jasonisalive

18 ms·

121.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
Keep in mind that, well-paid and satisfied specialists aside, there is another side to this picture - important to remember with state-run healthcare systems such as NZ, so often a poster child for socialist policy. For example this IT depa
122.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
Wow. It absolutely astonishes me that someone would downvote this. Since when is clarifying a use of a term, then demonstrating what a contrary point of view would look like - without once stating my own personal opinion - downvote-worthy?
123.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
All socialist interventions weaken the marketplace and require further such intervention. They all require progressive restrictions of liberty and the logical end result in each and every case, no matter how benign the beginnings, must (as
124.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
The use of the term "slavery" here is pretty standard rhetoric used for emphasis by the American libertarian movement; its use descends from the vocabulary developed by the body of anti-Socialist thinkers in the early to mid-20th
125.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
Any time right up until the 1950s I would say. I don't know what you'd call the status of mid-19th century doctors in Britain, for example, but they definitely weren't upper class.
126.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
My recurring issue with whatever you call the sort of person who gets angry and criticises someone like me, is that they never bother to actually go and read with an open and serious mind the vast literature of economic debate available. Th
127.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
As I said originally, anyone who questions the prevailing ideology of "social democracy" (if that's what we're calling it) is quickly attacked and shut down these days. The difference between us is that what I propose ha
128.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
By that logic we should socialise everything. Sure worked out well for the Soviet Union!
129.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
I would love to see some citations for these claims.
130.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
In a fully private medical system people would bear the consequences of failure to invest wisely in medical goods and services (i.e. prevent worse health problems with cheap early treatment.) There would be the strongest incentives possible
131.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
On the contrary, it's you who is confused here. The conditions you're describing - a surplus in supply for a range of market goods (mostly low-skilled human labour) is the result of the continued attempts of Western countries to
132.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
But from the perspective of the users of these services, they are. With a socialised medical system, you don't pay upfront for your medical treatment. It's paid for from taxes from the whole population - and if your income is low
133.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
If you're really interested, pretty much any Econ 101 textbook, read closely and critically, will get you going. There are various economic schools of thoughts (Classical Liberalism, the Austrian school) with extensive literatures avai
134.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
I never said that at all. The only thing about China that I specified was the widely-agreed upon fact that they are out-competing the West in low-cost manufacturing. China has many problems, not the least a culture of corruption and coercio
135.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
Articles like this (ignoring the insulting, historically-naive comparison) aren't news. If you have even a weak understanding of economic theory, it's clear that countries like Britain, France and the USA are all clinging to self-
136.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
Well that's very rousing, but only someone working for a chronically underfunded and at-risk institution would feel the need to write such flowery prose. If I was a rich taxpayer whose money was on the line I don't think I would b
137.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
A scarce resource is a scarce resource. It doesn't matter what intentions it was made with, or what rhetoric is used to justify a clearly defective pricing strategy.
138.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
Attempts to artificially control prices for a scarce asset in the names of protecting equality will always fail. Prices will inevitably rise to their market level, the only difference is whether the owner of the good (the city) will reap th
139.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
Why not?
140.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
For what it's worth, I work in retail, and the average iPhone/iPad-using customer/staff member believes their devices run better when they manually kill apps. I also see quite a few iPhone customers who literally kill every a
141.
by jasonisalive 12y ago
The licenser is afforded the freedom to sell licenses at whatever price they choose, because they have a monopoly on the IP which is being licensed.