FAIR HEALTH CARE OUGHT TO BE A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION.
Justice is an institution. It is separated from other branches of government. In theory at least (but not really since Obama has been interfering with Holder's sword of justice).
France has the best health care in the world, according to international evaluations. Friends of the American health care private profiteering scheme scoff that the French are subject to their government. It will come as a surprise to typically misinformed Americans that private health care insurance covers more than 90% of French subjects. Proportionally more than in the USA!
Not just that, but French insurance companies are doing great: one them, AXA, not content with owning a giant tower in... Manhattan, is building the highest one in Paris, as if there never had been a crash, and so it is for AXA's profits.
So what is going on?
The French "PUBLIC HEALTH" system functions as a single payer for all basic health care, with greater efficiency than a private system, because it does not have to pay managers and owners handsome amounts of money to keep them more interested by the health of their citizens than by exploiting workers in China.
The French "Public Health" negotiates with pharmaceutical companies as a single dealer. The companies make excellent profits, because they do not have huge marketing costs. Their financial maneuvers are watched over, so they can use their capital to make research, not fortunes for third parties. And so on.
The French Public Health actually is self regulated, and is, de facto, an independent democratic institution. It's the government, only in the sense that the justice system is the government.
And what of private insurance in all this?
Well, because basic dental crowns, as reimbursed by "Public Health" do not have that translucent quality you can get from a real artiste, and because, if the doctor prescribes going to a four star resort, and, considering that the Public Health system is cutting down on those... then private insurance steps in.
There is nothing anti-American about the French Public Health system. But there is definitively something anti-American about the present health care plutocracy in the USA. And no wonder: Nixon created it. With tax dollars.
Much more details on my site...http://patriceayme.wordpress.com
***
Patrice Ayme
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
HEALTH CARE IN PROFIT CONTEXT ALWAYS?
WHEN PROFITS IN THE POCKETS DO NOT PROFIT HEALTH AND MINDS:
Interesting: Here we had on CNBC, Maria Bartiromo (the mile a minute talking head with partially eye occulting hairdo, friend and party to the plutocracy) interviewing the head of the "Cleveland Clinic" .
The later clinic is one of these private contraptions given as an example of excellent private health care for the People. With a third interviewee in tow, Maria and the private head concluded in a chorus that a "public plan" would kill the private sector by offering lower premiums. That, in turn would kill innovation in new treatments and drugs, they all took turns to howl to the sky.
Maria led the howling about the USA having the best health care, the best drugs, the best everything, that the Public would savagely tear apart, etc... The Res-Publica, the Public Thing as a threat to goodness...
This is all the wind of lucre howling... This can be pointed at quantitatively by looking at new drug production.
The creation of drugs in the last twenty years ought to have followed the productivity of computers, and being multiplied by hundreds (the potential for new drugs from natural products is known to be in the millions: countless natural biological products are known to have very strong, very targeted physiological effects, meaning they could be made into drugs). Instead it was divided by three. coming down to a trickle. The production of new antibiotics outright stopped for a decade (now it's starting again a tiny bit). As I pointed on "Too Sick To Care?" (patriceayme.wordpress.com), this has been caused by pharmaceutical companies spending most of their disposable capital in financial maneuvers.
Graphs could be produced, with drug development spending plummeting, while financial maneuvers spending soared, in a zero sum game.
So here we had the example everybody brandishes, and Obama himself brandishes, the Cleveland Clinic, and the discourse was blatantly unbalanced toward the plutocratic, for profit context. No care context. All profit context. And to sugar pill it all, ludicrous chest thumping about the health care of the USA being the best, so far.
As long as it was just having 50 million Americans without health insurance, and many others being driven to bankruptcy from their health problems (as health failure is the # 1 cause of that), it ought to have been fine for the hyper rich. After all they are not known for their altruism, and they were not the ones dying or getting morbid from lack of potential care. Or so they thought.
But now even those rarefied few should get alarmed: the loss of potential improvement in health, even for the plutocracy itself, is enormous, and getting greater every year. The statistics are clear: I am sure that even Paris Hilton could teach them.
