Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

and at the local level maybe it works, but only because it is cocooned in a larger non-Libertarian community.
Large corporations are out of control now, removing all government regulations is a terrifying idea.

You are forgetting that government regulations are currently helping the large corporations (to the detriment of all others)... so removing them can only help....

[Bob Gillanders]

You are forgetting that government regulations are currently helping the large corporations (to the detriment of all others)... so removing them can only help....

There are cases were large corporate interests have captured the government departments that were mean to regulate them. The lobbyists writing the laws. The answer is to weed out the corruption and make the regulators work properly and independently. Not easy for sure, but a better solution than to eliminate all government regulation.

Can you give me a specific example?

[Dilip Panjwani]

There are cases were large corporate interests have captured the government departments that were mean to regulate them. The lobbyists writing the laws. The answer is to weed out the corruption and make the regulators work properly and independently. Not easy for sure, but a better solution than to eliminate all government regulation.

Can you give me a specific example?

What better example can I give you than our Health Care System, in which I have been both a frontline worker as well as an administrator, and a consumer, in Canada and elsewhere:
Let's call the system in Canada before it was taken over by the government, and the current private system in India (used even by the lower middle class Indians, whose income is less than that of the 'have-nots' in Canada), as system 'A' and our current Canadian system as system 'B'.
In system 'A', there are hardly any administrators, frontline workers earn more, but the total costs of delivering health care are lower, and the quality of health care delivered is better than in system 'B'; the simple reason is that in system 'B', neither the provider nor the consumer needs to care about what the costs are, and the 'quality' is determined by the restrictions imposed by the administrators, who have to be more concerned about being 'politically correct' and 'popular', than ensuring that the most useful and efficient technology is available... In system 'A', no patient is denied care, for when the provider has in his/her office a family with very limited means, he/she gets creative in devising the most effective care possible with the lowest cost, (such creativity being politically incorrect and a 'no-no' in system 'B'}, and believe me, such care is not expensive, and the quality no different from what the consumers in system 'B' are getting...
And in system 'B', administrators insist that written treatment guidelines be strictly followed, despite the fact that these guidelines could be written by big-pharma and 'vested interest' associated individuals...

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip : any system of man except "the stifling tyranny of Marxism"!

Me: It is the case that the heretical offshoot of Marxism, the socialism I call USSR-Style Communism, is a stifling tyranny, breaches the human rights of its citizens, and is anti-democratic in that the citizen has no right to form a political party and run candidates in elections against the governing party (For example, China, North Korea, etc.)

Democratic Marxism (DM) is a different kind of socialism than the communist heresy.

Democratic Marxism is in direct line with Marx's thinking on democracy (Read The New Democratic Theory by Kenneth Megill) or check out the Fb page of the Democratic Marxist Global Institute, called "Democratic Marxism - Global" (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717).

My Proposition: Immediate replacement of governments around the globe by national Democratic Marxist parties is the ONLY way man will get legal "radical" changes from governments that will avoid climate change suicide.


Waiting for the capitalist governments of the world to do it is just "waiting for Godot".....we're toast already if we just keep on the dithering trajectory we are currently following.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip : any system of man except "the stifling tyranny of Marxism"!

Me: It is the case that the heretical offshoot of Marxism, the socialism I call USSR-Style Communism, is a stifling tyranny, breaches the human rights of its citizens, and is anti-democratic in that the citizen has no right to form a political party and run candidates in elections against the governing party (For example, China, North Korea, etc.)

Democratic Marxism (DM) is a different kind of socialism than the communist heresy.

Democratic Marxism is in direct line with Marx's thinking on democracy (Read The New Democratic Theory by Kenneth Megill) or check out the Fb page of the Democratic Marxist Global Institute, called "Democratic Marxism - Global" (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064839518717).

My Proposition: Immediate replacement of governments around the globe by national Democratic Marxist parties is the ONLY way man will get legal "radical" changes from governments that will avoid climate change suicide.


