Joe S

As always, answers with detailed support will get the most consideration for 'best answer'.

And how much is it due to factors such as monetary policy and even outright slave labor?

For example:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/4-3-24/20545.htm...

What other factors do you see that could explain the low cost of Chinese labor?

Lyrics: http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Re...

Yeah, I know that some of you will see little value in decoding the lyrics of a popular song for real-world political reference. But I find the words are brilliant. I am sure that I am susceptible to reading into them what I want to see. I'm interested to know what other political thinkers see.

This question is asked based upon my assumptions that 1) we are facing the potential for further economic and social crisis whose origin is political and 2) national politics operates based upon who most influences government. In 2), you have to look beyond the particular persons in office, by the way. Because lobbyists influence the candidates from the very nomination process (and not just through contributions to individual candidates but within the political parties), you have to consider that the officeholders of the day are those who are most likely to serve the special interests that promote them. Notable exceptions exist but typically fail to get anything done.

A best answer could take issue with any of those assumptions but should make that issue clear.

This answer is directed toward anyone who desires either minor reform or absolute revolution. If change, whatever level is intended, does not alter the influence of the people who most drive politics today, how long before they will adapt to the new rules (assuming that they didn't manipulate them into something to their benefit in the first place - an outcome that I consider most likely). More specifically, even if you move to 100% socialism, implement a public option for health care or (on the other side of the spectrum) remove rules that appear to reduce the scope of government influence; if the same people are making the rules as before, why would you expect long-term change?

Read my response to the question below to find how this question comes to mind:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au95E...

This line of thought followed from a prior question in which the 'pursuit of happiness' relative to owning property was explored (i.e. Declaration of Independence versus John Locke):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200911...

Is possessing fully mortgaged property really conducive to the pursuit of happiness? And who else feels like banks have pulled one over society?

Soviet Russia is often held up as a failure by the opponents of Communism. Its adherents usually retort that Russia was not a true implementation of the revolution. They frequently rally around Trotsky as a person they think would have gotten it right.

I am asking this as someone who has only brief familiarity of Trotsky, so background information (or links to it) are welcome. I am also interested to know the opinion of some of my socialist friends on this historical figure.

Certainly in the U.S. you must be entirely disconnected from reality to deny that politics plays a heavy role in our health care. A reasonable contention is that U.S. politics serves special interests while systems such as the British NHS better serve public benefits. However your opinion falls about that contention, in what ways does the debate open up if it is no longer about "LaissezFaireCare" versus government care?

This question could come as a challenge to either socialists or capitalists. However, please avoid making statements about what you infer to be my position in the matter. I can envision knee-jerk reactions in a number of directions that would be entirely wrong.

I wish to see your exploration of the matter of centralized control and what really are its defining characteristics.

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1539-Possible-Cr...

We are hearing that some of the large, troubled banks (especially Citi) are raising rates to usurious levels of 30% even on the accounts of people with high credit ratings. They are introducing annual fees, raising transfer fees and even charging fees for not carrying balances. It seems like they are trying to force out the good debtors (those who can pay off balances or transfer) and eat the bad debts (many of whom might have been okay at lower rates).

Is it business as usual in your home, or are you aware of the danger that credit could become unavailable. All of this, of course, is occuring in the face of enthusiastic reports that the recession is over.

I will place this in the politics section since the economy seems to be the responsibility of politicians now-a-days. Answers could also comment on the extent to which you think that the economy actually is politically controlled and, if so, whether you believe this is desirable.

I have seen repeated assertions that self-regulation does not work. If this means no oversight whatsoever and expecting people to just do the right thing, then it is certainly true. It is more especially true when huge sums of money are involved such as in banking.

However, quite apart from being an indictment against the market, I have argued that it is more of an indictment against centralized government regulation. Most people assume that government regulatory agencies are on the task of regulating market behavior (most especially over banks). So when those agencies leave important behavior without scrutiny, the failure is upon them. Blaming self-regulation is like blaming the fox for eating the chickens when you knew you had left him to watch the hen house.

This question is intent upon probing the scope of solutions available to conducting effective regulation. While regulation is typically considered only an activity for government, I introduce another option. Private market watchdog groups could monitor the actions of market participants, publicize their businesses (both good and bad) and report them to the appropriate authorities when criminal fraud or other bad actions are discovered.