***
Patrice Ayme
wordpress.com
Interesting: Here we had on CNBC, Maria Bartiromo (the mile a minute talking head with partially eye occulting hairdo, friend and party to the plutocracy) interviewing the head of the "Cleveland Clinic" .
The later clinic is one of these private contraptions given as an example of excellent private health care for the People. With a third interviewee in tow, Maria and the private head concluded in a chorus that a "public plan" would kill the private sector by offering lower premiums. That, in turn would kill innovation in new treatments and drugs, they all took turns to howl to the sky.
Maria led the howling about the USA having the best health care, the best drugs, the best everything, that the Public would savagely tear apart, etc... The Res-Publica, the Public Thing as a threat to goodness...
This is all the wind of lucre howling... This can be pointed at quantitatively by looking at new drug production.
The creation of drugs in the last twenty years ought to have followed the productivity of computers, and being multiplied by hundreds (the potential for new drugs from natural products is known to be in the millions: countless natural biological products are known to have very strong, very targeted physiological effects, meaning they could be made into drugs). Instead it was divided by three. coming down to a trickle. The production of new antibiotics outright stopped for a decade (now it's starting again a tiny bit). As I pointed on "Too Sick To Care?" (patriceayme.wordpress.com), this has been caused by pharmaceutical companies spending most of their disposable capital in financial maneuvers.
Graphs could be produced, with drug development spending plummeting, while financial maneuvers spending soared, in a zero sum game.
So here we had the example everybody brandishes, and Obama himself brandishes, the Cleveland Clinic, and the discourse was blatantly unbalanced toward the plutocratic, for profit context. No care context. All profit context. And to sugar pill it all, ludicrous chest thumping about the health care of the USA being the best, so far.
As long as it was just having 50 million Americans without health insurance, and many others being driven to bankruptcy from their health problems (as health failure is the # 1 cause of that), it ought to have been fine for the hyper rich. After all they are not known for their altruism, and they were not the ones dying or getting morbid from lack of potential care. Or so they thought.
But now even those rarefied few should get alarmed: the loss of potential improvement in health, even for the plutocracy itself, is enormous, and getting greater every year. The statistics are clear: I am sure that even Paris Hilton could teach them.
***
Patrice Ayme
wordpress.com
Friday, July 24, 2009
THEY SINK, THEREFORE THEY CARE NOUGHT.
(Published by NYT, 23 July 2009)
*
The talking heads in the media have whined. Not enough "folksy anecdotes" in the analysis of health care during Obama's conference on health care, for them? So they claim.
There is a deeper problem. And that is that enforced stupidity has become an instrument of deliberate oppression.
Talking heads in the media and their public have learned to be like children: they want to be told bed time stories, so that their tired little minds can go to sleep.
They cannot handle culture and logic, they are not trained for it. All what appeals to them is what would appeal to little children talking to each other, little anecdotes with a strong imaginary component.
As the Roman republic went down, culture and art went down, and they went down well ahead of the military and economic capabilities. Rome became idiotic first, and then , several decades later, it became completely incapacitated in all ways. Only then did the Huns moved in, from distant Mongolia.
Why did Rome become idiotic? Because the Roman republic had been kidnapped by the hyper rich "Senatorial" class. The hyper rich quickly learned that they ruled best over dummies, and bleating sheep. During the transition to generalized idiocy, those who refused to cooperate were killed. The philosopher and Consul Cicero, saw the hands he was writing with chopped off, and nailed to the Senate door. And that is not an imaginary anecdote a la Reagan. This atrocity was meant to impress those too willing to keep on writing down smart, progressive thoughts.
Finally the plutocracy mixed up with the theocrats, and any knowledge or thinking was denounced as an insult to "God". This episode is now called the Dark Ages. But it started with the rise of the stupid, paid by the hyper rich to extinguish c ulture and intelligence.
This is exactly what is going in the media today. The venality and stupidity of the "debate" on health care is deliberate, it is made to encourage stupidity, it teaches stupidity, it celebrates stupidity.
In truth, if anything should escape the profit motive, it is compassion. The obsession with profits and costs (not just the profits and costs of a financial, but also those of a legal, business, or marketing character) perverts the entire health care system in the USA. And not just for medical decisions.
