The Other Worlds Shrine

Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... 

  • On the economic crisis

  • Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
 #134508  by Mental
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:52 am
I haven't seen a thing about our rapidly collapsing world economy here, which has actually been pretty lovely, but it stays on my mind these days and wrecks my psyche something awful, so I'm taking it here to try to see what you guys and girls think.

To try for a brief summary - I don't tend to be that alarmist and have a remarkable faith in the ability of markets, people, and the world in general to rebound from all sorts of problems. But after having spent about a year learning about this crisis every way I can, now, I'm getting increasingly convinced that this really is going to be a disaster to rival the Depression.

The most alarming and concerning problem has to do with the financial derivative markets. For those who don't know, derivatives are various forms of investment securities and packages that "build on" traditional stocks and funds - which is to say, when you buy a derivative, you aren't actually buying a piece of any company or commodity in question, but are buying some sort of contract related to the performance of said companies or commodities.

Cutting to the chase, the value of the various sums that individuals and companies owe each other in the derivative markets is now TEN TIMES the estimated value of all of the real wealth in the world or more. (The value of the world's real assets is currently estimated at around $70 trillion in U.S. dollars, while the value of the various derivative contracts outstanding is estimated at anywhere from $700 trillion to over $1 quadrillion.)

In laymen's terms, this basically means the various investment banks, insurers, wealthy individuals, and hedge funds of the world have bet against each other to the tune of about ten times what everything else on the planet can reasonably said to be worth. Not all derivatives are bets, but in the recent bout of deregulation that the last decade saw, most of them have turned out to practically be that way.

As a result, they all adjusted their spending to what they thought their income from these contracts was going to be, and gave out CEO salaries and spent on lavish parties accordingly, which continues to eat up real assets at an alarming rate. But the "bet losers" are obviously going broke and bankrupt, and the winners of those bets, who ratcheted up bonuses and salaries according to what they thought they were going to receive from winning those bets, are now in danger of not receiving those payments after all, which means they're screwed too.

This doesn't actually mean that these companies are going to need ten times the value of everything in the world to fix their balance sheets, since most of them owe the money to each other. For instance, AIG has achieved a remarkable financial feat in that its various subsidiaries all owe each other tremendous sums of money, more or less making it the first company I know of in history to basically go bankrupt in part because it owes itself more than it can pay. I'm actually still working on the details on that one myself, but I don't think I have to explain to everyone that there's been some mismanagement involved there. :P

What it does mean, though, is that while the financial sector tries to figure out who owes each other what, all the bonuses and salaries and overhead that they agreed to pay back in the boom times are eating up anything of genuine value that they have left at an astonishing speed. And because those assets are getting eaten up so fast, they don't have the liquidity - money that isn't tied up in various forms of debt, basically - to actually cover their various debts to each other, which means they keep asking for loans from the taxpayers in the billions-to-trillions dollar range to make the payments on all this derivative gambling they've been doing. The liquidity required to make sure all these contracts get paid out might actually turn out to be more than the real value of everything else in the world, basically. Again, in layman's terms, that means the financial sector may literally try to bleed the rest of the world utterly dry just to figure out how to disentangle all the debts they owe to each other.

With all due respect to all the various bailouts and financial plans, if I had to make odds on the financial sector figuring this out without another wave of massive financial collapses, those odds would be low.

I'm actually starting to believe we may see something like 15% employment before this is all done - with all the attendant consequences of that unemployment. I don't think the actual damage in terms of numbers will be as bad as the Depression, but on the other hand, back during the Depression people were a lot more humble and used to economic hardship and had much more of a tendency to bear things stoically while waiting for things to get better. In these days of gangsta rap and generally more entitled behavior in general, I'm really starting to believe we might start seeing the mass riots and lack of governmental ability to enforce basic laws that some of the more pessimistic commentators have been predicting.

I'm curious to see what you all think, assuming anyone has time to actually read this essay. We certainly have enough people with accounting experience.

 #134509  by Blotus
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:31 pm
I read it, but I'm not very well informed to offer a real response. My incredibly anarchistic response is to just nuke Wall St., but I realize that's not the answer. Maybe I've just been watching too much of this.

 #134510  by Mental
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:51 pm
Actually, "nuke Wall Street" is not the worst idea I've ever heard to deal with all of this, other than the collateral damage and radioactive ash that everybody else would have to deal with. :P I think the situation may actually be that bad.

