Health Care 10.06.07 And The Pandora Prescription

[Reaver]

Hey Jerome, I read those first two articles (I'll read the other two later). I enjoyed them both and I agreed very much so with the first one. I agreed with most of the second one, but I believe there are more solutions than just the two he offers for cutting prices or making a good or service more widely available.

The first article points out all too well how much costs are increased for doctors when dealing with insurance companies. Simply put, there are ways to cut costs and this is only one that would drastically cut costs. Additionally, if you're talking about the drug industry there are MANY ways to cut costs to provide cheaper drugs, or even better yet would be for people to take some responsibility, do some research and realize many of the drugs they pay $200 for are available (under a different name and an expired patent) for $30.

The reason why my idea works better than removing insurance companies altogether is simple. People still have a failsafe, if you have some unexpected expensive sickness out of nowhere you're not left paying entirely out of pocket, and additionally, people are held responsible to actually shop around rather than irresponsibly getting treatment just because it's paid for. The reason why my idea works better than a universal health care system are simple. You don't have long waiting periods for medical treatment that sometimes turn deadly in itself. Additionally, you still have a free market driving competition within, creating better technology all the time (lasik vision correction). I'm not saying this idea isn't without it's problems, but when compared to other systems we could use in the U.S. I don't see any others working as well.

[Jerome Scuggs]

My issue with this free market crap is that it sounds like a bloody social experiment.

A (literally) bloody social expirement was Socialism. The free market is a concept of exchange, and the study of decisions made by individuals is economics, which is a subset of praxaology, the study of human action. What I have been trying to say is, this isn't an "expirement". To call the free market an "expirement" is like calling gravity an "expirement": no, gravity is what we call the bundle of theories that work, physically. Hell, capitalism is basically Darwinism applied to humanity specifically.

The free markets evolved out of human action, that is, decision-making, economizing, and the tendency to make the most efficient choices. The free market is a proven choice of mutual cooperation.

Socialism is an "expirement", an expirement on living by an altruist, moral code of mutual cooperation. It has failed. Why? Because the free market is the embodiment of a natural human response. Why, when marijuana is not legal and therefore untouched by government, does an ounce cost $90 in Shreveport? Because of economics. $90 is a naturally evolved price - an equalization effect occuring when the seller and the buyer reach agreement. When such exchanges are on a massive level, the complex system of exchange is called the free market.

When governments collpase, as it has in Somalia, the free markets are usually the first thing to pop up. Why? When government money is worthless, people barter. What is bartering? A free market with no set monetary standard. I bring up Somalia, by the way, because it is yet another instance of the markets over statism AND socialism. It's an example of the free markets trumping Statism in that, in lieu of any real State structure, people have begun living freely. More specifically, medical care: After anarchy broke out, the electric company begun selling electricity to the wealthy. For awhile there, the wealthy got electricity while the poor did without. But the power company, after reaping huge profits because demand justified the high price of electricity, they decided to give free electricity to the Hospitals. The Hospitals, also free of government hold, also charged for care, though are able to provide free care in severe cases. Why are they so altruistic? Because they can afford to... thanks to free electricity, which also powers the machines that save these people.

And so on and so on, and now,one can get a phone with unlimited local/unlimited long, international minutes for $5 a month, and have it installed in less than three hours from when you placed the call. You only provide a name and a billing address. Once again, the wealthy in the area, by mere virtue of being rich, have been able to demand - and afford - more secure telephones, and even cellphone towers and cellphones. These, too, have trickled down to even the fairly impoverished.

There's still violence in Somalia, but now, almost every single reported death is because of outside powers and warlords trying to seize power. But, once again, gun suppliers have been able to sell weapons (thanks to the wealthy buyers who enabled gun suppliers to increase supply), and with no government to, at the point of a gun, tell people NOT to own guns, these citizens have formed defense groups and are becoming successful at fending off invaders. But... yeah, they do it for a price. Let's just say, in return for providing defense, they get free electricity, free cellphones, and immediate, beauracracy-free visit to the hospital in case of casualties.

It almost sounds like a utopia, right? Some amazing spirit, moving people to unite and organize and rise from the war-torn Somalia we all love to pity? It was all balls-to-the-wall economics. Sure it wasn't instant, sure not everyone lived... but noone ever said it would happen. Hell, I bet most of these people don't even know what a free market is. (That's changing - once again, now that so much wealth has been built and there is surplus wealth owned by the wealthy, libraries and even hired-from-abroad teachers are being paid to educate the wealthy sons and even send them to college. Guess what that's doing? I think you might detect a trend.)

