PureBasic Forums - English

Read something strange in my local fishwrap today, Norway, the last Soviet state,
is number 4 on a list of the consentration of rich ($100 mill) people/capita.

USA, Germany, France etc isn't on the list. Switserland, Singapore, Austria, is 1-3. GB is no.9.
Sweden is the last on the list, at 15. place.

It isn't just oil, but shipping, finance, advanced ship equipment, weapons, software, fish
farming etc.

Seems right wing idiots should shut up and learn how things should be done.

s a side note, a Norwegian tourist to the US got bit by a snake, and had to pay
$43000 for some pills and a day in a hospital bed. Here in the old north, that would
have cost him $10, or nothing.

The morale is, socialism rules, you can be filthy rich, or just a dude with an easy and
cool life, it's up to you. Freedom

Sorry, objective common sense has comes to the rescue again.

http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/us-sna ... ssive-bill

First off it was a student, not a tourist.
Secondly he had insurance. Hospitals bill insured people at MUCH higher rates, and provide large discounts for uninsured/cash-payments.
The fact it was a snake-bite also comes into play here. If you get bitten by a snake in the USA, you may or may not need to be routed to a Hospital equipped to deal with that, and on top of that anti-venom is stored in several locations around the country, but usually it still has to be flown to the hospital by plane or helicopter if there is none on hand for your particular bite.

I'd also question the veracity of a "simple doctors visit" costing up to $2,500 USD as claimed in that article. And again it also doesn't specify whether that costs includes high priority testing (if the patients health is an immediate concern), nor does it say whether that is an out of pocket cost.

I don't have insurance, and I used to go to the doctor regularly to get my painkillers renewed, every 3 or 6 months, and it was usually around $130 USD.

Well, if a snake bit me in the ass here in Norway, the treatment is free.

It's paid for by taxes of course, but the taxes here are probably lower than in your own
country, and theres no need for expensive insurance, so..

Anyway, that wasn't what the post was really about.

Ah utopiomania my friend. The smarter thing Norway did is never join the other socialist gang of EU.
While it may work when times are good and in a small populated and homogeneous country, it clearly fails when 1 or more countries decide to linger at the trough without ever contributing much.
Would Norway ever consider inviting Greece or Italy or Portugal into their utopian society?
What about Switzerland or Monaco?
Are these not the most ideal of societies?
They would crush and crumble under the weight of redistribution...
Just be thankful for the luck of geography and birth place instead of impractical application of nirvana.
I know I am.

You're from MA, so maybe you can enlighten him about how that Universal Healthcare worked out for you guys?


Although he probably wouldn't listen anyway.. Seems like 95% of his posts are about how bad Capitalism/The USA are.

utopiomania wrote:Well, if a snake bit me in the ass here in Norway, the treatment is free.

There's no such thing as "free" treatment, it's an illusion. If you are dependent on someone else, you are NOT free (as in freedom). Eventually you will pay. Someday it may be with your "freedom".

USCode wrote:

utopiomania wrote:Well, if a snake bit me in the ass here in Norway, the treatment is free.

There's no such thing as "free" treatment, it's an illusion. If you are dependent on someone else, you are NOT free (as in freedom). Eventually you will pay. Someday it may be with your "freedom".

...and it is very few places who will treat a tourist for free. Even in Europe, where socialized medicine is rampant, tourists are charged for care. I can not speak to everywhere, but my wife has a friend who got sick over there, and it was NOT free for him, even though it was for the locals. Anyone who travels internationally without health insurance of some kind is a fool.

Capitalism is about making money on the expense of others.
Socialism is spending money before you earn it.
Communism is making sure everyone is just as poor as you.

Seriously? Does it matter? Public (free) healthcare is going to break down in about every country around the world in the long run, as it simply isn't affordable. Norway may still be fine, but wait a couple of years and similar things will happen there as well.

Live with it peeps. Staying healthy costs money. Getting sick costs even more. The only option to get out is die. Problem solved.

I agreed with almost everything you said except:

blueznl wrote:Capitalism is about making money on the expense of others.

It is not always at the expense of others. That assumes there's this mythical huge fixed-size pile of cash out there and successful folks are taking more than their share. Not true, as the pile GROWS the more productive you are! But ... someone (Churchill?) once said that capitalism may not be the perfect system, but it's the best one we've got. It's certainly better than socialism/communism!

blueznl wrote:Capitalism is about making money on the expense of others.
Socialism is spending money before you earn it.
Communism is making sure everyone is just as poor as you.

Oh so close...but you left out the word "regulated".
'Regulated' Capitalism is about making money on the expense of others.
To date, 'Pure Capitalism' has not been allowed.
People in power absolutely do NOT want to leave wealth accumulation to chance or hard work.
Note there is no need to modify Socialism or Communism because regulation and coercion are central to those doctrines and do not emerge in a free society.

