Why do Social Issues Almost Always Lose to Economics?

[d00mGuArD]

Sure, that's why you see people going into crippling debt by getting an education or receiving treatment for various diseases. Oh, wait. That doesn't happen in Europe. In some countries they'll even pay you to go to school. I got sick in Italy, severe kidney stones, I had to have surgically removed. Cost? Nothing but the cup of coffee I had in the hospital café on my way out. Totally the same.

In countries where universities are free or almost free, there are limited spots, and few people can actually get that free education.
There is some misconception that education is available for free to everyone. That is false. Education is free but available to only few. There is usually some entrance exam system to determine who gets to study and who is just left out

Since you mention Italy, you can check on:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...2016_(%25).png

Only 19.4% of Italy have higher education. The worst educated country in all 1st world countries. While in the U.S. that is like 40% or more, and one of the best countries in higher education percentage of population

can also check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ion_attainment if you want more countries

tl;dr I don't think Italy is good example for education. It is the worst in western world.
I don't have info about the healthcare you mentioned, so I don't know how well Italy fares on healthcare

[Suporex]

For most people getting money is more important than social issues.

[Pua]

So you're retracting this part then, right?

No, it was true.

I’m saying that I haven’t claimed that their economies are strong solely because of their investment in public services, which is what you attributed to me. Please concentrate on what I actually say, and not what you think/hope I say.

[Nadiru]

If social issues didn't always boil down to "pay for stuff that this segment of the population needs or wants" then they might not lose to economic interests so frequently. But since society and economics both focus in on who gets scarce resources allocated to them, it's a likely proposition.

[Spectral]

No, it was true.

I’m saying that I haven’t claimed that their economies are strong solely because of their investment in public services, which is what you attributed to me. Please concentrate on what I actually say, and not what you think/hope I say.

To be clear then, are you actually claiming that German economy is stronger than the American economy or not?

That's objectively wrong.

[artemishunter1]

No where did I say I supported that either. If someone is abusing the system the other way, abusing the “give” of others. In effect they are also being selfish.

thing is they are not intentionally abusing the welfare system. They are living life in their own way and its that their way of living life is abuse of the system itself. They are not going out to abuse people's generocity, its their existance itself is a abuse of the system (7 children, being low intelligence, or being less driven or motivated, being artsy, rather than more practical brained i.e. most of the things that are out of their conscious control).

[Dys]

To be clear then, are you actually claiming that German economy is stronger than the American economy or not?

That's objectively wrong.

No way, it's totally true if you apply the term "strong" very loosely, and not use it at all in the context of how it's normally used when this type of discussion pops up.

[Pua]

To be clear then, are you actually claiming that German economy is stronger than the American economy or not?

That's objectively wrong.

Does the United States run a structural deficit, or a structural surplus? My suggestion is that it's approximately $400b of a deficit.

Does Germany run a structural deficit, or a structural surplus? My suggestion is that it's approximately $38b of a surplus.

One country is, therefore, in the red; the other is in the black, assuming you accept these numbers (and I'm happy if you have others to share that contradict these ones).

This is what I mean when I say the German economy is stronger than the American one. It produces money on an annual basis, while the US loses it on an annual basis.

[NED funded]

Does the United States run a structural deficit, or a structural surplus? My suggestion is that it's approximately $400b of a deficit.

Does Germany run a structural deficit, or a structural surplus? My suggestion is that it's approximately $38b of a surplus.

One country is, therefore, in the red; the other is in the black, assuming you accept these numbers (and I'm happy if you have others to share that contradict these ones).

This is what I mean when I say the German economy is stronger than the American one. It produces money on an annual basis, while the US loses it on an annual basis.

Iran is running both an accounting surplus and a trade surplus. Would you call their economy strong??

[Spectral]

Does the United States run a structural deficit, or a structural surplus? My suggestion is that it's approximately $400b of a deficit.

Does Germany run a structural deficit, or a structural surplus? My suggestion is that it's approximately $38b of a surplus.

One country is, therefore, in the red; the other is in the black, assuming you accept these numbers (and I'm happy if you have others to share that contradict these ones).

This is what I mean when I say the German economy is stronger than the American one. It produces money on an annual basis, while the US loses it on an annual basis.

That's not what anyone means when they refer to economic strength. It's a lame attempt at a post hoc justification of a ludicrous claim.

