Zimbabwe went broke seizing land, Venezuela is about to go broke seizing platforms?

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from watchdaride:

Spoken like true republican . I had a conversation at a party with a bush lover about health care. He said he doesnt want free health care because he has a top health insurance plan through his employer and free health care wouldnt be as good as his. I asked him wouldnt you prefer every one in the US get coverage and every one be safe. He said he only cares about himself and poor people dont deserve health insurance if they cant afford it. I was shocked at how cold he was .

Actually he was making perfect sense. The current health care system works pretty well for the vast majority of people. Tales about the uninsured are mostly attempts at demagoguery. Studies have shown that plenty of the uninsured could easily afford insurance, but because they are young, healthy or just plain irresponsible, voluntarily choose not to carry it. Why should a responsible person lose their private coverage and be forced into a one size fits all govenment plan, just because a lot of people are irresponsible?

There are legitimate issues that need to be addressed, but the answer isn't in a government plan, not unless you want going to the doctor to resemble going to get your drivers license or going for jury duty. One issue is linking insurance with jobs. That puts a lot of people at a disadvantage needlessly. The hwole concept of employers providing insurance grew out of an attempt during WW II to skirt wage controls. Employers don't pay for your homeonwers insurance or your car insurance. Why is health care any different?

The big issues I see are the problem of preexisting conditions if you change insurance plans, the need for nationwide bargaining pools and the free rider problem. It's unfair for a working person to run up a $5000 ER bill for a sprained ankle just because the hospital has to cover the cost of all the illegal immigrants and uninsured whom they are required by law to treat.

Mitt Romney had some great ideas on health care. Too bad no one paid any attention. I don't like government mandates, but they are preferable to making us pay for free riders. Why not require everyone to carry catastrophic care insurance? Make it fully portable. Free up insurance companies to offer innovative programs. Let's not throw out the baby wiht the bath water however.

The obvious problem with "free" health care like democrats promise is that it is not free. If people can see doctors as much as they want with no fees, we cannot import enough doctors from India to meet the demand. Economics teaches that if price is not used to regulate demand, something else, like waiting time, becomes the limiting factor. Go to almost any ER to experience what this is like. Then there is political pressure to include everything under the sun in the coverage. Unlimited psychiatric counseling? Cosmetic surgery? Sex change operations? Late term abortions? Private companies are in a far better position to make such decisions for the simple reason if you don't like their choice, you can go elsewhere. Maybe I choose to pay less and have less options; you are free to do the opposite.

We desperately need an informed national debate on health care. Unfortunatley, we have a republican candidate who has no idea what he wants or how to describe it and democrat candidates who will say anything and promise anything to get votes.

 

[clacy]

THE BEST path to prosperity for the poor/stupid people of any country is quasi-capitalism.

Quasi-Capitalism like we have here in the US results in an increased standard of living for all of it's citizens. If you let the lowest common denominator (stupid/lazy) control the path then you will end up going backwards.

Case in point, would be just about every communist country in the world's history.

 

[Optionpro007]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


We desperately need an informed national debate on health care.

Great post AAA. Always a pleasure to read your well thoughtout concepts...

 

[Nashequilibrium]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I think you're on to something in the analogy between Obama and Chavez. Personality cult leaders are inherently dangerous. People feel loyalty to them, not to the country or its principles. Like Chavez has done, Ican see Obama using the government to create armies of his supporters to go on the rampage anytime it is convenient for him.

People find Obama inspiring now and not threatening in the way a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton came across. That could change after he is safely in office, particularly if his handouts to his followers do not pass congress.

If i had to make a trade based on whether you are racist, i would go long.

Regarding the issue of African countries being safer when under colonisation is true, due to the supression of African freedom by force. Secondly many of the issues of war after colonisation were created by colonisation. A good example is the genocide in Rwanda. The colonial powers treated on tribe better than the other( the one's with smaller noses were treated better than those with bigger noses, either than that they looked exactly alike). After the settlers left....guess what happened, the one group that was more marginalised wanted some sort of justice.

This has happened in south africa as well, were Coloureds, Indians, Africans were treated diferently than the Africans by the whites although all were discriminated against. This created a division as the indians and coloureds believed that they were better than the Africans. Today there is resentment amongst these three groups due to that but not of the violent nature.

Regarding land grabbing happenng in South Africa......it will never happen, if you do your homework, you realise thear economic policies are actually really good suchas GEAR implented in 1998, that is why many hedge funds have propped up their stock market as there are real gems to be found.

I could go on and on about Ivor coast, Angola, mozambuque etc.....all have a similar pattern, but one thign is clear, South Africa is a gem and ai can see why Barclays and the Bank of China bought huge stakes in their local banks which are safer than the US's.

 

[Brandonf]

Quote from thesharpone:

ya cause money given to the poor is dumb money

poor people suck at pretty much everything in life, the poor should only be abused, make them work to death, that is what they want, that is what they should get

There was an interesting documentary on showtime a year or so ago. They followed a homeless man for some time, and then near the end of the following him they have him $100,000 cash, hoping he would get back on his feet etc. He did for some time, but 2 1/2 years later he was broke and homeless again. Being poor is a behavioral pattern more than anything else and if the behavior does not change, the economic situation will not meaningfully change over time.

 

[Nashequilibrium]

Quote from Brandonf:

There was an interesting documentary on showtime a year or so ago. They followed a homeless man for some time, and then near the end of the following him they have him $100,000 cash, hoping he would get back on his feet etc. He did for some time, but 2 1/2 years later he was broke and homeless again. Being poor is a behavioral pattern more than anything else and if the behavior does not change, the economic situation will not meaningfully change over time.

ever seen pursuit of happiness?