Now here's the nuts thing, dude. That's happening. There's no ideal, there's no demand for universal health care, there's no positive thinking - because these people have been driven to the shitheap by politicians promosing regulation and prosperity. But you won't hear a goddamned thing about it, because there's no breaking story, there's no piece of legislation to pore over... it's a slow, natural process. It's no expirement, it's a law. The free market is nothing more than the most mututally benificial way to replace the state of Nature with the state of Man.

And how did these politicians fuck up? Well, when you're given money, what the hell would you do with it? These African "altruist" politicians are using that money in ways that even Pearl Jam couldn't out-wack. Look at the countries who "economically plan": Tanzania, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Sudan and Algeria. Especially Ethiopia: isn't it weird how we always talk about what should be done, nothing ever gets done? Well, such is government. While we're still tossing money at them, Somalia's busy actually, you know, trying to get their shit together.

So... in conclusion, no, the free market is not a "social expirement". When free markets are discussed, positive statements ("we should end unemployment") are replaced with normative statements ("minimum wage has, statistically, increased unemployment"). I don't deal with the world of utopia, I deal with what's happening right now. And that's why I detest social institutions: because I have weighed the real-world, pragmatic impacts, and Socialism loses out, time after time after time, because of its disregard of reality in favor of goals and ideals.

[Cops]

I'm not sure I understand the argument that the free market pushes for better technology and better advancements, which I gather is suppose to make my life longer or better yet with these advancements come with a huge price tags on drugs and new medical surgery. I guess I don't understand why you should try to make things better for the select few who can afford it without providing an adequate service for the majority of people. I think you can argue that if a basic level of health care is not provided that new advancements in technology can almost worsen someone's chance at receiving medical treatment, that is as long as the price of medicine/medical advancements sky rockets with each new discovery.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm not sure I understand the argument that the free market pushes for better technology and better advancements, which I gather is suppose to make my life longer or better yet with these advancements come with a huge price tags on drugs and new medical surgery. I guess I don't understand why you should try to make things better for the select few who can afford it without providing an adequate service for the majority of people. I think you can argue that if a basic level of health care is not provided that new advancements in technology can almost worsen someone's chance at receiving medical treatment, that is as long as the price of medicine/medical advancements sky rockets with each new discovery.

Let me put this as stonerishly as I can: stop living in the Now, dude.. You look at NOW and see things that the supposed "rich" have and you feel that this is some sort of injustice. Do you not realize that in all probability, you will own whatever that product was in a few years? Look at iPods, RAZRS, even cars.

And look at yourself now. Did Pierre Trudeaux pass a law forcing people to build houses, invent the toilet, invent a sewer system, invent the car? No. These things came from capitalists, self-proclaimed or not. And where did they get the money, and perhaps even the idea? The wealthy. Unlike Socialism, which deals with the status quo, capitalism not only readily adapts but then mass-distributes new technology. The Victorian Wealthy didn't need toilets, and no Statist, with their inherent lack of foresight, had no intention of providing toilets. But a man with enough capital, and a desire to make money, decided that he would have to offer a service that people would like, and would buy. In this sense, the rich then act as a BENEFIT to the poor... because, let's say that this capitalist invents the toilet. The rich, of course, can afford it... but say that after 3 months, the toilets explode, or, more realistically, it's not not THAT efficient. The "have nots" are then spared losing money, because they weren't able to afford it, and can better invest their money in some need they need to satisfy. I mean, in Soviet Russia, everyone was "equal"... but dude, here's the thing: people have individual tastes. Yeah, maybe one Russian wanted a State toilet, but I'm pretty sure a few million more wanted... I dunno. Food? See, equality is NOT welfare. When you're so wrapped up in making sure everyone has equal everything, you kinda forget that, well, not everyone needs equal everything. You have dust allergies? Oh well, here, take this State issued house. Sure, you'll die of allergies, but we don't want you having anything fancy. Be happy you have a house, because I, The State Your God, know what's better for you than you do. Now, if only someone would create a new, easily mass-distributable house. Who wants to create something and then get no credit save the assurance that the People will benefit?