We've mostly evolved as a species past the use of the guillotine, which I MOSTLY think is a good thing. Mostly. I think.

 #134512  by Julius Seeker
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:57 pm
I say use antimatter, it is a more environmentally friendly weapon of mass destruction.

 #134514  by bovine
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:41 pm
Replay wrote:Actually, "nuke Wall Street" is not the worst idea I've ever heard to deal with all of this, other than the collateral damage and radioactive ash that everybody else would have to deal with. :P I think the situation may actually be that bad.

We've mostly evolved as a species past the use of the guillotine, which I MOSTLY think is a good thing. Mostly. I think.
well, if we nuked the place, there would be TONS of jobs for people to clean it up and radiation suits would sell due to the demand. The economy loves disaster. The single most economically stimulating oil tanker was the exxon valdez.

 #134525  by Mental
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:35 pm
...right. I'll start drafting letters to my Congresspeople immediately.

Zeus, Lox, I'm looking for you guys to try to rescue this thread from being a comic book plot at this point. :P

 #134532  by Sassafras
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:55 pm
Ah just another reason why capitalism is the worst thing ever. Proletariat Revolution anyone? Anyone?

 #134534  by Mental
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:58 pm
Sassafras wrote:Ah just another reason why capitalism is the worst thing ever. Proletariat Revolution anyone? Anyone?
They've tried that in China and Russia...it doesn't really solve the "the people in power grow arrogant and condescending and lazy and cause human suffering to millions" problem, sadly.

 #134542  by Julius Seeker
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:04 pm
All you have to lose are your chains.

 #134545  by Mental
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:16 pm
Dude, I consigned myself to poverty a long time ago when I decided to become an independent game designer. I have a tendency to start cracking up when considering the concept that anyone might actually want me to pay for any of this mess. But I am worried about the rest of the country.

 #134572  by RentCavalier
 Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:22 pm
The only solution to this problem is to abolish the Federal Government and create a Free-Market Anarchist state. Minus the state, obviously, unless you supplement it with 'state' being like a 'state of being' rather than a governmental state.

Yay anarchy

 #134588  by SineSwiper
 Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:18 am
RentCavalier wrote:The only solution to this problem is to abolish the Federal Government and create a Free-Market Anarchist state. Minus the state, obviously, unless you supplement it with 'state' being like a 'state of being' rather than a governmental state.

Yay anarchy
My opinion on anarchy

 #134639  by Mental
 Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:09 am
Larry Niven wrote:"I don't know." Ron ran his hands through his hair. "I was wrong. Anarchy isn't stable. It comes apart too easily."
You know, you could have just said this in the first place and spared me having to skim through that story.

 #134669  by SineSwiper
 Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:26 pm
Replay wrote:You know, you could have just said this in the first place and spared me having to skim through that story.
It's a good short story. It illustrates WHY anarchy comes apart too easily.

Same goes for capitalism. Without a government to hold the reigns of capitalism, it's victim of the same thing. Capitalism is merely a financial form of anarchy.

 #134677  by Mental
 Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:30 pm
I wholeheartedly believe in REGULATED capitalism to roughly the same extent as I believe in the human race, which is to say, I think it occasionally does quite well but I wouldn't recommend betting anything vital on it.

Fun fact regarding the crisis: Iceland went whole hog with the whole thing and apparently decided to take the practices of investment banking/inflated lending/moving bits of paper around so seriously that post-global-crash it now owes the equivalent of THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($330,000) for every man, woman, and child in the country to foreign investors. They are roughly a hundred billion dollars in debt on a population of three hundred thousand people. That is a whole other level of fucked, right there.

 #134691  by RentCavalier
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:20 am
I dunno. Personally, I've seen plenty of historical evidence supporting how easily government falls apart too. While I'm not against government per se, I would much rather live in a world where my actions, my decisions and choices--as well as everyone else's--were dependent not on insubstantial rewards, not based off a fear of wronging some shadowy figure of authority, but were simply the product of interest and personal morality.

This, actually, is also my reasoning behind disliking religion. Why please God who does nothing where we can please our neighbors who can at least thank us?

