Where do British NHS employees go for Health Care ? [Archive]

ETWolverine

Oct 20, 2009, 11:27 AM

You do realise that the NHS system is a free service, and you can still take out insurance, so I really love seeing people take the mick out of a system that at least offers medical care to all people, and not just the fortunate, Land of the Free and the Brave my a@@

Most companies offers private medical as a benefit, so why is the NHS any different?

Problem is, Phlanx, as I have pointed out, your system offers medical INSURANCE to everyone, but it doesn't offer medical CARE to everyone.

Shall I post the articles about the UK health system again? I've got a whole bunch of them if you'd like. They make it clear that while the COSTS of health care are covered for everyone, the actual receipt of CARE is somewhat less universal than you make it out to be.

But more importantly why would you support a system in which the very people who implement that system don't want to be a part of that system? If it ain't good enough for a government bureaucrat, it shouldn't be good enough for you and your family. Why would you support a system in which that is NOT true?

At least here in the USA, we get what we pay for. If you want a higher level of care, you have to pay more money. How much more than you is that government bureacrat paying in order to get private health care? And if he isn't paying more than you are and he's getting better service than you are, doesn't that bother you? Especially since it's YOUR tax dollars (or pounds) that are paying for that higher level of service. Maybe if you got to keep those tax dollars that are paying for that other person's higher level of service, YOU would be able to afford that higher level of service for yourself.

In other words, your government is stealing YOUR ability to purchase better care and giving it to someone else just because that person works for the government and you don't.

That doesn't bother you? It would bother me. You see that as a just and fair system? Or perhaps you can afford private health care anyway, so it doesn't bother you so much. But I'll bet there are other tax payers in the UK who aren't able to afford private health care that would be able to do so if they weren't taxed as much so that some government bureaucrat could get private health care.

Elliot

inthebox

Oct 20, 2009, 11:33 AM

You do realise that the NHS system is a free service

Is it really free? Or is like here - medicare taxes, mediacaid taxes, then when you qualify , you still have to pay a monthly premiums.

The link reminds me how some that want government healthcare for all, and are eligible to receive it [ VA ] but don't go to the VA exclusively?

G&P

Curlyben

Oct 20, 2009, 11:40 AM

All UK residents pay National Insurance, which basically pays for the NHS. And the network of GP practices. There IS a charge for prescriptions, i.e. meds, of £7.20 mostly to cover Admin.
The NHS offers free health care for all.
Emergency cases are seen as needed, but for other less urgent procedures there IS a waiting list. It is these, less urgent, cases that are covered by insurance, mostly elective procedures or non-life threaten conditions.

twinkiedooter

Oct 20, 2009, 11:41 AM

Sort of sounds like the old Communist system in Russia where the big wigs shopped in special stores buying food goodies that were totally unavailable to the peasants. The big wigs also had their own private doctors and private hospitals.

Does anyone actually think that it's going to be any different here in the USA if and when we get government mandated "health" care? NO, NO, NO. The big wigs will go see their own doctors and go to their own hospitals and leave the clinics to the peasants. Same old baloney, different day, different country. Nothing will ever change especially when you're one of the "big wigs" and can flaunt it.

NeedKarma

Oct 20, 2009, 11:46 AM

Sorta sounds like the old Communist system in Russia .
Actually it doesn't. Any citizen in the UK can get additional insurance if they wish, it's a free society.

twinkiedooter

Oct 20, 2009, 12:00 PM

The only saving grace with the practice of the NHS sending their personnel to private doctors and hospitals is that they don't miss as much work standing in those "pesky" lines like the hoipoloi.

phlanx

Oct 20, 2009, 12:20 PM

Taxes are going to be paid regardless, or are people dreaming!

Regardless of status, circumstances, position in this scoiety, you can receive medical treatment

As we are a free society, (we don't carry ID's with us!) we can opt for private care, in addition to the NHS, now please tell me how that is worst than the system in the US

And as for comparing us with communism, get your head out of the 1960s, the paranoria with social reform and stalinism is amazing!

Wolverine, people work low paid jobs, because they can't do anything else, however, the jobs still need to be done, or how else is your lobster delivered to your door, how else is the streets cleaned for you walk down

In is incredible that people think, a system whereby all people in the UK can receive medical treatment is aload of crap

And Elliot

Hospital Blunder! | TopNews US Edition (http://www.topnews.in/usa/hospital-blunder-21535)
In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php)

I can go on and on as well mate, whatever system of medical care is provided, it is still run by humans and humans make mistakes! Or don't you accpet that either

Why would they require services above the vaunted "free care " ? Why would there be a need for the perk ?

Now if that isn't a communist statement I don't know what is, one service and that's all you are getting - wow, join the queue now people

All UK residents pay National Insurance, which basically pays for the NHS. And the network of GP practices. There IS a charge for prescriptions, i.e. meds, of £7.20 mostly to cover Admin.
The NHS offers free health care for all.
Emergency cases are seen as needed, but for other less urgent procedures there IS a waiting list. It is these, less urgent, cases that are covered by insurance, mostly elective procedures or non-life threaten conditions

To add to this, if you are on benefits, very low income, or elderly, the admin charge is waivered

So yet again the UK demonstrates, that you have a choice available but we still take care of the weak, the small and those that can't look after themselves

Especially since it's YOUR tax dollars (or pounds) that are paying for that higher level of service. Maybe if you got to keep those tax dollars that are paying for that other person's higher level of service, YOU would be able to afford that higher level of service for yourself.

Wolverine, firstly I pay for private medical insurance for my family

Secondly, What I pay in NI (national Insurance) is nominal, this covers me, my neighbour and anybody else in the UK to receive a very good basic level of care from the very moment you drop ill

I don't therefore have to donate huge amounts to charity just so some poor so and so can get crap treatment, I really feel americans don't understand what it means to care for someone else other than themselves

Wolverine, the system that we have had for many years has been based on a somehwat socialist system, but without going in streams, that was the fall out of WW2

Before you didn't have a choice of where you were treated, so this was a postcode lottery (zipcode), however now you can choose where to be treated, so if the local hospital is not up to your standards, you can elect where to go for treatment

This will now devolop competition, and as such standards will increase

England, is a free country, where you can come and go as you please, it is a place where by people are looked after to the best of anothers ability regardless of race or creed

Having a system whereby, I am all right jack promotes an unhealthy attitude of resentment and such that brings its own social problems, or is that concept just lost on people!

ETWolverine

Oct 20, 2009, 12:24 PM

Actually it doesn't. Any citizen in the UK can get additional insurance if they wish, it's a free society.

So can anyone in the USA... but you don't seem to tout that system as being "free".

In the UK, everyone MUST belong to the NHS system.

Any time you have the word "must" in the rules, it isn't a "free" system is it.

In the USA, people can CHOOSE to purchase health care or not. There is no REQUIREMENT that we pay into the system if we choose not to. You see that as a weakness of the US health care system. I see it as a strength.

Elliot

spitvenom

Oct 20, 2009, 12:28 PM

I really feel americans dont understand what it means to care for someone else other than themselves

Phlanx this country is FULL of people with the I earned/got mine F**k everyone else attitude. The best part is most of the people who are like that are "good god fearing people". I'm sure what ever god they pray to is proud of them.

phlanx

Oct 20, 2009, 12:31 PM

Elliot, tell me, if you were being atatcked, would you want a state run police department to come to your rescue

If your house was on fire, would you want a state run fire truck to turn up to put out the fire and save as much of your house and family as possible?

So you pay taxes for state run organisations that are there to help and assist you when you need help, and yet a doctor putting a plaster on your leg must be paid for individually

Don't get it!

NeedKarma

Oct 20, 2009, 12:32 PM

Any time you have the word "must" in the rules, it isn't a "free" system is it.Dude you MUST pay for city services, state services, federal services so, by your definition, you'll NEVER be free unless those are all gone. Quit whining about "freedom" it ain't working for you.

phlanx

Oct 20, 2009, 12:32 PM

Spitvenom, sorry mate, I was spitting venom at the time of generalising the comment instead of directing it at elliot :)

Curlyben

Oct 20, 2009, 12:35 PM

So can anyone in the USA... but you don't seem to tout that system as being "free".

In the UK, everyone MUST belong to the NHS system.

Any time you have the word "must" in the rules, it isn't a "free" system is it.

In the USA, people can CHOOSE to purchase health care or not. There is no REQUIREMENT that we pay into the system if we choose not to. You see that as a weakness of the US health care system. I see it as a strength.

Elliot

Errrrm no.
The only thing everyone that works must do is pay national insurance.
If they chose not to use the NHS system then that's their choice.
Admittedly if they are in a life threatening situation they don't actually have a choice, but otherwise they would undoubtedly die.

You are making out the NHS to be something dark and sinister.
The National Health Service provides the basics for health care for the entire population. If you wish to purchase the services of a private doctor for elective procedures that are none urgent or life threatening then that is your choice and you are free to make it. The NHS provides and excellent level of emergency health care for ALL people in the UK.
They would even threat you should you have an accident while visiting here, at ZERO cost to you personally.

I believe that Canada also operates a similar system..

So where's the issue??

tomder55

Oct 20, 2009, 12:39 PM

And as for comparing us with communism, get your head out of the 1960s, the paranoria with social reform and stalinism is amazing!

Actually I look at your country as the triumph of the Fabians.

spitvenom

Oct 20, 2009, 12:42 PM

Spitvenom, sorry mate, I was spitting venom at the time of generalising the comment instead of directing it at elliot :)

You are right though. That is the problem with America. We will give money to charity but as soon as the money might go to someone who is perceived as lazy oh man all patriotism, kindness goes right out the window.

tomder55

Oct 20, 2009, 12:45 PM

There is no virtue in charity or benevolence that is compelled. If the gvt. Is taxing me to provide for all but the neediest then they are picking my pockets .

D*ckens had it right in 'A Christmas Carol' .The men soliciting charity were the good guys . Scrooge's retort to them was that the poor should rely on the gvt services that he supports through his taxes for their welfare. Scrooge was a typical liberal socialist.

phlanx

Oct 20, 2009, 01:08 PM

Tomder, so why do you pay taxes?

Within a free society, there will be people who do not work, who get all they can take of the government

This is as much of a capitalised society as the black market is

However, I am more than willing to accept this flaw if it means that all can receive a basic level of care, instead of the I am all right jack which doesn't

This does not make me a socialist, but a realist, I recognise that a simple gesture of helping my fellow man, prevents further social problems that would still effect me and my family

And tomder, your atempt to quote ens to is a little lost especially when you quote Washington, which states We must, and our efforts.

Do you think Washington was refferring to me and I when he made his statements?

ETWolverine

Oct 20, 2009, 01:41 PM

Elliot, tell me, if you were being atatcked, would you want a state run police department to come to your rescue

Actually, having been attacked, I trust my own skill in combat more than I do the skills of most police. I've trained with police officers (let me rephrase that: I have trained police officers) in hand-to-hand combat, and frankly I'm a better fighter than 90% of them.

So in answer to your question, no, I don't really want or need the cops to come to my rescue.

On the other hand, you are asking your question as a general rule and as a general rule most people WOULD want the cops to be available to rescue them.

If your house was on fire, would you want a state run fire truck to turn up to put out the fire and save as much of your house and family as possible?

Actually, my town in New Jersey does just fine with a VOLUNTEER fire department rather than a city-run fire department. But again, I take your point.

So you pay taxes for state run organisations that are there to help and assist you when you need help, and yet a doctor putting a plaster on your leg must be paid for individually

Don't get it!

Let me ask you some questions now...

What happens if there are multiple fires at one time, and the fire department isn't avialable to put out the fire in your kitchen?

Answer: personal fire extinguishers that you can buy on your own to put out your own fires.

What happens when the police are on another call and can't get to you in time to save you from your attacker? (There's an old saying: "When help is needed within seconds, the police are there in minutes." That's why I learned to fight for myself and not rely on the cops being there.)

Answer: Ownership of a personal weapon and martial arts training.

What happens when the state-run health care runs out of beds for the operation that you need (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6147701.ece)?

Answer: A privately-purchased health plan that covers private medicine.

The point is to not be so tied to a system that you are completely reliant on it when the crap hits the fan. The point is to be able to do for yourself what "the system" will fail to do for you. Because Murphy's Law (one of it's many permutations) says that if a system can fail, it will do so when you need it most. Therefore, it is best to have a system that leaves you the largest number of choices and options for if that system DOES fail. And being forced into a government system leaves us the FEWEST options, not the most.

If the government is taking money away from me in order to pay for the system that I am most afraid is going to fail me when I need it most, then I am being left with fewer options than if I kept the same money and spent it on the health care that I want or need. Any system that takes money out of my pocket is one that leaves me with fewer options than if I got to keep that money.

