The End Of Growth (Chapters 5 & 6)

Chapter5-Population Stress: Old vs. Young on a Full Planet  &  The Post-Growth Struggle between Rich and Poor

It’s interesting how the age demographic of a nation’s population will have dramatic consequences.  Populations with more youthful populations will be hit harder by the end of growth because of the amount of the people who are of working age but won’t be able to find jobs and yet are still reproducing and creating a greater population.  This feeds into the cycle of poverty which in turn leads to population growth through more pregnancies in those who are poor and uneducated.  There will not be enough employment, money or global resources to support these growing populations.  The youth will be resentful of the older populations who frivolously wasted their resources and left them in a bad situation.  The older populations on the other hand have the opposite problem in which there isn’t enough young people to support the work force of the economy.  The older people need to be supported by the nation but without the revenue from taxes from those youth who work it becomes a big problem.

The struggle between rich and poor is nothing new but still something that needs to constantly be addressed.  At a time of ending growth those who are poor will be hit the hardest and will mostly be the ones fighting for change.  At the same time the rich will be least effected, though they might not see it that way, because they are already set for life even if they can’t continue to make the massive amounts of profits/money as they do now.  They will fight to keep the status quo and try to keep this conversation from taking place.  Inequality is a problem and a pretty obvious one at that.  I strongly agree with the author that lots of what he has talked about is seen as negative and distressing but more importantly it is real and needs to be discussed as so.  Things aren’t always peachy and we can’t just pretend they are because we don’t want to be burdened with the depressing truth.

Chapter 6-Introduction  &  The Default Scenario

                This section is focused on what will happen to the economy and our nation in general if we continue to follow the same path we are on.Again the outlook is dismal and disturbing but real and it is important to look at and understand.  We can no longer turn a blind eye and pretend everything is alright and if we do so it will lead us to the “default scenario” Heinberg describes.  The current model of our economist that growth is always possible and will eventually continue is a model that needs to be thrown out and have the focus be put on the reality of the situation.  If we do nothing to change this, our economy, country, and quality of lives will all be adversely affected.  We will run out of money for important parts of our nation’s budget that goes to helping the people.  The government will get bigger and more restrictive, but not it a good and helpful way.  It will restrict the rights of its citizens and offer less assistance to its people.  We need to focus on the real issues here and stop trying to find a scapegoat while ignoring the most pressing issue which is that our approach is flawed from the start by not coming to grips with the fact that there will be an end of growth.

Chapter 6- Haircuts for All…or Free Money?  &  Post-Growth Money

The first section is about ideas that would help provide more time to come up with actual solutions to our economic problems along with adapting our economy to the new model of growth ending.  He makes it clear that theses themselves are not the solutions just steps that could help us buy time.  These ideas of haircuts for all and the printing of new money to pump into the system are very interesting.  I have thought about the making of money one before but new of the problems with inflation it causes but never realized that the amount of debt we are in could actually protect inflation from occurring if printing money under the amount of the current debt.  That seems like something that should be looked into more and treated as a viable option.  Also the haircuts for all idea really intrigued me.  I learned about haircuts for businesses and on bailouts and such but never on an across the board scale like the one Heinberg wrote about.   To be able to “reset” a great deal of the debt, credit and interest in the economy by doing this sounds very appealing and is something I would be interested in learning more about.

I would be in heavy favor of getting rid of this debt based money system in which we live.  I have never been a fan of money, and I know that sounds weird, but I truly believe, no matter how cliché, that money is the root of all evil.  People sell their souls for the almighty dollar and to do what with it. Some just collect it in insane amounts that could never be spent in a lifetime, while others work most of their lives for it and never get to really enjoy it.  We put ourselves in insane amounts of debt by borrowing money, using credit and falling victim to the high interest rates for thing we don’t even need.  We give money the power it has because without our belief in it it’s just a bunch of worthless paper and IOU’s yet they control our lives.

