Solution to the oil problem

[UShadItComing]

You don't see a glaring contradiction in that statement? Is a 'bail out', a capitalist action, or a socialist action? Let's ask you for the answer from post #126: "It's an example of a socialist attempt to bailout a corp". You are correct. It is socialism. So... is our government really Capitalist rightwing? I guess not.

Capitalism is when Enron showed up asking for a bail out, and Bush said take a hike. Again, Capitalism is when the private individual or group of individuals, owns not just the reward, but also the risk of the private venture.

That said, is our government right wing or Capitalist? Well technically, Capitalism is a economic system, not specifically a form of government. And from that perspective, all government is technically socialist. What does government do? Control, regulate, tax and spend, and all of which is socialism.

However, I would even argue on whether our government is "right-wing" or "Capitalist" based. Our government has hundreds of regulations on all forms of energy, from oil to nuclear, from Ethanol to windmills. We have even had people in congress openly stating they would like to take over the oil industry, and the health care industry. How is this right wing or capitalist? It is not.



Correct, and we would under any form of socialism.



As I said, less socialism, and more capitalism is the protection we need. Automatically, if we have Capitalism, and no socialism, there will not be a bail out of anyone anywhere, and thus tax payers will magically never be left paying for a bail out, because there will never be a bail out to pay for.



How do you claim this? B-S did in fact fail. Last I checked our economy is doing pretty well comparatively to most of the world. Even now, it's growing, not shrinking. So how does this prove Capitalism doesn't work, when... it's working?



Not really. The article I posted from #125, showed that ICBC was bailed out for millions at tax payer expense. This proves the exact opposite of what you just claimed. Further, the fact people come to the US due to some of your 'sensible social policies' doesn't seem sensible to me.



Why is this not sinking in. B-S was bailed out.... and STILL failed. B-S is not in existence anymore, the company was not saved. It completely and totally crashed and burned. Where was the "ripple" effect? Where is the 'potential of destroying [our] economy'?

So... since the company's crash didn't have any major effect on the economy, which given it's mostly a Capitalist economy it shouldn't, and didn't, then... I would suggest the bail out didn't do anything of any value but blow tax payer money.

What would I do? I would not bail them out... because it won't hurt our economy (and didn't), and because bailing them out won't help (and it didn't).

It's the same as Chrysler. Chrysler was bailed out because the socialists claimed it would devastate the economy. Did the bail out save them? Nope, they still crashed. They were sold off, sold again, and they still have a shaky future. Did it cause a huge crash in our economy? Nope.

So you can ask a million times what I'd do, the answer will always be the same. Capitalism is the answer, always. A socialistic bail out, that never helps, and always fails, is never the answer.



You seem to be claiming that every company that crashes, is proof that Capitalism fails. Um... I disagree. Capitalism never claimed that no companies would fail, rather, it in fact promises companies will fail.

When a company provides a good product, and has good management, it will succeed. Whereas, a company that provides lame products or has horrible mismanagement, it will fail. Both show the success of Capitalism.

When two companies provide the same basic product, but one is either cheaper, or has higher quality, the other company will tend to fail. Both companies are showing successful Capitalism.



That may have been true about 60 years ago, but things are not so, now. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8 and low income housing, we have regulated and mandated Ethanol, Windmills, Social Security, regulations, controls and price fixing for Oil, Gasoline, Corn, Electricity, Nuclear power, coal, even subsidies for most everything, even farming that pays farmers to... not farm. They are literally are paid to not grow any crops.

This is an 'extreme brand of capitalism'? What Capitalism are you looking at? The Stalin/Mao version of Capitalism? This is socialism running amok through our economy, not Capitalism.



Actually, mine served me very well. When I was hit, the company stepped in and got full repayment for the damaged car. When my other car was totaled many years ago, I was handed a check that in all honesty, was likely more than the car was really worth.

(ARTICLE IN LINK)
Well, I am not seeing evidence the article you posted is actually true.
This post on the cost of ICBC vs. Private insurers, has a vastly different outlook. Thousands have found private insurers to be cheaper.

I have also read that generally speaking, ICBC has a lower pay-outs, and typically higher deductibles than private insurers. So from the articles standpoint, sure the ICBC may have a larger income rate, but at who's expense? You talk about the little guy, but the little guy in Canada, is paying higher premiums, paying larger deductibles, and receiving lower pay-outs, under the Socialized ICBC system.

I was amused to find out that auto-glass repair had a $300 deductible. Amusing because most glass repairs are at, or less, than $300. It's almost like not having insurance at all.

Andy I see no point in continuing the former discusson on what you are going to call your form of government. Suffice to say that it was your government which bailed out B-S and will probably continue to bailout more losers at the people's expense. The rest of the world sees you as right of it and that's all that needs to be said. In easy to understand words Andy: deal with your problem and don't lay any more of your bull--it on me.

As for ICBC being undercut by private insurers: I have personally asked for quotes to insure through private insurers because their t.v. adverts say that drivers such as myself should be able to realize a savings with them. It was not true and in fact they were over ICBC. This regardless of me being one of the most desirable clients they could take on. eg. No accidents for over 30 years which I could be considered at fault and a mature driver.

You've closed your mind now Andy to learning anything that flies in the face of your dogma and for that reason I will only rebut your foolish claims from here on in and not bother to convince you of anything.

 

[Andy]

I perhaps would have too Rob but we can't deny that greater financial/economy minds chose to do otherwise. This is what makes the question so difficult to answer.

But since we know that the 'greater financial/economy minds' were all wrong, we can dispense with this being a difficult question to answer. Like I keep saying... B-S still failed. Was there a huge ripple effect or devastating economic crash? Nope? Then the answer is clear, we should have not bailed anyone out, and let them crash.

They cannot fail to prosper in a successful economy and their lack of ability to obtain healthcare insurance and also good quality healthcare insurance is how I read it. This is leading to the major cause of bankruptcies in your country, a lower life expectancy, and a abyssmal infant mortality rate. Important: People need to have the ability to choose to go see their doctor for problems they encounter in life without having to weigh that with being able to afford to buy groceries for their children. or people need to be able to look after their teeth without having them rot out of their heads without having to forego nutritional food for their children.

I disagree with all of that. When people blow their money on beer frivolous things, the problem isn't access to Health Insurance, it's blowing their money on neon lights and spinny rims for their Honda Civic. When you are buying a thousand dollars worth of lottery tickets a year, the problem isn't that health care is too expensive.

Granted my view is biased because I personally watched a guy die from cancer who spent hundreds on lottery tickets, yet refused to enroll in the company offered health insurance. Even where I work now, we have employees who complain about the insurance program offered, yet every Friday they blow a collective $200 on lottery tickets, and talk about their trips to the gambling boat on the river.

Further, all those other issues, have more to do with American Culture, than it does our health care. You can't blame poor infant mortality on health care, when we have mothers drinking boose, smoking pot, shooting up while pregnant. Health problems are generally cause by poor living habits, not because people are debating seeing a doctor or buying food. In fact one problem is they are buying too much food. When people are waddling around over 500 lbs, it's not the cost of insurance that's the issue. Maybe if health care cost more, they'd buy less food and lose some weight.

I don't think you are as conservative as those people because you understand that free education is a necessity. You are more conservative than I am because you don't carry it further.

You got me here, I honestly hate public education. I find it odd that in other countries, they are able to provide a better education, for a lower cost, with a higher success rate, than our publicly funded education system. Why is it that private schools out perform public schools on a fairly consistent basis? Why is it when vouchers come up, the public overwhelmingly supports it, yet it's always shot down by the legislature or the courts?

I used to think free public education was good... then I saw the infestation of drugs, the under age sex, the pageant 15 year olds, the gangs, and least of all the, utter ineffectiveness of the education given. I met high school seniors that couldn't do basic arithmetic with a calculator! Let alone, in their heads. This is what we are publicly paying for?

I truly believe that giving the money back to the public, and having parents purchase education for their children, would have better results.

I think there is little doubt that your healthcare system needs to be fixed in that it needs to be made more affordable and available for everyone. How you fix it is your business but I have mentioned Switzerland's success with government run healthcare insurance and their realization that they had been wrong to aviod it for so long. Switzerland is one of the world's bastions of capitalism.

The Swiss health care is far from affordable. In fact, from some perspectives, it's less affordable. For a family of four, the basic insurance plan required by Swiss law, is $8,167. More than 3 x the average rate for a family of 4 in the US. Further, most Swiss opt for supplemental insurance in order to get dental, eye, and other coverage, as well as use of private hospitals because government funded hospitals are undesirable.

The difference between the US and Swiss is, we can choose to not buy expensive insurance. The Swiss have no choice in the matter.

That said, the Swiss system isn't even a real good example of a socialized system. The Swiss system is dependent entirely on private companies. The government sets up a "basic" plan, that all companies must offer, that they are not allowed to make a profit on. The 'basic' plan is minimal coverage, but costs the unbelievable $8,167 yearly. They do have reduced rates for increased deductibles, just like here in the US. They have differing co-pays and network, out of network, doctors and hospitals, just like here.

Honestly, I'm not sure what is better about their system accept that they have forced enrollment, which just means you don't have a choice, and the government subsidizes low-income households, which the US does already.

If the truth is known the Saudis have little control over the market now. I have asked a Saudi directly if he thinks that the country has the capability to increase production appreciably and he said that they don't have the ability to do that. That is now proving to be the facts of the matter even thogh it's a guarded secret. The gentleman was a Turk who was in Saudi working for the Caterpillar corp which is primarily involved with the oil industry. That was at Christmas time and I considered myself very fortunate to be able to talk to the man and get a firsthand answer. Interesting topic to explore further and Peakoil.com is full of the discussion.

A huge increase in the price of gas at the pump will hinge on whether or not the Iranians block Hormuz when and if war comes. That's the issue we were talking about.

This is true, for the most part. Currently established capacity has been nearly reached in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi you talked to was correct. The Saudis have nearly maxed out their currently available production.

That said, all the Saudis need to do is invest heavily in exploration and drilling, and they could increase their capacity limit. Still it would take a few years before that would come online.

I would still suggest simply drilling for our own oil will be sufficient to increase the supply and crude oil, and thereby reducing price. This would work regardless of any international wars or pressures.

 

[Andy]

Andy I see no point in continuing the former discusson on what you are going to call your form of government. Suffice to say that it was your government which bailed out B-S and will probably continue to bailout more losers at the people's expense. The rest of the world sees you as right of it and that's all that needs to be said. In easy to understand words Andy: deal with your problem and don't lay any more of your bull--it on me.

Yes, they may do those socialistic activities at our expense. We are trying to deal with it by eliminating socialism. One way to combat socialism, is by defeating those supporting socialism in the realm of discussion. (here, now)

As for ICBC being undercut by private insurers: I have personally asked for quotes to insure through private insurers because their t.v. adverts say that drivers such as myself should be able to realize a savings with them. It was not true and in fact they were over ICBC. This regardless of me being one of the most desirable clients they could take on. eg. No accidents for over 30 years which I could be considered at fault and a mature driver.

Can't answer for you. Statistics and other testimonials show a wider view. It also should be noted that private insurance isn't available in all locations, thus in areas where there is no competition, the ICBC rate is vastly higher. Where there is private competition, the rates are lower.

You've closed your mind now Andy to learning anything that flies in the face of your dogma and for that reason I will only rebut your foolish claims from here on in and not bother to convince you of anything.

Ad homin. And amusingly too, given I have learned for more about ICBC, and Canadian policy in the last few days than I ever did before.

You are now attacking the person instead of answering the evidence. This shows a bankrupt argument. Either admit you can not respond to the evidence, or make a valid point. I'll take future ad homin to mean you admit to the failure of your views. If you do admit to the failure of your views, then I agree there is no need for further debate. I have no need to talk to someone who can longer form a supporting point to their views.

 

[PLC1]

The Bear Stearns bailout that is being discussed at length and in purely ideological terms is not a right wing/left wing issue. It is a pragmatism/ideology issue.

Is it pragmatic to allow a major bank to fail?

Would it have been pragmatic to have allowed Christler to fail?

Would we allow GM to fail, should it come to that?

The simplistic left to right one dimensional political philosophy fails once again.

Oh, yes, and Canada is not a socialist nation, nor are the nations of Western Europe, nor is the US becoming mor socialistic. Not even hugely statist China really socialist any more.

We were better off, here in the US, when it was socialistic, as they didn't have the wherewithal to compete with us for the world's resources. Now, they do.

But, that's a topic for another thread.

 

[Sihouette]

Andy,

Again, I find it hilarious how you are so down on socialism yet you would be up sheet creek without a paddle if we didn't have socialized education and police and military and public services like road building and maintenance.

Yes, those are ALL socialist entities...

At the same time you jump to defend fascist monopolies like BigOil.

Try actually studying the concepts of differening governances before you attempt to speak knowledgeably about them!

BigOil has us by the g'nads and they are wrenching our fiscal arms behind our backs and laughing all the way to the yacht club. They are actively shoving out competition in your beloved capitalistic utopia. Capitalism isn't working because competition isn't being allowed by BigOil. They are making it seem like it is but when it comes to policies to enforce diversification on a large scale of energy manufacturing...BigOil steps in with lobbyists...and threats if necessary...blackmailing (George Bush's recent speech where he admitted it was his "attitude" that if he et al didn't get to drill offshore, prices of oil would remain high..) and whatever other forceful tactics they pull to maintain their detrimental monopoly.

No objections to that eh? Capitalism is about diversification, not monopoly. When monopoly exists, capitalism cannot. Time to focus your attention on the real enemy of capitalism...and it's not a smattering of healthy socialism.

If you lost your job and were on the verge of losing your home, and your son or daughter got sick and your insurance dropped you (as so often happens..) you'd be on your knees thanking your lucky stars if we finally got universal (yes, socialized) healthcare....and the roads you drove on to get to the hospital, the school where your kid was educated, the police who protect them from harm and the military that keeps our country intact..

 

[Libsmasher]

The Bear Stearns bailout that is being discussed at length and in purely ideological terms is not a right wing/left wing issue. It is a pragmatism/ideology issue.

Is it pragmatic to allow a major bank to fail?

Would it have been pragmatic to have allowed Christler to fail?

Would we allow GM to fail, should it come to that?

The simplistic left to right one dimensional political philosophy fails once again.

Oh, yes, and Canada is not a socialist nation, nor are the nations of Western Europe, nor is the US becoming mor socialistic. Not even hugely statist China really socialist any more.

We were better off, here in the US, when it was socialistic, as they didn't have the wherewithal to compete with us for the world's resources. Now, they do.

But, that's a topic for another thread.

The other side of the argument is that we'd be better off in the long run if we DID let them fail. As for Chrysler, it went on to produce the K-cars that were a marketplace flop. If everyone knows they'll be bailed out by the government, then they'll just go ahead and enrich themselves with legal but unsound business practices, because there's no risk.

 

[UShadItComing]

But since we know that the 'greater financial/economy minds' were all wrong, we can dispense with this being a difficult question to answer. Like I keep saying... B-S still failed. Was there a huge ripple effect or devastating economic crash? Nope? Then the answer is clear, we should have not bailed anyone out, and let them crash.

Could be you're right Andy but thankfully we have arrived at an agreement that your gov did. And the taxpayer got left holding the bag. This was not the first and will likely not be the last. PLC makes a lot of sense in his argument below. It 'is' entertaining though to hear Americans blame socialism for the B-S bailout. Why would any sensible person bother to argur that? It can be nothing but an example of capitalism failing and a socialist attempt to fix it. Why do you want to waste so much of your time arguing that?

I disagree with all of that. When people blow their money on beer frivolous things, the problem isn't access to Health Insurance, it's blowing their money on neon lights and spinny rims for their Honda Civic. When you are buying a thousand dollars worth of lottery tickets a year, the problem isn't that health care is too expensive.

Who could argue with all that Andy? The only thing I need to say about that is that I'm not angry about spinny rims, neon lights, and other frivolous items. And I tend to think my fellow Canadians who are struggling is not because they have been frivilous with the money they have, for the most part. This outburst of yours is more a demonstration of an attitude toward others who you imagine want to take your money. Is your country so screwed up now that people are as you label them? A bunch of nogood bums who waste the little money they have? Canadians aren't, but as I say, it could be mainly an attitude problem one of us carries around. I just don't see red when I see spinny rims and you do.

Granted my view is biased because I personally watched a guy die from cancer who spent hundreds on lottery tickets, yet refused to enroll in the company offered health insurance. Even where I work now, we have employees who complain about the insurance program offered, yet every Friday they blow a collective $200 on lottery tickets, and talk about their trips to the gambling boat on the river.

If watching one guy die from Cancer has made you biased then you need to deal with that. As for the gambling boat, are all Americans bad people Andy?

Further, all those other issues, have more to do with American Culture, than it does our health care. You can't blame poor infant mortality on health care, when we have mothers drinking boose, smoking pot, shooting up while pregnant. Health problems are generally cause by poor living habits, not because people are debating seeing a doctor or buying food. In fact one problem is they are buying too much food. When people are waddling around over 500 lbs, it's not the cost of insurance that's the issue. Maybe if health care cost more, they'd buy less food and lose some weight.

High infant mortality rate is attributed in part to the fact that an expecting mother doesn't go and have regular checkups during her pregnancy. Most can't and won't afford it. They do in Canada ande we think it's important. I understand that you don't think it matters. MOst of my fellow Canadians don't buy too much food and aren't 500 lbs. I can't speak for Americans but I do acknowledge that there are some things very wrong with your country and you needn't keep trying to convince me. Spend your time more wisely and try to understand what the problems are caused by. The world thinks your country is too far to the right but you think it's moved too far to the left. We need to work on that if the reason why you mention these things is because you care.

You got me here, I honestly hate public education. I find it odd that in other countries, they are able to provide a better education, for a lower cost, with a higher success rate, than our publicly funded education system. Why is it that private schools out perform public schools on a fairly consistent basis? Why is it when vouchers come up, the public overwhelmingly supports it, yet it's always shot down by the legislature or the courts?

I'm pleased you admitted that because Rob wasn't acknowledging that most real cons hate public education. You and he may want to pursue that. It's a no-brainer with me.

I used to think free public education was good... then I saw the infestation of drugs, the under age sex, the pageant 15 year olds, the gangs, and least of all the, utter ineffectiveness of the education given. I met high school seniors that couldn't do basic arithmetic with a calculator! Let alone, in their heads. This is what we are publicly paying for?

I truly believe that giving the money back to the public, and having parents purchase education for their children, would have better results.

With everything you say I learn more about how fu--ed up the American system is. Should I believe you? Is it because you have shifted too far to the left? LOL

The Swiss health care is far from affordable. In fact, from some perspectives, it's less affordable. For a family of four, the basic insurance plan required by Swiss law, is $8,167. More than 3 x the average rate for a family of 4 in the US. Further, most Swiss opt for supplemental insurance in order to get dental, eye, and other coverage, as well as use of private hospitals because government funded hospitals are undesirable.

It's not the best example but it served as an example for Rob because of what a very capitalist country needed to do. They say it's an improvement over what they had. Even the righties!

The difference between the US and Swiss is, we can choose to not buy expensive insurance. The Swiss have no choice in the matter.

It needs work in both countries but my guess is that the Swiss are more satisfied now than they were. Capitalist dogma will probably prevent it from being as good as others.

[quoteThat said, the Swiss system isn't even a real good example of a socialized system. The Swiss system is dependent entirely on private companies. The government sets up a "basic" plan, that all companies must offer, that they are not allowed to make a profit on. The 'basic' plan is minimal coverage, but costs the unbelievable $8,167 yearly. They do have reduced rates for increased deductibles, just like here in the US. They have differing co-pays and network, out of network, doctors and hospitals, just like here.[/quote]

Capitalist foot dragging Andy?

Honestly, I'm not sure what is better about their system accept that they have forced enrollment, which just means you don't have a choice, and the government subsidizes low-income households, which the US does already.

Don't dwell on it to much, it's not the best example and you may not even choose to fix your with socialist measures. Although the Swiss example was used by me also because those capitalists didn't seem to have another solution. If yours is fixed some day it'll be interesting to see how you fix it. As Jude Wanniski once said: paraphrased: Providing choices to the people prevents revolutions.

This is true, for the most part. Currently established capacity has been nearly reached in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi you talked to was correct. The Saudis have nearly maxed out their currently available production.

Good, you know something about Saudi oil.

That said, all the Saudis need to do is invest heavily in exploration and drilling, and they could increase their capacity limit. Still it would take a few years before that would come online.

That's ridiculous and it's a contradiction of what you admitted above.

I would still suggest simply drilling for our own oil will be sufficient to increase the supply and crude oil, and thereby reducing price. This would work regardless of any international wars or pressures.

Nobody in the know thinks exploration and drilling in the continental US is going to produce appreciable new amounts of oil. I'm not going to go there with you. Begin a debate on offshore and shale if you like.

 

[UShadItComing]

Yes, they may do those socialistic activities at our expense. We are trying to deal with it by eliminating socialism. One way to combat socialism, is by defeating those supporting socialism in the realm of discussion. (here, now)

You first have to convince a few people that the problems with your country are caused by too much socialism. I'll listen intently but I warn you Andy, it's a strettttcccchhhhh!

Can't answer for you. Statistics and other testimonials show a wider view. It also should be noted that private insurance isn't available in all locations, thus in areas where there is no competition, the ICBC rate is vastly higher. Where there is private competition, the rates are lower.

Nonsense! There is nowhere in B.C. where you can't buy private insurance and if you can find a place I don't know of then it's because the experience prevents it. And if the ICBC rate is high in some areas it's because of 'experience'. Get a life man, you ain't gonna get that one past me!

Ad homin. And amusingly too, given I have learned for more about ICBC, and Canadian policy in the last few days than I ever did before.

You are now attacking the person instead of answering the evidence. This shows a bankrupt argument. Either admit you can not respond to the evidence, or make a valid point. I'll take future ad homin to mean you admit to the failure of your views. If you do admit to the failure of your views, then I agree there is no need for further debate. I have no need to talk to someone who can longer form a supporting point to their views.

Sometimes an adhom response is appropriate Andy but I do commend you for bringing yourself up to speed on ICBC. I'm just disappointed that you can't bring yourself to be honest about what you learned. Perhaps you didn't find the right information but perhaps it is ideology which prevents you from accepting the facts on ICBC. Instead of resorting to an ad hom we'll just have to work on it. But I have a bad feeling right from the start Andy, that your comments indicate to me that you are ideologicallly motivated and it's making you incapable of seeing ICBC's success.

You see Andy, if you can't bring yourself to admit that capitalism with a mix of socialist policies to benefit the people is something that works then you have defeated yourself right from the beginning. Is that what you want to say? Seriously, if you want to elevate the level of our discourse then you are going to have to show you have credibility.

Furthermore, this idea of blaming everything which goes wrong in the US on socialism is quite unpalatable for me. Had I responded the way I felt on those suggestions then you would have something to complain about, re: ad homs.

Can we reach 'any' common ground?

 

[Andy]

The Bear Stearns bailout that is being discussed at length and in purely ideological terms is not a right wing/left wing issue. It is a pragmatism/ideology issue.

Is it pragmatic to allow a major bank to fail?

Would it have been pragmatic to have allowed Christler to fail?

I guess my view point is, both did fail. Both Chrysler and Bear Stearns failed. They were utterly bankrupt and ended up like most companies in such situations, they were bought out. Chrysler was sold, and then sold again, and there is still a future possibility they might be sold off yet again. B-S similarly was sold off to Morgan Chase, where it also enjoys the possibility of being carved up and sold out.

The question is, did the doom and gloom, 'sky is falling!' mantra of the socialists in congress come true? Did the 'ripple effect' cause the utter destruction of our economy? In all cases, no.

So I suggest yes. Allowing companies that can't be successful to fail, is perfectly fine.

Would we allow GM to fail, should it come to that?

Sure. If GM can't make cars effectively, then they should be allowed to fail. A bail-out, rarely, if ever (I don't know of any case yet) solves the problem.

It didn't help Chrysler, it didn't help B-S. Why do something with a nearly non-existent success rate?

We were better off, here in the US, when it was socialistic, as they didn't have the wherewithal to compete with us for the world's resources. Now, they do.

Wow, that's a shockingly true statement. Perhaps we should spread poverty and Socialism world wide in order to bolster our economy more. You know, if I was a horribly uncaring Godless person, that would actually be a really good idea.

 

[UShadItComing]

The Bear Stearns bailout that is being discussed at length and in purely ideological terms is not a right wing/left wing issue. It is a pragmatism/ideology issue.

Is it pragmatic to allow a major bank to fail?

Would it have been pragmatic to have allowed Christler to fail?

Would we allow GM to fail, should it come to that?

The simplistic left to right one dimensional political philosophy fails once again.

Oh, yes, and Canada is not a socialist nation, nor are the nations of Western Europe, nor is the US becoming mor socialistic. Not even hugely statist China really socialist any more.

We were better off, here in the US, when it was socialistic, as they didn't have the wherewithal to compete with us for the world's resources. Now, they do.

But, that's a topic for another thread.

It's become rather an interesting discussion hasn't it! But let's look at the reason why it's become so interesting. The US fed gov is capitalist and it's rightist in the eyes of the world. Of that there is little to argue about. It attempted to bailout B-S and there is no argument there. The bailout attempt was a resorting to a socialist measure by a capitalist government. And from the beginning I have maintained that if a government is going to rely on socialist policies in times of need for corps then it needs to find mechanisms to protect the people from ending up holding the bag.

The gov can stop doing it and that's fine with me too, I never did suggest they couldn't or they should continue the practice. But to run from the issue of whether or not it was appropriate and whether it may be appropriate in the future with GM, as per your own example, just doesn't cut the mustard.

The cons are having a lot of difficulty with this issue and I just don't know where to go to help them out now. If they would tell me what they want to hear it may be helpful. I will also say that I could have left this issue long ago becaue I see no real argument against what I have said. But I'm pleased that they want to keep twisting and turning in the wind because it offers a learning experience for all.

 

[UShadItComing]

The other side of the argument is that we'd be better off in the long run if we DID let them fail. As for Chrysler, it went on to produce the K-cars that were a marketplace flop. If everyone knows they'll be bailed out by the government, then they'll just go ahead and enrich themselves with legal but unsound business practices, because there's no risk.

This is pretty elementary libs and it's not the first time it's been suggested that maybe they should have been allowed to fail.

All you need to know is that when a capitalist enterprise becomes unviable it should be allowed to fail. But in no case should the taxpayer ever be left holding the bag. And by no means should a capitalist corp ever be allowed to grow to a position of such power that it has the capability of needing to be bailed out in order to prevent a further dangerous ripple effect which could bring down the economy of a country.

After you digest that then if you show you are capable we can go on to learn more about the issue and how other countries' systems protect themselves from such catastrophic events.

Do you want to know? I would suppose you do because it would be a little counterproductive and abnormal on your part if you said you chose to continue to foot the bill as a taxpayer.

Progress will be slow libs, if even possible with you, but I write this in the interest of using your post as a means of passing on the obvious to the more clever cons.

 

[Andy]

You first have to convince a few people that the problems with your country are caused by too much socialism. I'll listen intently but I warn you Andy, it's a strettttcccchhhhh!

Well one problem is Bail-outs. That's socialism, and it's a problem.

Nonsense! There is nowhere in B.C. where you can't buy private insurance and if you can find a place I don't know of then it's because the experience prevents it. And if the ICBC rate is high in some areas it's because of 'experience'. Get a life man, you ain't gonna get that one past me!

I don't have to. It's your own people who are making that claim. Now, if you contend that all those Canadians are lying, well... then I suppose we are at an impasse. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Obviously I can't go and systematically prove each and every Canadian isn't lying that their personal premiums were higher, and pay-outs lower, under ICBC. If you can prove all of them were lying, then we can go somewhere.

Sometimes an adhom response is appropriate Andy but I do commend you for bringing yourself up to speed on ICBC. I'm just disappointed that you can't bring yourself to be honest about what you learned. Perhaps you didn't find the right information but perhaps it is ideology which prevents you from accepting the facts on ICBC. Instead of resorting to an ad hom we'll just have to work on it. But I have a bad feeling right from the start Andy, that your comments indicate to me that you are ideologicallly motivated and it's making you incapable of seeing ICBC's success.

I just reported what information I found. I will grant you that my preconceptions seemed to be validated by the information given, but then, it's still the information given.

You see Andy, if you can't bring yourself to admit that capitalism with a mix of socialist policies to benefit the people is something that works then you have defeated yourself right from the beginning. Is that what you want to say? Seriously, if you want to elevate the level of our discourse then you are going to have to show you have credibility.

But then you are by virtue indicating your views are inherintly credible from the start. That's illogical. Why do I have to prove credibility to begin with, whereas your position is assumed credible from the start?

Furthermore, this idea of blaming everything which goes wrong in the US on socialism is quite unpalatable for me. Had I responded the way I felt on those suggestions then you would have something to complain about, re: ad homs.

Well, I can't help but see the information, and draw a conclusion from it. When you look at the vast industries in the US, the major industries that are in trouble, generally speaking, have massive socialistic regulations control and mandates on them. Now.. if you disagree, that's fine, but I can just rattle off a half dozens that show what I mean.

The auto industry. Massive controls regulations and mandates.
The Oil industry. Massive controls regulations and mandates.
The electric generation industry. ditto
The Farming industry. ditto
The Health Care industry. ditto

Then when you add in the section of the economy under public control, they all show huge issues.

Social Security. Fixed 3 times, still going broke with lower benefits and higher taxes.

Medicare/Medicaid. Fixed many times, increasing taxes, lower benefits and still going broke, while at the same time increasing cost passed on to private consumers.

Welfare/food stamps/public housing. Fraud, mismanagement, higher taxes, while having multiple generation public leaches.

USPS. Lost money, missing cash, increasing stamp prices, off budget bail out money, lax accounting standards, political appointees who live the high life at public expense.

And on and on. Each one of these is an example of socialism and each one is a failure. Now what would you have me to conclude from this? That we need a small dose of socialism to have all these wonderful 'benefits'?

 

[UShadItComing]

Well one problem is Bail-outs. That's socialism, and it's a problem.

It's the US's brand of socialism,not mine and it could have been the wrong thing to do. I don't think it's been positively established that it was the wrong approach yet. Don't take that as me advocating that it should have been done. I don't even have to deal with it but you do.

I don't have to. It's your own people who are making that claim. Now, if you contend that all those Canadians are lying, well... then I suppose we are at an impasse. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Obviously I can't go and systematically prove each and every Canadian isn't lying that their personal premiums were higher, and pay-outs lower, under ICBC. If you can prove all of them were lying, then we can go somewhere.

I haven't made any specific claims on experience but I will if you want to go there. It'll take a lot of work on both our parts and I'd rather not. I'm not ready to agree to disagree on anything. You claimed that you knew of areas in B.C. where private insurance is not available and where ICBC costs more. I called you on it and told you that if you could find an instance then there is a valid reason why. You need to know that ICBC provides the basics and that is standard everywhere in B.C. but you can purchase the frills from a private company if you like and you're not limited by geographic area. The only problem you will face is the price tag because private insurance operates on experience the same as all insurance companies.

I just reported what information I found. I will grant you that my preconceptions seemed to be validated by the information given, but then, it's still the information given.

I don't have the slightest idea where you are going with that. Just gvie me the info and get on with your claim.

But then you are by virtue indicating your views are inherintly credible from the start. That's illogical. Why do I have to prove credibility to begin with, whereas your position is assumed credible from the start?

I feel no compunction in the least with claiming that capitalism with a sensible mix of socialist policies is the right way to go and the rest of the world will concur with that claim. It's your apparent claim that pure capitalism can work that is out of this ballpark. That's illogical and it needs some backing up to even start.

Well, I can't help but see the information, and draw a conclusion from it. When you look at the vast industries in the US, the major industries that are in trouble, generally speaking, have massive socialistic regulations control and mandates on them. Now.. if you disagree, that's fine, but I can just rattle off a half dozens that show what I mean.

Rather than try to debate the lot of them how about if I choose one to concentrate on. Let's talk about the electrical generation industry because that's close to my area of expertise. My perception is that privatization has caused the majority of the ills in that industry at the moment. I would like to hear something different.

The auto industry. Massive controls regulations and mandates.
The Oil industry. Massive controls regulations and mandates.
The electric generation industry. ditto
The Farming industry. ditto
The Health Care industry. ditto

Then when you add in the section of the economy under public control, they all show huge issues.

Social Security. Fixed 3 times, still going broke with lower benefits and higher taxes.

Medicare/Medicaid. Fixed many times, increasing taxes, lower benefits and still going broke, while at the same time increasing cost passed on to private consumers.

Welfare/food stamps/public housing. Fraud, mismanagement, higher taxes, while having multiple generation public leaches.

USPS. Lost money, missing cash, increasing stamp prices, off budget bail out money, lax accounting standards, political appointees who live the high life at public expense.

And on and on. Each one of these is an example of socialism and each one is a failure. Now what would you have me to conclude from this? That we need a small dose of socialism to have all these wonderful 'benefits'?

I would have you try to open your mind to some of the reasons why there are currently so many failures in your country while other countries are working fine. Or at least are getting by. I'll remind you that any idea can fail if there exists a dogmatic approach to negatively branding the solution right from the start.

Here's a question: Do you believe that a government run corp such as ICBC can succeed? Ideally mind, where all is equal with a privately run corp. Do you believe that all can be equal? If not then specifically why not? Then if it can then why would a government run corp not have an advantage over a private corp through not having to pay out huge executive salaries.

I would suggest to you that is happening as we speak in B.C. with ICBC, albeit it is not a perfect example.

 

[Andy]

It's the US's brand of socialism...

Sweet, we agree. It's socialism, and socialism is a problem. The solution is no socialism! We agree.

I haven't made any specific claims on experience but I will if you want to go there. It'll take a lot of work on both our parts and I'd rather not. I'm not ready to agree to disagree on anything.

Look, honestly, I can't argue this specific case with you, because I don't live in Canadian (thank God) and never will. With that said, I have read hundreds of personal testimonies from people in Canada, and though I don't assume they are all perfect angels sent with notes from Heaven, I have to conclude there is some sort of pattern. In fact, many of the statements themselves show a pattern.

Darren, lived in the US, and moved to Canada. He says as follows:

'ICBC has a de facto monopoly on car insurance in British Columbia. Pretty much everyone hates them, and has some horror story about how they or their friend or relative was screwed by the insurance giant.'

Further statements from other Canadians include:

I have not had a good experience with ICBC. Recently I was involved in an accident where I rear ended a lady. It was a very low impact accident, we were both fine and there was minimal damage to our cars(I did not make a claim). However, it was my fault… I was 100% responsible.

I decided to try and pay off the damage made to her car and asked ICBC to send me an invoice to review. When I received it it had the total amount and then a hand written statement for a ‘Vehicle Rental’ and an additional $45.14 charge… then another handwritten total. I had stayed in contact with the other driver and she had informed me that she didn’t use a rental car at all.

I have never had a good expereince with ICBC. Recently I was in afender bender and the other driver was at fault. However, this could not be proved by examining both of our cars, I am still fighting it and am getting very angry! I understand that overall ICBC must be …good… but I however had not had the opportunity to expereince that side ot it!

...my (and others I know) experience with ICBC has been pretty miserable. They seem to rely on people giving up with them in frustration rather than settling claims amicably. Getting into even a minor accident is a fairly traumatic experience (or at the very least, unpleasant)…having to fight with your insurance company over every conceivable aspect of your claim is reprehensible. Far too often the attitude I’ve received has been one of treating the claimant as though they are all trying to bilk the system. ICBC is nearly universally detested and rightfully so.

I’m having a bad experience w/ ICBC right now — something hit my car when it was parked in a parking lot and I wasn’t there. I have no idea what happened, so I filed a hit and run claim.

They told me that it looks like I hit a wall — basically they accused me of lying. I called again and left a message, which they haven’t returned, so I guess I’m just stuck paying for this damage.

ICBC has become a criminal organization. Claims adjusters are told to settle claims in the best interest of the corporation. Accident claims are not settled fairly, they are settled in favour of the corporations bottom line. They have tended to go to a 50/50 settlement in most cases, where both drivers are found at fault and both have their rates increased.

I have had nothing but horrible experiences with ICBC. I had three little fender benders in parking lots in one year while I was backing up. Two of the times the other vehicles came out of nowhere and because my truck was lifted I could not see them. My insurance premiums went up to 250% surcharge and I was at 43% roadstar savings before the accidents. My insurance for my car is now $2000.00/month. Obviously I can not afford to pay this so I am forced to drive a vehicle that is not insured in my name.

This is a small sample of hundreds of posts. Possibly thousands. Now... either A: Canadian are all habitual liars and ICBC is actually really good... or B: Canadians are decent people and ICBC sucks. I mean honestly, $2000 a month? I could buy 3 years of insurance or another car for one month of ICBC 'service'!

Now if you want to shoot down each personal testimony, I can keep you busy for weeks. I have found 6 full websites dedicated to disbanding ICBC in just 2 days of looking, each containing hundreds of statements like these. I would wager there are a bunch more too.

I feel no compunction in the least with claiming that capitalism with a sensible mix of socialist policies is the right way to go and the rest of the world will concur with that claim. It's your apparent claim that pure capitalism can work that is out of this ballpark. That's illogical and it needs some backing up to even start.

So you would claim that the average individual could not possibly setup a shop selling (anything) flowers, without some sort of government socialism? Odd, I think Apple computer and Hewlett-Packard both were built without a shred of socialism. In fact billions of companies have been created without the slightest touch of socialism.

I would suggest that your theory is less logical. Listing all the socialistic programs running in the US, is there even one, that without it we couldn't survive and even thrive? Just one?

The only thing government provides at the federal level, that we need, besides a military for protection of the country, is justice. We need them to try criminals, and punish wrong doers. (which is mostly done at the local level) But oversight to find the stuff like Worldcom.

Rather than try to debate the lot of them how about if I choose one to concentrate on. Let's talk about the electrical generation industry because that's close to my area of expertise. My perception is that privatization has caused the majority of the ills in that industry at the moment. I would like to hear something different.

Sure. The last rolling black outs in California were caused by government enforced regulation.

In an effort to 'break up monopolies', the government in CA regulated that companies must sell off power plants and even distrobution grids, in the name of competition. Of course if you have seperate companies controlling each part, the overhead alone forces the prices up.

Further, in CA, they prevented (for environmental concerns) the building of more natural gas pipelines to import from other states, while at the same time legislating natural gas as the sole source for power generation.

Finely, and most important, they instituted price caps on the sale of electricity, preventing utilities from passing on the afore mentioned price hikes to the consumer.

So, to sum up: All power generation must be natural gas (socialism), and the amount of pipelines for natural gas is regulated low (socialism), and there are price controls on the product (socialism), and we broke up the system by which prices are kept low (socialism), and the result is? Rolling black outs. Maybe a shock to the socialists in California, but not so much to the Capitalists.

Even now, we face nationally, a massive increase in power generation costs. Why? Prevention of the building of coal, nuclear, hydroelectric power plants which generate power cheaply. This leaves only Natural gas, which due to the obvious spiking demand, is sky rocketing in price. This forced move into single source power generation, is jacking up the price. (socialism)

Meanwhile, the government has also forced the use of expensive alternative electrical energy sources like solar and wind and geothermal. (socialism) These expensive energy costs are being passed on to consumers in higher rates.

 

[Andy]

Here's a question: Do you believe that a government run corp such as ICBC can succeed? Ideally mind, where all is equal with a privately run corp. Do you believe that all can be equal? If not then specifically why not? Then if it can then why would a government run corp not have an advantage over a private corp through not having to pay out huge executive salaries.

I would suggest to you that is happening as we speak in B.C. with ICBC, albeit it is not a perfect example.

Well, first I'd debate the preconceived notion that a publicly run corp doesn't have huge executive salaries. Paul Taylor was pulling a cool $300K a year, plus ICBC was blowing $18 Million in "manager incentives" which I would make a fair bet he collected a chunk of that. In many cases, being in a government sponsored corp has the benefit of not being taxed. So even if he is paid less, he keeps more of it than a CEO making more but losing 40% of it in taxes.

Further, Paul Taylor was a fairly networked man, having been Deputy Minister of Finance, he had connections with the many in government, and this is how he landed his cushy job at ICBC. Further, he had business relations with members of BC Automobile Dealers Association, in turn he was on the negotiating committee for the Collision Repair Industry Agreement (CRIA). This was part of the evidence of kick backs, in the form of multiple hourly rates for collision repair, where specific shops were given more favorable rates for repair, than others. Paul also had connections to minister of finance Gary Collins, who after meetings, changed the luxury tax in way favorable to the BCADA. Paul may not be given stock options, but he sure has been given a lot, and not by earning it, but by back door deals and shady business transaction. All of this on top of the salvage car scandal, where rigged auto auctions and repaired cars were sold by managers, without proper repair titles.

The difference between a private capitalist CEO and a socialist government CEO is... the Capitalist built up a company, earned his pay, and will go to jail if he breaks the law, the Socialist politico was given his position, receives a cushy job with a huge bonus and nice salary, while getting kick backs and shady back room deals, and will resign without ever facing trial for his actions because they would expose the people above him.

That said... do I believe that a government run corp can be successful? Depends... on how you define successful. Can it survive? Of course. The government will never allow it to "fail" in that sense because it will automatically be bailed out, just like ICBC was. So if that is all that's required to be successful, then yes.

But when I think of successful, I think of being able to stand toe to toe in the market place. Now from an open minded perspective, in hypotheticals, a government run programs 'should' be able to be successful. But... they are not. Let's say they left ICBC exactly they way it is, and just removed the law requiring the purchase of basic insurance through them. Would ICBC be able to compete? I submit no. Just from the premium comparison, ICBC would have to cut their rates. And that $2,000/mo would never fly in an open market.

In fact, nearly every single socialized system can not survive with out it being enforced by law. This is why communism is always a tyrannical government. It has to be, or it will fail.

Would Social Security work if you could opt-out? It's not working now, so of course it wouldn't if we could leave it. Would Medicare? None of them would.

This is good because you ask hard questions. Sadly I keep hitting the char limit... which until this thread I didn't know existed.