For example, a peer reviewed article in Science Magazine explains that fewer and fewer drugs are brought to market (down to less than 30 from a peak triple this twenty years ago), because pharmaceutical companies are playing Wall Street. In truth MILLIONS of drugs could be brought to market, from natural products alone, says Science.
And so on. The health care insurance industry exists in a country such as France (with the best health care according to the WHO), but it does not insure the life threatening conditions' basic treatments. That is automatic (even for sick or hurt Americans who would happen to pass through France). Private health care in France insures only added comfort or plastic surgery type treatments. The moral position that an industry can thrive according to the modus operandi:"Your money, or your life!" is untenable in this civilization, and has been rejected in all advanced countries, except the USA.
At this point the extravagant portion of GDP given to those who profit financially from the bad health of others has become a strategic threat to the USA.
Wisely, Obama is gambling that he can defeat the stupidity head on, by rising the mental level of the debate. If he fails, the USA will keep on collapsing mentally, and the rest will follow. After all, the financial crisis, and the way it was solved (replenishing with20public money, the private perpetrators themselves, without any strings attached) is the sort of idiocy that history shows change the fate of civilizations, and not for the best.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
*
The talking heads in the media have whined. Not enough "folksy anecdotes" in the analysis of health care during Obama's conference on health care, for them? So they claim.
There is a deeper problem. And that is that enforced stupidity has become an instrument of deliberate oppression.
Talking heads in the media and their public have learned to be like children: they want to be told bed time stories, so that their tired little minds can go to sleep.
They cannot handle culture and logic, they are not trained for it. All what appeals to them is what would appeal to little children talking to each other, little anecdotes with a strong imaginary component.
As the Roman republic went down, culture and art went down, and they went down well ahead of the military and economic capabilities. Rome became idiotic first, and then , several decades later, it became completely incapacitated in all ways. Only then did the Huns moved in, from distant Mongolia.
Why did Rome become idiotic? Because the Roman republic had been kidnapped by the hyper rich "Senatorial" class. The hyper rich quickly learned that they ruled best over dummies, and bleating sheep. During the transition to generalized idiocy, those who refused to cooperate were killed. The philosopher and Consul Cicero, saw the hands he was writing with chopped off, and nailed to the Senate door. And that is not an imaginary anecdote a la Reagan. This atrocity was meant to impress those too willing to keep on writing down smart, progressive thoughts.
Finally the plutocracy mixed up with the theocrats, and any knowledge or thinking was denounced as an insult to "God". This episode is now called the Dark Ages. But it started with the rise of the stupid, paid by the hyper rich to extinguish c ulture and intelligence.
This is exactly what is going in the media today. The venality and stupidity of the "debate" on health care is deliberate, it is made to encourage stupidity, it teaches stupidity, it celebrates stupidity.
In truth, if anything should escape the profit motive, it is compassion. The obsession with profits and costs (not just the profits and costs of a financial, but also those of a legal, business, or marketing character) perverts the entire health care system in the USA. And not just for medical decisions.
For example, a peer reviewed article in Science Magazine explains that fewer and fewer drugs are brought to market (down to less than 30 from a peak triple this twenty years ago), because pharmaceutical companies are playing Wall Street. In truth MILLIONS of drugs could be brought to market, from natural products alone, says Science.
And so on. The health care insurance industry exists in a country such as France (with the best health care according to the WHO), but it does not insure the life threatening conditions' basic treatments. That is automatic (even for sick or hurt Americans who would happen to pass through France). Private health care in France insures only added comfort or plastic surgery type treatments. The moral position that an industry can thrive according to the modus operandi:"Your money, or your life!" is untenable in this civilization, and has been rejected in all advanced countries, except the USA.
At this point the extravagant portion of GDP given to those who profit financially from the bad health of others has become a strategic threat to the USA.
Wisely, Obama is gambling that he can defeat the stupidity head on, by rising the mental level of the debate. If he fails, the USA will keep on collapsing mentally, and the rest will follow. After all, the financial crisis, and the way it was solved (replenishing with20public money, the private perpetrators themselves, without any strings attached) is the sort of idiocy that history shows change the fate of civilizations, and not for the best.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
WHAT AILS THE ARABS? [A foretaste.]
