This Looks Like the Start of a Second Great Depression

[mRx 16]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy. Inefficiency in the government sector, on the other hand, is rewarded with larger subsidies and low interest government loans, all at the expense of you and I.

I personally don't think government can't attain a degree of efficiency or serve a purpose; I just think that it can rarely attain the degree of efficiency that would be possible in the private sector, where losses are punished, and gains are rewarded. That realm of risk is absent in government.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy.

The perpetual, in fact increasing, inefficiency in the private industry in the health care sector tells a different story.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can you come up with a mathematical formula for measuring love? The word 'measure' is metaphorical. There are many things in life, a healthy marriage, a stroll under a moonlit sky that cannot be measured literally. You're the one who is arguing that success can be measured in a concrete logical way.

Love is orthogonal to success. You can be in love and be successful (or be a loser) at the same time.

I think most people would agree that there's more to success than a moonlit walk or marriage,

otherwise "married" would be synonymous with "successful".

I agree. What you were arguing though is that people who don't strive towards increasing their financial wealth are settling for mediocrity in terms of their lives. It sounds like something ripped right out of the pages of, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." And likewise, you can be successful financially and be a loser in terms of your marriage. Me personally - if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the latter.

[mawilson 2,133]

Doesn't it depend on what your goals are in life? Some people want high paying jobs, others are happy being parents, then you have people who are happy to live comfortably without wanting to become multi millionaires. Who is to say what is right..

So you don't see the difference between mediocrity and success - it's all the same to you?

Success is accomplishing a goal is what I think he's saying. I would agree. As people have different goals, success comes in many shapes and forms. And it isn't always green.

Right, and of course, none of those things can be quantitatively measured.

Can you come up with a mathematical formula for measuring love? The word 'measure' is metaphorical. There are many things in life, a healthy marriage, a stroll under a moonlit sky that cannot be measured literally. You're the one who is arguing that success can be measured in a concrete logical way.

Love is orthogonal to success. You can be in love and be successful (or be a loser) at the same time.

I think most people would agree that there's more to success than a moonlit walk or marriage,

otherwise "married" would be synonymous with "successful".

I agree. What you were arguing though is that people who don't strive towards increasing their financial wealth are settling for mediocrity in terms of their lives. It sounds like something ripped right out of the pages of, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." And likewise, you can be successful financially and be a loser in terms of your marriage. Me personally - if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the latter.

Where did I say that?

Financial wealth is just one way of measuring success, but it's not the only way.

Edited January 7, 2009 by mawilson

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Doesn't it depend on what your goals are in life? Some people want high paying jobs, others are happy being parents, then you have people who are happy to live comfortably without wanting to become multi millionaires. Who is to say what is right..?

So you don't see the difference between mediocrity and success - it's all the same to you?

I'm pointing out that individuals measure their own success differently depending on what they want out of life to begin with.

[mRx 16]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy.

The perpetual, in fact increasing, inefficiency in the private industry in the health care sector tells a different story.

I would hardly call the health sector in America a private industry.

AMA, brought to you by government.

FDA, brought to you by government.

HMO, Medicare/Medicaid, all brought to you by government.

Healthcare is probably the biggest government intervention mess of them all.

Didn't we spin on this merry-go-round already?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Doesn't it depend on what your goals are in life? Some people want high paying jobs, others are happy being parents, then you have people who are happy to live comfortably without wanting to become multi millionaires. Who is to say what is right..

So you don't see the difference between mediocrity and success - it's all the same to you?

Success is accomplishing a goal is what I think he's saying. I would agree. As people have different goals, success comes in many shapes and forms. And it isn't always green.

Right, and of course, none of those things can be quantitatively measured.

Can you come up with a mathematical formula for measuring love? The word 'measure' is metaphorical. There are many things in life, a healthy marriage, a stroll under a moonlit sky that cannot be measured literally. You're the one who is arguing that success can be measured in a concrete logical way.

Love is orthogonal to success. You can be in love and be successful (or be a loser) at the same time.

I think most people would agree that there's more to success than a moonlit walk or marriage,

otherwise "married" would be synonymous with "successful".

I agree. What you were arguing though is that people who don't strive towards increasing their financial wealth are settling for mediocrity in terms of their lives. It sounds like something ripped right out of the pages of, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." And likewise, you can be successful financially and be a loser in terms of your marriage. Me personally - if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the latter.

Where did I say that?

Financial wealth is just one way of measuring success, but it's not the only way.

So you see my point then?

[mawilson 2,133]

Doesn't it depend on what your goals are in life? Some people want high paying jobs, others are happy being parents, then you have people who are happy to live comfortably without wanting to become multi millionaires. Who is to say what is right..?

So you don't see the difference between mediocrity and success - it's all the same to you?

I'm pointing out that individuals measure their own success differently depending on what they want out of life to begin with.

If it was up to the individual to measure his or her own success, everyone would declare

themselves "successful" and run around patting themselves on the backs.

Thankfully, there are some common definitions of success that people can measure up to.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy.

The perpetual, in fact increasing, inefficiency in the private industry in the health care sector tells a different story.

I would hardly call the health sector in America a private industry.

AMA, brought to you by government.

FDA, brought to you by government.

HMO, Medicare/Medicaid, all brought to you by government.

Healthcare is probably the biggest government intervention mess of them all.

Didn't we spin on this merry-go-round already?

Given that the government doesn't own the hospitals, doctors are not government employees, and that insurance coverage is provided by private insurers - it certainly looks like private enterprise

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Doesn't it depend on what your goals are in life? Some people want high paying jobs, others are happy being parents, then you have people who are happy to live comfortably without wanting to become multi millionaires. Who is to say what is right..?