Elliot

phlanx

Oct 20, 2009, 02:01 PM

Elliot, you can be the most trained, lethal weapon in the world, you can't STOP BULLETS! (Please don't get silly on the idea of wrapping yourself up in cottonwoil to rebuff that statement)

As for murphy, I have made in one of my best mates, as only my mates know how to trip me up with such regularity :)

And yet again your comments are me me me!

Look I understand why you say your comments, it is better to have choices and in a democracy, choices are provided to you

However, a democracy also means there is a tier system, and we all know that poo rolls down hill, so if you are at the bottom, and somebody has to be at the bottom, you are in a for a rough ride

So, being that you are an advocate of Murphys law, then you SURELY can accept that it doesn't matter how well trained, how well protected, how well provided for you are, there are times when you will be tripped up and need the assistance of another human being!

Elliot, haven't you understood that the fewer social problems there are, the less taxed you will be?

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

ETWolverine

Oct 20, 2009, 02:09 PM

Tomder, so why do you pay taxes?

Uhhh, cause the law says so.

It sure isn't because I'm expecting wonderful services from the government... because they don't provide wonderful service at anything they do.

And it isn't so that I can be charitable... I can do that on my own without government forcing me to do it. And the charities that I give money to are more efficient (there's that word again) at making sure that my money is put to good use than the government is.

The only reason that I pay taxes is because I don't want to go to jail for tax evasion.

Are you telling me that you pay taxes because you think you're getting something out of it? That you pay those taxes gladly and eagerly? That you LIKE paying taxes? That you LIKE being reliant on a government to give you goods and services that you could easily purchase for yourself (and in much greater quantity and quality) if only you didn't have to pay so much in taxes?

The tax rates in the UK (last I heard) are over 50%. The average UK salary is in the L23,000 range. So, what are you getting for L11,500 per year that you couldn't buy on your own? Is what you are getting worth what you are paying? Do you truthfully believe you are getting your money's worth from the money you pay in taxes?

I know I'm not.

Elliot

Curlyben

Oct 20, 2009, 02:17 PM

The tax rates in the UK (last I heard) are over 50%

Nope way off the mark there.
It's a tiered system: HM Revenue & Customs: Rates and Allowances - Income Tax (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm)
Starts at 10% sub £2,440 the bulk of people pay 20% up to £37,400 and then it's 40% on whatever is above that limit.

National insurance is a further percentage but harder to work out.

What happens in America for Emergency treatment ?

Are you stitched up and then billed?
Or mended for FREE!

phlanx

Oct 20, 2009, 02:23 PM

NeedKarma

Oct 20, 2009, 02:24 PM

It sure isn't because I'm expecting wonderful services from the government... because they don't provide wonderful service at anything they doThen Move. Move somewhere where you approve of what the government does. Does such a place exist? Oe are you doomed to whine about government services until you die? That's a crappy choice of lifestyle in my humble opinion.

ETWolverine

Oct 20, 2009, 02:26 PM

Elliot, you can be the most trained, lethal weapon in the world, you can't STOP BULLETS! (Please don't get silly on the idea of wrapping yourself up in cottonwoil to rebuff that statement)

NEITHER CAN THE COPS WHO AREN'T THERE WHEN YOU NEED THEM!! I can get shot dead a lot cheaper than the amount that I pay in taxes.

As for murphy, I have made in one of my best mates, as only my mates know how to trip me up with such regularity :)

And yet again your comments are me me me!

Yes... because, as Adam Smith makes very clear in Wealth of Nations, the "me me me" attitude is the attitude that helps "us us us".

Look I understand why you say your comments, it is better to have choices and in a democracy, choices are provided to you

However, a democracy also means there is a tier system, and we all know that poo rolls down hill, so if you are at the bottom, and somebody has to be at the bottom, you are in a for a rough ride

But the wonderful thing about our system is that you don't have to STAY at the bottom if you don't want to. Capitalism is such that there are very few barriers between the poor and the rich. The poor can become the rich very easily... albeit with a lot of hard work. Nobody has to STAY poor. The system REWARDS hard work and PROMOTES success.

So nobody has to be hip-deep in poo for any longer than they decide to stay there.

So, being that you are an advocate of Murphys law, then you SURELY can accept that it doesn't matter how well trained, how well protected, how well provided for you are, there are times when you will be tripped up and need the assistance of another human being!

Yes. And when that time comes, I'd rather have the money in my pocket with which to pay that other person for his services, rather than rely on his charity or the intervention of the government to pay for it for me.

Elliot, haven't you understood that the fewer social problems there are, the less taxed you will be?

Yes... and it's funny how MOST of the social problems in existence are ones created by the GOVERNMENT so that they can justify more taxation.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

Winston Churchill. And I agree with the sentiment. But it was said by Jefferson that "The government that governs best governs least." The least intervention by the government, the least taxation by the govermment, resulting in the most personal choices available.

I simply do not see the government as the solution to my problems or anyone else's problems either. You clearly do. Given the historical lack of success of governments throughout history in providing solutions to problems, I'm not quite sure what you base your beliefe on, though. But that is where we differ.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 20, 2009, 02:35 PM

Then Move. Move somewhere where you approve of what the government does. Does such a place exist? Oe are you doomed to whine about government services until you die? That's a crappy choice of lifestyle in my humble opinion.

There is no place where I would approve of what the government does... because NO GOVERNMENT EVER DEVISED has ever done anything good for its people in the long run.

The biggest lie in history is 9 words long: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

However, the USA, for all that its government is becoming ever more intrusive in our lives, STILL offers the greatest opportunities and the lowest level of government interference of any place in the entire world. My whole point is to prevent it from becoming more intrusive than it already is so that the next generation can enjoy the same opportunities that I have enjoyed.

Not the same government programs.

Not the same taxation levels.

Not the same welfare statism.

Not the same nanny statism.

THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.

So, I'll stay here and defend the USA for as long as I can and enjoy the opportunities while trying to hold off the government as long as possible.

Elliot

speechlesstx

Oct 20, 2009, 02:40 PM

Then Move. Move somewhere where you approve of what the government does. Does such a place exist? Oe are you doomed to whine about government services until you die? That's a crappy choice of lifestyle in my humble opinion.

You call it crappy, I call it freedom. Hopefully we'll still have that when Obama is done trying to wreck the country.

phlanx

Oct 20, 2009, 02:45 PM

Somebody in a Capitalist Society HAS to be the lowest paid!!

According to you if they have the work ethic they can rise out of that and get a beter life for themselves

SO WHO REPLACES THEM! Somebody must be lowest paid!

Businesses compete with each other and as such they demand more for less from their emplyees, and their suppliers which is a perpetual cycle

As such people who work hard will still get paid low wages

Surely it is the repsponbility of the fortuante to assist the misfortunate

As regards this :

I can get shot dead a lot cheaper than the amount that I pay in taxes.

Why don't you lobby your government to ban weapons? :)

So nobody has to be hip-deep in poo for any longer than they decide to stay there

A weekly pay check when rasing a family is a very powerful thing to have, the uncertainty of a bsuiness can be very off putting

AND AGAIN! In a capitalist society, not everyone can be rich, the structure of employment would be gone and nobody would deliver the bread

And don't forget, all the winston churchills, jeffersons, and Adam Smiths in the world cannot stop this

We are just three meals away from anarchy!

You need a government, you demand a government, without it, you and I would not be talking, we would be fighting!

ETWolverine

Oct 20, 2009, 02:49 PM

Elliot, the tax rate, is based on what you earn

The less you earn the less of a tax bracket you are in

For starters, the average salary (dpending on further tax credits you can get for kids etc) will be at approx 22% of your salary and not 50%

If it was at 50% pal, we would all be moving out

If you earn more than £40k ($70k approx) PA, then anythying earnt over 40k will be taxed at 40%, and again, (unsure what the amount is for 50% as it is new) but I think anything over £100k ($160k) and you will be taxed at 50%

I never expect, demand, or require government services, to quote yourself, I am self reliant and as such would probably make a good american.(wow that left a taste :)

However I come from a background that had two very poorly paid parents, who worked hard for what they had, and what they taught me has allowed me to do what I like

I never saw my parents complain or demand that they were not getting enough off the government, but they went out and worked for it themselves

However, my parents bless them are not the sharpest tools in the box, and as such cannot be doctors, teachers, or any other professional, so how could they go get what they need without stealing it, if they didnt have the assistance of the state

There is not a single business on this planet which is answrable to the poeple.

As an American I would have thought you would understand why a Government must listen to its poeples wishes, even if it is just a voice they are getting, the alternative is war matey, or is that another concept of the social structure lost on you as well?

How much are you paying in national income taxes, local income taxes, real estate taxes, sales tax, VAT tax (or the local equivalent), excise taxes, stamp duties, motoring taxes, capital gains taxes, Television fees, and every other government tax and fee that you pay.

BTW, our income taxes in the USA max out at 35% for the highest tax bracket... at least until next year. And I still pay about 49% in taxes, because of state and local income taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc.

(The gas tax is a big one... $0.18 of every dollar I pay for gas goes to the government... even though they don't produce the gas and have actively prevented the companies that DO produce the gas from producing more. What has the government done to justify that tax? What service am I getting in return from the government? Absolutely none.)

So you are actually paying MORE in taxes than your income tax rate.

What's the all-in percentage you're paying? Calculate it. Then tell me if what you are paying is worth what you are getting in return. (That's the only point of mine you didn't address in your last post.)

Elliot

speechlesstx

Oct 20, 2009, 02:54 PM

I'd say most of those in the "lowest paid" category here are teenagers. It's also true that what's considered "poverty" here (http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm) is often over dramatized. Not to say we don't have those who are truly misfortunate who should be helped one way or another. We're not ogres, and yes we need government, but not the type of nanny state government the left in this country desires - government is not the answer to everyone's problems.

tomder55

Oct 20, 2009, 02:57 PM

Tomder, so why do you pay taxes?
There are essential services enumerated in the Constitution that the national government has a duty to perform and it is reasonable for Congress to collect taxes for those purposes.

The rest of the things that we are taxed for ;the schools ,the police forces ,the fire depts ,and even most of the safety net services that you are referring to are the exclusive authorities of the states in our federal system.

That's just the way it is . Any attempt by the national government to fund these are a usurpation of power. I do not oppose the funding of a safety net. I object to a central nanny state ,with representatives from the 4 corners of our large nation making decisions that are largely parochial .
In other words ,I'm perfectly content with the system the founders put in place since they added a means to AMEND the Constitution as an instrument to handle evolving sociatal and cultural standards.

And tomder, your atempt to quote ens to is a little lost especially when you quote Washington, which states We must, and our efforts.

Do you think Washington was refferring to me and I when he made his statements?

You must separate my signature quote with the D*ckens quote . I added Washington's quote after Republicans got their butts handed to them . It is a rally call ;an inspirational quote . Specifically Washington used it in the darkest days of our Revolution when it appeared you guys were going to win.

The D*ckens quote as I stated illustrates what I think is the complete error of the effort to compel benevolence out of people by some kind of Robin Hood mentality . Lest we forget , Sherwood ,representing government power to tax ,was the bad guy in that tale .

phlanx

Oct 20, 2009, 03:03 PM

I have addressed your points several times on this issue, and I have told you I agree with you that a government will always do more robbing than providing

However, I have also stated many many times, you need a government to be there to provide the link in the social structure

Don't get me started on the gas tax over here - shocking how much we pay

As I have an inhouse accountant, and the wife takes care of the books at home, personally I have no idea

I would suspect it wouldn't be far off 50-60% of all money spent is on taxes

But then that is a very simplified view of the way it works here

We pay taxes, but we get tax credits which gives us some back for us too look after our kids

My wife's tax bracket is supplimented because she works limited hours so she pick up the kids from school etc

The cars we use are taxed at the point of sale, yet I claim the tax back through the business

So over here it is not as easy to read into the figures as it is with yourselves

I have to assume you are not on a low income and as such you live in an afluent area of NJ

So with few homes around covering a larger area of space, the taxes raised from these homes would not cover the cost of the building the road outside your house, or the one that takes you to the supermarket to get the milk delivered by the poorly paid worker

So you have to accept that the cost of services that you use is supplimented by the masses

tomder55

Oct 20, 2009, 03:47 PM

I have to assume you are not on a low income and as such you live in an afluent area of NJ

So with few homes around covering a larger area of space, the taxes raised from these homes would not cover the cost of the building the road outside your house, or the one that takes you to the supermarket to get the milk delivered by the poorly paid worker

So you have to accept that the cost of services that you use is supplimented by the masses
I am familiar with NJ taxes .Trust me ;the taxes not only cover services for the local community but in fact pay for wealth transfer to lower wage areas to fund their school districts etc. In effect ,once your home is fully paid for the property taxes in NJ (where I work ) and NY (where I live )are the equivalent of paying an extra rent on your home.
It is for this reason more than any other that once we become geezers on a fixed income we are forced to vacate this great area and move to states that are much more friendly to the elderly . (ok the winters also have something to do with it)

The funny thing is that in those states they still manage to provide services that you are saying could not be provided unless the taxes were at an oppressive rate .