EDIT: And, now reading that story, yeah. Anarchy would be RIFE with chaos and violence. But eventually that settles down. In a fair world, you are eat or be eaten. Darwanism. That Free Park wasn't really Anarchy so much as it would be a sort of 'holiday' where people can do what they want. There were no real consequences there. When a world has consequences, rules ultimately change. The reason anarchy can't work isn't because of the chaos--it is because chaos breeds order, and in short time, a new set of rules and guidelines would be taken up. Governments are just the natural form of the world--we need to police ourselves. It's in our nature.

 #134707  by Kupek
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:59 am
As I got older, I saw government not as THE MAN and AUTHORITY, but an organized way of people getting together and saying "We gotta make this work." Collectivist principles are good in the small, but they don't scale, and they're open to abuse from people who don't share the ideals.

I've similarly softened on the concept of capitalism. I've come to think that a mix of capitalism and socialism is probably the best bet; that is, a free market for many goods and services, a liberal safety net, trade and labor regulations and government control of essential services (police, fire, education, health care, and I'd be open to others). I'm fine with the free market determining the price of toilet paper. Not so much with the price of an education.

 #134709  by Julius Seeker
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:43 pm
RentCavalier wrote:my reasoning behind disliking religion. Why please God who does nothing where we can please our neighbors who can at least thank us?
One of the main aspects of religion is supporting neighbours.

 #134711  by RentCavalier
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:06 pm
Kup, socializing health care would be a terrible idea. The quality would go down significantly.

Plus, socialism just isn't fair. Why should one guy get the same benefits from my hard work?

 #134714  by bovine
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:27 pm
RentCavalier wrote:Kup, socializing health care would be a terrible idea. The quality would go down significantly.

Plus, socialism just isn't fair. Why should one guy get the same benefits from my hard work?
Even if your assumption of the degredation of health care quality is true, a question of morality presents itself.

Is it better to have a great system that only some can access, or a subpar system that all can access? Should those who are relegated to an underclass (most are there not of their own choice) be given no health care so those privileged white heterosexual males can live longer. This almost looks like engineering the populace.

 #134718  by Kupek
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:04 pm
Rent, that's an assertion, not an argument. I think it's possible - and ethical - to have at least a subsidized form of health care for those who can't afford insurance.

I think you're taking a simplistic view of what I mean by "socialism." Some aspects of our current economy and market are socialist. It would be possible for, say, the Postal Service, NASA, all schools, even the Federal Reserve to be private entities. But I think it would be a bad idea. (We encourage developing nations to privatize even more than we do. I wouldn't want to live with those results.)

 #134722  by Mental
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:14 pm
Kupek wrote:Rent, that's an assertion, not an argument. I think it's possible - and ethical - to have at least a subsidized form of health care for those who can't afford insurance.

I think you're taking a simplistic view of what I mean by "socialism." Some aspects of our current economy and market are socialist. It would be possible for, say, the Postal Service, NASA, all schools, even the Federal Reserve to be private entities. But I think it would be a bad idea. (We encourage developing nations to privatize even more than we do. I wouldn't want to live with those results.)
Privatization has kind of failed to prove that it can keep itself sane over the last decade or so.
Last edited by Mental on Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

 #134726  by Zeus
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:46 pm
I agree with Kup and will word it in a slightly different way. I'm all for companies doing what they can to make money. That's why they exist and they will in turn help their employees and shareholders and other related companies. But as a society, we need to concern ourselves with what's good for everyone as a whole. This is why we elect a government, to do this for us (they are supposed to represent us after all). What's good for the company ain't necessarily good for a society as a whole. Hence regulation.

Also, since we expect a certain level of quality of life and amenities that everyone should have as a member of our society, we need to all contribute. This will include a police force, parks, roads to drive on, and in some advanced countries, basic health care. Hence taxes.

We need to find a balance as a society between these forces. You have to have both you can't make due without either in a "civilized" society.

 #134728  by Kupek
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:55 pm
I agree with Zeus' assessment as well.

 #134732  by Zeus
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:58 pm
Kupek wrote:I agree with Zeus' assessment as well.
I think we greatly disagree on the current state of that balance though :-)

 #134737  by Mental
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:33 pm
I'm with you guys and was before this discussion as well - base the economy on capitalism and have a moderate amount of taxation and social spending to provide health, education, and infrastructure. "Capitalism with elements of socialism" is the way to go.

...