Waiting for the capitalist governments of the world to do it is just "waiting for Godot".....we're toast already if we just keep on the dithering trajectory we are currently following.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

Bob, Isn't banning private businesses more of a stifling tyranny than banning political parties is?

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip:

Why do you think Democratic Marxist Governments would "ban private businesses"?

Even China, following a heretical socialist line of Marx thinking, allows for private businesses.

What is your source for this contention......I am not aware of it being in the Communist Manifesto of Marx, or this journalistic and other writings.

This is a propaganda "straw man argument" - the situation created is not a true and legitimate projection.

~~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip:

Why do you think Democratic Marxist Governments would "ban private businesses"?


~~ Bob A (T-S/P)

In a post of yours about a year ago, you said something which sounded like that:

Democratic Marxist Global Institute - Originating Document

The Father's Day Manifesto : A Human Government Alternative Identified

(Democratic Marxism - Elaborated by the DM Global Institute – A Recommended Platform)


c. Abolition of Capital investing

[Erik Malmsten]

What better example can I give you than our Health Care System, in which I have been both a frontline worker as well as an administrator, and a consumer, in Canada and elsewhere:
Let's call the system in Canada before it was taken over by the government, and the current private system in India (used even by the lower middle class Indians, whose income is less than that of the 'have-nots' in Canada), as system 'A' and our current Canadian system as system 'B'.
In system 'A', there are hardly any administrators, frontline workers earn more, but the total costs of delivering health care are lower, and the quality of health care delivered is better than in system 'B'; the simple reason is that in system 'B', neither the provider nor the consumer needs to care about what the costs are, and the 'quality' is determined by the restrictions imposed by the administrators, who have to be more concerned about being 'politically correct' and 'popular', than ensuring that the most useful and efficient technology is available... In system 'A', no patient is denied care, for when the provider has in his/her office a family with very limited means, he/she gets creative in devising the most effective care possible with the lowest cost, (such creativity being politically incorrect and a 'no-no' in system 'B'}, and believe me, such care is not expensive, and the quality no different from what the consumers in system 'B' are getting...
And in system 'B', administrators insist that written treatment guidelines be strictly followed, despite the fact that these guidelines could be written by big-pharma and 'vested interest' associated individuals...

Covid has destroyed the Health Care budgets.

The biggest item in the Ontario's government budget (40%). Hospitals receive 35% of that, OHIP to doctors 27%. I would love to have dental and eye care included in OHIP, let alone mental therapy and massage, but it'll cost too much. We do poorly on avoidable hospital visits and beds tied up with post-treatment patients waiting to be moved, and whatever happened to home visits by local doctors?

Ontario's healthcare is cheaper than the U.S. (12.3% versus 17.4%), but the US has 27 physicians to Canada's 19 per capita. We have cheaper prices for drugs by bulk buying. But there is a large bureaucracy of administrators, expensive doctors no longer doctoring. There are piles of "outdated" machinery, as new expensive stuff is bought (and commissions paid). Wages and costs constantly go up. This issue has been studied. The Harris government closed hospitals. The current Conservative government's solution of including cutting costs by reducing nursing has been disastrous.

There are problems with how expensive it is to treat homeless people which costs more than providing them housing. But the biggest problem is with the number of baby-boomers who are now seniors. A large number need knee and hip replacement surgery, as well as organ transplants. Serving seniors is 40% of health spending. 15% of population is 61% of costs. In Manitoba 5% of prescription patients accounted for 54% of the drug costs.

Big donors have had hospitals and wings named after them. Scarborough hospitals are currently campaigning for donations.

The biggest savings could be obtained by encouraging healthy eating and exercise, and the banning of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar, but that would never work.

https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformc...pters/ch5.html

[Dilip Panjwani]

https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformc...pters/ch5.html

Excellent link...Thanks, Erik!