ZIONIST ENTITY VERSUS ISLAMIST ENTITY? OR JUST THE LATER?
"The Economist" disserts on Arabia (July 23, 2009). Another occasion for me to attack the subject with the sharp knife of unbowed philosophy, while proffering my usual incantations (please respect me as I practice my religion of universal critique). (A more detailed essay extending this will appear, hopefully, on wordpress, where many articles on the subject already exist, following those on patriceayme.com.)
***
"The Economist" comes back on the mysterious philosophico-political disease that afflicts Arab speaking nations, and turns around the problem like the wolf turns around the moose, not daring to bite, or even to come too close... No apparent desire to experience high explosives, or sharp blades, how to blame them?
An instant optimistic, "The Economist" opines in its lead editorial that:"A quiet revolution has begun in the Arab world; it will be complete only when the last failed dictatorship is voted out." Still "The Economist" wonders: "What ails the Arabs?", but it does not dare, or is unable to give one of these sharp answers it likes.
All it dares to do, is to hint at the nature of the disease:
..."more people, especially women, are becoming educated, and businessmen want a bigger say in economies dominated by the state. Above all, a revolution in satellite television has broken the spell of the state-run media and created a public that wants the rulers to explain and justify themselves as never before. On their own, none of these changes seems big enough to prompt a revolution. But taken together they are creating a great agitation under the surface. The old pattern of Arab government—corrupt, opaque and authoritarian—has failed on every level and does not deserve to survive."
In other words, according to "The Economist" what ails the Arabs is a cultural phenomenon.
Reading more carefully, one see that it has to do with Islam:
"Some in the West are wary of Arab elections, fearing that Islamists would exploit the chance to seize power on the principle of “one man, one vote, one time”. Yet Islamists seem to struggle to raise their support much above 20% of the electorate. Non-Arab Muslim countries like Turkey and Indonesia suggest that democracy is the best way to draw the poison of extremism. Repression only makes it more dangerous."
"The Economist" forgets to mention that such was the theory of the Islamists in Algeria, twenty years ago. After they won the first round of elections, the Algerian army had to seize power, and reset the (would-be) democratic system to zero. Otherwise Algeria would be now like Iran (or probably much worse, because there is so much Western European culture in Algeria, that there would have been an even more horrific civil war than what happened, with just a few hundred thousands killed).
"The Economist" forgets to mention also that in most countries where Islam cohabits with democracy nowadays, a very violent past cracked down on Islam, way back.
***
WE PRAY QUIETLY, THUS THEY CAN PREY MIGHTILY:
OK, enough with the wooden tongue, the one that is in the mouth, but does not quite work, due to rigidity and inappropriateness to the supple nature of thought.
Some Arabs would say it's the Zionist Entity, or colonialism, that afflicts Arabia, or... But rarely is the Islamist Entity evoked.
Islam is to blame for the friendliness of Arab countries to dictatorship. A command in Islam (a verse in the Qur'an) orders believers to follow their leaders without any question, as long as they are Muslim. To do otherwise is to disobey God.
Thus the problem is very simple, and not really different from the catastrophic fanaticism that caused the Dark Ages in the Roman empire.
Islam is actually a direct prolongation of it: Muhammad faithfully copied what he had below his nose, and that inspired him so much, the demented caesaropapism a la Justinian, which had immensely damaged the Roman empire and civilization itself, from a particular interpretation of Roman Catholicism, which was imposed by killing millions and oppressing even more (leading to a terrible war with Sassanid Persia).
What of countries which have Muslim majorities, and are not dictatorship? Well, they adopted enough of the Western European model in their political culture to fight off Islam. This is true for Turkey, or Indonesia, etc... In Iran, the father of the late Shah, founder of his dynasty, took even more terrible measures against Islam than Ataturk did. Simply something is left of that history today.
Here is the verse in the Qur'an:
“O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s , Sura 4; verse 59).
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com
For more details please see:
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/
And also:
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/
"The Economist" disserts on Arabia (July 23, 2009). Another occasion for me to attack the subject with the sharp knife of unbowed philosophy, while proffering my usual incantations (please respect me as I practice my religion of universal critique). (A more detailed essay extending this will appear, hopefully, on wordpress, where many articles on the subject already exist, following those on patriceayme.com.)