Now, in a Socialist world, the government would see the toilet, snatch it up ("money is greed", Jim Statist said, "so you should be happy to be paid in the undying thanks of your brothers, because money is evil."), and issue everyone that toilet.

But what if someone could design a better toilet? Do it cheaper, make it use less water, et cetera?

Oh well. The government wanted equality BEFORE freedom, and they paid dearly for it.

I know this is alot to read, but that's because when you're dealing with things that affect the real world, you have to debate real-world. I do nothing but provide logic and historical examples, and show where your ideals have killed people, often for no reason other than they weren't Following the Herd (whoops, collective).

So basically, you're trying to prove that history is wrong and that you are right. Unless you want to argue empirics and real-world data, you're basically trying to convince me that reality isn't real. And I believe everyone is free to their own opinions, but if it were up to the Government, in the "public interest of safety", you'd probably be in a State-run mental ward, getting electro-shock therapy because that's what the Regulations forced every State Doctor (who aren't getting paid because of their ability, but because they are obligated to satisfy the right to healthcare) to use, and they don't have any incentive (or brains) to develop new technology, so happy frying!

Edit: and dear god, "adequate service?" The thinkers and capitalists of the world have delivered us out of the chaos of Nature, have driven us to the edges of our Solar System, have given even the poorest of us more in their lifetime than someone even 200 years ago couldn't dream of. Capitalism, and more specifically economics of human action, have literally delivered us society. And it's not adequate?

[Cops]

An Ipod cost $300, Open Heart Surgery still cost $80,000

[Cops]

I know this is alot to read, but that's because when you're dealing with things that affect the real world, you have to debate real-world. I do nothing but provide logic and historical examples, and show where your ideals have killed people, often for no reason other than they weren't Following the Herd (whoops, collective).

So basically, you're trying to prove that history is wrong and that you are right. Unless you want to argue empirics and real-world data, you're basically trying to convince me that reality isn't real. And I believe everyone is free to their own opinions, but if it were up to the Government, in the "public interest of safety", you'd probably be in a State-run mental ward, getting electro-shock therapy because that's what the Regulations forced every State Doctor (who aren't getting paid because of their ability, but because they are obligated to satisfy the right to healthcare) to use, and they don't have any incentive (or brains) to develop new technology, so happy frying!

Edit: and dear god, "adequate service?" The thinkers and capitalists of the world have delivered us out of the chaos of Nature, have driven us to the edges of our Solar System, have given even the poorest of us more in their lifetime than someone even 200 years ago couldn't dream of. Capitalism, and more specifically economics of human action, have literally delivered us society. And it's not adequate?

Jerome, I'm sorry to cut up your text but it's too long and seems more like a rant. Life is peachy and technology sure has made my life easier, I'm not arguing the necessity for technology in a society what I'm trying to say is that it's more important to deal with the here and now, of course you can't stop investing into your future but I see a lot more money going into things that will affect us down the road and completely out-right ignoring what's right in front of us.

[Jerome Scuggs]

An Ipod cost $300, Open Heart Surgery still cost $80,000

Yeah, and in Soviet Russia, you couldn't recieve open heart surgery. Or an iPod. Or, once again, food.

But everyone got equal treatment, I suppose.

edit: my godfather performed the first open heart surgery in Louisiana. Why? To quote him, "Three hundred thousand dollars. Hell, yes." He's trained several doctors on how to do the procedure. And why did he do it? You'd have to ask him, but he's actually in Dubai on vacation, probably spending money that he earned from saving someone's life.

[Kolar]

A (literally) bloody social expirement was Socialism.

But it's still fun to laugh about right Jerome?

I bring up Somalia, by the way, because it is yet another instance of the markets over statism AND socialism.

A military dictatorship brought about these reforms. I think attacking every fucking country on your boarder for land for about 30-40 years will eventually result in a less stable society, far more then any policy could ever achieve. Somalia is an example of militarism, totalitarian governance and the failures of foreign intervention. Politics is a double edged sword, to ignore the fact that the opposite extreme is just as detrimental to the people and region that endures it shows real lack of understanding on politics.

There's still violence in Somalia, but now, almost every single reported death is because of outside powers and warlords trying to seize power.

No, you have Islamic fundamentalist roaming the streets with guns, threatening the freedom and safety of every single person living there. I don't know about you Jerome but I don't consider Islamic law to resemble in any shape or form a democracy. Nor do I think they'd be too happy about the population indulging in consumerism or materialism. You have the Americans supporting the war lords who have been running a "Government" for 10 years or so. And you have neighboring armies crossing over their boarders, trying to root out the fundamentalist for fear they'll spread to their countries. It's a little more complex then the commies keeping everyone down.

But, once again, gun suppliers have been able to sell weapons (thanks to the wealthy buyers who enabled gun suppliers to increase supply), and with no government to, at the point of a gun, tell people NOT to own guns, these citizens have formed defense groups and are becoming successful at fending off invaders.

Again, Islamic fundamentalist. Those wonderful gun owners (ICU) have also been connected to everybody's favorite terrorist organization: Al-Qaeda. The enemy of the free, god fearing, gun owning world.


By experiment I mean, at what point do you say it has failed? That capitalism has failed to be implemented in this industry, that they are too incompatible? I mean you can tweak things so they're mostly efficient. So it's saving money, making money and people aren't dying but I just don't see that happening ever. If the system is setup to make money and above all else save money than denying service or increasing prices is always going to be part of the game, and when we're talking about human lives here it's hard to even consider using any system you or Reaver propose.

I'm not against capitalism, I just think human nature is a little more complex then you're describing it and that not all good ideas on economics can be extended to basic human needs and social interaction. We have a long history of people trying to do this (see game theory) and it has spawned terrible political and social movements. Humans individually and as a community are not animals lacking compassion for one another, I believe that should be reflected through our laws and civil services.

[Cops]

This isn't Soviet Russia, I'm not a communist, and there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with universal health care existing in America.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Jerome, I'm sorry to cut up your text but it's too long and seems more like a rant. Life is peachy and technology sure has made my life easier, I'm not arguing the necessity for technology in a society what I'm trying to say is that it's more important to deal with the here and now, of course you can't stop investing into your future but I see a lot more money going into things that will affect us down the road and completely out-right ignoring what's right in front of us.

Alright. Let's save the planet. From now on, all car manufacturers must meet X miles to the gallon.

Businesses say fuck that, because to sell hybrid cars right now would be unprofitable and innefficient on a mass scale.

But mileage does get better, because car companies, unable to invest money in wise investments that will make hybrids profitable, instead start using lighter metals, smaller frames.

Statistically, this has led to an extra 2,000 Americans a year dying. That sounds very unequal.

But I guess we planned, right? The future is saved?

Joe Capitalist sees cars with better mileage and buys one... and now, he can do MORE things on less gas, which means that he still uses 40 gallons a week. Statistically, the regulation has had no effect on cutting gas consumption, there is no real, definite bend in the curve.

You see? The car companies actually plan. Governments respond. Car companies have to take money out of their research into alternative fuels and dump them into shit that doesn't really work. You can pour as much Socialist Faith into it as possible, but eventually, being forced to waste your money will, in fact, render you out of business, leaving everyone with no cars.

And so, in the long run, the companies will start to sputter... wait, what's that? Ah.. yeah. Whoops. That's already happening.

[Reaver]

I agree with basically everything Jerome has been saying. I don't want to live somewhere where the government has told me I must have something everyone else has and no better, regardless of how hard I work or what I do. It's as simple as that, a matter of taste. You enjoy being told what you can have and when you can have it and I don't.

[Kolar]

And you don't have to give that up. We have private health care while taxes pay for the public system. That is for people who can afford it and I have no problem with people paying for the service they desire. As long as it does not take away from the public system and does not discriminate it is completely fine by me. A completely free, public system isn't going to work anywhere.

I think the only difference here is that you view free enterprise above the Government in the social order, I disagree with this stance because while business may want to make money and please their customers, and in theory what's best for profits is best for their consumer base and their interests, in reality this is not always true. That is one of the reasons why we have a Government, to ensure people are provided the services they need regardless of how or who provides it.

[Cops]

I agree with basically everything Jerome has been saying. I don't want to live somewhere where the government has told me I must have something everyone else has and no better, regardless of how hard I work or what I do. It's as simple as that, a matter of taste. You enjoy being told what you can have and when you can have it and I don't.

That was actually pretty offensive, and far from the truth.

No one tells us that we have to have free social health care, it's there if we want it. If I wanted to go to a different hospital because the one near my house isn't meeting my standards then I can, nothing is stopping me from receiving treatment from the private sector. I don't understand this huge misconception and outright disgusting view towards universal health care, if people are sick and can't afford health care should they not be helped? Should the cold and calculated system you wish upon them say 'tough luck you don't have health insurance' and leave them to self construct. Once you turn your back on people they tend to do the same, and if they decide to become a problem within society it usually costs more money then it would just to make sure they had some basic health care.

The problem is pure capitalism and pure communism doesn't work. You need government intervention to make sure big business is being monitored. The problem that I see is that a free market would never exist and even pure capitalism without any government support would be disastrous to people, primarily because the conservative philosophy that big business will take care of you is failed by omission, mainly because big business cares more about making money than the individual.

[Jerome Scuggs]

But it's still fun to laugh about right Jerome?

I joke about Socialism in the way that others joke about racism and genocide: because deep down I know that it's wrong, and laughing just makes it seem like people don't actually die because of it.

A military dictatorship brought about these reforms. I think attacking every fucking country on your boarder for land for about 30-40 years will eventually result in a less stable society, far more then any policy could ever achieve. Somalia is an example of militarism, totalitarian governance and the failures of foreign intervention. Politics is a double edged sword, to ignore the fact that the opposite extreme is just as detrimental to the people and region that endures it shows real lack of understanding on politics.

What reforms? If you're talking about the free electricity, cheap phones, et cetera - then you, sir, are a liar. Google "Somaliland", a part of Somalia whose people declared themselves an independent country, but wasn't recognized for ten years because... wait for it... no government. Somaliland is now a happy democracy, and considered one of the most peaceful areas in Africa of the last 20 years.

But you're right about one thing: politics is a double edged sword. Which is why I have been arguing, for quite some time now with apparently no effect whatsoever, that we should get rid of political institutions. Because I, like you, am against violence.

No, you have Islamic fundamentalist roaming the streets with guns, threatening the freedom and safety of every single person living there. I don't know about you Jerome but I don't consider Islamic law to resemble in any shape or form a democracy. Nor do I think they'd be too happy about the population indulging in consumerism or materialism. You have the Americans supporting the war lords who have been running a "Government" for 10 years or so. And you have neighboring armies crossing over their boarders, trying to root out the fundamentalist for fear they'll spread to their countries. It's a little more complex then the commies keeping everyone down.

You don't do research into the history of Somalia, you assert, by virtue of your own opinion, that these people are not materialistic, and you completely disregard the actual PEOPLE of Somalia, who WANT another Somaliland... and I'm failing to see matters of complexity?

Again, Islamic fundamentalist. Those wonderful gun owners (ICU) have also been connected to everybody's favorite terrorist organization: Al-Qaeda. The enemy of the free, god fearing, gun owning world.

No terrorist organizations are overtly operating around, or affiliated with, Somaliland. Because these organizations, ironically enough, were the enemy of the free.

By experiment I mean, at what point do you say it has failed?

What?

Hypothesis: "If all men cooperate mutually by adopting a moral code of altruism, then society will shed (insert bad things about capitalism)"

Socialism couldn't even get off the ground.

The second a caveman found fifty berries, looked at the caveman with two animal pelts, hypothesized that "if i offer him something that i believe he will want, perhaps he will give me something i want", motioned via caveman-language: twenty five berries for one pelt?, and decided that now that he had food AND was clothed, he was happier... economics, as an expirement, a test of human action, worked.

That capitalism has failed to be implemented in this industry, that they are too incompatible?

Dude, you know when I talk about the benefits of healthcare and what Capitalism has done for healthcare... I'm talking about history, right? And real data? Like, I look at the general welfare of people during a period when the healthcare sector was more free-market, and see a period where prices were low, new technology was always being pioneered, perfected, and packaged for the masses at affordable prices. I see that people died, yes, but such is life. A million laws won't stop a heart attack, and "Accidents" are called "accidents" because things didn't MEAN to happen. I then compare the data with today, and see people paying more money, waiting longer for even routine checkups, and more people dying specifically because of a law, regulation or other such intervention.

Seriously, I have asperger's, my idea of fun on a Friday is to kick back a book on economics, or a market analysis of regulation and intervention, and that's why I believe what I believe - because it makes sense, it works, it's realistic, it's plausible. And you're equally convinced that universal health care is a good idea, and capitalism is horrible - yet you say capitalism has "failed to be implemented" in the industry? What do you think hospitals were before they were Socialised? Socialism needs a willing, sacrificial object to survive. Without capitalism, the Socialist would have no medicine with which to nationalize. You can thank Capitalism for the idea that universal health care is even possible. You want to put a stop to the brilliant system that makes your ideas even theoretically viable? You're shooting yourself in the foot.