Chapter 6- Our Problems Are Resolvable In Principle

We are facing a huge problem with not only our economy but how the world is run in general.  There is hope still alive though, because these issues are solvable.  We have identified the major problems we are faced with and what there causes are and now we need to do something about them.  We cannot sit back and allow the status quo to continue just because it is easier than facing the dark reality of our situation.   I really liked when Heinberg said “if civilization fails, it won’t be for a lack of good ideas”.  There are plenty of people with great ideas that need to be looked at, taken seriously and examined thoroughly.  We need to take charge of this situation and fix the problems we created.  I also liked the ideas of Lester Brown that to contain or overcome the threats of the 21^st century we need to eradicate poverty, conserve resourced, reform the world’s food system, raise energy efficiency, and develop renewable energy.  I feel these seem fairly obvious but I think they should.  I don’t think our problems are as complicated as brain surgery and so neither are the solutions.  Unfortunately to do these things we will also need to reform our power structure, government and way of life which will be a lot harder than it sounds.

HOODWINKED chapters 8-14

Chapter 8: The Coming Deregulation

I was surprised to hear him talk about his role as CEO and how he set out to make his company earth friendly.  That was really unexpected, since I thought it was only more recently that he saw the error of his ways and changed how he felt about issues, and hopefully true.  The other thing I really like was to hear is change of opinion on regulations, that at first he thought his college professor was wrong about regulations being needed and that they only restricted innovation.  He said he soon realized that the professor wasn’t wrong and that regulations were needed because without them it is like lawlessness where the might wins over the right.  I thought that his change in opinion was particular important since he was swayed from firsthand experience of working with and without the regulations.

Chapter 9: The Regulation Scam

In this chapter he gets more into his views on regulations and how he arrived at them. He also talks about a lot of specific regulations or acts that deregulated industries rather and the effect they had which I found very interesting.  I didn’t realize the extent of all the deregulations that have occurred in the last 40 years.  One would think that after the first couple causing negative effects on the industries they would start to think that it might not be such a good idea.  I like his statement “that in a democracy, rules were needed to defend the majority” and I agree whole heartedly.  Without rules those who accumulate enough wealth and power can gain control instead of the majority.  I also found the advice Claudine told him when he was training, that “something important for you to continually do is to convince leaders in the countries where you work to loosen laws that govern corporations”, really interesting and how it stuck with him.  When he thought back to that statement it helped him see more clearly what deregulation in the United States was all about.  Just like he as and EHM took advantage of these countries and leaders and that was one way to assist in that, he could see that it was happening in the US too through those campaigning for less regulation.  The one law passed that voided a previous regulation that shocked me the most was the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine.   The policy was intact to require those with broadcast licenses to present controversial issues that were of public importance in an “honest, equitable and balanced” manner.  I mean just the name the Fairness Doctrine makes you think that is probably there to insure fairness for the people and who would could argue the fact that the people don’t deserve to receive “honest, equitable and balanced” news!

Chapter 10: Fake Accounting

Externalities is a nice word for horrible business decisions that relinquishes responsibility of their actions from them and passes it off with the devastating social and ecological affects that come from them.  It is amazing that they are allowed to occur, businesses should be held responsible for what their company does.  The student Sarah he talks about has an excellent idea that companies should have to take into account all their actions and put them on the books.  I know this seems like it should just be common sense but unfortunately it is not.  Companies abuse their wealth and power and leave many to suffer the effects for their bad decisions.  They should have to conform to stricter standards that hold them accountable and make them change or put those cost on their accounts so that they have to pay for all the people that get sick from their pollution.  It is truly a disgusting thing that companies can just write off all these crimes against humanity as externalities and be done with it.  I know that I am not one of the ones who wants to have the cheapest prices so badly that I am willing to look the other way from how it affects the world and other peoples. No, I am more than willing to pay more for a product that isn’t so destructive to this planet and its people, and yet I don’t think it would even mean that prices would have to go up, or at least not that much, for this to happen.  Companies could also make a slightly less profit which wouldn’t kill them at all and some of the things people pay so much for are “brand name” things that are the same as a cheaper version.  Also there are companies that have changed for the better of the world and it has helped their company become more profitable such as the example he talks about Interface Carpet Company.