...or we could just have a Soviet-style command economy where dissent gets crushed under the steel boot of jackbooted authority! Sine could lead. :)

(Just kidding, Sine. It's been too long since I've been able to give you a hard time and I couldn't resist. Obviously I think most people here think you're doing a fine job of running the place.)

 #134746  by SineSwiper
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:13 pm
RentCavalier wrote:Kup, socializing health care would be a terrible idea. The quality would go down significantly.

Plus, socialism just isn't fair. Why should one guy get the same benefits from my hard work?
Answering the last item first, you are implying that capitalism is "fair". It's not fair. It's not even close. The people that "work hard" are the blue-collar workers, and they are the ones who are on the bottom of the food chain. The ones that make it to the top are that lucky ones, the aggressive ones, or the amoral ones.

Think about it for a second. Let's take a rock star example. Millions of people try to form a rock band. Most of them "work hard" at it. Only a select few actually make it big. Then you got these boy bands that don't even really "work hard". They are just lucky enough to get picked. Then you have the corporate ladder. The aggressive types are usually the ones that get picked for VPs or CEOs. Or the stock market, which is just a legal form of gambling.

So, what about socialism? Mathematically, it makes total sense. Why should we waste resources to have 10 different companies, each with their own set of employees, all trying to make the same thing? It would be a LOT more effective to just combine those resources into ONE company to produce the best thing in the fastest way possible.

However, the whole thing falls apart because humans are evil and corrupt, and worse, apathetic. In the end, we choose capitalism over socialism not because it's fair. It's because competition breeds the threat of bringing a company to the ground. If you aren't better than the other guy, the company will fail.

This works in theory, and it works well in most situations. The flip side is when both the company and its competition are following the same rules. Corporations are EXTREMELY predictable. They will always follow whatever gives them the most money. They also understand the importance of size. Once a corporation is large enough, it takes fewer and fewer risks, acts more and more predictably, and uses its large influence more and more.

Sometimes this means that it costs less to try to bury an illegal operation than it does to bring the whole thing to light. Sometimes it means that keeping the same higher rates as everybody else is more profitable than trying to rock the boat and start a price war. When corporations are no longer in the best interests of the customer, they are no longer appropriate.

Thus, we do not force private education. I'm glad. Just look at the options private education gives us. You can either learn about God, or you can learn about how Jesus died for our sins. Even when the schools are secular, the price of admission is still really high. And if we don't have any good choices, do you want people to not learn? What the hell kind of society would we be in if a certain group of people couldn't learn basic math or English or how our government works?

And back to your health care bit. What the hell kind of society are we if we don't give everybody in the country the ability to go to a doctor? If somebody broke their ankle, they should be able to get it fixed. If somebody is having a heart attack, they should be able to call 911 without worrying about if the hospital will treat them. These aren't even moral "grey areas". Health care should be a fucking basic human right!

That being said, we will never have "socialized medicine". The industry is a billion dollar industry, and you can't just hand that whole thing to the government overnight. However, you can make changes to the system so that everybody can get health care. Universal health care is very possible. We just have to implement it right. This conversation would go outside the scope of this thread, though.

 #134751  by Mental
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:48 pm
SineSwiper wrote: Answering the last item first, you are implying that capitalism is "fair". It's not fair. It's not even close. The people that "work hard" are the blue-collar workers, and they are the ones who are on the bottom of the food chain. The ones that make it to the top are that lucky ones, the aggressive ones, or the amoral ones.
Much as I would love to disagree, in my experience, sadly, a sense of personal responsibility will indeed prevent you from coming anywhere near the top of a corporate ladder. My mom was in charge of setting up the travel plans for a major executive at the major movie studio's distribution arm that she worked for, and she decided to offer healthy snacks like carrots, broccoli and et cetera on the private plane she chartered for his contingent. He ate a few too many vegetables and got indigestion and the result was "Who in the damned hell ordered these vegetables for the plane?!?!?!?" (It was obvious that the vegetables were not the source of the problem, as nobody else overate and got sick. )
SineSwiper wrote:
Thus, we do not force private education. I'm glad. Just look at the options private education gives us. You can either learn about God, or you can learn about how Jesus died for our sins. Even when the schools are secular, the price of admission is still really high. And if we don't have any good choices, do you want people to not learn? What the hell kind of society would we be in if a certain group of people couldn't learn basic math or English or how our government works?
On this one, actually, I am forced to conclude that you just need to move the hell out of Kentucky already. Quite a few private schools out here on the West Coast are secular as well as spectacular. I've heard the East Coast is similar. (They are indeed, however, insanely expensive for the good ones.)

