Mosh Pit - 92nd Comment
Here there be political commentary. Skip on by, if that ain't cher thang :- )
.............
Dr. Grumpy, who runs a medical center, sez,
.
People ask me all the time why EU countries appear to do better on some particular measure of medical performance. Or why they can afford to insure more of their population etc. I point out that the EU style medical systems simply could not exist in their current forms without the US. EU governments are able to spend so much on social programs because:
1. As Matt point out, the US taxpayer heavily subsidizes the security of the EU, something I think the EU has long taken for granted until recently when "stuff got real" with the Ukrainian crisis. The US tax payer essentially foots the bill for world stability, and the EU countries have been happy to allow us to do so (I don't blame them, they are only acting rationally). Sure, the US benefits from world stability also, but we pay for it.
The US nuclear umbrella and NATO (and our willingness to risk our home cities in a nuclear conflict) render it unnecessary for EU member countries to run their own nuclear programs. This reduces the risk of another nuclear arms race. This is especially true of Turkey, Japan, and South Korea.
The US keeps open the sea lanes of communication, to the advantage of EU economies which are heavily dependent on imports and exports. The US could use its dominance to direct strategically and economically important resources like oil to US advantage but instead uses its dominance of the seas to ensure a free market in energy (oil). This makes it less necessary for China to build a blue water navy, for example (taking huge pressure off of Japan, S. Korea, and Australia to do so as well). The EU has about 2-3 functioning aircraft carriers, and the only member able to project force beyond its borders is Great Britain, and even there only to a very modest extent.
Our very expensive efforts in preventing nuclear proliferation also benefit the entire world. Imagine how the world would look with a nuclear arms race between Japan, China, North Korea and South Korea? Or between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran? Remember, the US-USSR Cold War was stabilized by Mutual Assured Destruction. With distances of thousands of miles there was always time to evaluate and launch a counterstrike. But distances in the middle east and over the Yellow Sea/Sea of Japan are so small that it makes it possible to get in a preemptive first strike without a guaranteed counterstrike. This factor would be immensely destabilizing. We've already seen India and Pakistan come to the brink of a nuclear exchange several times, and only the heavy involvement of the US provides any stability there.
2. The US also directly injects billions of dollars a year into EU economies by basing troops there.
3. The US acts as a near limitless dumping ground for all of the high margin luxury goods that these other countries' own markets can not absorb. Sure, trade goes both ways. But can you imagine a world without the markets that the US provides to the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and the developing world?
4. The US pays both the development costs and the entrapreneurial costs for most medical advances, and these advances go on to benefit the rest of the world. EU and other government run healthcare systems use their monopsony purchasing power to negotiate prices for new drugs and devices at ~ cost or just a little more. The US market is the only market that pays full price (or maybe even above full price since so many other economies are paying so little). Most new drugs and medical devices are developed with the US market in mind. In this way, the US market is the main driver for innovation in the field of medicine and for new surgical products. We pay full price, which covers the direct costs of development, as well as the costs of taking the risk to develop new advances (entrapreneurial costs). Particularly with new medical/surgical devices, we also then figure out which new technologies are actually worthwhile once they are on the market. The EU is plenty wealthy enough to pay its fair share of these costs, but they refuse to do so (again, they are just acting rationally). Of course, once developed, new drugs and devices are then available to the rest of the world.
- See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/article/more-science-set-free?page=1#sth...
.
Dr. D sez,
In the abstract, Christianity is steeped in the idea of "he who gathered much had none left over; he who gathered little had no lack." That's a metaphor from the days of Moses and manna from heaven. We'd all love to see nobody in want. The first Christian church, in Jerusalem, they all VOLUNTARILY sold their goods and disbursed from a common treasury.
......
In practical terms, Capitalism is cast as "greedy" and Socialism cast as "jealous." I think that the average Capitalist in the street is not greedy. It has been my experience that the average Socialist in the street is jealous.
If G-Money wants to work very hard, and write some cool novels, and eventually be prospered, I don't call that greed. Greed means having excessive wants and desires, especially those not earned.
If Dr. Grumpy wants to go through 12 years of school and residency, and then put up with all the insane headaches of running a medical center, and then make his $180,000 a year for it, I don't call that greed. Marshawn Lynch, now there is a greedy man.
The U.S. never set up a Department of Equality. It set up a nation in which everybody had the chance to work hard and get ahead.
If you can't see that the American entrepeneurial spirit has led to --- > a staggering array of bounty, benefits, tech, and medicine, I'd say you don't have much wisdom.
........
Every. Single. Time. I have debated a college prof on socialism, I've shown him the receipts for the money I send overseas to starving people. I ask him what he does along those lines. The answer has always been nothing. He doesn't give any of his state-stipulated $80,000 per year to junkies on the street. He wants me to do that.
To the extent that a Socialist is simply a Kindergartener saying, "Hey, if I only have a box of 16 crayons, I don't want Sally to have a box of 32," I have nothing but sadness for him. To the extent that he is working like Mother Theresa to ease the suffering of the poor -- as Cindy and I try to do -- I support him.
It doesn't seem to me that the world's most eminent Socialists - Lenin, Stalin, Zedong, Guevara, Castro, etc - had particularly altruistic motivations. :- /
.......
Dr. Grumpy's specific comments on EU socialism are provocative. I don't want to besmudge them by even commenting.
Cheers,
Jeff