NeedKarma

Oct 20, 2009, 03:59 PM

There is no place where I would approve of what the government does... because NO GOVERNMENT EVER DEVISED has ever done anything good for its people in the long run.

The biggest lie in history is 9 words long: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

However, the USA, for all that its government is becoming ever more intrusive in our lives, STILL offers the greatest opportunities and the lowest level of government interferance of any place in the entire world. My whole point is to prevent it from becoming more intrusive than it already is so that the next generation can enjoy the same opportunities that I have enjoyed.

Not the same government programs.

Not the same taxation levels.

Not the same welfare statism.

Not the same nanny statism.

THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.

So, I'll stay here and defend the USA for as long as I can and enjoy the opportunities while trying to hold off the government as long as possible.

ElliotAre there any places/countries on this earth where the governemnt is running to your liking?

speechlesstx

Oct 21, 2009, 05:02 AM

Are there any places/countries on this earth where the governemnt is running to your liking?

Not speaking for Elliot but I doubt it. What you guys outside of the U.S. can't seem to figure out is the founders rightfully had a deep distrust of government and that distrust and suspicion of government is a hallmark of the American concept and experience.

That is the basis of our constitution, the reason for the separation of and specifically enumerated powers, the bill of rights, the "shall nots," and words like violate, infringe, abridge etc. in the constitution. If we as a country lose that distrust and suspicion and allow the government to continue to abridge our rights and go beyond the powers specifically enumerated we are no longer America, the land of the free. Nowhere in the constitution is Congress given the power to take my money and give it to someone else... period.

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 05:09 AM

It must suck going through your entire life not liking the way your country is run and no way of ever having it to your liking.

tomder55

Oct 21, 2009, 05:27 AM

Not at all ;a distrust of government is fundamental to liberty .

tomder55

Oct 21, 2009, 05:45 AM

How else could it end? What reasonable social and political order could conceivably be built and maintained where authority was questioned before it was obeyed, where social differences were considered to be incidental rather than essential to community order, and where superiority, suspect in principle, was not allowed to concentrate in the hands of a few but was scattered broadly through the populace? No one could clearly say. But some, caught up in a vision of the future in which the peculiarities of American life became the marks of a chosen people, found in the defiance of traditional order the firmest of all grounds for their hope for a freer life. The details of this new world were not as yet clearly depicted; but faith ran high that a better world than any that had ever been known could be built where authority was distrusted and held in constant scrutiny; where the status of men flowed from their achievements and from their personal qualities, not from distinctions ascribed to them at birth; and where the use of power over the lives of men was jealously guarded and severely restricted. It was only where there was this defiance, this refusal to truckle, this distrust of all authority, political or social, that institutions would express human aspirations, not crush them.
(Bernard Bailyn The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. )

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 06:25 AM

Are there any places/countries on this earth where the governemnt is running to your liking?

Micronesia. They've got a total of 14 legislators, of which two are chosen internally to be President and Vice President. The government has little power and basically stays out of the everyday lives of the people. The government has no military and only a small police force, so the government has no power to force the people to comply with anything they don't want to comply with as a whole. Basically, what they have is a small centralized government with little power. MOST issues are handled at the state level (4 states, each with a state government).

On the other hand, their economy is for sh!t... a subsistance agrarian/fishing economy. Their major exports are hand-made crafts, clothing and fish, and very little of it at that. There are few economic opportunitites in Micronesia.

So... all in all, while I like the way they handle their government, I DON'T like their economy.

Elliot

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 07:01 AM

So its government is a model for what you'd like the US government to be?

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 07:12 AM

So its government is a model for what you'd like the US government to be?

Yep. Weak, small, centralized, and with as little power as possible. It should be there for administrative purposes only, to manage roads, bridges, tunnels, and the mail system (all of which should be contracted to private companies), the military and the police, and to manage the courts for the purpose of enforcing civil and criminal law and interstate commerce. Other than that, it should have no power whatsoever.

Elliot

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 07:17 AM

Interesting concept. It would wild to see in practice. I can't imagine the amount of damage that would happen if many of the regulatory agencies didn't exist (FDA, USDA, CDC, EPA, etc.).

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 07:22 AM

Interesting concept. It would wild to see in practice. I can't imagine the amount of damage that would happen if many of the regulatory agencies didn't exist (FDA, USDA, CDC, EPA, etc.).

The most important thing that would happen is that people would stop relying on the nanny-state to make their decisions for them and learn to use their own brains instead to determine what is best for them. Critical thinking skills long lost would re-emerge.

They would also learn the meaning of the words "caveat emptor" instead of suing for every little thing that can find an excuse for.

These are GOOD results, not bad ones. They are results that would cause people to become more responsible for their own lives. And through that responsibility, they would take control of their lives and begin to choose for themselves.

And isn't liberty defined as "having the ability to choose for yourself"? This would be beneficial to the idea of liberty and freedom.

Elliot

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 07:25 AM

I think you give way too much credit to the average american. Not many could corrctly interpret research whether a pesticide or drug is harmful or not.

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 07:45 AM

I think you give way too much credit to the average american. Not many could corrctly interpret research whether a pesticide or drug is harmful or not.

Then it behooves them to learn, doesn't it.

And I guarantee you that every professional farmer out there knows which pesticides work best on his crops. They are professionals, and they know what effects these chemicals will have on their farms and their livlihoods. They probably know the products better than the chemists who made them. Their livlihoods DEPEND on that knowledge.

(As a side note, professional farmers are more than just hicks, as most city folks think. A professional farmer will usually have an advanced degree in agrarian sciences from a major university, with a background in chemistry, environmental sciences, and usually mechanical engineering as well. He will know to the umpteenth percentile the exact mineral content of his soil, the best genetic strain of seed for that soil, the exact compounds needed to maximize his crop and speed up growth time, the exact products needed to minimize loss of crops to insects, disease, and weed encroachment. He will also be able to fix a tractor engine, rebuild parts for his combine when they break, and probably will have a mini-machine shop on his grounds. He will have a better idea of weather for the coming 18 months than most meteorologists, and a good grasp of economics and comodities markets so that he knows what crops will have the greatest demand in the coming years. If you think that farmers don't know what they are using as pesticides for their crops, you are being a fool.)

As for drugs, it's the job of the doctor to determine what drugs are effective for the disease or condition in question. HE is the professional that we rely on to get the best care possible, and it is his job to know whether a drug works or is harmful before prescribing it.

I think you underestimate the abilities of the professionals to know the products and services they use in their trade. And I think you underestimate the ability of most Americans to ask the professionals for advice before making decisions about those products... instead of relying on the government to do it.

Elliot

speechlesstx

Oct 21, 2009, 07:51 AM

It must suck going through your entire life not liking the way your country is run and no way of ever having it to your liking.

You just don't get it.

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 07:53 AM

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 07:54 AM

You just don't get it.Wonderfully explained!

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 10:46 AM

I come from a farming family dude. I'm no "city folk". I meant the suburbanite buying whatever chemical that catches his fancy due to advertising by the big unregulated corps.

As for drugs I was referring to OTC, not doctors. In an unregulated world you could have all drugs available no?

Yes you could. Kind of like how it is in Israel. You can pretty much get any drug that would be prescription here as over-the-counter there (including many narcotics). The drug industry in Israel is much less regulated than it is in the USA or Canada. Cheaper too. I haven't heard of any problems in Israel about badly produced, poor quality, drugs resulting in illness or death. And I generally pay close attention to Israeli news.

Elliot

tomder55

Oct 21, 2009, 10:48 AM

I haven't heard of any problems in Israel about badly produced, poor quality, drugs resulting in illness or death. And I generally pay close attention to Israeli news.

Teva is one of my favorite companies.

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 10:57 AM

Kind of like how it is in Israel. With their Ministry of Health:Ministry of Health (http://www.gov.il/FirstGov/TopNavEng/Engoffices/EngMinistries/EngHealth/)
Just like we do!

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 11:00 AM

Teva is one of my favorite companies.

Yep. Teva's a great example of what I'm talking about... a company that operates with minimal regulation in Israel, and yet produces drugs that are legal in the USA because their quality standards are so high.

You don't need government to tell you how to produce a good product. You just need to want to make money by putting out the best product you can so that you get as many customers as possible. PROFIT is enough of an incentive to produce a safe, effective product that customers continue to want to buy.

Liberals seem to have lost that concept.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 11:03 AM

With their Ministry of Health:Ministry of Health (http://www.gov.il/FirstGov/TopNavEng/Engoffices/EngMinistries/EngHealth/)
Just like we do!

Their health ministry is very hands off. Very minimal regulation, very minimal intervention. The companies basically get to operate as THEY see fit, not as the government sees fit. And it works... their drugs are cheaper and quality is just as high as it is here.

Elliot

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 11:06 AM

Is Pfizer a good company, or Merck Frosst

phlanx

Oct 21, 2009, 11:08 AM

Evening Elliot

Teva's a great example of what I'm talking about... a company that operates with minimal regulation in Israel, and yet produces drugs that are legal in the USA because their quality standards are so high.

Is the product manufactured is Israel?

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 11:14 AM

Is Pfizer a good company, or Merck Frosst

Yep. DESPITE government intervention... not because of it.

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 11:17 AM

They both have very large R&D campuses in Montreal.

phlanx

Oct 21, 2009, 11:18 AM

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 11:27 AM

Evening Elliot

Is the product manufactured is Israel?

Teva is an Israeli pharmaceutical company. And yes, most of their products are produced in Israel. They also have production facilities in North America, Europe and Latin America.

Among their many generic and brand-name drugs is Copaxone, which is the first drug that fights Relapsing-Remitting MS. The drug is sold in the USA, Canada, 22 European countries, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina, among others.

They also produce various drugs for auto-immune diseases, inflammatory diseases, oncological treatment, neurological and neurodegenerative diseases.

They are also a major producer of generic forms of well-known brand-name drugs, which are also sold worldwide.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 11:31 AM

The wage in israel is on average lower than the states

NIS 7500 per month average with approx 4NIS per dollar

When labour is cheap it is easy to produce a quality product

It is very difficult to praise a company for producing a better product when their labour market is not on par with your own

I'm not sure what your point is with that.

My point is that there is a very good drug manufacturer that manages to produce a quality product that is on par with anything produced in the USA that is not subject to the same government regulation and oversite.

My point is that you don't need the government to regulate a company to FDA standards in order to produce a good, effective, safe product.

My point is that you don't need government intervention.

Elliot

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 11:41 AM

My point is that there is a very good drug manufacturer that manages to produce a quality product that is on par with anything produced in the USA that is not subject to the same government regulation and oversite.
But they are - they have a federal regulatory agency in place. Just like the US.

phlanx

Oct 21, 2009, 11:41 AM

I understand what you are saying, and I was under the impression the FDA or any other country equivalent brought the minimum standard to the market, it was then up to the company to exceed those requirements if it wished to do so

Which leads us to my point, your idea of government intervention equals quality of product is was to simplified for it to work

Labour costs is a massive factor, it allows the company to earn high profits which then leads to good R&D

This however means the workforce will be shifted from one country to another depending on who can be employed the cheapest

So hey, yes no government intervention, but who cares as you will be out of a job next year, nice philosophy as usual Elliot :)

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 01:07 PM

I understand what you are saying, and I was under the impression the FDA or any other country equivalant brought the minimum standard to the market, it was then upto the company to exceed those requirements if it wished to do so

Which leads us to my point, your idea of government intervention equals quality of product is was to simplified for it to work

Labour costs is a massive factor, it allows the company to earn high profits which then leads to good R&D

This however means the workforce will be shifted from one country to another depending on who can be employed the cheapest

So hey, yes no government intervention, but who cares as you will be out of a job next year, nice philosophy as usual Elliot :)

Ahhh but if EVERY company operates under the same limited regulations, costs to every company go down... and profitability increases. And costs to the consumer go down as well.

If at the same time we eliminate government intervention via UNIONS (and in truth unions are just arms of government regulation today), we would decrease redundant employment costs as well, making the USA's pharmaceutical employment costs on par with the rest of the world's, thus making the American labor market just as competitive as Israel's or any other country's. And costs to the consumer go down again.

But I am having trouble with one part of your logic. If labor is the driving factor for profitability, why haven't the American pharmaceutical companies outsourced their manufacture to India, China, etc. where labor cost is pennies per hour? Most American pharma companies still manufacture in the USA despite cheaper labor elsewhere. Something is keeping them here... and it isn't the limited regulatory environment or the cheap cost of labor. Why hasn't that happened? Certainly the logic of your position vis-à-vis labor costs remains effective regardless of the regulatory environment.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 01:09 PM

But they are - they have a federal regulatory agency in place. Just like the US.