***
"The Economist" comes back on the mysterious philosophico-political disease that afflicts Arab speaking nations, and turns around the problem like the wolf turns around the moose, not daring to bite, or even to come too close... No apparent desire to experience high explosives, or sharp blades, how to blame them?
An instant optimistic, "The Economist" opines in its lead editorial that:"A quiet revolution has begun in the Arab world; it will be complete only when the last failed dictatorship is voted out." Still "The Economist" wonders: "What ails the Arabs?", but it does not dare, or is unable to give one of these sharp answers it likes.
All it dares to do, is to hint at the nature of the disease:
..."more people, especially women, are becoming educated, and businessmen want a bigger say in economies dominated by the state. Above all, a revolution in satellite television has broken the spell of the state-run media and created a public that wants the rulers to explain and justify themselves as never before. On their own, none of these changes seems big enough to prompt a revolution. But taken together they are creating a great agitation under the surface. The old pattern of Arab government—corrupt, opaque and authoritarian—has failed on every level and does not deserve to survive."
In other words, according to "The Economist" what ails the Arabs is a cultural phenomenon.
Reading more carefully, one see that it has to do with Islam:
"Some in the West are wary of Arab elections, fearing that Islamists would exploit the chance to seize power on the principle of “one man, one vote, one time”. Yet Islamists seem to struggle to raise their support much above 20% of the electorate. Non-Arab Muslim countries like Turkey and Indonesia suggest that democracy is the best way to draw the poison of extremism. Repression only makes it more dangerous."
"The Economist" forgets to mention that such was the theory of the Islamists in Algeria, twenty years ago. After they won the first round of elections, the Algerian army had to seize power, and reset the (would-be) democratic system to zero. Otherwise Algeria would be now like Iran (or probably much worse, because there is so much Western European culture in Algeria, that there would have been an even more horrific civil war than what happened, with just a few hundred thousands killed).
"The Economist" forgets to mention also that in most countries where Islam cohabits with democracy nowadays, a very violent past cracked down on Islam, way back.
***
WE PRAY QUIETLY, THUS THEY CAN PREY MIGHTILY:
OK, enough with the wooden tongue, the one that is in the mouth, but does not quite work, due to rigidity and inappropriateness to the supple nature of thought.
Some Arabs would say it's the Zionist Entity, or colonialism, that afflicts Arabia, or... But rarely is the Islamist Entity evoked.
Islam is to blame for the friendliness of Arab countries to dictatorship. A command in Islam (a verse in the Qur'an) orders believers to follow their leaders without any question, as long as they are Muslim. To do otherwise is to disobey God.
Thus the problem is very simple, and not really different from the catastrophic fanaticism that caused the Dark Ages in the Roman empire.
Islam is actually a direct prolongation of it: Muhammad faithfully copied what he had below his nose, and that inspired him so much, the demented caesaropapism a la Justinian, which had immensely damaged the Roman empire and civilization itself, from a particular interpretation of Roman Catholicism, which was imposed by killing millions and oppressing even more (leading to a terrible war with Sassanid Persia).
What of countries which have Muslim majorities, and are not dictatorship? Well, they adopted enough of the Western European model in their political culture to fight off Islam. This is true for Turkey, or Indonesia, etc... In Iran, the father of the late Shah, founder of his dynasty, took even more terrible measures against Islam than Ataturk did. Simply something is left of that history today.
Here is the verse in the Qur'an:
“O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s , Sura 4; verse 59).
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com
For more details please see:
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/
And also:
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/
Thursday, July 23, 2009
PLUTOCRACY REIGNS BEST OVER IDIOCY
ENFORCED STUPIDITY AS A TOOL OF DELIBERATE OPPRESSION.
Talking heads in the media complained that Obama did not tell just little anecdotes during his description of the problem of the health care system. Krugman opines that: "what are the talking heads really complaining about? It’s not what Obama didn’t do — it’s what he did, namely talk seriously about policy. How unpresidential of him!"
But there is a deeper problem. And that is that enforced stupidity has become an instrument of deliberate oppression.