Chapter 12: Militarized, Paper Economy

I agree with Perkins, and I believe the facts do too, that the United States has become a “paper pushing” economy that doesn’t manufacture or create anything of real value.  We have become totally transformed into this form of corrupt capitalism where money is made off others transactions and investments on items that themselves don’t actually exist.  It is also ironic as he noted that as we get more dependent on this paper pushing economy it has also transformed to a point where paper is used less and substituted for the push of a button.  The only thing America is still making is war and weapons which has become a huge industry and doesn’t seem to be stopping its expansion.  It is disgusting to me the amount of money we spend on the military.  It seems to me like America is a paranoid country when we need to have to outspend the top twelve other countries defense budgets whom a lot of them are allies.  The US accounts for around 50% of the world’s total military spending which is absurd.  What I found even more disturbing was the fact that the pentagon has a budget for secret operations that exceeds the entire military budgets of France, Britain or Japan.  What does this say about our society?  I have been disturbed by our spending on our “defense”, which I feel is more offense, for some time now.  I don’t feel that we should go to war just so that we may continue to have jobs for those in the military complex.  I’m sorry if people will lose their job but keeping jobs is no reason to continue to spend astronomical amounts of money on an excessive military and what I would argue are unjust, unneeded and nonproductive wars.  I hate that when it comes to being humane our country has repeatedly decided to put jobs and profits above doing the right thing.

 

Chapter 12: Changing Capitalism’s Goal

I’d have to say that I agree and disagree with Perkins on his views on capitalism.  I do believe he is correct that if we remain it a capitalist society, which it doesn’t look to be going anywhere, that we need to change the fundamentals of the corrupt capitalism we are presently stuck with.  His new model for the new capitalism is great that instead of “maximizing profits regardless of social and environmental cost” we have the goal of “making profits within the context of creating a sustainable, just, and peaceful world”.  I just think that it seems like common sense and has been ignored so long that it’s will be a lot easier to say it than to implement it.  What I don’t necessarily agree with him about is that capitalism is the best and basically only economy we should ever have.  I feel that there must be a better way out there, not that I know what it is but I think that there are elements of socialism and communism even that are very beneficial and could work well.  I think that a mixture of parts from all three that would work the best.  I do see the benefits to capitalism though and I do see how it has worked very well but I do feel as Marx did that there are inherent flaws it the capitalist system and I think it is to open to corruption.  I understand that my view is not popular and it will most likely be a lot easier to transform our capitalism economy rather than scrap it, I just feel that we shouldn’t rule everything else out because we are so focused on capitalism being great.

Chapter 14: China (A Lesson in Transformation)

The ideas in this chapter are very interesting and I see a connection with them and our recent discussions of American exeptionalism.  It is true that we can learn a lot from different societies, but more often than not Americans are to proud to do so.  We think we always have the best ways of doing things and are better than everyone else in every category.  But if we can put aside our pride and admit that this is not true we can gain a great deal of knowledge.  We can learn from other countries both what is good to do from their positive aspect and what not to do from mistakes they have already made.  China has used this strategy and it has worked out wonderfully for them.  There are clearly a lot of good ideas in the Chinese economy and we here in America need to be more open minded new ideas.  I think the idea that Deng Xiaoping described of a “market economy with socialist characteristics” sounds really good actually.  It touches on what I was just talking about from the last chapter regarding an economy that is a mixture of ideologies from different economic structures.

Immigrant Workers

Immokalee, Florida

This story is truly disturbing.  I knew that immigrants worked hard and for low wages but I didn’t fully understand the harsh conditions that their jobs imposed on their lives.  I didn’t think that they were being abused and taken advantage of to the point that it is basically slavery.  I almost feel a little naive, I figured that these horrible situations existed but didn’t realize they were still occurring in the United Stated in the 21^st century. It’s really quite shocking.  It’s sad to see this happening, especially in the US and in such an illustrious industry.  Everyone throughout the different levels of the business are making their profits bigger by allowing such despicable mistreatment of the people at the bottom, who are their base and provide the labor for their entire industry.