The Regulated Capitalism practiced in America is almost indistinguishable from fascism.
Our "elected" Senators and Congressmen have face time for Corporations and only form letters and voice mails for the citizens.

In Pure Capitalism, a monopoly is never a threat. It is the market's reward for excellence. In Regulated Capitalism, a monopoly is envied by its weaker competitors and ultimately forced into concessions because of its success. Whining and litigation replace competition. The losers are the customers which make up the free market.

Think of any superior product in existence and ask yourself if it were a monopoly, could it continue without fear of competition?
Why doesn't Apple charge $1000 for its iPhones? They can try, but Android emerges as a result. Even now, Apple is suing Samsung to delay its emerging Galaxy sales.
Why doesn't Microsoft charge $1000 for every app it makes? ... and so on?
No, the only reason we have regulation is that competitors decide to level the playing field artificially.
When this practice expands beyond sovereign borders, the same market rules apply.
If China wants to make all the worlds products, it has to make drastic sacrifices to its people and environment. The rest of the world has seized on this buying frenzy, but eventually China will have to raise prices to recover. As prices rise, competition allows other countries to participate.

If Norwegians would like their country bankrupted Gordon Brown is available.
I'll guarantee he can bankrupt your country even if your own lilly-livered wannabee socialists can't.

skywalk wrote:In Pure Capitalism, a monopoly is never a threat.

..//..

skywalk wrote:Even now, Apple is suing Samsung to delay its emerging Galaxy sales.

Say Apple's competitor weren't a global powerhouse like Sammy but a young start up company that was bringing this outstanding device to market, Apple would easily destroy them with this litigation, even if it were completely without merit, simply because they could drag it out until the other company run out of resources.

Furthermore, if a company has become a monopoly by attacking / sabotaging their opponents rather than competing with them on merit then they deserve to be penalised and if necessary broken apart.

In the UK we've seen utility companies become extremely rich by acting as a cartel and continually increasing their prices in unison whilst old people freeze to death because they can't afford heating. This is happening because the regulator is a toothless wonder.

I believe in free enterprise and free markets but there definitely needs to be regulations and they need to be enforced because not everyone operating within the system is going to play with a straight bat.

the.weavster wrote:I believe in free enterprise and free markets but there definitely needs to be regulations and they need to be enforced because not everyone operating within the system is going to play with a straight bat.

Absolutely, there needs to be government to enforce contracts and ensure the playing field is level, but that role needs to be extremely limited. Otherwise you see what we're seeing now in the West, a government ruling class acting in it's own self-interest and destroying our economies in the process.

Ok, there are some conflicting statements bandied about?

the.weavster wrote:Absolutely, there needs to be government to enforce contracts and ensure the playing field is level, but that role needs to be extremely limited. Otherwise you see what we're seeing now in the West, a government ruling class acting in it's own self-interest and destroying our economies in the process.

The evil fact is even a little government oversight concentrated in a few hands is easily swayed through "campaign" contributions and the like. This is next to IMPOSSIBLE if the market is the arbiter of goodness. You cannot pay people to buy your product or you go out of business.

the.weavster wrote:In the UK we've seen utility companies become extremely rich by acting as a cartel and continually increasing their prices in unison whilst old people freeze to death because they can't afford heating. This is happening because the regulator is a toothless wonder.

You are complaining that a highly regulated industry is gouging its captive customers all the while lining the pockets of its so-called regulators?
Again, in a free market, the price for power generation and delivery would fall or rise to the demand.
If it goes too high, then smarty pants enter the market with alternatives like wind, solar or natural gas generators or geothermal heat pumps and on and on.
Unfortunately, with regulation and sweet heart deals and "too big to compete", these technologies are slow to emerge if ever. The establishment has no vested interest.

An interesting perspective on Left verses right...

(a little long but worth while if you have the time)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU

The point he's making is that they are two sides of the same coin called "Collectivism" (as apposed to individualism) and often deliberately used by 2 party systems to create a 'common enemy' of the other then they just switch back and forth. Like republican and democrat in the US, LDP & DPJ in Japan, Liberal and Labor in Australia.

I mean, look at the key donators of the next US election! who got Obama in? Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BoA etc etc. Who's sponsoring Romney? you guessed it, the same corporations. People jump up and down at the big change and the same neo classical economic policies (debt, bailouts, money printing and resource exploitation) are then carried on by the next group... While 1 : Wend

When was the last time a Republican really wanted a smaller federal govt??? Ron Paul maybe, but he's got no chance.

Generally if you are pro one and anti the other then you have been sucked into the system, which is the whole idea.

i think this is the sollution on your problems
http://utopia-game.com