Talking heads in the media and their public are like children: they want to be told bed time stories, so that their tired little minds can go to sleep.
They cannot handle culture and logic, they are not trained for it. All what appeals to them is what would appeal little children talking to each other, little anecdotes with a strong imaginary component.
As the Roman republic went down, culture and art went down, and they went down ahead of the military and economic capabilities. Rome became idiotic first, and then was progressively completely incapacitated.
Why did Rome become idiotic? Because the Roman republic had been kidnapped by the hyper rich "Senatorial" class. The hyper rich tolerated only dummies. During the transition to generalized idiocy, those who refused to cooperate were killed. The philosopher and Consul Cicero, saw the hands he was writing with chopped off, and nailed to the Senate door. And that is not an imaginary anecdote a la Reagan. It was meant to impress those too willing to keep on writing down smart, progressive thoughts.
Finally the plutocracy mixed up with the theocrats, and any knowledge or thinking was denounced as an insult to "God". This episode is called the Dark Ages. But it started with the rise of the stupid, paid to reign by the hyper rich.
This is exactly what is going in the media today. The venality and stupidity of the "debate" on health care is deliberate, it is made to encourage stupidity, it teaches stupidity. Wisely, Obama is gambling that he can defeat the stupidity head on, by rising the mental level. If he fails, the USA will keep on collapsing mentally, and the rest will follow. After all, the financial crisis, and the way it was solved (replenishing the perpetrators) is the sort of idiocy that history shows change the fate of civilization, and not for the best.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
***
(published in Krugman's blog comments, #10)
***
Here is the full Krugman blog post.
July 23, 2009.
"What’s in a name?
OK, so let me get this straight. The initial reaction of the cable talking heads was that Obama blew it because he didn’t couch his argument in terms of personal anecdotes, Reagan-style. Then, when it was pointed out that he did, in fact, offer a number of specific examples of people harmed by our current system, the whine became that he didn’t give their names.
Now, it’s true that George Bush liked to give names of people who would benefit from his tax cuts; but Ronald Reagan’s anecdotes — about, say, the Cadillac-driving welfare queen — generally didn’t name names. And there was a good reason for that: with rare exceptions, Reagan’s folksy anecdotes weren’t true.
So what are the talking heads really complaining about? It’s not what Obama didn’t do — it’s what he did, namely talk seriously about policy. How unpresidential of him!"
Talking heads in the media complained that Obama did not tell just little anecdotes during his description of the problem of the health care system. Krugman opines that: "what are the talking heads really complaining about? It’s not what Obama didn’t do — it’s what he did, namely talk seriously about policy. How unpresidential of him!"
But there is a deeper problem. And that is that enforced stupidity has become an instrument of deliberate oppression.
Talking heads in the media and their public are like children: they want to be told bed time stories, so that their tired little minds can go to sleep.
They cannot handle culture and logic, they are not trained for it. All what appeals to them is what would appeal little children talking to each other, little anecdotes with a strong imaginary component.
As the Roman republic went down, culture and art went down, and they went down ahead of the military and economic capabilities. Rome became idiotic first, and then was progressively completely incapacitated.
Why did Rome become idiotic? Because the Roman republic had been kidnapped by the hyper rich "Senatorial" class. The hyper rich tolerated only dummies. During the transition to generalized idiocy, those who refused to cooperate were killed. The philosopher and Consul Cicero, saw the hands he was writing with chopped off, and nailed to the Senate door. And that is not an imaginary anecdote a la Reagan. It was meant to impress those too willing to keep on writing down smart, progressive thoughts.
Finally the plutocracy mixed up with the theocrats, and any knowledge or thinking was denounced as an insult to "God". This episode is called the Dark Ages. But it started with the rise of the stupid, paid to reign by the hyper rich.
This is exactly what is going in the media today. The venality and stupidity of the "debate" on health care is deliberate, it is made to encourage stupidity, it teaches stupidity. Wisely, Obama is gambling that he can defeat the stupidity head on, by rising the mental level. If he fails, the USA will keep on collapsing mentally, and the rest will follow. After all, the financial crisis, and the way it was solved (replenishing the perpetrators) is the sort of idiocy that history shows change the fate of civilization, and not for the best.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
***
(published in Krugman's blog comments, #10)
***
Here is the full Krugman blog post.
July 23, 2009.
"What’s in a name?
OK, so let me get this straight. The initial reaction of the cable talking heads was that Obama blew it because he didn’t couch his argument in terms of personal anecdotes, Reagan-style. Then, when it was pointed out that he did, in fact, offer a number of specific examples of people harmed by our current system, the whine became that he didn’t give their names.
Now, it’s true that George Bush liked to give names of people who would benefit from his tax cuts; but Ronald Reagan’s anecdotes — about, say, the Cadillac-driving welfare queen — generally didn’t name names. And there was a good reason for that: with rare exceptions, Reagan’s folksy anecdotes weren’t true.
So what are the talking heads really complaining about? It’s not what Obama didn’t do — it’s what he did, namely talk seriously about policy. How unpresidential of him!"
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
THINKER IN CHIEF?
In his blog, Krugman reveals that Obama is the "Professor in chief": "I found Obama’s health care presentation so impressive — so much command of the issues — that it had me worried. If I really like a politicians’ speech, isn’t that an indication that he lacks the popular touch? (A couple of points off for “incentivize” — what ever happened to “encourage”? — but never mind.)
Seriously, it’s really good to see how much he gets it."
Yes, well, I particularly loved the sneak attacks against "the profit motive" delivered with great care and subtility, so as not to hurt and revolt, but just so as to leave a deep mark on the subconscious of the bleating media sheep (which seemed aware of their own mental short comings as they struggled to rise to the occasion, something I have observed with sheep in the wild, when they try to understand what to do). And, of course, that presentation was made to change the subconscious of the nation, as the dose of higher philosophy ("health care is not about profit, and actually the profit motive is toxic to health") was delivered twice with an extremely light touch, as if Obama himself was baffled by the idea, and was just trying to formulate modestly gathering thoughts...
Indeed, it's high time that "We The People" understands that stupidity is the road to hell in a waste basket. The popular obsession of mental retardation shrouded in sport scores, is not just ludicrous, it's an indecent threat to planetary survival.
In the present situation, the revolutionary reflex: "Off With Their Heads!, cannot even be evoked. Verily, before the people's heads could be cut off, they would need some. We may as have been dealing with sponges placidly bathing in plutocratic juice, but now Obama is showing them what a brain can do.
Obama's role is to be father of the nation, and he does that very well, because a father is someone who knows, and feels, more. It's easy to know more than children who have travelled nowhere. Obama has lived overseas, and not just overseas in an equivalent place such as Western Europe, but overseas in a (at the time) severely underdeveloped country of the Muslim type (my case exactly, by the way, but longer and deeper, making me fiercer).
So Obama is mentally deep (except in the waters where Larry Summers swim like a self assured globular sardine, while Obama is not hungry yet). It is good that the American People is exposed to some mental activity of the higher type, that's what the USA needs. The best profits are of the mental type. Learn.
By the way, there is a tradition in a country such as France, of presidents who actually know their stuff, and have the "vision thing" as Bush the First used to say, in one of his most notable efforts to form a sentence.
It is a particular grotesque behavior that American presidents have been overly dependent on "speech writers" to think. Obama is the Thinker In Chief, and powers to that! It is not just human, what man is all about, but it is also honest: instead of a plutocratic machine producing a figurehead actor, we get a human being thinking higher thougths.
So do not tremble, oh little Krugman, sheeps cannot devour minds.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Seriously, it’s really good to see how much he gets it."
Yes, well, I particularly loved the sneak attacks against "the profit motive" delivered with great care and subtility, so as not to hurt and revolt, but just so as to leave a deep mark on the subconscious of the bleating media sheep (which seemed aware of their own mental short comings as they struggled to rise to the occasion, something I have observed with sheep in the wild, when they try to understand what to do). And, of course, that presentation was made to change the subconscious of the nation, as the dose of higher philosophy ("health care is not about profit, and actually the profit motive is toxic to health") was delivered twice with an extremely light touch, as if Obama himself was baffled by the idea, and was just trying to formulate modestly gathering thoughts...
