of healthcare over state lines, healthcare companies would simply set up in the state with the most favorable regulations. States would race to the bottom, including in terms of allowing insurance companies to get away with lawbreaking or mistreating their clients. Do you think insurers would set up in a state with a tough DA that worked to protect customers? Get real.

    I guess limiting the universities where one can study medicine (and qualify for a license later) does not increase the wages of US doctors.
    I prefer that to mail order doctors, or unqualified people practicing medicine. We have enough examples of what happens in third world countries with bogus doctors to know that this is not a viable solution for a first world country. Your argument is essentially "If we reduce the quality of available healthcare dramatically, we will reduce the cost of healthcare!"

    I guess giving excisting healthcare centers the power to prevent new entrants from entering the market does not decrease competition and thus increase prices?
    Any evidence?

    I guess putting mandates on employer healthcare insurance that forces them to cover costs for miscellaneous treatments such as massage, chiropractice or psychiatry does not increase the cost of insurance?
    Still no evidence, I see. The states that do not do this also have prices through the roof, so citing this as the problem is nonsensical.

    I guess overregulating what the nurses can do, so that they can't for example deliver babies, does not increase the cost of healthcare?
    Evidence? Anywhere? Nope. Seriously, this assertion is complete bullshit. Nevada has zero laws regarding who can deliver a baby. New York has a separate licensing for midwifery, which any nurse is free to obtain. The only regulation is that nurses who want to deliver babies have to get certified before they can perform that service as a professional.

    I guess Medicare/Medicaid compensating doctors per procedure instead of problem solved does not increase the cost of healthcare?
    I already addressed this. You can keep pretending that I didn't, but I did. Medicare costs are very, very reasonable when compared to private healthcare costs. If the problem you are talking about was so pervasive and massive, that wouldn't be true.

    All you bring up are some irrelevant arguments about how healthcare costs are the same regardless of state. You then suddenly changed and said that healthcare costs do differ, but they differ in the wrong ways. This is not relevant and I even showed you that NY had high costs because of overly broad mandates on insurance and overcapacity of hospitals.
    You didn't SHOW anything. You made assertions that you continue to refuse to post evidence for.

    Let me ask you: If my reasons are not increasing the cost of healthcare in the US - What is?[/QUOTE]

    I already posted a detailed chart showing how administrative costs, specifically paperwork due to private health insurance, causes a massive increase in cost.

    On top of that, health insurance doesn't obey any normal laws of supply and demand. It is in the interest of the insurer to rip you off, and typically it is too late to make a difference when this happens. You are talking about a service that either kills you or destroys your life when it fails. That can't obey normal supply and demand structure. It's in the interest of the insurance company for you to DIE QUICKLY. That's a perverse incentive structure. They want you to pay, and then when you are sick they want to kick you off by any means necessary, or they want to deny you service so that you die. It is often far cheaper to let someone die and settle with the family than to care for that person in the first place. The entire industry is built on rescission, the practice of finding paperwork errors as excuses to boot people off once they get sick. The profit motive is WHY the costs are so high. The goal of these companies is not to provide a good service, because it is more profitable to milk people for money and then let them die. The result of this is that you have massive, massive amounts of paperwork and hoops for doctors to go through in order to provide care. Doctors can't simply prescribe what they think is the best option. They have to CONSTANTLY consort with the insurance company and listen to their recommendations. The doctor cannot act autonomously. He is at the mercy of what the healthcare providers want. He has to run his practice according to them. It's a completely broken system that DOES NOT WORK.

  8. #208
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Oh it's in the interest of those in the government. But not the general population though. The government and the special interest groups are doing good.
    Yeah, I've heard that tired old libertarian tune before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The amount of doctors are being artificially restricted at this level. It's not about ensuring that the people who come out of the institutions are well qualified, it's that the current doctors union does not want more people as it keeps their wages high. You will find similar trends in almost any line of work around the world.
    Bold accusation. Can you prove that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Look, here are the facts: It's very profitable to be a doctor in the US. Thus alot of people want to learn and practice medicine. Because of this, the few medical schools that are "approved" have incredibly high tuition fees. This would in any normal market circumstance mean that existing or new universities would start to teach medicine. The following is a very good article, albeit from 2005, discussing the reasons for a shortage of physicians. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...shortage_x.htm
    Yes, I agree that the article is very interesting. Among other, it points toward a reason for the shortage being "artificial shortage" caused by doctors treating fewer and fewer patients, because they are migrating to treat the affluent. Seems to me what's needed is some actual government control where it matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Ok, you miss the point. It's not what is important and what isn't. The problem is what should be mandated to the employee medical insurances for all workers. You then, depending on where you work, completement the existing insurances with additional services.
    Which would make insurances a LOT more expensive for those who need additional coverage, instead of a little more expensive for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The less people pay out of pocket, the higher the costs go because people who aren't really sick are going to use more of these services without comparing prices. The logic of health insurance is to protect yourself from high-cost low-risk events that you cannot prepare for financially. Not low-cost or predictable events. When you force these overly broad insurances on employees, the costs go up as the employees will not compare prices of any medical services at all anymore.
    As I have shown before, the total expense for society as a whole go down when people visit the doctors more often. Furthermore, you should REALLY get your nose out of the financial ledgers and start looking at the human cost of bottom-line policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Studies have found that it's not any safer to have births with a doctor than with a nurse. Furthermore the whole of Europe pretty much utilizes nurses to deliver babies.
    1. Post study. 2. Post proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Now you're just reading too much into it. Ofcourse if it takes tens of hours to do one patient the fee is going to be different from a quick case. The problem is though that right now they only get compensated based on different procedures, regardless if these procedures are actually necessary.
    Doctors, like most people, chose what earns them the most money. With your system, "easy, quick fixes" become the most profitable. The current system is not good either, if it leads to unneccessary procedures, but it will at least not marginalize the chronically ill, or cases with a lower probabillity of recovery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You somehow seem to think that society has endless resources to spend on healthcare - it doesn't. You have to be effective.
    The funds are there and availiable, but they are currently misplaced and misused. Additionally, you fail entirely to consider the cost to the individual when economic concerns is allowed to overrule the best interest of the individual and society. Here is a hint: Economy exists to serve humanity, humanity does not exist to serve economy.