Their regulatory body has fewer regulations and fewer requirements. They are more hands-off. They are less intrusive. The government is less involved. So it is NOT just like us. It is a less regulated environment.

phlanx

Oct 21, 2009, 01:22 PM

Ahhh but if EVERY company operates under the same limited regulations, costs to every company go down... and profitability increases. And costs to the consumer go down as well.

Labour Costs my NJ friend, Labour costs! Still too simplified for it to be workable

[/QUOTE]If at the same time we eliminate government intervention via UNIONS (and in truth unions are just arms of government regulation today), we would decrease redundant employment costs as well, making the USA's pharmaceutical employment costs on par with the rest of the world's, thus making the American labor market just as competitive as Israel's or any other country's. And costs to the consumer go down again.[/QUOTE]

If you remove the unions, well let me say what the fundamentals of a union is for, to safe guard the basics of employement wages and the long term future of employement, then you would have to reduce the costs of a product anyway as half the workforce couldn't afford it

Cost of a product is linked to the cost of living

[/QUOTE]But I am having trouble with one part of your logic. If labor is the driving factor for profitability, why haven't the American pharmaceutical companies outsourced their manufacture to India, China, etc. where labor cost is pennies per hour? Most American pharma companies still manufacture in the USA despite cheaper labor elsewhere. Something is keeping them here... and it isn't the limited regulatory environment or the cheap cost of labor. Why hasn't that happened? Certainly the logic of your position vis-à-vis labor costs remains effective regardless of the regulatory environment.[/QUOTE]

Government Intervention :)

Lets face it, if we went into every single little aspect of why and where businesses create and do business, we would be here all year

What I was saying is, a company cannot be compared from one to the next when the labour markets, and governments are different, different strokes and all that

In europe we probably have the closest thing to free trade between nations, and yet each country attracts different businesses for all manner of reasons, - political, historic, sociology, and so on.

Eventually, all our markets will be the same, and what I mean by that is the same standards governing the minimum requirements of a product will be international

It will still be up to the competition market for companies to find ways of selling their products based on benefits and features, which is the backbone of capitalism

And the only way we as a nation are going to have minimum requirements is through government intervention stating what these min requirements will be

Businesses left to their own devices are dangerous, just as givernments left to theirs is the same

It is a happy mix of the two which will safe guard future food supplies and stable economies, which we all need to survive in

paraclete

Oct 21, 2009, 01:42 PM

I don't get this argument about labour costs in drug manufacture. The costs are in the R&D and that is where you need world class facilities, not third world conditions and the market is in the first world who have the ability to pay, drugs is one case of where you pay according to your ability. The value of labour in the product is negligible because the drugs are produced by machine and labour only becomes a factor in packing and shipping. Do you have any idea how high the costs of shipping is these days?

I recall not so long ago a furore about medical supplies (bandages) sourced from India, the material had been washed in the Ganges and the dressing caused infections. You cannot rely on third world countries to maintain the standards we require.

NeedKarma

Oct 21, 2009, 01:53 PM

Their regulatory body has fewer regulations and fewer requirements. They are more hands-off. They are less intrusive. The government is less involved. So it is NOT just like us. It is a less regulated environment.I haven't brought drugs to the public markets in both countries like I'm sure you have - can you show us examples of the differences please?

phlanx

Oct 21, 2009, 02:22 PM

Eveing Clete

It is very much a simplified version of how a company works, labour costs are a part of the bigger picture

As I explained above we can't go into every little aspect of what makes up a companies overheads as we would be here all year

But to say that labour costs are not a major factor in anything is understating it to say the least

The facility needs to be built, maintained, and operated and as such the wages in Israel are lot lower than the US or UK, and as such the company can increase its spending on R&D (both personnel and equipment) with the saving of made on labour wages

Having been to india I can say there are two countries in one, the first being the poor, and when I say poor I mean shockingly poor, and I would be surprised if they had bandages at all, then there are the rich. The two worlds there are so separate it is shocking

When you state, a third world country I can see your point as I was out there sourcing new equipment, and all I saw was HAJ syndrome everywhere (Half a Job)

But isn't that point of the argument - standards we require - through education which is government intervention, the education of a nation is based on what it learns and implements in the future, which we all know cannot be left to companies to govern themselves, because sooner or later we would be supplied cheap bandages from india so somebody can make a profit

Therefore, government intervention is always required to make sure we learn from the past to help safeguard the future

Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
Their regulatory body has fewer regulations and fewer requirements. They are more hands-off. They are less intrusive. The government is less involved. So it is NOT just like us. It is a less regulated environment. - THEY still need to pass the countries regulations to be allowed to export to it

If other counrties regulations are good enough then why would they intervene, rather than would just copy and follow, either way it is still government intervention that assits us all

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 02:43 PM

I am MOSTLY in agreement with you, but I don't have time to delve too deeply into it right now.

My biggest disagreement with you is regarding the unions. Yes, their stated purpose is to protect the workers.

Problem is that in practice they do the opposite.

I used to work for a bank that was owned and managed by a Union. The Bank is known as Amalgamated Bank of NY. Since it was union owned, it's employees (except for officers) were all union members. The union cut what SEEMED to be a very good deal for the employees. Good pay, decent benefits, yada yada.

Problem is that the union also built a codocil into their employment contract that said that if a union member is promoted or transferred out of his current position, the bank had to replace that employee with TWO employees. The idea was for the union to at the very least maintain its current level of membership, and if possible grow it.

The result, however, was the bank simply never promoted or transferred anyone, regardless of merit or longevity. Employees lost out on promotion opportunities or opportunities to transfer to a different department. The UNION RULES resulted in employees being KEPT DOWN instead of protecting their interests.

What we see across the board is similar short-sightedness on behalf of unions. In the US auto industry, the unions managed to force management to accept contracts that were way out of the market in terms of pay and benefits. Employees though they were getting a great deal... great pay and great benefits. But the result was that the auto industry couldn't sustain those costs and had to close down operations at many of their plants. And as you know, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt earlier this year. These events resulted in massive layoffs. So what good was the union contract with the great pay and benefits if those contracts forced the companies to go out of business and the employees onto the unemployment lines? Again, this is a case of union action resulting in employees being hurt.

This has been the story across the board for unions in the USA over the past several decades.

There was a time when unions were a necessary part of making sure employees were treated fairly and safely in dangerous jobs. They are an important part of building the economy of the USA.

But now the government has laws to do what the unions were trying to accomplish in terms of safety and job security. And employers are more aggressive about obtaining and keeping good employees, so a private employee can often negotiate a better contract than the union can.

In short, the unions serve no purpose other than as a political arm of the Democrat party. They no longer serve their original purpose, and they actually end up acting in most cases AGAINST that original purpose.

The time for unions is up. They should be disbanded.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Oct 21, 2009, 02:48 PM

I haven't brought drugs to the public markets in both countries like I'm sure you have - can you show us examples of the differences please?

Sure.

For one thing, Israel has no equivalent of OSHA. Safety is maintained by the production facility, not the government.

For another, drugs can get approval in a couple of years instead of waiting literally decades for FDA approval. There is no massive spending for tests upon tests upon tests for the same thing over and over again. Once efficacy is proved, safety established and dosage determined, the drug can be sent to production. They don't need another 10 years of testing to make sure their first 5 sets of tests were right. Those decades of needless tests they don't have to do can result in literally BILLIONS in savings on the cost of R&D for every drug.

That's just TWO examples.

Elliot

paraclete

Oct 21, 2009, 03:00 PM

Eveing Clete

But isnt that point of the argument - standards we require - through education which is government intervention, the education of a nation is based on what it learns and implements in the future, which we all know cannot be left to companies to govern themselves, because sooner or later we would be supplied cheap bandages from india so somebody can make a profit

Hi Steve. We have all gone mad on this multinational idea that we should invest in poor countries and make bigger profits because our own labour costs are too high. This is madness which will ultimately see decline of the western nations. If we were to suffer another world war our economies would collapse because we could not produce essential items, we would become like Gaza producing munitions in backyard workshops.

When we develop something worthwhile, like a new drug, the logic should be to keep that development in our own nation and exploit the idea, not see if we can make it marginally cheaper somewhereelse after making a massive capital investment. There will be copyists soon enough. I too have been to the subcontinent and I know there are and will be many opportunities there for multinationals to exploit those people and the only reason they don't do it is stability. They would exit China and go there now if it were not for the on going difficulties between India and Pakistan and the proximity of war to Pakistan, but we must not put our fate in their hands. What has been done with the H1N1 vaccine is a tremendous development, there are laboratories in various nations making and distributing vaccines so that no one has a monopoly and no country has advantage. This is as it should be

phlanx

Oct 21, 2009, 03:01 PM

I am MOSTLY in agreement with you, but I don't have time to delve too deeply into it right now.

My biggest disagreement with you is regarding the unions. Yes, their stated purpose is to protect the workers.

Problem is that in practice they do the opposite.

I used to work for a bank that was owned and managed by a Union. The Bank is known as Amalgamated Bank of NY. Since it was union owned, it's employees (except for officers) were all union members. The union cut what SEEMED to be a very good deal for the employees. Good pay, decent benefits, yada yada.

Problem is that the union also built a codocil into their employment contract that said that if a union member is promoted or transferred out of his current position, the bank had to replace that employee with TWO employees. The idea was for the union to at the very least maintain its current level of membership, and if possible grow it.

The result, however, was the the bank simply never promoted or transferred anyone, regardless of merit or longevity. Employees lost out on promotion opportunities or opportunities to transfer to a different department. The UNION RULES resulted in employees being KEPT DOWN instead of protecting their interests.

What we see across the board is similar short-sightedness on behalf of unions. In the US auto industry, the unions managed to force management to accept contracts that were way out of the market in terms of pay and benefits. Employees though they were getting a great deal... great pay and great benefits. But the result was that the auto industry couldn't sustain those costs and had to close down operations at many of their plants. And as you know, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt earlier this year. These events resulted in massive layoffs. So what good was the union contract with the great pay and benefits if those contracts forced the companies to go out of business and the employees onto the unemployment lines? Again, this is a case of union action resulting in employees being hurt.

This has been the story across the board for unions in the USA over the past several decades.

There was a time when unions were a necessary part of making sure employees were treated fairly and safely in dangerous jobs. They are an important part of building the economy of the USA.

But now the government has laws to do what the unions were trying to accomplish in terms of safety and job security. And employers are more aggressive about obtaining and keeping good employees, so a private employee can often negotiate a better contract than the union can.

In short, the unions serve no purpose other than as a political arm of the Democrat party. They no longer serve their original purpose, and they actually end up acting in most cases AGAINST that original purpose.

The time for unions is up. They should be disbanded.

Elliot

I AM IN AGREEMENT!!

For the Uk Unions were started primarily for safe guarding the safety of workers, especially those working in foundries, imigrants who were being mistreated in a shocking way

SO where I said what I said, please don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the unions have done everything they set out to do - force The Givernment to intervene and create laws to guarantee the saefty of workers, their pay and continued employment in a fair way

But then how can I agree with you when you will not agree with me that there is a need for government intervention :eek:

paraclete

Oct 21, 2009, 09:35 PM

I AM IN AGREEMENT!!!!!

For the Uk Unions were started primarily for safe guarding the safety of workers, especialy those working in foundries, imigrants who were being mistreated in a shocking way

SO where I said what I said, please dont get me wrong, I agree with you that the unions have done everything they set out to do - force The Givernment to intervene and create laws to guarantee the saefty of workers, their pay and continued employment in a fair way

But then how can I agree with you when you will not agree with me that there is a need for government intervention :eek:

You don't happen to have the UK mixed up with the US there do you unions protecting immigrants? The only thing the UK unions ever protected were the locals. Sometimes the Unions have to stand against government in order to protect the workers, government is not the protector of the workers it is the exploiter, creating an environment where business can thrive by exploitation. This after all is the model which has existed in western countries from time immemorial, typified not only by the US but by the UK as well. A recent example in my own land tells you which side the government is on

phlanx

Oct 22, 2009, 01:52 AM

paraclete

Oct 22, 2009, 01:55 PM

Morning Clete

The unions were started, or at least recognised post war, and there job was the ideology of Unions, which was safety, pay, conditions, etc etc

What they achieved was good for its time and forced the government to change the laws to do more for workers rights

By the 1980s, they had gained too much power, and we eneded up with a battle between the unions and the government over the Miners Strike

Since then they have been somewhat quiet, but recently they have gained some momentum and as we speak today, the Royal Mail is on Strike (again)

Many of the large companies who send out parcels via royal mail are now moving away from Royal Mail loosing them more money, Ebay is advertising an alternative carrier and it will not be long when these carriers can ship at the same price as royal mail

So here is a prime example of what unions do to ruin a business, something they are sadly missing

In refernece to outsourcing, I think you need to understand how the models of industry work

The more advanced a country, the less manufacture occurs, in the UK we have been moving into stem cell research for one and plus green energy. Where people who worked in the car industry, are now providing services to China and Korea instead of making the car

The world is shrinking and whereas it is important to ensure jobs are secure at home, the businesses need to move on

When I started sales repping many years ago, I would supply to manufacture, when I finsihed sales repping I was supplying to distribution, different strokes.