I mean you can tweak things so they're mostly efficient. So it's saving money, making money and people aren't dying but I just don't see that happening ever. If the system is setup to make money and above all else save money than denying service or increasing prices is always going to be part of the game, and when we're talking about human lives here it's hard to even consider using any system you or Reaver propose.

Okay. Seriously. Socialism is Arithmetic. This Plus This Equals That. Capitalism is more abstract, it is like algebra. Things are dynamic, there are variables, and it definitely requires intellect to process. Heh, I just made an ironic joke, because as less and less people can pass algebra I thanks to socialized schools... nevermind. What I'm trying to say is, that's what Capitalism is, dude. It's not some thing, some concrete system... it's merely... a contract. A system that is a mutually beneficial act of exchange between individuals. You are making an economic decision when you decide to hold your bladder or to urinate. You don't know that in an hour, variables (marijuana) will cause an unintended secondary effect (pissing self).

So you can't grasp dynamic concepts. You don't really back up any of your claims with real data proving your point. And you're accusing me of being insensitive towards questions of human life? Here's the thing, dude. You need to realize that you're talking about human lives. Because no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you pray and you believe it, good intention does not ensure good results. You know what sure maximizes the chances of getting a good result? A form of system which allows ideas and concepts to be refined. And if it is a good idea... then people will buy it. Businessmen make MONEY by being able to predict what will be good for society - because that's how they profit. Businessmen, when stating a goal, usually achieve it. Compare the score of "business ideas that worked" with the score of "government ideas that worked" and you'll see what I mean.

Just because capitalism doesn't claim Doing Good Unto Others as it's flagship morality, doesn't mean it doesn't consider them. Now, what if I were to say, "Hey Kolar, if I agree to stop talking, will you?" We then mutually agree to stfu, and everyone on TWForums is happy. Now, it took some time, and we did alot of typing... but end the end, everyone is happier. Had PH the Statist banned the two of us, the public would be happier... but neither of us would be.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm not against capitalism, I just think human nature is a little more complex then you're describing it and that not all good ideas on economics can be extended to basic human needs and social interaction. We have a long history of people trying to do this (see game theory) and it has spawned terrible political and social movements. Humans individually and as a community are not animals lacking compassion for one another, I believe that should be reflected through our laws and civil services.

-By your first point alone you should lose your own argument. Because that's my point, dude. That's what I'm telling you. Human nature is not as simple as "equal health care for all". Laws that apply to everyone don't work because of circumstances, variables, and uncertainty.

-Dude. think really, really hard. Think way back, some... hundred, hundred-fifty years ago... yes, before Marx... ah, yes. We are here, it is 1847. Capitalism has gone above and beyond in providing "basic human needs" and thrives off of social interaction, because, you know, to buy something you must interact socially.

-...and discussing "game theory" means you have not been listening at all. One of the first words out of my mouth were "praxeology", which is the nonmathematical study of human action by observing calculable aspects of human action. Yes, we are complex and no, we will not always make the best decision - but it can't be denied that an overwhelming majority of the time, people act in their own self-interest. Hell, some people derive personal pleasure from being altruistic, that's their thing, but they did it because it benefited him or herself. In any case, once again this argument for you is counterproductive because every instance of a social regulation is a calculation that reduces human complexity down to a choice that will benefit the most people. What does it take to construct welfare legislation? "I think medicine is good. Healthcare for all. So be it.". And when that's done, who do you leave it to, the specifics? The Capitalist... you. Me. Everyone. How come milk costs what it does? Yeah, me or you (or a Socialist politician) could not trace the infinitely changing variables and tastes. But guess what? While me, you, and Joe Socialist are all unaware of the workings of the amazingly complex line of decisions, choices, and work that resulted in that glass of milk sitting on your table (where did that glass come from? why was it $5? who made the table?), it happened. It happened, regardless of what you believe. But even then, there is still a quantifiable part of that milk's journey. There are actions we can see. And the story of milk is one of trillions of billions of examples you can use. So yeah, dude. I am well aware of the fact that shit is complex. That's the beauty of capitalism, man. Youre enjoying shit that you'll never even begin to understand, but you know it's good.

And that's exactly why I do not advocate your way of thinking on this issue.