My education was worth the price, though. I had more education coming out of high school than most people do coming out of college. This has led to its own set of problems whereby I have expected the level of education or leadership at other institutions I have been at to measure up to that standard, often to the point of frustration when it usually didn't happen, but I'll still take it over dumb-assed ignorance any day of the week.

SineSwiper wrote: And back to your health care bit. What the hell kind of society are we if we don't give everybody in the country the ability to go to a doctor? If somebody broke their ankle, they should be able to get it fixed. If somebody is having a heart attack, they should be able to call 911 without worrying about if the hospital will treat them. These aren't even moral "grey areas". Health care should be a fucking basic human right!

That being said, we will never have "socialized medicine". The industry is a billion dollar industry, and you can't just hand that whole thing to the government overnight. However, you can make changes to the system so that everybody can get health care. Universal health care is very possible. We just have to implement it right. This conversation would go outside the scope of this thread, though.
I do believe that the time is right for universal healthcare in this country, but I've had some hospital experiences at this point that may make it a moot point for me. A lot of them, especially the public ones that are in large part running off crony-capitalist kickbacks from the big pharma companies, are getting to be literally near the level of Victorian madhouses. Last time I got seriously sick I quite literally almost just took to my feet and to the road because I felt like if I was going to die I wanted to do it in the sunlight and not in one of those horrible, selfish, corrupt medical centers.

And before anyone calls me crazy, during the inpatient visit I was literally given medicine that put me in severe liver agony for hours, and told that I "sounded like a pregnant woman" when I couldn't stop moaning from the pain. I had to fight for my right to not take that particular pill again and I shudder to think of what would have happened if I hadn't known how to fight for my rights as a patient. This is also the place where a pregnant old woman kept pissing on the chairs and when I asked an orderly if he could clean it up (as he sat shooting the breeze with the other hospital staff) he glared at me like he wanted to do nothing more than beat my ass, then refused. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that I would be literally overjoyed if several of the staff in that hospital were to get thrown into a meat grinder and mutilated. Capitalism in general and the pharma lobbyists in particular have really turned our public medical system into a living horror.

 #134756  by Kupek
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:15 pm
Zeus wrote:I think we greatly disagree on the current state of that balance though :-)
We might not, actually. When you bring up wrongs of various corporations, what I mostly disagree with is your analysis.

 #134757  by SineSwiper
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:18 pm
Replay wrote:On this one, actually, I am forced to conclude that you just need to move the hell out of Kentucky already. Quite a few private schools out here on the West Coast are secular as well as spectacular. I've heard the East Coast is similar. (They are indeed, however, insanely expensive for the good ones.)
Again, they are expensive and not everybody can afford them. I don't like the public education system for a number of reasons, but for a lot of people, it's the only choice.
Replay wrote:And before anyone calls me crazy, during the inpatient visit I was literally given medicine that put me in severe liver agony for hours, and told that I "sounded like a pregnant woman" when I couldn't stop moaning from the pain. I had to fight for my right to not take that particular pill again and I shudder to think of what would have happened if I hadn't known how to fight for my rights as a patient. This is also the place where a pregnant old woman kept pissing on the chairs and when I asked an orderly if he could clean it up (as he sat shooting the breeze with the other hospital staff) he glared at me like he wanted to do nothing more than beat my ass, then refused. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that I would be literally overjoyed if several of the staff in that hospital were to get thrown into a meat grinder and mutilated. Capitalism in general and the pharma lobbyists in particular have really turned our public medical system into a living horror.
Never personally had anything that bad, but I have experienced almost an apathetic "dullness" that is usually found in the ER.

 #134764  by Chris
 Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:41 pm
Dr Seekerlove wrote:I say use antimatter, it is a more environmentally friendly weapon of mass destruction.
Owlman would fuck their shit up...