So you don't see the difference between mediocrity and success - it's all the same to you?

I'm pointing out that individuals measure their own success differently depending on what they want out of life to begin with.

If it was up to the individual to measure his or her own success, everyone would declare

themselves "successful" and run around patting themselves on the backs.

Thankfully, there are some common definitions of success that people can measure up to.

So then you are saying that the only valid measures of success are if not financial then exclusively material and that success is a label that someone else bestows upon another regardless of the individuals own drive, life goals and conscience?

[mawilson 2,133]

Can you come up with a mathematical formula for measuring love? The word 'measure' is metaphorical. There are many things in life, a healthy marriage, a stroll under a moonlit sky that cannot be measured literally. You're the one who is arguing that success can be measured in a concrete logical way.

Love is orthogonal to success. You can be in love and be successful (or be a loser) at the same time.

I think most people would agree that there's more to success than a moonlit walk or marriage,

otherwise "married" would be synonymous with "successful".

I agree. What you were arguing though is that people who don't strive towards increasing their financial wealth are settling for mediocrity in terms of their lives. It sounds like something ripped right out of the pages of, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." And likewise, you can be successful financially and be a loser in terms of your marriage. Me personally - if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the latter.

Where did I say that?

Financial wealth is just one way of measuring success, but it's not the only way.

So you see my point then?

What is your point? If it's not financial, it can't be measured? Sorry, don't buy it.

How about ability, motivation, perseverance, determination, taking full advantage of

opportunities, holding yourself to a high standard, realizing your full potential?

These are characteristics shared by all successful people throughout history.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy.

The perpetual, in fact increasing, inefficiency in the private industry in the health care sector tells a different story.

I would hardly call the health sector in America a private industry.

AMA, brought to you by government.

FDA, brought to you by government.

HMO, Medicare/Medicaid, all brought to you by government.

Healthcare is probably the biggest government intervention mess of them all.

Didn't we spin on this merry-go-round already?

and let's not forget tricare

[mRx 16]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy.

The perpetual, in fact increasing, inefficiency in the private industry in the health care sector tells a different story.

I would hardly call the health sector in America a private industry.

AMA, brought to you by government.

FDA, brought to you by government.

HMO, Medicare/Medicaid, all brought to you by government.

Healthcare is probably the biggest government intervention mess of them all.

Didn't we spin on this merry-go-round already?

Given that the government doesn't own the hospitals, doctors are not government employees, and that insurance coverage is provided by private insurers - it certainly looks like private enterprise

It may look like a private enterprise from the surface, but it isn't.

The AMA medical cartel restricts the supply of students allowed to enter med school. This restriction isn't voluntary; it is federally mandated due to an Act passed by Congress. Also prospective medical clinics cannot operate without the correct licensure in accordance with the AMA. All examples of how government power can limit supply, and basic, proven, concrete facts prove that a lowered supply of a highly demanded service equates to increased prices. The AMA lobbies millions a year to uphold it's precious monopoly over supply.

The FDA is just as insidious. Complete market control under the veil of "consumer safety". The lengthy testing phases of pharmacueticals are not to ensure safety; but to ensure that the favored drug company lobbyists maintain the market stranglehold of the drug through supply restriction, patents, and other coercive tools. Look no further than the new albuterol non-CFC asthma inhalers. Regular inhalers were outlawed at the turn of the year by the FDA, and the couple companies that hold patents on these new inhalers will enjoy juicy profits due to complete control of the supply, and therefore the price.

Healthcare is a politician's favorite wallet liner.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Can you come up with a mathematical formula for measuring love? The word 'measure' is metaphorical. There are many things in life, a healthy marriage, a stroll under a moonlit sky that cannot be measured literally. You're the one who is arguing that success can be measured in a concrete logical way.

Love is orthogonal to success. You can be in love and be successful (or be a loser) at the same time.

I think most people would agree that there's more to success than a moonlit walk or marriage,

otherwise "married" would be synonymous with "successful".

I agree. What you were arguing though is that people who don't strive towards increasing their financial wealth are settling for mediocrity in terms of their lives. It sounds like something ripped right out of the pages of, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad." And likewise, you can be successful financially and be a loser in terms of your marriage. Me personally - if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the latter.

Where did I say that?

Financial wealth is just one way of measuring success, but it's not the only way.

So you see my point then?

What is your point? If it's not financial, it can't be measured? Sorry, don't buy it.

How about ability, motivation, perseverance, determination, taking full advantage of

opportunities, holding yourself to a high standard, realizing your full potential?

These are characteristics shared by all successful people throughout history.

I think you are making two assumptions in your reasoning:

1) That success is a label that must be awarded by other people in order to give value to a person's life.

2) That there is no difference between the qualitative and the quantitative.

You can't quantify those characteristics of success using historical examples because they rely on the subjective (and qualitative) rationale of historians looking at numerous sources and making abstract conclusions. Plenty of historical figures had all of the characteristics you mention but still failed by little more than dumb luck.

[DEDixon 39]

So this is our moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II?

Has anyone wondered if maybe, just maybe, a Depression is what we need?

Good ole Americans spending all they have and more just like all levels of government in the USA.... good piece of good ole humble pie is sometimes in order.

I just never will understand why MOST people are so comfortable being out of money on Wednesday while they wait until Friday for the paycheck.... all things between Wednesday and Friday go on one of the five nearly max'd out credit cards. WOW, what a life.