  9. #209
    I will vote for whichever candidate did not launch his political career from the living room of a domestic terrorist. I will also vote for the candidate who did not knowingly hire self-avowed communists to work in his administration, and sit and listed to Rev Wright for 22 years.

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Yngwie View Post
    I will vote for whichever candidate did not launch his political career from the living room of a domestic terrorist.
    Last I checked, Ayers never went to jail or had charges of terrorism successfully pressed against him in a court of law.

    I will also vote for the candidate who did not knowingly hire self-avowed communists to work in his administration,
    Name them. I'd like to know which members of the administration aren't simply Milquetoast Democrats.

    and sit and listed to Rev Wright for 22 years.
    funny thing is, there's never been any video of Obama having sat through any of those controversial sermons. The main argument for Obama was that he never really attended that church often and wasn't quite aware of Wright's extremism. The Obama campaign couldn't argue that though since they were using his religiousness as a selling point to moderates and evangelical voters.

    Do note, he's hardly been to church at all since he became president. The man simply isn't that regular an attendee.

  11. #211
    The Hedgehog Elementium's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MA, USA.
    Posts
    12,764
    We're done anyway as far as i see it..

    hell this is an article from a british newspaper about one mans opinion and republicans are overreacting and being over sensitive.. They almost act like a child who pretends to be tough until you pinch him then he throws a tantrum. Democrats are no better.. once the tantrum starts they bend over just to make the crying stop. Even supporters on each side are so drowned in their parties views they can't make intelligent decisions on their own anymore.

    Worst of all is they don't even realize that they don't have a party anymore.. every decision made by politicians is strictly based on what corporations want them to vote for. The interest in the american people is gone, once the country is at it's limit they'll just take their gold plated private jets and leave for somewhere else.

  12. #212
    Herald of the Titans
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northwest USA
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Juno86 View Post
    No offense, but I don't think its on Wells to tell you how the people in your life feel about this. Hes speaking about polls and actually has the evidence to back up his claims. In fact, he seems to be the only one with actual evidence to back up his claims.

    And during the great depression, how did the USA get out of it? It sure as hell wasn't slashing taxes.



    That's the thing thought, Obama isn't saying raise taxes on everyone! Hes saying the top 1% needs to make a more realistic contribution to the society in which they prosper. Asking the majority will get you a negative reaction, obviously, but there not gonna be the ones affected by the tax. So your entire argument is, well, pointless.
    the USA got out of the great depression by selling military equipment and supplies to europe in order to defend themselves.. FDR's programs just strung it out over a longer period of time.. just like Obama is doing right now with his stimulus garbage.. and picking the winners and losers of corporations.. IE. Solyndra..

    the 1% already pay 20% of the total federal tax revenue of the USA.. how about we jack up YOUR federal tax rate by 20%? how would that affect your personal spending habits?
    the most beautiful post I have ever read.. thank you Dr-1337 http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22624432

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by ishootblanks View Post
    the USA got out of the great depression by selling military equipment and supplies to europe in order to defend themselves.. FDR's programs just strung it out over a longer period of time.. just like Obama is doing right now with his stimulus garbage..
    So your complaint is Obama's stimulus measures weren't large enough? Because that's pretty much what it sounds like.

    the 1% already pay 20% of the total federal tax revenue of the USA.. how about we jack up YOUR federal tax rate by 20%? how would that affect your personal spending habits?
    The 1% also earns far more than 20% of the nation's wealth, and is the only income level which has seen it's share of the national wealth increase over the last several years. Forgive me for not having any sympathy for them.

  14. #214
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Any evidence?
    http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/he...are/204694.pdf (Read the Executive Summary).