And you know, for a country that can play sports and has as much recreation time as you guys have, you dont doing that bad in compairson :)
Don't quite know where you are going with all of this Steve but be assured I understand only too well how models of industry work with 40 years experience in management. What seems a great idea is often a very poor idea in detail and we know that unions, communism and capitalism all share the common characteristic of excess. Unionism got a great start in this country in the shearers strike of the nineteenth century and has run its course so that less than 20% of workers are unionised today, perhaps this is why we are doing so well, perhaps not. But outsourcing and offshore manufacturing has decimated employment in traditional industries here and is highly undesirable. What has replaced unions interest in safety is an almost draconian government system of regulation. Your reference to sports would suggest you think our knuckles should be dragging on the ground and you don't know why they aren't. We don't make good spectators, we make poor servants, and that is why we have a dynamic society which can make capitalism work in a socialistic setting. Sport fuels that dynamic and our fiercely competitive nature

phlanx

Oct 22, 2009, 02:13 PM

paraclete

Oct 22, 2009, 03:28 PM

Evening Clete,

Firstly, if I was trying to insult you I would bring up convicts and you would bring up pommes and I would bring up the Ashes and you would bring up the rugby and so on :)

What I was saying is, after visiting your shores and seeing for myself the lifestyle you have, it really aint bad in compairson to alot of western countries I have been to

In reference to what else you said:

Outsourcing has been a design by industry to serve the profits of industry, and yet you argue that anytype of government interference is bad for the people

Surely you want the government to intervene and prevent outsourcing?

Or do you accept that as a capitalist economy you recognise that the consumer whats it cheap and it wants it now, so industry was responding to the consumer

As regards unions, yep they have, replaced by The Health and Safety Executive in the UK, and what a he is at times

G'day Steve

I don't have to worry about convicts, my ancestors came here as free settlers from Ireland in 1822 but it is true that England exported its best and brightest to Australia. Our lifestyle is great and so is our weather and we don't want it to get any hotter or dryer.

The consumer buys what is available, if it is cheap they buy more articles but as there is a finite supply of money they ultimately only buy what their resources allow. There is a marketing technique that focuses on what is cheap but it only works to a certain degree. In Australia, for example, people buy certain brands of motor vehicle which might be $15,000 more expensive than cheap imports because they know they are better value. Yes I would like government to legislate against outsourcing certain functions so that we would not be inundated by pest telemarketers and a strong employment market is maintained. I also believe that the free market campaigns have gone too far and that preference should be allowed for locally made products particularly when supplied to government without screams of protectionism. I find it ridiculous that army uniforms are sourced from China as an example. Government interference is not necessarily bad but should be avoided if the market behaves reasonably. Unfortunately it has been recently demonstrated that the market cannot be relied upon to do so but the reason we here have survived better than most is our regulations prevent many of the excesses allowed elsewhere.

Industry doesn't always respond to what the consumer wants, but to what it has suggested is a good idea to the consumer. In a Capitalist society there always has to be something newer and better even if in name only to keep the economy going. This is wasteful and ultimately unnecessary since we ultimately refine products to the point that they have to be totally replaced or the market is saturated. I have seen the supermarkets in your country, as an example, and the contrast with those here is startling. How two peoples who started with the same diet could be so different is incredible and it come from marketing not from what the consumer wants

phlanx

Oct 22, 2009, 03:52 PM

Evening, Clete

The markets here are terrible, I'm just thankful I live in the countryside and get a lot of choice from local farms, I must admit though, it's the egg or chicken question?

Did marketing dictate the policy of cheap. Crap processed junk or was the demand from the comsumer

Did the marketing provide ease of microwaving or did the consumer demand the ease by allowing themselves to buy the product in the first place

I believe it was Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays who used the basis of physcology to invent marketing and the notion that keeps most of us going to work - you have the basic model, now look at the premium model with an extra button!

I think in a situtaion where marketing is creating a social problem of obesity which weighs heavily on the NHS and any other health system, the government have a responsibility to promote healthy options, and even further to provide tax breaks on what is classed as the salads and fruits etc, and add the lost tax put onto the junk

The same should be said for smoking drinking etc

However, I do not believe in prohibition in any form

Within a capalist economy, the black market is a by product of Bernays wants and desires, and yet we happily create one with banning of certain drugs

If we ban sugar or other related snack foods, we would just create a criminal network of chocalate smugglers

I believe in the education of the truth to provide a sound choice of freedom, which can only been done through government regulations, all of which is woefully lacking in the ability to carry out such duties

As regards your supermarkets, I love the one just outside Sydney where you can drive into the chiller and order your cases of larger, a drive through liquor store - Brilliant :)

paraclete

Oct 24, 2009, 12:59 AM

Evening, Clete

The markets here are terrible, im just thankful I live in the countryside and get alot of choice from local farms, I must admit though, its the egg or chicken question?

Did marketing dictate the policy of cheap. crap processed junk or was the demand from the comsumer

Did the marketing provide ease of microwaving or did the consumer demand the ease by allowing themselves to buy the product in the first place

I believe it was Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays who used the basis of physcology to invent marketing and the notion that keeps most of us going to work - you have the basic model, now look at the premium model with an extra button!

I think in a situtaion where marketing is creating a social problem of obesity which weighs heavily on the NHS and any other health system, the government have a responsibilty to promote healthy options, and even further to provide tax breaks on what is classed as the salads and fruits etc, and add the lost tax put onto the junk

The same should be said for smoking drinking etc

However, I do not believe in prohibition in any form

Within a capalist economy, the black market is a by product of Bernays wants and desires, and yet we happily create one with banning of certain drugs

If we ban sugar or other related snack foods, we would just create a criminal network of chocalate smugglers

I believe in the education of the truth to provide a sound choice of freedom, which can only been done through government regulations, all of which is woefully lacking in the ability to carry out such duties

As regards your supermarkets, I love the one just outside Sydney where you can drive into the chiller and order your cases of larger, a drive through liquor store - Brillant :)

Steve we have already bitten the bullet with heavy excise on alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol would probably cost me twice what it would cost you and our supermarkets have taken to not selling eggs from battery hens, which I think is the reality of a consumer backlash. Drive through liquor stores are a feature of most pubs here and you don't even have to get out of the car if you are paying cash. We have every convenience but not much sense but there is no black market here, no need for it because nothing is in short supply or over expensive thus obesity is running high. Our government fights hard to decouple alcohol and tobacco advertising from sport and even general display but consumption keeps growing adding to the cost of our health scheme. I expect our government will move to price tobacco out of the reach of the average person

phlanx

Oct 24, 2009, 01:16 AM

Hello Clete,

I find with interest you think you don't have a black market in Oz, I am afraid to tell you, that you do, and probably don't relaise it

I think most western governments are pushing in the same direction on health issues and taxing bad products

We too have a push for free range egss but it has not gone far enough yet, personally we get our eggs from a farm down the road where you can see the chucks running about (like headless chickens really) and the taste difference is fantastic, plus you don't get double yokers often in battery hens

I have never suported the idea that someone can't choose to do something just because it might had to the cost of the state

Givernments arguments are antisocial and destructive, as humans we have this insane instinct, told we can't have it so we want it more

I believe we have a responsibility to work towards being a healthy society but at the same time, if I want to eat grease, get drunk and smoke a cigerette then I should be ableto do without feeling threatened

tomder55

Oct 24, 2009, 02:44 AM

phlanx

Oct 24, 2009, 10:20 AM

Evening Tom

Regardless of race or creed, there is ablack market

What I find even more incredible is we are fighting in Afganistan, trying to get the farmers not to plant the poppies

They do of course, send the herion to the teliban who in turn send it to our shores for our cops to gight the war

If they legalised herion, the taliban wouldn't be able to get their money as the farmers would be paid direct, and the resources of the cops would be lowed

The herion addicts could then be educated and receive treatment so further crime drops and other services receive a boost in tax

Didn't know arnie wanted to legalise dope, to be honest, I think all drugs should be leaglised, then controlled through education

The extra tax from it would help fuel the economy

As regards your comments on the cigerette trade, it is two fold, smuggling in from europe is still just criminal related, whereas import from china is linked with the asian community

The IRA is all but gobe, having renounced violence, other factions have followed or are following suit, so most actiuvity these days in this country is criminal profit only

As regards cheap labour, it is actually a requirement of all capitalised countries to have imported cheap labour - heard that from the Chancellor of Germany in one of her speaches - nearly fell of my chair when I found out

paraclete

Oct 24, 2009, 03:11 PM

If you start taxing tobacco to death there will be a black market. We have it here with smuggling from lower taxed states to higher taxed states. If I'm not wrong tobacco running to England(about 20% of the market ) helps fund jihadistan;and smuggling to Ireland helps fund the IRA .
That's why it makes me laugh when people like the dopy Governor of California thinks he can legalize pot and tax it to death to fill the state's kitty while at the same time eliminating the illegal trade.

Clete fails to mention the black market for cheap labor .

Cheap labour, you mean cash in hand, Tom, or exploitation of illegal migrants? I wasn't referring to that as a black market or the results of illegal activities such as drugs. I was referring to a highly organised market in smuggled goods. Like everywhere else we have things that fall off the backs of trucks, but because our tax system is federal it is uniform and doesn't create the imbalances that promote internal smuggling on a large scale. We have very low tariffs on most goods so there isn't much incentive. Legalising pot would create the same market as for tobacco and take the super profits out of the industry, It won't stop people growing it, but it is interesting, you don't see people with tobacco plants in their back yards and stills are a rarity. Governments for a long time have found it profitable to tax commodity markets, Maybe there is good market for poppies to be taxed

paraclete

Oct 24, 2009, 03:20 PM

Hello Clete,

I find with interest you think you dont have a black market in Oz, I am afraid to tell you, that you do, and probably dont relaise it

I think most western governments are pushing in the same direction on health issues and taxing bad products

We too have a push for free range egss but it has nto gone far enough yet, personally we get our eggs from a farm down the road where you can see the chucks running about (like headless chickens really) and the taste difference is fantastic, plus you dont get double yokers often in battery hens

I have never suported the idea that someone can't choose to do something just because it might had to the cost of the state

Givernments arguments are antisocial and destructive, as humans we have this insane instinct, told we can't have it so we want it more

I belive we have a responsibilty to work towards being a healthy society but at the same time, if I want to eat grease, get drunk and smoke a cigerette then I should be ableto do without feeling threatened

These things are a matter of definition Steve see my reply to Tom. Anti social behavior must be controlled that's what we have governments for. I have no objection to you eating grease, getting drunk, and smoking in your own home, even petrol sniffing, you can spend your money how you want but polluting my environment I do object to, and paying for your excesses I do object to, so if government taxes you to pay for it, so be it. People do sometimes have to be protected from themselves for the good of society

phlanx

Oct 24, 2009, 03:43 PM

People do sometimes have to be protected from themselves for the good of society

Society clete will kick you in the bottom if you think that "protecting" people from themselves is the way forward

Alienation of a population will occur and they will rebel

I am all for eductaion, but simply banning or removal rules are not the way forward

We all have to die of something clete, so whichever way, it usually ends up costing the tax payer money, so whether self inflicted or not, people have freedom of choice and that includes how they wish to live their lives regardless of the consequences

Or do you wish to see a nanny state where you are told how and when and by whom just for the good of the society

Don't forget, whether scientists prove it or not, living next door to chemicals plants, huge electricity pylons, increases the chances of cancer, so you can be clean living and still and up in hospital due to societies thurst for materials

tomder55

Oct 25, 2009, 02:21 AM

People do sometimes have to be protected from themselves for the good of society

In the old days they called that serfdom.

NeedKarma

Oct 25, 2009, 02:31 AM

In the old days they called that serfdom.No it wasn't:
serf - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serfdom)
"a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner"
That's more like the slaves you americans had in the south.

tomder55

Oct 25, 2009, 02:37 AM

In the feudal days the central government did not have the ability to protect the people. So the landowner assumed that responsibility .The trade off was loss of freedom for protection.

NeedKarma

Oct 25, 2009, 02:38 AM

So what's the excuse for all the obese people? Just stupid decision-making?

tomder55

Oct 25, 2009, 02:44 AM

Some of it yes. I don't see the compelling public interest . The nanny state solution would be to restrict the food available for everyone to protect those who have a weight problem .

It's one size fits all nannystate remedies that lead to abuses like this .
Secret court seizes £3.2bn from elderly and mentally impaired | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222764/Secret-court-seizes-3-2bn-elderly-mentally-impaired.html)

NeedKarma

Oct 25, 2009, 03:02 AM

What is this "Nanny state" expression you use so damn much?

phlanx

Oct 25, 2009, 03:15 AM

Helloe Needkarma

A Nanny State, is one where you are babysat.

