He lived to 90 despite smoking like a chimney and having a bajillion assassination attempts to his name so that's pretty impressive. Too bad he was a pretty terrible dictator.
I don't care if people here disagree with me and I wont argue about it with anybody here, but I think Fidel Castro was hero and there are ve… morery few people i call as heroes, he along with his brother Raul and comrade Che liberated Cuba from a tyrannical dictator. There is no man in this world that deserves more respect than Fidel Castro so may his body and spirit rest in peace and that the revolutionary spirit of Cuba may burn brighter than ever.
Lol Fidel was smart, yet a hero? Lmao. Tell that to Cuban Americans and see what happens. He imprisoned a close bodyguard just for asking for retirement in the 90's. That man saw him more than his own family in life. He was a dictator for 60 years. May he rot in Hell.
He lived to 90 despite smoking like a chimney and having a bajillion assassination attempts to his name so that's pretty impressive. Too bad he was a pretty terrible dictator.
To clarify why I call Fidel Castro a hero. I know that there has been some bad in his rule, people did die. But he did more good than Batista ever did and more good than Batista would ever do for Cuba. Plus when your country is under complete blockade and isolated from most of the word, it is astounding how he and Cuba managed to survive and find a way to, even if it was very insignificant, improve the lives of the people as much as he could under the blockade, that is why I call him a hero.
I don't care if people here disagree with me and I wont argue about it with anybody here, but I think Fidel Castro was hero and there are ve… morery few people i call as heroes, he along with his brother Raul and comrade Che liberated Cuba from a tyrannical dictator. There is no man in this world that deserves more respect than Fidel Castro so may his body and spirit rest in peace and that the revolutionary spirit of Cuba may burn brighter than ever.
I've never put much stock in the concept of "human nature". True, we aren't blank slates, but our environment seems much more important to me. It's not human nature to have a class of wage laborers and a class of property owners. It's a product of state intervention and the division of labor to maximize profit. It's not necessarily our nature to be greedy and ruthless. But our environment tends to reward greed and ruthlessness in certain circumstances.
Perhaps I am just a little more cynical. Not everyone is greedy and ruthless, sure, but I think self-interest is a universal and powerful force, and combined with quirks of human psychology, it often corrodes well-meaning designs.
In a truly free market...
I carry an Aetna card. I feel you.
But in fairness, healthcare and health insurance are examples of products that, by their nature, are not the banana soda scenario-- these are products people need, so the one lever of demand - willingness - is always stuck in the 'ON' setting. The EpiPen price hike controversy was a recent example of this problem, with an additional factor being its lack of competition. And with insurance, the skewed balance of power is only worsened by compulsory participation. Even though the ACA mandate was touted as part of a middle ground, it is a weak attempt at a correction does not solve the original problem of people not having much choice about if and when they go their doctor, the ER, the meds they have to take, etc. All it does is force people to scramble to keep the second lever - ability - also switched to ‘ON’. It’s an artificial boost to demand, so yeah, this is not something I would call ‘free’ market.
It’s why, no matter whether you want to repeal ACA or reforge it toward single payer, most people can detect a foul odor here, even if the honest intentions were to increase competition, reduce costs, and expand access. Instead, we’re seeing insurance companies are consolidating and all but the big players are withdrawing from the ACA marketplace. Thus are left with few if not sole providers able to deal with costs, like Aetna. Whoopsie.
Costs are also a reflection of a growing, unhealthy, and aging population, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
I say all this, yet I do think that because of the lever problem, this is one of those instances where a product or service is not in the correct column. Healthcare is not a banana soda. Because of its necessity, it needs to be in the ‘public good’ column. Whole hog single-payer makes more sense as a solution than the wild west marketplace, since we cannot rely on mere competition and self-interest to regulate its availability, quality, and costs. It’s hard not to compare it to firefighting, which also used to be privatized (and partly incentivized by insurance. Imagine that). And while some people today argue for privatized fire service, we don’t question the government delivering this service like we do healthcare for some reason.
And this sort of thing is not necessarily an indictment of the free market as a mechanism-- governments, in theory, are meant to address these kinds of failures and correct imbalances. Hey, stop laughing, would ya?
I’m going to stop here, since I have re-he-heeally lost the focus of what my original point was here. It wasn’t my intention to defend free market capitalism in the U.S., but wanted answer Raven's question with some reasons why someone might not jump at embracing the known alternative given how humans actually behave and how it’s played out in world history. I think if you’re going to be an effective proponent, you have to have a tempered understanding of its own challenges and weaknesses.
And thanks for the book recommendation I look forward to acquiring it from those capitalist pig-dogs at Amazon.