There I go....now it's a comic book thread bitches :P

 #134770  by Mental
 Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:53 am
Sineswiper wrote:
Replay wrote:And before anyone calls me crazy, during the inpatient visit I was literally given medicine that put me in severe liver agony for hours, and told that I "sounded like a pregnant woman" when I couldn't stop moaning from the pain. I had to fight for my right to not take that particular pill again and I shudder to think of what would have happened if I hadn't known how to fight for my rights as a patient. This is also the place where a pregnant old woman kept pissing on the chairs and when I asked an orderly if he could clean it up (as he sat shooting the breeze with the other hospital staff) he glared at me like he wanted to do nothing more than beat my ass, then refused. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that I would be literally overjoyed if several of the staff in that hospital were to get thrown into a meat grinder and mutilated. Capitalism in general and the pharma lobbyists in particular have really turned our public medical system into a living horror.
Never personally had anything that bad, but I have experienced almost an apathetic "dullness" that is usually found in the ER.
That is not my only experience with an abusive treatment system that doesn't care if it hurts its patients in the pursuit of profit, actually, but the other place I might be tempted to speak out against is known for having a rabid team of lawyers. It was a lot worse.

The administrator of said program is in bed with the police - literally, her husband and son-in-law are both in the local police force and prominent - and there are entirely credible reports that she's had them take numerous suicide reports that happened under her "care" off the police blotter. The only evidence left are the emergency bills given to the individuals (whose families pay through the nose for them to go to this place as well). It's some pretty frightening stuff. She and the other people running the joint have what I'd call "compartmentalized minds" - i.e., they're willing to overlook their own vicious psychological abuse and neglect because they believe they have moral and religious authority to treat you however the hell they want in the pursuit of a "higher good" or whatever. It's this very authority-makes-right-and-if-you-don't-respect-it-we're-going-to-break-you-until-you-do kind of attitude.

Sadly, I can't reveal much more about it without breaking anonymity, and her team of lawyers is pretty much willing to dismember anyone who takes a stand against them.

You actually helped with the "I can't break anonymity" thing as it relates to this site, by the way, in terms of your posting my personal information on here two years or so ago - that was not right, Sine, no matter how poorly I was acting, even though I agree I was acting very poorly at the time. Forcibly exposing someone's identity is close to cyber-violence and it can RESULT in violence getting done against somebody, and it would be best if you learned that it's really a violation of someone's privacy, if for no other reason than that it could get you (or the Shrine) in trouble someday. One of the reasons I have a personal pic on here now and am more willing to reveal personal info is that there isn't much point in hiding my identity around here, after that.

However, I had my name on older versions of this page anyway, so I'm not really mad about it anymore. I still urge you to think before you play with other people's personal info like that, though - ESPECIALLY posting an address like you did, though thank God you were several years out of date on that. This is an age of information, and playing fast and loose with the information of other people can really hurt them.

 #134786  by SineSwiper
 Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:22 am
Replay wrote:That is not my only experience with an abusive treatment system that doesn't care if it hurts its patients in the pursuit of profit, actually, but the other place I might be tempted to speak out against is known for having a rabid team of lawyers. It was a lot worse.
This is why I believe that ALL corporations connected to the medical industry should be force into a 501(c) non-profit status. Hospitals, drug companies, nursing, health care, schools. All of it. If you want to take a part in the healing of a human body, you shouldn't be making a profit out of it. Nobody should.

 #134794  by Zeus
 Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:31 am
Kupek wrote:
Zeus wrote:I think we greatly disagree on the current state of that balance though :-)
We might not, actually. When you bring up wrongs of various corporations, what I mostly disagree with is your analysis.
Well, that we can argue in another thread :-)

I'm amazed I found this post in the sea of Sine-Mental posts above. Basically like finding a needle in a haystack. If you hadn't quoted me I would never have been able to distinguish it :-)

 #134806  by Mental
 Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:03 pm
SineSwiper wrote:
Replay wrote:That is not my only experience with an abusive treatment system that doesn't care if it hurts its patients in the pursuit of profit, actually, but the other place I might be tempted to speak out against is known for having a rabid team of lawyers. It was a lot worse.
This is why I believe that ALL corporations connected to the medical industry should be force into a 501(c) non-profit status. Hospitals, drug companies, nursing, health care, schools. All of it. If you want to take a part in the healing of a human body, you shouldn't be making a profit out of it. Nobody should.
I completely agree and think this is one of your best ideas ever. :)

And Zeus, the hurricane is over. Peaceful skies now. :) Go ahead and discussalatize anything you like.