The government tell you what to eat, what to wear, what to drive, how to work etc

It covers all areas of your lives and removes the freedom of choice

I believe it is the responsibility of a government to provide the truth, educate the truth and advertise the truth

Problem is, we all know when and where politicians have covered up the truth, told lies, and broken the law

So how can a government provide education when most people are not willing to listen anymore

As regards the newspaper article on the secret court by Tomder, here in the UK Family Court is a closed session to all except the family concerned and court officials

This is to protect the family from outside influence and provide a safe place to inform the truth

In addition, we have privacy here at the heart of our homes, and as such anything that happens in the home (except breaking crimincal law) is private and will remain private

However, as with all systems they will work againt those that they were trying to help, not all but a small percentage

NeedKarma

Oct 25, 2009, 03:26 AM

A Nanny State, is one where you are babysat.

The government tell you what to eat, what to wear, what to drive, how to work etc

It covers all areas of your lives and removes the freedom of choiceAh I see. It seems to be just hyberbole to be argumentative since the US, Canada or the UK is nowhere near that since all have free choice. Thanks for the heads up.

tomder55

Oct 25, 2009, 03:36 AM

When gvt policy is enacted to compell people to act in what the gvt perceives to be that person's best interest then that is a nanny-state policy. Public education is one thing . Making laws to enforce that behavior is different. The nannystate presumes that the judgment of an administrator is superior to that of individuals.

NeedKarma

Oct 25, 2009, 03:43 AM

Has anything changed in your day-to-day life in the past couple of years? Have you been restricted in doing anything that you did before? What are you afraid of?

paraclete

Oct 25, 2009, 03:50 AM

The nannystate presumes that the judgment of an administrator is superior to that of individuals.

And in many cases it is, however we have learned that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and so caution is needed in public policy decisions. Public health demands a solution in which no person will be without care by reason of inability to pay and yet care is not restricted to those who can pay.

The same is true of food distribution and accommodation. This is not our finest hour so far but we all have a responsibility which cannot be shurked by reason of advantage. You might think this is a liberal response but in fact is a sensible humanitarian response because we have the means to do it without serious imposition on the individual. What I fail to see here is that if a nation of 20 million people could accomplish this to the most part why a nation of 360 million with high income per capita cannot?

phlanx

Oct 25, 2009, 04:23 AM

I understand what clete is saying having experienced it for myself, the standard of living in Australia is amazing, the food is fresh and tasty, accommodation is overall good, and the beer is free flowing

I do have ever think there are some things in australia which is complimentary to the way any western world works

Most of our ancestors and some people here have fought for that simple phrase, Freedom of Choice

However when it is exercised, and inevitably some people shorten their lives, cost the system money in health care, society stands up and states it wrong and something should be done

In reality, if I want to go to MaccyDs for every meal I can, If I want to eat fresh salad, fruit and steamed fish I can, If I want a mixture of the two I can

Regardless of what the causes are, people will end up in hospital or dead on the floor at some point, what we have in the middle is our freedom to choice on how that comes about

As such, a health care system must be there for everyone, they must not judge, decline treatment due to what someone believes are the wrong choices made, but educate, comfort, provide care and counciling wherever the bad choices occur

ETWolverine

Oct 26, 2009, 06:39 AM

Ah I see. It seems to be just hyberbole to be argumentative since the US, Canada or the UK is nowhere near that since all have free choice. Thanks for the heads up.

Really?

Government is now telling us what types of toilets we can use and what kind of toilet paper.

Government tells us how to get rid of bottles and newspapers.

Government has banned trans fats.

Government tells us what kind of lightbulbs we can use.

Government tells us how fuel efficient our cars have to be.

Government is TRYING to pass legislation to control our thermostats for us.

Government is trying to control how our doctors get paid, what medical tests we can get, and when we can see the doctor. (Your government alread controls those things.)

Government is trying to pass legislation to tax anything with sugar in it.

Government now controls how much the company you work for is allowed to pay for your salary.

All of this, of course, is being done for the greater good of the country or the world.

You think that government ISN'T trying to control every aspect of your life? You think that "nanny statism" is hyperbole?

If you do, then you are a fool.

Elliot

NeedKarma

Oct 26, 2009, 06:40 AM

^
Speaking of hyperbole.

LOL!

ETWolverine

Oct 26, 2009, 07:53 AM

Has anything changed in your day-to-day life in the past couple of years? Have you been restricted in doing anything that you did before? What are you afraid of?

Let's see.

The government has determined what toilets we are allowed to use.

The government has determined what lightbulbs we are allowed to use.

The government has determined what we are allowed to fry our foods in.

The government has determined when and where we are allowed to smoke.

The government has determined what types of cars we should buy and how much mileage our cars should be getting.

The government has determined what corporate executives should be paid (even at companies that they didn't give TARP money to).

These are all things that are current law. They aren't proposals, they aren't things that are in the works. They are what is in effect NOW.

So in answer to your question, I'd say yes, there have been quite a few things that have changed over the past few years (many of them in the past few months) that have limited our free choice and restricted what we have done in the past.

What's sad is that you can't recognize it. You just think it's all "hyperbole". Sorry, it is in fact the reality of life in the USA today.

Elliot

phlanx

Oct 26, 2009, 08:56 AM

Let's see.

The government has determined what toilets we are allowed to use.

The government has determined what lightbulbs we are allowed to use.

The government has determined what we are allowed to fry our foods in.

The government has determined when and where we are allowed to smoke.

The government has determined what types of cars we should buy and how much mileage our cars should be getting.

The government has determined what corporate executives should be paid (even at companies that they didn't give TARP money to).

These are all things that are current law. They aren't proposals, they aren't things that are in the works. They are what is in effect NOW.

So in answer to your question, I'd say yes, there have been quite a few things that have changed over the past few years (many of them in the past few months) that have limited our free choice and restricted what we have done in the past.

What's sad is that you can't recognize it. You just think it's all "hyperbole". Sorry, it is in fact the reality of life in the USA today.

Elliot

I do and don't see your point of view elliot

I don't know what the states has done on light bulbs, but here in the EU - 100w are banned

Isn't it better to have an 11w energy bulb instead of a 100w that's consumes so much more energy than a perfectly good alternative?

SO whereas personal choice of a 100w is no taken away from you and us, but so what, am I going to sit around at night thinking darn gosh that government for forcing me to choose a low energy, bright light bulb that is saving resources and saving me money?

ETWolverine

Oct 26, 2009, 09:16 AM

I do and don't see your point of view elliot

I don't know what the states has done on light bulbs, but here in the EU - 100w are banned

Isn't it better to have an 11w energy bulb instead of a 100w that's consumes so much more energy than a perfectly good alternative?

"Perfectly good" for whom?

The fluorescent lights that I have been forced to use do not give off as much light as the incandescent bulbs I used to have. They take 5-10 minutes to build up to full lighting. And the light is flat and cold.

But the point isn't what is "better" or not. The point is having the ability to choose for ourselves.

SO whereas personal choice of a 100w is no taken away from you and us, but so what, am I going to sit around at night thinking darn gosh that government for forcing me to choose a low energy, bright light bulb that is saving resources and saving me money?

So what you are saying is that if I have the money to spend on the electricity, and I want to use a bulb that I think is a better bulb for my purposes (regardless of the wasted energy), I should not have that right because someone else has determined that the fluorescent bulb is "better".

Who gets to impose that determination on me, and by what legal right?

Again, it isn't about what is more or less wasteful. It is about being able to determine for myself whether I want to be wasteful or not without it being imposed from on high by the government.

My right to choose is, Constitutionally, more important than the government's right to impose it's opinions on me. EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT'S OPINION IS RIGHT.

That's the point of the whole "limited power of government" argument.

Elliot

phlanx

Oct 26, 2009, 09:28 AM

Haha, Elliot, you and I are never going to agree on anything

We both understand and see our point of view on each subject we discuss

And yet I can not get you to accept that individuality has to compromise with scoial responsibility, and I will never agree that the individual person comes first ahead of everyone else on this planet

I will say this though, the world has almost 7bn people in it, we either need to get along in some sort of order, or all go our separate ways

Now tell me, which one do you think is more likely?

ETWolverine

Oct 26, 2009, 10:29 AM

haha, Elliot, you and I are never going to agree on anything

We both understand and see our point of view on each subject we discuss

And yet I can not get you to accept that individuality has to compromise with scoial responsibility, and I will never agree that the individual person comes first ahead of everyone else on this planet

Oh, I agree that individuality has to compromise with social responsibility. That is the "social contract". But the Constitution lays out the terms of the social contract, and it states ver specifically where government's powers and responsibilities end, and where individual rights and responsibilities pick up. What you are suggesting is a NEW social contract with new terms and conditions. I say that we already have a social contract with perfectly acceptable terms and conditions... it just needs to be enforced.

I will say this though, the world has almost 7bn people in it, we either need to get along in some sort of order, or all go our separate ways

Now tell me, which one do you think is more likely?

The one that I would PREFER is for all of us to go our own separate ways... coming together only when it is mutually beneficial to do so, without imposing our rules, regulations or cultural biases on each other. THAT is the best way to make sure that every person, community, city, nation, and political group gets its needs met without forcing others to accept what they do not wish to accept.

That is, in fact, how CAPITALISM works. Capitalism is a system of relationships of choice in which all parties involved receive a benefit, and can enter and exit those relationships at will and when it is in their best interests to do so.

IMPOSING such relationships on others is statism. Statism can take on many different forms, but the most common ones are dictatorship, communism/socialism, and feudalism.

In Statism the relationships with others is FORCED. In Capitalism the relationships with others is VOLUNTARY.

In statism, the relationships remain intact whether they are still in everyone's best interests or not. In capitalism, you can exit a relationship any time you feel it is in your best interest to do so.

Your suggestion is the imposition of statism. I prefer capitalism.

I would recommend a book that you might find interesting. It expounds on this concept in much greater detail. It is Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto". You can get it at Amazon or Barnes & Noble or any other bookseller that you might think of.

Elliot

phlanx

Oct 26, 2009, 11:48 AM

ETWolverine

Oct 26, 2009, 12:41 PM

Cheers for the suggestion Elliot, I will put it on my christmas list

I think you have to look at History of when your constitution was written, and certainly european history

We are at the most peaceful we have been at for a 1000 years plus

This is to say, after WW2, the tatse of war has left most of us europeans, and we only interested in good food and good entertainment (to simply it)

In just the past several years (since 1990) in Europe, we have seen:

The Slovenian War
War in South Ossetia
The Croatian War of Independence
The War of Transnistria
War in Ahbkazia
War in Bosnia & Herzogovina
Civil War in Tajikistan
The First Chechen War
The Kosovo War
The Insurgency in the Presevo Valley
The Second Chechen War
The Macedonian Conflict
The Invasion of Georgia

Europe's history of avoiding violence since WWII is not as strong as you think it is, and the creation of the EU hasn't improved matters.

Whether the EU will hold, will get stronger or realise its ideals is unknown

Care to make any bets?

Much of your argument is made here against the EU

I just think that the world is not ready for so many countries to be individual both economically and socialably

I don't mean any disresoect to them, but they have suffered greatly (eastern blocks in particular) and the western europe countries are willing to help them out to regain their independence

I find with interest, that maybe you need statism to help form capitalism, or certainly a part of it

Why would the UK, france and Germany put billons into the coffers of these eastern blocks without the thought they would benefit from the new markets, and as part of the contract they have to sign up to a contract - no different than a business investing

Trust me, I went to romannia a year after their revolution, the main department store in Bucharest only had colgate toothpaste, so when I say these countries were poor it is an understatement

I see your point. On the other hand, I also look at India, Pakistan, and various other Asian countries with whom the USA has business dealings all moving from third world to second world status fairly quickly... without us imposing our rules and regulations on them. In fact, India in particular seems to be growing faster economically than any country in Europe, despite the EU's "deals" which impose their regulations on those countries. India is growing because it has been given the ability to choose for itself, culturally, economically and politically, without having to adopt the rules and regulations of other countries or political bodies.

So I look at the examples you put forward, and I look at India, and I see greater success in OUR way of doing these things... where success is measured as the economic growth of the country.

WW1 was caused by two factions not agreeing

... and one side trying to impose their desires on the other.

WW2 was caused by victors of WW1 presenting germany with 660m bill for the first war (one prime reason)

Since then we as many countries with a lot of history have tried to create a stable political economic climate for all to have

So let me get this straight... you want to create a stable environment by imposing the will of the strong onto the weak.

Isn't that what caused WWI? And for that matter WWII as well?

This is a double ended sword

One, you provide as much freedom of choice as possible - theory is sound, however cultural influence is not exclusive

No, but the freedom to choose means that people get to choose which cultural influences they wish to accept.

It is precisely that attitude that has lead to the cultural influence of the US effecting the Egyptian commerce and creating what we all know now as extreme Islam

The muslim world wants to rule by muslim ways, but they still want to trade and make money - The Arab States are great example of how this can work, compromise on both sides to come together to create a stable environment

What do you think would be the result if you tried to impose EU regulations and rules onto the Arab states?

It is when you have two sides so opposed to reform and regulation to achieve a compromise that tensions mount

I disagree. It is when you try to force the various square pegs into round holes that you end up with tensions. It is when you try to force everyone to follow the single set of rules that you end up with trouble and tension.

Want proof?

Take a look at the Muslim population in France... a population that chooses NOT to follow the edicts of the EU. I hear lots of talk about the restless Muslim population of Europe in general, but France in specific. The Muslims are square pegs that do not want to be forced into a round hole in France, and they are becoming more and more negatively active.

By contrast, for all the talk of the USA's war against Islam, we haven't seen the Muslim rioting that goes on in France. Why not? Because in the USA, you don't have to conform to a single set of cultural rules and regulations. Muslims can choose to be whatever they want here. We impose NOTHING on them. They have the right to choose for themselves.

Like it or not, that freedom of choice in terms of cultural, social, and economic relationships... the freedom to enter and exit such relationships at will, the freedom to choose your individual destiny rather than conforming to what "society" demands... that is what is keeping the peace in the USA.

Part of the reason that the Muslims of the Middle East hate us so much is because we grant that freedom, whereas they believe in conformity, and any variation from conformity is, by nature, evil.

You are trying to impose a DIFFERENT set of standards on Muslims living in Europe, and it is causing friction.

It is the need to impose conformity that leads to war.

Freedom FROM enforced or imposed conformity... the freedom to choose... begets peace.

When I said work away, what I meant was more often than not war, or do I need to recommend a History book or two for your xmas stockings :)

I have to stay elliot I enjoy your discussions!

As do I.

Elliot

phlanx

Oct 26, 2009, 01:53 PM

Firstly Elliot, get a map - OLD USSR countries are not part of europe

As regards the rest, that is many conflicts spread over a civil war that broke up what was once a beautiful country

SO in fifty years you have had one civil war, and then russia WHICH IS NOT PART OF EUROPE

You NEED A HISTORY LESSON - wars in europe have all but one stopped! First time in nearly 3000 years it has been like that

EU causes war - what the hell!! Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, I don't like the EU for a whole number of reasons, but to have one council able to come together to talk is progress

India - of course it has absolutely nothing to do with a lot of British and Indian British people trading there and have been doing so for a few hundred years - cultural unboased, NOPE, economically and politically unbiased NOPE - need another history lesson. Pakistan - same as india, totally influenced by other countries

India, my american friend, was a country of smaller states, that were brought together by the British Empire imposing their will by force and by trade a few hundred years ago

If it wasn't for us, there would be no india or pakistan, you would have half a dozen separate countries

I suggest you read up on how India was born, and rules and regulations were imposed back yonder and comapre it to how it is today - World of difference, and that is what matters, counrties are offered a choice to join a union like the EU, not imposed!

WW1 - PROVES MY POINT - When there is no compromise, you have war

The eastern blocks have a simple choice

IF YOU WANT CASH AND ASSISTANCE _ YOU NEED TO DO THIS

HOW THE HELL HAVE YOU GOT TO IMPOSING WILL _ THEY HAVE A CHOICE THEY CHOSE IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION!

Gordon bennett elliot, as soon as you are out of your New Jersey you are lost

Arab states have no choice but to conform to several of our regulations if they wish to do business in Europe - and vice versa - OR IS THIS CONCEPT STILL LOST ON YOU

Proof of where two sides will not compromise - Israel and Gaza, Spain and Etu, Britain and IRA, Russia and Checha, US and Cuba, China and Taiwan, both sides refused to compromise - tensions rose! Hell, Spain are still bickering on about Gibraltor after they lost it to us

Hahaha - France - oh please, I have several friends or are french muslims, they follow certain parts of the faith and not others, just as most of the muslims in most of europe they are largely third generation immigrants - that stage of integration always causes tensions not to mention what ever else is going on. On top of that the burka is trying to be banned in france - always causes tensions, I understand that tolerance of faith must occur, however compromise on both sides must prevail, if it doesn't tensions will rise :)

I think you need to understand the problem with immigration in europe before you try to use it to defend a point of view

A lot of tensions are from matters unresolved from previous generations - Iraq and Afgahanistan alone are prime examples of what happens when you leave a country alone to do what they want without guidance

Leaving a nation to boil over into hatred for a country they know little about is always going to create a problem

9-11 was the spark that ignited a very long fuse that had been laid for decades by both us and yourselves

As for america is at peace - who are you kidding, one event alone - school kids going on the rampage in their own schools

I am not stating that to put USA down, just an example where freedom of choice of one individual takes away the freddom of choice of another - yep great system buddy!

ETWolverine

Oct 26, 2009, 02:46 PM

So you are saying that Russia isn't part of Europe. And neither are the former Soviet Bloc countries.

That's not what the CIA World Factbook says:

Location:
Northern Asia (the area west of the Urals is considered part of Europe), bordering the Arctic Ocean, between Europe and the North Pacific Ocean.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html

How about Kosovo?

Location:
Southeast Europe, between Serbia and Macedonia

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kv.html

How about Bosnia & Herzegovina?

Location:
Southeastern Europe, bordering the Adriatic Sea and Croatia

Slovenia?

Location:
Central Europe, eastern Alps bordering the Adriatic Sea, between Austria and Croatia

Chechnya, although technically not its own country, is in the Cuacasus, which is within Europe.

I could keep going.

Seems strange that you want to disown all these European countries because they don't conform to your view of what Europe should look like. The wars that they are fighting don't seem to engender the fraternity that you claim the EU has brought forth, and so you are trying to eliminate them from the map of Europe.

Sorry, but Eastern Europe is still part of Europe.

Now... I did NOT say that the EU is causing wars. What I said was that FORCING CONFORMITY eventually leads to war. And I also said that, conversely, creating choice diminishes war. So please calm down and explain to me where those statements are untrue, especially as I have given examples to show that it IS true.

As for India and Pakistan, I never said that you guys didn't trade there and that you aren't a part of the reason for their current success. I WILL point out, however, since you brought up the issue, that India is showing a great deal more economic success since they STOPPED being a British Colony than they ever did while they WERE under your protection. You tried to force them to be British... you tried to force them to conform... and the result was a bit less successful than they are experiencing today.

Are the Indians and Pakis culturally biased? OF COURSE THEY ARE!! So... we have two ways of handling that. We can try to FORCE them to give up their cultural biases and accept OUR cultural biases instead (which is what you Brits historically tried to do to them), or we can simply say "choose your own path".

We can let them be as culturally biased as they want and STILL DO BUSINESS WITH THEM, choosing when and where to do it, and giving them the same choice. Which is what we have been doing with them for a while now. And the result is that they are LOSING some of their cultural bias.. the parts that don't work for them anymore... and keeping the parts that still work in the modern industrialized world. Let them keep their culture and their biases and their free choice... they are still better off than they were before.

That's the argument I'm making... that free choice eventually leads to SMART choice that benefits them and everyone around them as well. It's a very Smithian, invisible-hand argument.

So again, I'll take free choice over forced conformity any day.

Elliot

phlanx

Oct 26, 2009, 03:08 PM

Hahahahahahaha, Your using the CIA as source of telling a european whether Russia is in Europe. It is not - and probably never shall be mate

Geographically, Russia is its own continent

Histrically Russia has sperated itself from Europe

Economically and politically, completely different ideas, if russia applied to join the EU, it would have raise its standards to meet ours :)

All those you countries you mention used to be part of Yugoslavia

Now we could go into what this region of europe has gone through but that would take forever, its was yogoslavia in one name or another for some 60plus years. Once communist rule ended, the freedom of choice that people suddenly had resurfaced a lot of old wounds from previous generations

And what the UN and Nato and Europe allowed to go on there is disgusting, the number of inncocent people slaughtered I don't think will ever been known. So my friend, these wars are based on a ciil war that broke the country apart

So here is a prime example where total freedom of choice that has been thrust onto people created a war

If you let india and pakistan go there own way without influence from outside source, it will create a war that will be so close to nuclear it is untrue! A lot of bad blood occurs, and is still felt today by their people in this country, they will not mix at all

As regards what was successful and what is not successful, - that is a wholly separate argument and I am afraid if you insist on clacifying Russia as part of Europe, we cannot discuss it, as your sources a woefully stupid

After books we have written we still come down to this

You see compromise as forced conformity, I see free choice as a way of obtaining compromise

Eitherway, the two of us are unmovable and as such we will not see eye to eye until we do compromise

Now picture this argument being had by two rulers of a country, and hey presto - war breaks out

Im still trying to understand how the CIA can class Russia in Europe - will look at link

phlanx

Oct 26, 2009, 03:12 PM

PS The old states of USSR are still influenced by russia and not europe, this may change over time but for now, russia new an dold is sperate to the EU and eatsern blocks

paraclete

Oct 26, 2009, 10:51 PM

hahahahahahaha, Your using the CIA as source of telling a european whether Russia is in Europe. It is not - and probably never shall be mate

Geographically, Russia is its own continent

Steve geographically Europe ends at the Ural Mountains. Where does Russia begin if not in Europe? Does Europe end at the Polish border? At the Belarus border? Are the white Russians in Europe and the Muscovites in Asia? It is usual to define the boundaries of a continent with some defining feature such as a sea or at least a River. If we take India as an example; we refer to a subcontinent defined by the Himalaya range so Siberia is in Asia and Russia in Europe herein ends the geography lesson

Economically and politically, completely different ideas, if russia applied to join the EU, it would have raise its standards to meet ours :

So you want to define continents by economic development, so by your definition Mexico is not in North America. If I applied your standard the Northern Territory and the Kimberly and the Nullarbor would have to excised from Australia. By your definition the Russians who were the first to put a man in space are somehow substandard, that thinking is Cold War and unrealistic but then you Brits always were class conscious and we mustn't let the peasants rise must we? It just wouldn't do to see Russians at Brighton would it?

If you let india and pakistan go there own way without influence from outside source, it will create a war that will be so close to nuclear it is untrue! A lot of bad blood occurs, and is still felt today by their people in this country, they will not mix at all

How strange it is that these people could live without genocidal wars until the British came along and upset the status quo I expect you think they have lost intelligence since you left, but they both developed the atom bomb and haven't whipped themselves or each other out yet. Creating India and Pakistan was the most stupid idea the British had[/QUOTE]

phlanx

Oct 27, 2009, 03:20 AM

Look, russia the country and its old states, are not part of the european make up, I concede after reading about the Ural Mouintains - something I was taught at school, bu that was a long time ago

The statements were being made in reference to European Parliament

Russia is not part of that, doubt it will ever be part of that

The old russian states, Georgia etc, who knows what will happen with them, I can't see them forming a union with russia, so they might wish to join the EU

The eastern blocks were traditionally part of europe before WW2 and they have become so again

Clete, you thinking forming India was a bad idea?

So forming creating a colony in Australia Good or Bad?

America Good or Bad

Canada Good or Bad

Several Middle East states Good or Bad

A dozen African states good or bad

The list is endless mate to what we achiveed in th epast as you well know, some of it was good and some of it was bad - You have to read why these comments were made and not try to take them out of context

Besides that - When and how was Pakistan created - find out, and then ask if we played a part or not!

tomder55

Oct 27, 2009, 03:54 AM

Histrically Russia has sperated itself from Europe...

Look, russia the country and its old states, are not part of the european make up,.

The old russian states, Georgia etc, who knows what will happen with them, I can't see them forming a union with russia, so they might wish to join the EU

Curiously you think it's a good idea[I think] for them to join the EU ,but , I see a great reluctance to include them in the NATO pact. If they are European nations ,aren't they worth being part of the collective defense ?

I would say that much of the theme of Russian history is it's attempt for recognition as a European nation and it's paranoia resulting from constant invasion from Europe . It is not that they separated themselves as much as they were refused when they asked to become part of Europe . Their expansion into Eastern Europe was partly an attempt to create a buffer. I find it interesting that not only do you reject the reality that Russia is primarily a European country geographically ;but you appear to be rejecting the Eastern European nations once subjugated by Russia ,and rapidly falling under their sphere again; without so much as a whimper from old Europe.
Is there nothing left of the West that Europe finds worth defending ?
Actually I wonder about Europe's ability to defend it's interests. It appears to me that the Royal Navy has been so weakened that they would have difficulty defending the Falkland Islands again.

phlanx

Oct 27, 2009, 04:31 AM

Eastern Europe is now part of the EU

I find it interesting the way Americans view Russia, Europeans don't see russia as part of its iterest, the eastern blocks - of which I don't think people understand what I mean by that but is a recognised term within europe, are running at full speed away from the russians

I think people need to understand what Russia did to these countries after WW2 - Poland for example has many generations of people born from rape!