Immigration is a big topic in the US and has been for a while now.  I have always been for the idea of helping immigrants gain citizenship and giving them a path to a better life.  It is unbelievable that some of these people actually choose to stay and live in these awful conditions instead of going back to their native land.  It really shows you how bad they want to be here and how bad their families that are relying on them need them to be here.  People that are opposed to these immigrants being over here would have you believe that they are living a life of luxury now that they entered the US and that it is at the expense of United States citizens.  But when you actually look into it, what jobs are they stealing.  There aren’t any Americans that are willing to work for such cheap labor or in such violent conditions.  These aren’t jobs that they are taking from citizens they are jobs that have been done by immigrant slaves and immigrants that are being taken advantage of to the point of slavery for over a century.  Many of them are in fact being forced to stay and work to pay off a debt that will never be paid off.  This is not the American dream they had hoped for when leaving their country or the life that anti-immigrants think of when they talk of immigrants stealing their jobs.

It was great to read about the progress they are making through the Coalition of Immokalee Workers though.  I didn’t realize that they had started a movement and banded together to get their voices heard and make their bosses listen.  The fact that they banded together to stop the buses from getting through and pick up workers when the growers tried to lower their hourly wage 40 cents and that they boycotted a particular crew leader after he severely beat a 16 year old boy for taking a drink of water is remarkable progress.  But it is sad that they have to fight so hard for these little things, things the rest of us just take for granted in all of our work environments, like being paid a minimum wage and not having to fear for our safety from our bosses.

I also never thought about the big corporations such as McDonalds, Burger King, Wal-mart, Trader Joes’ and others that support this horrible work environment so that they can buy cheaper produce.  It is awesome that people were able to make their voices heard buy protesting at the major fast food chains and getting them to sign an agreement called the Fair Food Code.  It is to bad that the major supermarkets won’t do the same though.  I wish there was a bigger demand for them to do so and that more people were aware of the role these companies play in these horrible offenses.  Hopefully with more education about these issues people will stand up to the supermarkets as well and get them aboard the Fair Food Code so that the lives of these immigrants may improve any amount more than they are at now.

Poverty and Inequality

Black Board – Poverty and Inequality Links

I watched the Jon Stewart segment on voter suppression and he talked about the voter Id laws that are trying to be enacted in states with mostly republican legislators.  He showed a clip from Pennsylvania state representative Mike Turzai which I have seen several times before and I find really disturbing.  The rep says on camera “Voter Id which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done”.  This is absolutely unacceptable for a congressman to straight up say that this law is going to help the Republicans win by suppressing those who would vote Democratic.  I think most of us all ready knew that this was the point of these new laws but for it to be put so bluntly by the people who are passing them shows just how corrupt they are and should be the prove needed to stop them from being enacted.  These laws specifically and overwhelmingly target the elderly, poor and minorities and disenfranchise them.  Luckily a judge in PA has blocked the bill from being enacted this year as he said he saw that it obvious affects of blocking many people from being able to vote this November.  This was the first time I had heard that it had been blocked, when I saw the clips of the congressman earlier I also heard that a different judge ruled that it would be carried out in an unbiased manner.

I also looked at the slideshow of the Pine Ridge Indian reservation.  This is what Chris Hedges calls a “sacrifice zone” which is a place that is stripped of its resources and leaves the land and people in shambles after would. The surrounding Black Hills used to be rich in many resources but have since been depleted and now leaves 49% of the people on the reservation below poverty.  It is truly a very sad sight. It almost looked like pictures from those third world ads with the starving children; it really didn’t look like it was from the richest country in the world, the Untied States.  You could see the poverty and run down condition of their town and the poor houses which some even lacked plumbing.  I actually saw an episode of Gangland which took place at the Reservation before so I recognized some of the things that the slide talked about, but I didn’t realize the extreme conditions that they were living in and deal with such as some families having 8 people to a small dilapidated house and no plumbing or that the reservation has an infant mortality 5x that of the national average.  I also never heard of the term “sacrifice zone” and didn’t realize this is why the reservation is so poor now.  I saw the pictures of the kid Rich who it said had been in a gang since he was young and it triggered my memory of the episode.  The gang life is all too tempting for the poverty stricken youth of this reservation and it is leading to the loss of their Native American customs and culture which is upsetting to the elders especially.  The town is a dry town but there is a small town a few miles away with liquor stores that sell a huge amount of beer, about 13,500 cans, everyday which mostly all goes back to the Pine Ridge reservation where alcoholism is rampant.