    On top of that, health insurance doesn't obey any normal laws of supply and demand. It is in the interest of the insurer to rip you off, and typically it is too late to make a difference when this happens.
    If you truly believe this then you really should stop commenting on anything related to economics. It is in the interest of the insurer to rip off the customer just as much as it is in the interest of the baker to rip of his. If they defraud their customers, they will either face legal action or simply lose the customer.

    The only difference with insurance is the increased moral hazard of the purchaser of the insurance.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-27 at 09:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    Yeah, I've heard that tired old libertarian tune before.
    No offence but if you consider that "old libertarian tune" then there's really no point conversing with you at all. You really don't think the corporations and the government work together to rip off the people? Sure, not all politicians or corporations do that - but it certainly is one of the biggest issues that, for example, the whole OWS movement protests against.

    you fail entirely to consider the cost to the individual when economic concerns is allowed to overrule the best interest of the individual and society. Here is a hint: Economy exists to serve humanity, humanity does not exist to serve economy.
    I don't think you can sound any more <mod snip> than this. The economy IS the society. We as a society have decided to embrace the division of labour where we specialize in a certain profession, and then trade the fruits of our own labour with eachother to get what we want. The economy is simply all the co-operation between people that exist.

    Mod Warning: Please watch the flaming
    Last edited by Dacien; 2011-11-27 at 10:47 PM.

  15. #215
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I don't think you can sound any more <mod snip> than this. The economy IS the society. We as a society have decided to embrace the division of labour where we specialize in a certain profession, and then trade the fruits of our own labour with eachother to get what we want. The economy is simply all the co-operation between people that exist.
    Well, that does nothing but confirm that you are not only incapable of participating in a discussion without insulting your opponent, you also seem to be incapable of understanding society from any viewpoint but the economical one. Society DOES contain a latticework of economical relations, but economy is just a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself. If economy and the economists does not serve the intrests of the community, they are useless.

  16. #216
    You have not provided any evidence of your claim. What I can say that is that since states with large numbers of private insurers and states with small numbers of private insurers do NOT seem to follow any pattern of cost, then your assertion does not agree with the facts. You can't just keep repeating yourself. Eventually, you either need to provide your own evidence, or explain why the evidence provided doesn't agree with you
    This is the most common criticism of Austrian Economics.

    Lots a theory, little bearing on reality.

  17. #217
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    you also seem to be incapable of understanding society from any viewpoint but the economical one.
    One has to understand society to understand the economy in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah
    Society DOES contain a latticework of economical relations, but economy is just a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself. If economy and the economists does not serve the intrests of the community, they are useless.
    The economy always "serves" the people so to speak, as it simply is a reflection of the actions of the community. You cannot detach the economy from the rest of society. In your last sentance there I have no idea why you included the profession "economists", how is an economist any different from any other person who practices his profession?


    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This is the most common criticism of Austrian Economics.

    Lots a theory, little bearing on reality.
    So Wells. I remember you praising Obamacare for forcing States to let insurance companies compete across State borders to reduce costs. So, you would agree with me that not allowing health insurers to compete across State borders increases the healthcare costs?

    Also what I've brought up about the health industry has absolutely nothing to do with Austrian Economics. Again, 90% of everything I've learned about economics is from others than Austrians.
    Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2011-11-27 at 11:23 PM.

  18. #218
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    One has to understand society to understand the economy in the first place.
    Yes, well. Taking your previous claims about society vs. economy...you know, I'll just let those speak for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The economy always serves the people so to speak, as it simply is a reflection of the actions of the community. You cannot detach the economy from the rest of society.
    Which is no relation to what I said at all. Let me repeat: Society DOES contain a latticework of economical relations, but economy is just a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself. If economy and the economists does not serve the intrests of the community, they are useless.

  19. #219
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    Which is no relation to what I said at all. Let me repeat: Society DOES contain a latticework of economical relations, but economy is just a tool, a means to an end, not an end in itself. If economy and the economists does not serve the intrests of the community, they are useless.
    The economy always reflects the actions of the community. So by saying the economy does not serve the interest of the community, what you really mean is that one part of the community does not serve the interest of another part of the community . For example, a thief serves himself and possibly his family, but not the rest of the community.

    The problem thus isn't the economy, but the people in it.

    P.S. Why did you include "economists" in your last sentance? Are they somehow different from everyone else or what?

  20. #220
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The economy always reflects the actions of the community. So by saying the economy does not serve the interest of the community, what you really mean is that one part of the community does not serve the interest of another part of the community . For example, a thief serves himself and possibly his family, but not the rest of the community.

    The problem thus isn't the economy, but the people in it.

    P.S. Why did you include "economists" in your last sentance? Are they somehow different from everyone else or what?
    Economy is NOT a "part of the community", it is a tool of the community. And once that tool stops working to the benefit of society, it becomes useless, and needs to be changed so it once again benefits the society / community in the best possible way.

    As for economists, they are the ones who advice on economical decision, thus they and the economical direction they advice is connected. I would have thought that self-evident.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •