Argentina

[OrangeKhrush]

On 24/11/2023 at 22:13, Spike said:

He certainly does not lean left at all

I have seen him branded an Anarcho Capitalist and a Libertarian, neither can by definition be right leaning.   At this point in time what spectrum you are depends on stand news and who agrees or disagrees with them. 

[Spike]

10 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I have seen him branded an Anarcho Capitalist and a Libertarian, neither can by definition be right leaning.   At this point in time what spectrum you are depends on stand news and who agrees or disagrees with them. 

Libertarianism is literally the most right wing economic system and to pidgeon hole him, if you want to waste time with semantics, he’d be a neoliberal 

[Spike]

Labels and the left/right dichotomy are the most useless time wasting, arbitrary and asinine political discourse.

[OrangeKhrush]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

Libertarianism is literally the most right wing economic system 

It appears that liberalism can be either or depending on the underlying political aim.   Privatisation, independence from the state or financial and political autonomy are aspects of libertarianism that I support.  I don't trust large government and the government is not skilled to create wealth and prosperity,  just division. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

3 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

It appears that liberalism can be either or depending on the underlying political aim.   Privatisation, independence from the state or financial and political autonomy are aspects of libertarianism that I support.  I don't trust large government and the government is not skilled to create wealth and prosperity,  just division. 

Actually governments are created to protect prosperity and wealth. Which they do by securing a reltively safe environment through policing and armies. Don't need to be a fucking genius to see that no wealth and prosperity could be generated without governments, since it would always being destroyed through public unrest and crimes without a functional police and jurisprudence system, which can only kept up through governments.

[Spike]

10 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

It appears that liberalism can be either or depending on the underlying political aim.   Privatisation, independence from the state or financial and political autonomy are aspects of libertarianism that I support.  I don't trust large government and the government is not skilled to create wealth and prosperity,  just division. 

No it can’t, liberalism and libertarianism are right wing economics, that’s just a definitive fact.
You can’t be serious?  Big Businesses have no vested interest in your well-being, just your labour and money.

But you do trust Chiquita? 

[OrangeKhrush]

3 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Actually governments are created to protect prosperity and wealth. Which they do by securing a reltively safe environment through policing and armies. Don't need to be a fucking genius to see that no welth and prosperity could be generated without governments, since it would always being destroyed through public unrest and crimes without a functional police and jurisprudence system, which can only kept up through governments.

A government is there to regulate,  the executive arm sole purpose is to create the framework but it is the private sector that generate the wealth,  when the government gets involved corruption follows. 

[Spike]

1 minute ago, OrangeKhrush said:

A government is there to regulate,  the executive arm sole purpose is to create the framework but it is the private sector that generate the wealth,  when the government gets involved corruption follows. 

Business being famously corruption free.

[OrangeKhrush]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

No it can’t, liberalism and libertarianism are right wing economics, that’s just a definitive fact.
You can’t be serious?  Big Businesses have no vested interest in your well-being, just your labour and money.

But you do trust Chiquita? 

I didn't say anything about big business,  the private sector includes small and medium business which is the backbone to economic prosperity,   I also like the idea of people being able to own things rather than a government controlling everything.   The only function the government should have is to regulate the framework which the private sector operates,  this is done through anti competition legislation, intellectual property rights,  ownership rights and other forms of labour legislation to ensure good labour practices.    

The government should never own the means to production,  otherwise you end up with Eskom and South African Airways. 

[OrangeKhrush]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

Business being famously corruption free.

Corruption happens when government have vested interests in corporations,  then instead of regulation they culture profiteering,  Moderna, Pfizer,  Raytheon or whatever its called now are prime examples of state controlled,  basically everything that is wrong.   

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Corruption happens when government have vested interests in corporations,  then instead of regulation they culture profiteering,  Moderna, Pfizer,  Raytheon or whatever its called now are prime examples of state controlled,  basically everything that is wrong.   

They aren’t state controlled, they are literally all private entities. Businesses culture profiteering. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

11 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Corruption happens when government have vested interests in corporations,  then instead of regulation they culture profiteering,  Moderna, Pfizer,  Raytheon or whatever its called now are prime examples of state controlled,  basically everything that is wrong.   

Grünenthal was and still is a medium-sized private business. If you want to know how corrupt they showed to be google contergan scandal.

[OrangeKhrush]

3 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Grünenthal was and still is a medium-sized private business. If you want to know how corrupt they showed to be google contergan scandal.

It is pharmaceutical,  hardly surprising, it is the most government controlled sector,  Sunak sat or still sits on the Moderna board,  how fucking dodgy is that.   Recently Gavin Nuisance and the FDA regulated certain medicinal products that were sold for very affordable prices,  the government stepped in and now its price is regulated by the government and the same products are now 3 to 4 times more expensive.   

 

[Rucksackfranzose]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The guys an employment attorney, or he claims to be, so he’s telling us he makes his living built on regulations put in place to protect workers from their employers.

And he says he’s concerned with corporate interests being promoted over protecting regular people.

But he absolutely fucking loves libertarians. I can’t explain it & I doubt he can either.

Well, perhaps he's an employment attourney for enterprises and makes his living by trying to find loopholes in that regulations.

[OrangeKhrush]

6 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Well, perhaps he's an employment attourney for enterprises and makes his living by trying to find loopholes in that regulations.

Which is why I don't like Government mixing with the private sector,  it is just a precursor to corruption.   I am not saying it is without issues but government control is the worst thing that can happen,  ask any victim of communism. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

29 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

It is pharmaceutical,  hardly surprising, it is the most government controlled sector,  Sunak sat or still sits on the Moderna board,  how fucking dodgy is that.   Recently Gavin Nuisance and the FDA regulated certain medicinal products that were sold for very affordable prices,  the government stepped in and now its price is regulated by the government and the same products are now 3 to 4 times more expensive.   

 

Gavin Newsom rejected the insulin price cap because California’s going to start producing and distributing insulin itself at a lower fixed price.

By the way, insulin is not sold at affordable prices in California or anywhere else in the U.S.

[OrangeKhrush]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Gavin Newsom rejected the insulin price cap because California’s going to start producing and distributing insulin itself at a lower fixed price.

By the way, insulin is not sold at affordable prices in California or anywhere else in the U.S.

Insulin is not sold at affordable prices anywhere

[Dr. Gonzo]

7 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Insulin is not sold at affordable prices anywhere

and the source of that data is the very right wing RAND corporation

[OrangeKhrush]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

and the source of that data is the very right wing RAND corporation

Good ol pharmaceutical and government,  proving the point that when government control a necessity it is often not going to end well.   I stand to be corrected but I am sure in those other countries the pharmaceutical industry or medical aid is very privatised,  here in South Africa it is, except for when COVID was a cash cow. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Good ol pharmaceutical and government,  proving the point that when government control a necessity it is often not going to end well.   I stand to be corrected but I am sure in those other countries the pharmaceutical industry or medical aid is very privatised,  here in South Africa it is, except for when COVID was a cash cow. 

Yeah except the very high price there is when there’s no government control over the pricing and the lower ones have government control.

You think the U.S. healthcare system is a super government controlled public healthcare system? How lol? How can you be so into American politics and not even know the basics?

[OrangeKhrush]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah except the very high price there is when there’s no government control over the pricing and the lower ones have government control.

You think the U.S. healthcare system is a super government controlled public healthcare system? How lol? How can you be so into American politics and not even know the basics?

I am not sure what you are referring to in regard to public healthcare,  that would either be private medical or federal programs,  neither are cheap,  one is user pays the other is tax payer money,  it is not dissimilar to ours.   I am pretty sure we were talking about government regulating the industry in a way to keep their pockets full rather than public or medical aid health care

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I am not sure what you are referring to in regard to public healthcare,  that would either be private medical or federal programs,  neither are cheap,  one is user pays the other is tax payer money,  it is not dissimilar to ours.   I am pretty sure we were talking about government regulating the industry in a way to keep their pockets full rather than public or medical aid health care

The politicians in the US keep their pockets full by accepting money from pharmaceutical companies to stop regulation, including regulation over pricing (that’s what “price caps”) are. The UK, for example, gets a better deal from these companies than the US because they have to negotiate with the NHS to set drug pricing in the UK.

And look how much more affordable the regulations of the UK make it for their diabetics.

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I am not sure what you are referring to in regard to public healthcare,  that would either be private medical or federal programs,  neither are cheap,  one is user pays the other is tax payer money,  it is not dissimilar to ours.   I am pretty sure we were talking about government regulating the industry in a way to keep their pockets full rather than public or medical aid health care

Well mate you need to understand that public healthcare would be funded by the collective tax of individuals and corporations, so it wouldn’t be more expensive for the individual at all

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

Well mate you need to understand that public healthcare would be funded by the collective tax of individuals and corporations, so it wouldn’t be more expensive for the individual at all

I think there’s evidence it’s cheaper for all taxpayers, as well as reduces business costs (because businesses and taxes subsidise health insurance in the US) - and workers won’t have to take a slice of their wages to pay for their health insurance either.

Everyone would be a winner, other than health insurance providers because their market gets a whole lot smaller. And pharmaceutical companies because they’d have to negotiate with a public entity for drug prices and history shows us that means much lower drug prices.

[OrangeKhrush]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The politicians in the US keep their pockets full by accepting money from pharmaceutical companies to stop regulation, including regulation over pricing (that’s what “price caps”) are. The UK, for example, gets a better deal from these companies than the US because they have to negotiate with the NHS to set drug pricing in the UK.

And look how much more affordable the regulations of the UK make it for their diabetics.

One factor that would have to be included is the population size,  smaller populations are easier to maintain over larger increasing populations,  when the population outgrows the tax pool you are likely to see some more expensive premiums placed on limited duration products.   I don't agree with it, much like I don't agree that there should ever be an overlap between government and private sector,  the government should regulate it and the private sector should be constrained by legislation,  similarly there must be laws prohibiting government officials from owning stakes in private institutions or having personal withing them.