I also took a look at the link to the New York Times article with different graphics about the inequality in America, based on different tax rates and general wealth of the top 20%, 9%, .9%, .09% and the lowest 20% and 90%.  Some of these figures I had already heard before and some had just seen in class last week while other were new to me.  We hear mostly about the top 1% vs. the bottom 99% but I didn’t realize that there is a whole other category of the top .01%.  These stats were shocking to me much like all the others were the first time I saw them.  I didn’t know that is was in fact this top .01% whose tax rates have decreased the most of thee last forty years or so.  This group went from a tax rate of about 65% in the 1960’s to below 40% by 2000.  This is an incredible statistic and when u look at it on the graph with the other groups it really puts it in place.  I find it real hard to argue for this drastic drop for the richest .01% and I don’t know how anyone could.  Our nation is in a time of record debt and yet we have the lowest tax rates since the 50’s for not only the top 1% but the top .01%! It is insane, and it is especially crazy for republicans to refuse to do anything in congress unless it is promised that these groups taxes won’t go up.

Social Mobility: Unequal Opportunities

Chapter 12- Social Mobility: Unequal Opportunities

                This chapter was about social mobility or the lack thereof in places if greater inequality.  Countries that have a bigger gap between the rich and poor tend to separate the two groups geographically in their societies.  The richer more affluent people move to nicer places and leave behind those who can’t get out, creating a community of the poorer people stuck together.  This segregation only helps to reduce social mobility by giving unequal opportunities to each group of people.  The richer are better off and have access to better living standards which gives their children a jump start from the rest.  On the other hand the poorer people’s problems are magnified by their deprived communities that have poor levels of service, worse schools, exposure to gangs, pollution and much more.  This only strengthens the cycle and reduces the ability for people at the bottom of the latter to move up.  People always feel that their being looked down upon by those of higher social class which results in anxieties and anger that is often taken out on a person that is socially below the one having these feelings.

I agree very much with the ideas from this chapter.  They are actually something in which I have already had strong convictions on for some time.  I have long felt that the idea that is pushed on the American people that everyone has an equal chance at rising to top is simply not true.  This American dream is a nice idea but it just isn’t the case.  Sure it is possible for someone to come from nothing and make something great of them self but it is much harder and rarer than is indicated by those pushing this American dream message.  The opportunities are not equal, it is much easier for someone who grows up in a wealthy affluent family to be able to go to good schools their whole life, expensive colleges, have money from the family to back them and make a success of themselves than it is for someone growing up in any multitude of poorer, troubled situations.  I feel very strongly about this and feel that it is very obvious and it aggravates me when people can’t acknowledge it.  For example I couldn’t believe it when Paul Ryan said “as if everyone is stuck in some class from circumstances beyond our control”.  The only question I have is how is he going to defend that statement?  How is he going to tell me that some poor kid born into a ghetto in Harlem, with a father in jail he has never met and a single mother who is addicted to crack , and lives in a tiny coach roach infested apartment isn’t a victim of circumstances beyond his control.  And that it isn’t going to be so much harder for him to do all the things he’ll need to so he is able to get himself out of that area and lifestyle and become a wealthy successful person than it is for a kid born to a rich parents in a neighborhood in Hollywood that live in a mansion with maids.

The Spirtit Level

Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger

The authors illustrate a major point which is that societies with greater inequality have higher levels of health and social problems.  Not only do they discuss this topic in depth but also present it in many graphs that emphasis their stance.  They show that it is mainly in the beginning of developing nations while they are still growing that the social well-being of its citizens goes up dramatically along with things such as life expectancy.  But for already rich countries it the continuation of growth and getting richer doesn’t significantly raise these factors.  This is because they are not necessarily tied to how rich a country is but rather how much inequality is in that country.  Of course being in a country where the poverty was so bad that most can’t afford food would cause a lack of well-being for its citizens. Once they start to grow and get out of that extreme poverty level so does their people’s well being, but this is only true for so long soon after getting out of poverty the social advantages level of and don’t really go up even if the country continues to grow richer.  So the average income in each country doesn’t matter nearly as much as the difference between the top and bottom incomes in a particular country.  This is the basis for their argument that inequality in a country is the biggest factor for the health of its citizens and social issues they deal with.  They depict this well in two graphs where they show in one countries of various income inequality versus their score on the index of health and social problems and in the other the same countries displayed by nation income per person versus the same index of health and social problems.  The graph with the countries are aligned by income inequality shows a distinct and direct correlation in the amount of inequality and their score on the index.  That is the greater the inequality, the worse their score on the health and social problems of its citizens.  But unlike that graph the one which is aligned by national income per person shows very little relation between the income and their score.  This along with many other graphs that represent research done all indicate inequality being the biggest factor in a countries social and physical well-being of its people and that is why the focus of the book is on inequality.

Chapter 3 takes a different turn while approaching this subject, as it goes into the sociology and psychology behind the inequality.  They look at studies in the US which show that the anxieties of people have greatly increased from the 1950’s to the 90’s.  They don’t claim that inequality has caused these anxieties instead they believe it had aggravated and strengthened them.  They talk about the increase in narcissism which is basically a form of negative self-esteem where one over compensates for their insecurities by having an internal fake high self-esteem that props their ego up.  This is because the more unequal a society is the more that status matters, and the more that status matters the more important it is in the minds of the people.  Everyone gets preoccupied with how others see them.  Our social status becomes our net worth and we feel inferior if we are lower on the social ladder than others.  This in turn causes shame and humiliation and spurs fear of them both causing anxieties to be much stronger.

The most important points I got from the reading were the facts about how big and indicator inequality really is in the health of a society and how strongly it affects the psychology of those competing within that society.  I had figured inequality was bad for nations and that it had bad affects on the people but I never realized to what extent. I also thought their idea was really important that in societies with such great inequality everyone is constantly judging each other by their status and comparing themselves to other which only enhances the power of the social status and continues the cycle.  I have always been a critic of the “social ladder” and its ability to separate people but I never saw it in this light before.  The authors take on it and the data they showed really opened up a whole other issue which I found really interesting.

Obama’ Deal

Obama’s Deal

I knew politics was a dirty game full of back room deals and such but it was really disconcerting to see just how bad it really is.  It is sad to see that nothing can be done without sacrificing a lot of what one believes in just to get it.  Washing is definitely not efficient enough to get down what is best for the people of America and needs to be changed which is what we thought Obama was going to do.  Unfortunately he learned soon after becoming president how daunting a task that actually is and that if he wanted to get anything done he would have to play their game.

I never realized how big a role Rahm Emanuel played in getting healthcare passes in Washington. He was Obama’s chief of staff and his main inside guy into the politics in Washington. Emanuel was someone the president used to talk to the people of congress and to strike deals with them.  Emanuel was known for being able to get things done on the hill but also not to care so much of the bi-partisan agenda that Obama had talked about.  Not only did they need to make deals with congress but also with the lobbyist.