Indeed, it's high time that "We The People" understands that stupidity is the road to hell in a waste basket. The popular obsession of mental retardation shrouded in sport scores, is not just ludicrous, it's an indecent threat to planetary survival.
In the present situation, the revolutionary reflex: "Off With Their Heads!, cannot even be evoked. Verily, before the people's heads could be cut off, they would need some. We may as have been dealing with sponges placidly bathing in plutocratic juice, but now Obama is showing them what a brain can do.
Obama's role is to be father of the nation, and he does that very well, because a father is someone who knows, and feels, more. It's easy to know more than children who have travelled nowhere. Obama has lived overseas, and not just overseas in an equivalent place such as Western Europe, but overseas in a (at the time) severely underdeveloped country of the Muslim type (my case exactly, by the way, but longer and deeper, making me fiercer).
So Obama is mentally deep (except in the waters where Larry Summers swim like a self assured globular sardine, while Obama is not hungry yet). It is good that the American People is exposed to some mental activity of the higher type, that's what the USA needs. The best profits are of the mental type. Learn.
By the way, there is a tradition in a country such as France, of presidents who actually know their stuff, and have the "vision thing" as Bush the First used to say, in one of his most notable efforts to form a sentence.
It is a particular grotesque behavior that American presidents have been overly dependent on "speech writers" to think. Obama is the Thinker In Chief, and powers to that! It is not just human, what man is all about, but it is also honest: instead of a plutocratic machine producing a figurehead actor, we get a human being thinking higher thougths.
So do not tremble, oh little Krugman, sheeps cannot devour minds.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
FREE MARKETS FANATICS CRASH AND BURN.
AMERICAN ECONOMISTS AS UNIVERSAL MECHANICS:
Doctor Paul Krugman suddenly shows his true colors, from back when he was an adviser of Ronald Reagan, before he played progressive in the media, for his greater glory.
He writes in his blog, July 21, 2009: “The solution to climate change must rely... on market mechanisms — it’s too complex an issue to deal with using command-and-control. ”
Really? Another complex issue is air traffic control, which, thus, according to the good Dr. Krugman, "must rely on market mechanisms". Goldman Sachs could sell the right to land first to who will pay more in the instant. Then if someone pays even more, they could sell the right to land first to that one instead. And so on. Then they could sell bets on who will crash first.
No doubt, pretty soon, air travel would experience a final solution to the problem of its existence. Most planes having crashed, there would be no more carbon emission that way. The air travel industry would follow the American society into the ground. Or even below, where Pluto is located.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
P/S 1: Of course high fossil fuel taxes is the way to conserve and force efficiencies. A carbon tax is the way to fix, worldwide the worst proble of globalization, which is that it gave ways for plutocracy to turn around legislation.
[P/S 2: The central argument above is too critical of the market concept as panacea, so the New York Times refused to publish it, pursuing a pattern of avoiding to publish my deepest critiques against the present economic system (they systematically refused to publish my observations about the private fractional reserve banking system, for example)...]
Doctor Paul Krugman suddenly shows his true colors, from back when he was an adviser of Ronald Reagan, before he played progressive in the media, for his greater glory.
He writes in his blog, July 21, 2009: “The solution to climate change must rely... on market mechanisms — it’s too complex an issue to deal with using command-and-control. ”
Really? Another complex issue is air traffic control, which, thus, according to the good Dr. Krugman, "must rely on market mechanisms". Goldman Sachs could sell the right to land first to who will pay more in the instant. Then if someone pays even more, they could sell the right to land first to that one instead. And so on. Then they could sell bets on who will crash first.
No doubt, pretty soon, air travel would experience a final solution to the problem of its existence. Most planes having crashed, there would be no more carbon emission that way. The air travel industry would follow the American society into the ground. Or even below, where Pluto is located.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
P/S 1: Of course high fossil fuel taxes is the way to conserve and force efficiencies. A carbon tax is the way to fix, worldwide the worst proble of globalization, which is that it gave ways for plutocracy to turn around legislation.
[P/S 2: The central argument above is too critical of the market concept as panacea, so the New York Times refused to publish it, pursuing a pattern of avoiding to publish my deepest critiques against the present economic system (they systematically refused to publish my observations about the private fractional reserve banking system, for example)...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)