[Growel]

"I think you should pay for this"
"Okay, I agree, but I don't have any money"
"I don't care, it's important so you should pay for it"
"Yes, I understand that, but even if I wanted to, I don't -have- the money for it."
"You aren't getting it, it's important. So you need to pay for it. I don't care if you don't have the money."
"Oookay. We'll do it. It just won't happen indefinitely, because there's nothing to pay for it."
"Great!"
"Great."

Except in the USA, we have more money. We're literally the richest country in the world, and a lot of these social services are not as good here as in other countries with less wealth. We HAVE the money to pay for these things, already.

[cuafpr]

College is racket and not everyone SHOULD go, there are ways to go for free already.

UBI is farce and though will happen one day we are 100+ years from that day short of a major leap in technology

Health care is a bit more of a pickle, its to expensive now but why ?
- I don't want my healthcare bill spread around the people
- I want to know why a single Tylenol pill cost 600+ in a hospital but a bottle cost 14.99
- I want to know why a doc walking into my room reading my chart and walking out shows as a few hundred charge
- I want to know why these tests all cost so much surely the machines are paid off at some point?
- If a test costs 200,000 in the us but is 100.00 in another country where is the difference made up? Or is it spread around? if so whats the TRUE costs of the test in that other country then.
- Most of all i don't want to be forced to buy care from private companies or fined.

[Osmeric]

Social issues are mostly social signalling to others in your group. Economics is where everyone's true inner selfishness can shine through.

Health care is a bit more of a pickle, its to expensive now but why ?

Regulatory capture. There are many hoops to jump through before the government allows you to be a doctor, for example. These barriers jack the cost way up. Quality is higher, but consumers are not allowed to trade quality vs. cost. This is good for the privileged who would buy the high price care anyway; not so good for everyone else.

[Deleted]

Because without money, you can't have any of these things.

Money is the engine that keeps humanity running.

[Louisa Bannon]

Look up the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

I don't like quoting someone else's post in entirety, but the one quoted above is pretty good - the whole thing is quite accurate.

Yes, control media, then you control opinions. Move those opinions ever to the right, now you have greeters at Walmart pushing the agenda of the 1%.

And yes, there is class warfare. There has always been class warfare. It was started by the 1% who always have their hand out and always want everything skewed so they basically can't possibly lose no matter what actually happens. All for them, nothing for you - even when it doesn't even make sense from the standpoint of a peaceful, successful society.

They mean to destroy the republic even if it means that eventually they will have a grim meeting with a guillotine. They can't check their own greed even if its in their own interest because their greed is really a mental defect similar to psychosis.

I personally know some people that are really extravagantly wealthy. They are not happier than you or I, in fact I'd say they were far less happy than is average. The only goal they seem to have is the acquisition of more wealth more or less for its own sake. They don't even need the money they are trying to acquire in even greater quantity. They just "want it" for no reason whatever.

Gore Vidal made a statement similar to this: "It is not enough merely to win; others must lose."

That quote actually explains much of what happens in the world. And yes, it is exactly that petty and meaningless.

[breadisfunny]

Ha, check this out fren. It states that extreme inequality was a major reason for the fall of the Roman Republic. Turns out the anti-social greed driven psychos where the ones that ruined the largest empire of the ancient world, not the "feefees." But that none of my business...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...s-in-rome.html

your also forgetting major external factors like the barbarians at the gate...

[Flarelaine]

Germany's fine, but their per capita GDP is ~$9K/person lower than the United States. If it was an American state, the per capita GDP would rank 38th, sandwiched in between Oklahoma and Missouri, which aren't exactly known for their wealth.

I believe it is at least somewhat compensated by the fact that they have universal healthcare and free higher education - so the same income will go much further.

[Deleted]

Ultimately, it's because modern neoliberal governments sell the tale that you need a strong economy in order to pay for public services...

And how would you arrange public services without money? Slave labour?

[chazus]

Except in the USA, we have more money. We're literally the richest country in the world, and a lot of these social services are not as good here as in other countries with less wealth. We HAVE the money to pay for these things, already.

Debt =/= Money... We're the highest debt country, which means we -dont- have the money.

[Growel]

Debt =/= Money... We're the highest debt country, which means we -dont- have the money.

Increasing income taxes on just the richest would be enough to pay for one or two social systems, though. It doesn't always need to be a comparison of GDP versus debt.