Two of the main lobbyists who Obama had to strike deals with were Karen Ignagni for the insurance companies and Billy Tauzin for the pharmaceutical companies.  In order to get the support of the insurance companies which were a huge force to be reckoned with in Washington and in the media, Obama needed to make some significant changes to the bill.  Karen Ignagni had said she would only be on board if the individual mandate was in place so that not only the sick needed to get insurance but everyone was forced too.  She also got Obama to take out the public option out of the bill which would have given the people a choice of a government run and publicly funded insurance over the private insurances.  These “compromises” went directly against his beliefs, but in order to get this bill passed he was told this is what needed to be done, they couldn’t afford to go up against the insurance companies and their millions of dollars they would use to run a smear campaign on healthcare.  The other lobbyist, Billy Tauzin, represented big pharma who Obama also had to strike a deal with.  Obama had earlier publicly downed Tauzin and the fact he went from being the chair of the committee that oversees the drug industry, where he helped push through the Medicare Prescription Bill which was very generous to the pharmaceutical companies, to becoming the president of PhRMA.  Now only a few years later Obama decided to make a deal with him, in which the healthcare bill was once again reformed this time it dropped so parts that made prescriptions cheaper and allowed them to be imported from Canada.

Max Baucus was a big name and major component in congress who the president had hoped he could use to reach across the aisle and get some republican support.  At first it looked like he was reaching the other side to Senator Chuck Grassley a republican who just might be able to persuade some of his fellow party members.  Unfortunately as time went on the skepticism of “Obama Care” grew and during congress’ summer recess of 09’ it had blown up.  The bill was no longer popular anywhere and republicans packed of completely.  This is when Rahm Emanuel stepped up and decided a bi partisan effort was not longer possible or needed and pressured the democrats hard to push the bill through Washington.

After all was said and done the healthcare bill was drastically changed by the games played in by those in the capital.  Obama was forced to do what he originally set out to change just so that he could get anything big accomplished in Washington at all.  The American people are left with a healthcare that will have the individual mandate and no public option.  This is a system that will look like Switzerland in the aspect that everyone will be forced to get insurance from a public provider but without a single payer so the medical providers will still be able to deny services.  This is a far stretch from being perfect or even being what the president would have liked it to be but it is a start, and hopefully it will leave our healthcare system a lot better than it was before the bill.

Sick Across the World

Great Britain has a healthcare system that is completely paid for by the taxes of its citizens.  Of course this means that they have higher taxes than us but everyone also has health care that they don’t need to worry about paying co pays or premiums with.  One downside people complain about with this type system is the wait times for doctors appointments but that really only applies to elective procedures which they have recently reduced the waits for as well.  They have introduced new market type mechanisms in which hospitals compete against each other for government money.  Great Britain’s health care also requires everyone to have a general practitioner which they refer to as a “gate keeper” who one must go through before seeing a specialist.    These GP’s make a fixed amount based on the amount of patients they have and get a bonus for keeping them healthy.  This all causes heavy emphasis on preventive care which in turn keeps costs down and people healthier.  They have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the US.

Japan has a single payer healthcare system that is not paid solely by taxes like Great Britain’s.  Instead Japan’s health care requires everyone to get insurance which they either get through their job or a community based insurance company and the government picks up the tab for those too poor to have either.    This is known as Social Insurance although almost all their doctors’ offices are privately run and 80% of their hospitals are as well which is more than the US.  They have no “gate keeper” and can see a specialist at anytime and have not waits.  The government controls the price for every single procedure and it’s the same fixed price everywhere in the country.  The Japanese have the best life expectancy and are number one in infant mortality.  The downside to their healthcare system is that the hospitals are suffering from being under paid and about 50% are in financial deficit.

Germany offers all of its citizens healthcare which covers not only all the basics, dental, optical, mental but also many types of alternative medicines as well.  They also allow the rich to opt out and buy their own but 90% of its population uses the government offered healthcare.  They too have mostly private doctors and hospitals and have wait times that are similar to the US.  It is funded by the citizens who pay premiums based on their salary to one of 240 private insurance companies known as sick funds.  But the citizens don’t get kicked off if they get fired from their jobs. This system takes the profit out of healthcare insurance companies and gives its people many choices with excellent quality at a cheaper rate than the US.  It is considered to be in the middle of a “for profit” system and a single payer one.  The medical providers and the sick funds negotiate standard prices which keeps administrative costs down to only about 6%.    These negotiations also set the prices for pharmaceuticals.  This leads to doctors feeling under paid, as in Japan, though.