I'm of the mind that these systems are 'evil' to the extent that underlying human nature creates serious problems with either system.
… more I've never put much stock in the concept of "human nature". True, we aren't blank slates, but our environment seems much more important to me. It's not human nature to have a class of wage laborers and a class of property owners. It's a product of state intervention and the division of labor to maximize profit. It's not necessarily our nature to be greedy and ruthless. But our environment tends to reward greed and ruthlessness in certain circumstances.
But I value my ability, however meager, to signal ‘this sucks, stop making it (or make it better)’ by refusing to ever buy that swill again.
In a truly free market, our ability to signal approval/disapproval by "voting with our wallets" would be a very potent weapon indeed, and a good way for the consumer/worker class to defend itself. … [view original content]
Aw man, I'm having a great discussion with @Dozurany. It's only tangentially related to Castro, but still. The drama seems to be mostly over.
I'll just bring back the politics thread if this one gets locked, I guess.
Comments
He lived to 90 despite smoking like a chimney and having a bajillion assassination attempts to his name so that's pretty impressive. Too bad he was a pretty terrible dictator.
Not to jump on the bandwagon, and I admire the fact you still shared your opinion, even knowing how unpopular it would be, but...
I mean, really?
Lol Fidel was smart, yet a hero? Lmao. Tell that to Cuban Americans and see what happens. He imprisoned a close bodyguard just for asking for retirement in the 90's. That man saw him more than his own family in life. He was a dictator for 60 years. May he rot in Hell.
Not to mention, it's rumored that he's bedded more women than most of us will ever look at in our lifetimes. Has to be hard on the ol' ticker.
Truly an impressive biological specimen. You could tell that from the beard alone.
To clarify why I call Fidel Castro a hero. I know that there has been some bad in his rule, people did die. But he did more good than Batista ever did and more good than Batista would ever do for Cuba. Plus when your country is under complete blockade and isolated from most of the word, it is astounding how he and Cuba managed to survive and find a way to, even if it was very insignificant, improve the lives of the people as much as he could under the blockade, that is why I call him a hero.
Perhaps I am just a little more cynical. Not everyone is greedy and ruthless, sure, but I think self-interest is a universal and powerful force, and combined with quirks of human psychology, it often corrodes well-meaning designs.
I carry an Aetna card. I feel you.
But in fairness, healthcare and health insurance are examples of products that, by their nature, are not the banana soda scenario-- these are products people need, so the one lever of demand - willingness - is always stuck in the 'ON' setting. The EpiPen price hike controversy was a recent example of this problem, with an additional factor being its lack of competition. And with insurance, the skewed balance of power is only worsened by compulsory participation. Even though the ACA mandate was touted as part of a middle ground, it is a weak attempt at a correction does not solve the original problem of people not having much choice about if and when they go their doctor, the ER, the meds they have to take, etc. All it does is force people to scramble to keep the second lever - ability - also switched to ‘ON’. It’s an artificial boost to demand, so yeah, this is not something I would call ‘free’ market.
It’s why, no matter whether you want to repeal ACA or reforge it toward single payer, most people can detect a foul odor here, even if the honest intentions were to increase competition, reduce costs, and expand access. Instead, we’re seeing insurance companies are consolidating and all but the big players are withdrawing from the ACA marketplace. Thus are left with few if not sole providers able to deal with costs, like Aetna. Whoopsie.
Costs are also a reflection of a growing, unhealthy, and aging population, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
I say all this, yet I do think that because of the lever problem, this is one of those instances where a product or service is not in the correct column. Healthcare is not a banana soda. Because of its necessity, it needs to be in the ‘public good’ column. Whole hog single-payer makes more sense as a solution than the wild west marketplace, since we cannot rely on mere competition and self-interest to regulate its availability, quality, and costs. It’s hard not to compare it to firefighting, which also used to be privatized (and partly incentivized by insurance. Imagine that). And while some people today argue for privatized fire service, we don’t question the government delivering this service like we do healthcare for some reason.
And this sort of thing is not necessarily an indictment of the free market as a mechanism-- governments, in theory, are meant to address these kinds of failures and correct imbalances. Hey, stop laughing, would ya?
I’m going to stop here, since I have re-he-heeally lost the focus of what my original point was here. It wasn’t my intention to defend free market capitalism in the U.S., but wanted answer Raven's question with some reasons why someone might not jump at embracing the known alternative given how humans actually behave and how it’s played out in world history. I think if you’re going to be an effective proponent, you have to have a tempered understanding of its own challenges and weaknesses.
And thanks for the book recommendation I look forward to acquiring it from those capitalist pig-dogs at Amazon.
You want drama? Huh? HUH?
Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!
I'll bash yer fookin ead in for that m9!