As regards the royal navy comment, I think you need to understand how we have won the battles we have won - mostly against all odds!

Again, I think that once a subject is removed outside of america the facts become muddled

I talk to you guys as I am intrigued to understand for myself what america is about and not what the media tell me

And Tom, if Russia wanted to be part of Europe (with the expcetion of Peter) they did a real poor job showing it at times, and where did you get the idea I thought it was a good idea for them to join the EU??

I think you need to understand what the EU is about and what it is doing to help countries rise to a standard, these are the counrties that Russia destroyed

tomder55

Oct 27, 2009, 04:59 AM

if Russia wanted to be part of Europe (with the expcetion of Peter) they did a real poor job showing it at times,
In their own way ; with the growing partnership between Angie Merkel and Vladdy Putin;they are showing that they still wish to be part of Europe. [This is admittedly partly due to our President's incompetent personal relationships with various European heads of state ]

I agree that the Ruskies absolutely raped and pillaged the Eastern bloc;and that was inexcusable . I was just giving their side of the story .

And Tom, if Russia wanted to be part of Europe (with the expcetion of Peter) they did a real poor job showing it at times, and where did you get the idea I thought it was a good idea for them to join the EU??

I guess I did not make it clear. I was speaking of Eastern Europe and not Russia. I know that you guys don't want anything to do with economic union with Russia .What I said was that you were willing to allow the Eastern bloc into the EU ;but I see a reluctance to commit to their defense. But then again I don't see much of a commitment to your own defense either .

As regards the royal navy comment, I think you need to understand how we have won the battles we have won - mostly against all odds!

Nonsense!! Britain was a great nation because it dominated the seas.
When Britain first, at Heaven's command Arose from out the azure main; This was the charter of the land, And guardian angels sang this strain: "Rule, Britannia! rule the waves: "Britons never will be slaves."

I think I am very correct about the Royal Navy. I do believe that Adm. Nelson is turning over in his grave because it is a shell of it's former self.
Did you read the 2007 “Royal Navy Utility Today Compared with 20 Years Ago” report authored by Rear-Admiral Alan Massey ?
Navy would struggle to fight a war - report - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571188/Navy-would-struggle-to-fight-a-war---report.html)

"The current material state of the fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary."
The fleet has been reduced in size from 136 ships in 1987 to just 75 . The number of destroyers and frigates in service has fallen from 54 to 25, and submarines from 38 to just 13. The total number of Navy personnel has been reduced by nearly 30,000, from 65,500 to 38,800. The report says that it is an “under-resourced” fleet comprised of “operationally defective ships”.

phlanx

Oct 27, 2009, 05:20 AM

Tom, there is no other side of the story when it comes to rape - I have first hand knowledge from the people who they did rape, having been to Poland, Rommania, Hungary and Bulgaria

Russia has massive amounts of Gas and Oil reserves, so of course a country is going to get in close with them, the whole of the EU has, as they have want we want, so don't get confused by normal trade and buddy lists

Tom, you need to realise that the eastern block doesn't not include the former soviet states of Georgia etc, they are separate to anything else. Now that that the eatsern block is or about to become part of the EU, their defence is covered by all of us

The greatest attribute to the british armed forces is fighting when the odds are against us, or haven't you figured that out yet?

Royal Navy were able to dominate because it beat the Spanish, and french navys amongst others against the odds mate, and Rule Britannia was born out of success against the odds

One of the great things we do is make friends, lets face it, if Flaklands were invaded again, we would surely get a lift of your guys :)

I am not denying that the armed forces have seen a decline in resources in the past 20 years or so, this was mainly started by the unions nearly bankrupting us in the late 70s, poor investment in networks of rail and road have needed fresh investment to prevent them from collapse. On top of that with the cold war ending in the 90s, investment wasn't needed to the level that it was - there are many more reasons, of which comes to down to money

Look, after WW2 we have been struggling to get back to where we were, and at times we have fallen behind, but the one thing still remains, we can call on friends when we need them!

phlanx

Oct 27, 2009, 05:25 AM

tomder55

Oct 27, 2009, 05:28 AM

PS If Nelson was alive today he would probably be chucked out of the Navy for being too wreckless with peoples lives - He was a Hero in his day, but that day allowed for mass casualities, you really think public opinon would allow him to get away with what he did back yonder?

Good point. I have made that same observation here. If fought today ;The people of the United States would've been calling for our withdrawal from WWII after many of the battles fought.

phlanx

Oct 27, 2009, 05:39 AM

The way war is fought has changed as it enevitably does, and I think what we are most afraid off is having a situtaion where another hitler wants to invade countries and subject people to ethnic cleanising

I always love the spanish armada story - against a crecent formation it was very difficult to beat, so we sent out burning ships to set fire their leading ships and scatter their fleet

Can you ever see a battle like that happening today?

The seas are controlled by traditionally us and yourselves, and the aussies in the southern hempisphere, I really don't see the point in having upteen submarines etc when we can work together for the better

tomder55

Oct 27, 2009, 05:59 AM

The seas are controlled by traditionally us and yourselves, and the aussies in the southern hempisphere, I really don't see the point in having upteen submarines etc when we can work together for the better

I beg to differ . The Chinese are rapidly developing their blue water navy and it will not be long before they can use it to carve out a sphere of hegenomy. Don't discount the value of influence projection by Navies. That is not going to change anytime soon.

ETWolverine

Oct 27, 2009, 06:21 AM

Eastern Europe is now part of the EU

I find it interesting the way Americans view Russia, Europeans dont see russia as part of its iterest, the eastern blocks - of which I dont think people understand what I mean by that but is a recognised term within europe, are running at full speed away from the russians

So let me see if I understand you correctly.

You want the USA to become part of the EU and you want it to conform with EU regulations and rules because you believe that this country, thousands of miles outside Europe, has its economic and political interests within the EU.

But you DON'T want Russia, a country that exists within Europe proper, to be part of the EU because its economic and political interests differ from yours.

Am I getting that right?

Does that dichotomy make any sort of sense to anyone else here?

Elliot

phlanx

Oct 27, 2009, 06:30 AM

Morning Elliot

Can you tell where I said the USA should be part of the EU?

Show me where I said the US should conform to all models of the EU, I did say if you want to supply a product to the EU market you have to conform to its regs - is that concept lost on you? Or do you think NTSC tvs work in europe?

Nope you not getting it right, more trying to put words on my keyboard :)

phlanx

Oct 27, 2009, 06:32 AM

I beg to differ . The Chinese are rapidly developing their blue water navy and it will not be long before they can use it to carve out a sphere of hegenomy. Don't discount the value of influence projection by Navies. That is not going to change anytime soon.

I didn't forget about them, it will be interesting to see what happens when China is classed as a superpower

tomder55

Oct 28, 2009, 06:29 AM

I didn't forget about them, it will be interesting to see what happens when China is classed as a superpower

For one thing I don't have high hopes for Taiwan autonomy... or as I metioned British control of the Falklands once oil is discovered off shore.

phlanx

Oct 28, 2009, 07:20 AM

Tom, I don't think you understand what the Flaklands means to us, we still have some people who were teribly burnt appearing on main stream TV and the events are still fresh in our minds

There is no way, the Flaklands will be taken off us!

I think you need to read some stories of what our armed forces achieved in taking it off the argies

tomder55

Oct 28, 2009, 07:40 AM

I think you need to read some stories of what our armed forces achieved in taking it off the argies
You mean besides the 1982 war ? I know it was comparatively by today's standards a costly affair in terms of ship tonnage lost. 2 destroyers and 2 frigates sunk would be considered a big loss today.

I also know that although it hasn't been contested since ;the issue of sovereignty is still in dispute with Argentina routinely bringing the issue to the UN.
Speaking of that ;what will Britain do when the UN rules in favor of Argentina under something like the LOST (law of the sea treaty ) ? How will that devotion to international organizations work for you ?

ETWolverine

Oct 28, 2009, 08:19 AM

Morning Elliot

Can you tell where I said the USA should be part of the EU?

Show me where I said the US shoudl conform to all models of the EU, I did say if you want to supply a product to the EU market you have to conform to its regs - is that concept lost on you? or do you think NTSC tvs work in europe?

Nope you not getting it right, more trying to put words on my keyboard :)

I have no problems with doing that ON A CASE BY CASE (contract by contract) basis. What you SEEMED to be saying was that we had to do it across the board. If I misinterpreted your statements, then I apologize. We are in agreement.

Moreover, there is a treaty that is under consideration by the Obama admionistration that would do exactly that... make us subservient to the EU and all it's regulations and laws. I guess that's what has me in such a tizzy over the concept.

phlanx

Oct 28, 2009, 08:31 AM

You really think that the UN will rule against us?

Argentina can bring an argument to the UN all it likes, It is British and will remain so

The ships were mostly sunk by exocet missiles

This was after we sunk there belgrano by the HMS Conqueror

The Argentine Navy then all but retired to port and after a few air strikes the rest of the argentine navy ran away

There repsonse was to sink our ships by excoet missiles, which proved very effective

While this was going on, the SAS made strikes against aircraft and other launching targets

The following 10 days of the war involved groups of commandos, marines, and SAS moving across the islands taking the points that the argies had dug into to

This included such feats as a 3 day yomp and fight at the end of it without sleep or stopping

Taking prisoner of 1500 argies from 500 commandos

And so and so on

Britain had gone through a rough patch and was still feeling the effects of almost being destroyed by the unions

It was the first time I felt patriotic about this country

A few soldiers gave their lives, and the unlucky ones came back with terrible injuries

All came back to a hero's welcome, something that is lacking in today's return from the middle east

The only reason why argies are lobbying the UN is they know they can't take it by force, they also know we have too much of a say at the UN for them to allow any such transition

The people on the island will fight (declared it earlier this year) any attempt of argies coming onto the shores

We got the falklands fair and square, just as we got dozens of other islands around the world, some by trade, some by force, some as gifts, this history will not be given back without a fight!!

On top of that we also have a gripe with the argies over maradonnas hand of god - something that almost started a war by itself

tomder55

Oct 28, 2009, 08:38 AM

Moreover, there is a treaty that is under consideration by the Obama admionistration that would do exactly that... make us subservient to the EU and all it's regulations and laws. I guess that's what has me in such a tizzy over the concept.

In fact Codex Alimentarius already makes us beholden to "international food " standards. What it means to my industry is that vitamins and nutritional supplements that are routinely sold in the US over the counter by people looking to use natural alternatives to pharmaceutical medicines and for the prevention of illness will be forced to comply with restrictive European notions of potency .
The Europeans put ridiculous restrictions on vitamins in 2002 and these will be the "standard " . These restrictions on potency are designed to make the products useless . The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is now working to accomplish an international standard for the Maximum Permitted (dosage) Levels (MPLs) for all approved supplements along with additional laws that will reclassify supplements as medicines. In other words ,anything made over the Maximum dosage will be classified a drug ;and an unapproved drug at that . Say goodby to your vitamin Cs .Our FDA is on board.

tomder55

Oct 28, 2009, 08:41 AM

Steve I admire your national pride. I hope I am wrong about this . But I do think you should consider spending more on your national defense and less on the nanny state.

phlanx

Oct 28, 2009, 08:42 AM

I have no problems with doing that ON A CASE BY CASE (contract by contract) basis. What you SEEMED to be saying was that we had to do it across the board. If I misinterpreted your statements, then I apologize. We are in agreement.

Moreover, there is a treaty that is under consideration by the Obama admionistration that would do exactly that... make us subservient to the EU and all it's regulations and laws. I guess that's what has me in such a tizzy over the concept.

I speak plainly, I don't imply anything :) Apologies taken

I rarely read or see the news except clippets, that keep me informed as much as I like

This is because I hate not being told everything

When W Bush was pressing the UN for the war, and all that crap with them saying no, I wondered what the UN was after for them to be so postively against a war considering what had just happened

It was about 6 montsh later I read that America had signed up to a treaty governing certain aspects of your education and bringing into line with a world order, something which The US has resisted on for many many years

Still to this day I wonder why that treaty was signed by bush after so long a refusal

The EU have imposed a lot of laws of on us, and I think some 40% of our laws are now european laws

As much as I hate the idea of a frenchie, german, spanish, or italian telling me what to do, it is the same for them, after speaking to most countries while I visit, they feel the same way as both if us

Patriotic to the end,but it is a smaller world, and the need for economics is for the markets to be the same, and for that to happen the roads must be the same and so on

This is the way we are moving and have been doing so for a while now, the momentum is only going to stop with war, and as that is ever decreasing then you an I must be grateful for one thing

At least we don't have to learn a second language to be understood :)