 

[Shagi]

Quote from Nashequilibrium:

If i had to make a trade based on whether you are racist, i would go long.

Regarding the issue of African countries being safer when under colonisation is true, due to the supression of African freedom by force. Secondly many of the issues of war after colonisation were created by colonisation. A good example is the genocide in Rwanda. The colonial powers treated on tribe better than the other( the one's with smaller noses were treated better than those with bigger noses, either than that they looked exactly alike). After the settlers left....guess what happened, the one group that was more marginalised wanted some sort of justice.

This has happened in south africa as well, were Coloureds, Indians, Africans were treated diferently than the Africans by the whites although all were discriminated against. This created a division as the indians and coloureds believed that they were better than the Africans. Today there is resentment amongst these three groups due to that but not of the violent nature.

Regarding land grabbing happenng in South Africa......it will never happen, if you do your homework, you realise thear economic policies are actually really good suchas GEAR implented in 1998, that is why many hedge funds have propped up their stock market as there are real gems to be found.

I could go on and on about Ivor coast, Angola, mozambuque etc.....all have a similar pattern, but one thign is clear, South Africa is a gem and ai can see why Barclays and the Bank of China bought huge stakes in their local banks which are safer than the US's.

Nash - I agree with your comment except about land grabbing in South Africa. As long the the minority, who in this case oppressed the majority hold on to vast tracks of land and control and have absolute wealth whilst the majority live in abject poverty - its not sustainable - the rule of law will be thrown out through the window.

If you study your history any place in the world where the minority were percieved to be well of than the majority has always led to disasterous concequences. In fact this ahs been the No.1 cause of wars and genocide in Europe, Africa, America etc.

 

[Nashequilibrium]

Quote from Shagi:

Nash - I agree with your comment except about land grabbing in South Africa. As long the the minority, who in this case oppressed the majority hold on to vast tracks of land and control and have absolute wealth whilst the majority live in abject poverty - its not sustainable - the rule of law will be thrown out through the window.

My reason for disagreement on land grabs in South Africa is based on their economic policies since a black government took over in 1994.

1. GEAR (growth, employment and redistribution of wealth). This policy has been successfull on all fronts. Unemployent was sitting at 50% in 2002, it has now been havled, growth has been consistent and standard & poors assesment on growth outlook has been good year on year. as well as in line with government forecasts. The redistribution of wealth is moving along nicely through programmes such as BEE black economic empowerment whereby each white owned company has to sell a small % of their company to a black group and the white companies are incentivised for doing so. There are a number of other charters. Affirmitive action has taken on well especially in government & international companies, although local white companies have been slow on this.

The result of the real estate boom is because of the high demand of black profeesionals moving to the city because they are getting jobs first and the private sector is funding their education so that they can meet their affirmitive action qoutas........citigroup ML, goldman sachs will even poach students and buy them out of their contracts.

You, the lack people are rising very quickly, thoase that are willing to take advantage of all the government policies. Consumer spending is at all time highs even though interest rates have risen above 10%, mainly fueled by so called "black diamnds", the name for the growing black middle class.

Their constitution is sound, the central bank is managing to handling infflation rates according to the washington consensus, which makes their central bank look very efficient.

This country, based on all the data that i have seen is very far from civil chaos, its not like the other African countries.

 

[TGM]

Quote from Shagi:

Well native Americans have a raw deal, native australians have a raw deal -

The problems in Zimbabwe or rather the conditions that gave crazy Mugabe the opportunity to seize the land was caused by white British settlers. The British are just as guilty as Mugabe.

If you look at all African countries, Australia and USA the natives of those lands have a raw deal. It does't matter that they were or are more properous with the whites in charge.

The whites invaded those lands and were not invited. Those places would be much better for the natives without invasion/intrusion by european settlers. life would have carried on for the natives in whatever form that would have suited them.

I have to disagree. Zimbabwe happened because the "White Elites" in the West wanted it that way. Probably one of their stupid experiments gone wrong. Mugabe was not the guy they thought.

South Africa probably will not go that way......because the White Elites in places outside of South Africa have a lot at stake there (like even more gold mines). Which is probably why the ole 'war on terror' mysteriously moved to the African Continent all of sudden. It would be a quick fight and land grab in either South Africa or Zimbabwe.......they don't have much in the way of militaries. We already hear the "human rights violations" mantra coming up. Interesting to note that they have made it difficult for Whites to migrate out of South Africa (they being Britain, US, Europe). They could get the handful of Whites out of there in no time.......but they don't? Why not? Human Rights Violation etc etc. They want them there for a pretext to come in with the Calvary and make land grabs.

FWIW, I have been short the South African Rand and doing well on that trade. They are having infrastructure problems .........no electricity. And yes this will in the long run drive metals higher. However, the short run the metals companies may dump inventory out of fear and uncertainty of the future.

When you say greedy whites. You should say greedy white British Corporations. All the Wealth in South Africa is basically Corporate wealth......White British Corporate Wealth ---incorporated in the Crown. But there is a game going on.....that much is for sure.

 

[TorontoTrader2]

All good comments on this thread.

We have no idea what it's like really, the intoxicating power of nation-buiding (usually by destroying an existing nation!) or unlimited access to funds and armies who will kill at your command.

I guess the closest we come is by playing Monopoly. Wasn't it fun squeezing the other players for rent money and taxes, even though you knew they were broke and had to borrow? Fun for kids, but no so fun when our so-called leaders are the bankers and we are the ones who have to pay.