Amidst all the usual talk around recommendations,, most of which is already being implemented, is hidden the following key, albeit somewhat politically incorrect, recommendation:

Service Delivery:
Blend of public and private sector (within public payer model)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

You are right that big "Capital Investing" would be banned. This is the problem: Capital has such dominance over labour, and obscene profit skewers everything that is going on. Labour must become properly valued. It is likely that any remnant of Capital would be "loans at fixed low interest", likely from government controlled institutions.

But "small capital" which is needed to fund "small business" would still be available. Small business profit will still exist.

But, it is true, the regulations will prevent small business from developing into huge multi-nationals with obscene profit.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Gillanders]

In system 'A', no patient is denied care, for when the provider has in his/her office a family with very limited means, he/she gets creative in devising the most effective care possible with the lowest cost, (such creativity being politically incorrect and a 'no-no' in system 'B'}, and believe me, such care is not expensive, and the quality no different from what the consumers in system 'B' are getting...

Dilip, if you are trying to convince me that second tier patients in a two tier health care system will receive equal treatment because the provider can "get creative", no sale. I don't buy it. A universal health care system is absolutely essential.

I recall the debates over one tier versus two tier health care, I think it was about 40 - 50 years ago?
I remember asking my brother why he was so against a two tier system.

He explained it such:

The rich who can afford the top tier system will buy it.
The poor will get the second tier system.
Over time, the rich who make the decisions will let the second tier fall apart. They just will not care.
But if everyone is in the same tier, they will keep it healthy. All in the same boat.

That explanation has stuck in my head vividly over all these years.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip, if you are trying to convince me that second tier patients in a two tier health care system will receive equal treatment because the provider can "get creative", no sale. I don't buy it. A universal health care system is absolutely essential.

I have myself been in second tier as a child and teenager.... and looking back I consider myself lucky, knowing what we know now about what the first tier was getting those days...
In Medicine, more expensive has no relationship to being better; but our system "B' cannot save money despite that fact...
This is similar to understanding why socialist countries go broke so fast...

[Peter McKillop]

I have myself been in second tier as a child and teenager.... and looking back I consider myself lucky, knowing what we know now about what the first tier was getting those days...
In Medicine, more expensive has no relationship to being better; but our system "B' cannot save money despite that fact...
This is similar to understanding why socialist countries go broke so fast...

Socialist countries go broke quickly? If memory serves, most, perhaps all, of the scandanavian countries have mixed (capitalism/socialism) economies with a tilt towards socialism. Check out the public debt per capita of these countries and compare it to public debt in the land of the free. Now of course all sorts of arguments could be made about this and that but, regardless, I don't think a country like Denmark, for example, is going broke any time soon.

Capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist, liberal, conservative/libertarian - none of this crap matters if you don't have a ton of people who have compassion for, and are willing to help, their fellow human beings. We don't have that.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Socialist countries go broke quickly? If memory serves, most, perhaps all, of the scandanavian countries have mixed (capitalism/socialism) economies with a tilt towards socialism.

Peter, We are often naive about the true political shade of a country...check out my post about the USA and China...
And I fully agree with you on the critical importance of compassion...
And talking of Scandinavian countries, I love Sweden, where the government wields so little power that many of its ministers have to use public transport to get to work

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism calls for the abolition of NATIONS...... the problem in the world is the superpowers doing their geopolitical maneuvering. All else suffers.

We need our governance to return to smaller "Local Political Units (LPU's)"; we need government that is much closer to the elector. Direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy, had its advantage, even if population now makes it administratively so unwieldy.

I categorize the Scandinavian countries as "Capitalist". But because they are "Social Democratic Capitalist", they often are called: "Capitalism with a human face."

DM plans for one tier health care - the quality of the health care for yourself and your family, so long as not cosmetic only, should depend on neither your wealth nor your income.

This should include dental care and optometry and hearing.

There should be universal daycare and education; no tuition - colleges and universities state funded. Likely there will be no private schools.


~ Bob A (T-S/P)