A 'best answer' would contrast how such agencies (potentially competing) might work compared to centralized government agencies. Don't tell me your ideas for reforming government agencies. For instance, one recent correspondent suggested that we need to close the "revolving door" between regulators and the regulated industries. I certainly agree. What are the mechanisms of doing this through the political system. Tell me step by step. Tell me what roadblocks you will encounter.

Next, a 'best answer' would comment on the corresponding process that would be required to reform market-based regulatory industries. Note, don't imagine that I think that such industries would instantly lead to utopia. I expect problems in human endeavors no matter how they are conducted. I am trying to examine the incentives and mechanisms in the various methods that we employ to conduct society. Since political means have been so widely accepted with what I believe are so poor results, I push especially on them.

Note, I carefully wrote "national" politics. There is politics on your school PTA board. Wherever there is social conflict, there is going to be politics. Can you imagine what society would be like though if we didn't institutionalize it on a national level?

I provide one answer that I have recently encountered. In the abstract of a study issued by NBER:

"We also find that Canada has no more abolished the tendency for health status to improve with income than have other countries. Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S."

I would be interested to know other points of view. Are there studies that claim the contrary? In the unlikely event that anyone is familiar with this NBER study, do you have any critique of its findings?

Finally and perhaps most importantly, if you support a single-payer system and if you are unable to refute the claim, how do you reconcile your support? This seems to be a most fundamental proposed benefit of government universal health care - that the poor receive better care. Yet when we step outside of the realm of anecdotes, this research finds that benefit to not exist at all.

The argument generally runs, on the one side, that emergency rooms are required, by law, to care for everyone regardless of ability to pay. The other side of the argument is that preventative care is only available based on ability to pay.

I might also ask you to consider an associated question whether a law requiring that hospitals to provide emergency care is the same as guaranteeing that people actually *get* emergency care. What conditions might make the mandate impossible?

Note, many of you will try to guess my motives for asking this question. While I admit that I have motives in this debate, this question truly is to poll the range of attitudes on the matter and to encounter insights that I hadn't considered. And what motives I do have may be hard to guess even for those of you who know me well. I may have more to write just prior to selecting 'best answer'.

Here, "state" is in the sense that would be found in political philosophy literature. The United States was originally supposed to be the separate states under a federal government. With the increase of power under the federal government, it should arguably be considered as a single state with the "states" being departments within that state.

In an article addressing concern by seniors toward Obama's reform, he is quoted:

“Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don't need it.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090812/pl_polit...

He admits that cuts will reduce *someone's* benefits. This is not cutting nonproductive waste. Who are these people, and what constitutes being a "folk who (doesn't) need it"? Or is Obama just pandering?

For those of you who support the reforms, can you see how this kind of discourse can raise suspicion?

If so, is that a good thing? Also, how do you "fairly" restrain the mechanism that is to act "unfairly" toward some? How will you keep the legitimate power to act unfairly from being a mechanism to increase inequity, rather than decrease it?

Frequently, people point out the following facts:

1) Almost 50 million people are uninsured in the U.S.

2) People in the U.S. pay more per capita on health care than any other nation in the world.

3) Despite #2, our society has very poor health "outcomes" when compared to nations that have some kind universal government medicine/insurance programs. These outcomes are usually stated in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and so on.

This question is intent upon reconciling these three facts. [Note, for people inclined to dispute them, it should serve our purposes here to grant that they are true.] A common assertion is that we have a very poor health care system despite spending a great deal of money on it. However, #3 is calculated with regard to combining the entire population, insured and uninsured. Separating the outcomes with regard to insurance would inform us on whether the overall outcomes are due to poor medical delivery generally or whether the uninsured are driving down the numbers. It may be that for people in a position to pay for it, U.S. health care is world class in terms of outcomes.

Some of you will be inclined to respond to this line of thinking by arguing whether or not reform is needed and on the manner of reform. Such answers would be entirely missing the question. I don't wish to revisit that tired debate. I am asking this question because I am legitimately interested in the answer. If you are unable to find facts to answer my question, you should discuss the implication on the wider debate. Are people really analyzing the problem at the proper level, or do they just take whatever existing data that they can find and fit it to the conclusion that they prefer?

I often see people complaining about the poor quality of debate at Yahoo! Answers Politics. Are you wasting time here, or do you find anything redeeming about this section?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_go_ot/us...