Taiwan took a very interesting approach to their healthcare system, by looking at and studying the systems in place in other major countries in the world and used the positives from those while improving upon the negatives.  This has lead to their system which gives everyone equal access to healthcare, free choice of doctors with no wait times and completion between medical providers.  They have a national system of insurance that forces everyone to join in and pay.  They use the single payer method that has the one government insurance collecting all the money and being the only one who pays the medical providers.  They also have not “gate keepers” nor wait times.  Taiwan has the lowest administrative cost in the world at 2%.  This is in part because of the smart card which all patients have which contains their entire medical history and automatically sends the bill directly to the government.  They end up only spending 6% of GDP on healthcare which leads to the government borrowing money from the banks to pay providers.

Switzerland is a country whose healthcare system used to look much like our own before its reform in 1994.  At that time they enacted a new set of laws revising their system and mandating everyone to buy insurance with the state paying for those too poor to afford it.  They made it so the insurance companies can’t avoid the old or sick customers and so that they may not profit off of basic care.  There is still completion between the companies without the profits and every one of their customers has the same benefits package.  The companies are allowed to profit from supplemental coverage though.  With their method they are able to keep administrative costs down to about 5.5% which is very cheap compared to the US.

HEINBERG

The End of Growth

 

The Most Important Thing

The most important concept introduced by the author is as the title implies there will be an end of growth.  The ideas that an economy would be able to consistently have positive growth with no end in sight is a fallacy.  It is not a logical assumption on the part of economists to believe our market would always be able to grow indefinitely.   At one time in history the economic philosophers had known this to be true as they understood the three essential ingredients of the economy to be land, labor, and capital.  They used land as to mean also the Earth and its resources which they realized were limited and eventually would be depleted.  This understanding gave them reason to believe that that growth would someday end.  More modern philosophers over look that and it began when land started getting cut from the equation and placed into s sub-category of capital.  This is a big oversight on the present day outlook towards markets and economies.  By not applying the facts that we know about the Earth and its resources, they use a failing economic scheme by allowing for an infinite amount of growth.

What Surprised Me

• How at one time land was in the economic equation but in present day economic philosophy it is overlooked.
• The way it is so easy to just buy in to the idea that our economy could always be growing.
• How far back the idea of debt had really gone and how it’s been used to increase growth so much.

Strongly Agreed or Disagreed With

I strongly agree with Heinberg’s assertion of the faulty model of conventional economic theory. The current idea that the world the market, or any single economy, can be on an infinite ride up is fatally flawed.  There are only a limited number of resources on the planet on which we can use/take advantage of and they won’t be around forever.  The fact that corporations treat asset depletion as income and profits while overlooking the greater value of the asset they’re depleting is a dangerous and unsustainable process.  This leads into the idea of externalities and the fact that corporations take advantage of the in any way so that they can create bigger profits while it results in much bigger damage to our society and ecology.  Then there is the way that mainstream economists judge a nations economic health solely on its GDP without taking into account the situations and living standards of the society in which that economies belongs to.  I think Heinberg shows the ignorance in that logic best when he said “calculating a nation’s overall health according to its GDP makes about as much sense as evaluation the quality of a piece of music solely by counting the number of notes its contains”.

Remaining Questions

Debates

Bill Clinton vs  Paul Ryan

The Most Important Thing

The most important thing that i found in these two speeches was the difference in their theme.  Bill Clinton’s speech had a very positive, upbeat and can do attitude.  While Ryan’s on the other hand felt more depressing, negative and filled with attacks.  I felt like from Clinton and the democrats that their was real conviction in what they’re doing is right and that it is the best path for America.  He had a theme that America can over come this and already has we just need to let Obama finish his job.  I personally felt he spoke with more sincerity and empathy for the plight of the struggling American people.  He also was way more focused on what the democrats and Barack Obama have done and will continue to do with more specific points, figures and goals than anything heard from by Ryan and the republicans.  Although he did have some pokes at the republicans i felt they were more witty and mostly just called them out on things they have said and were used to compare the two campaigns and ideology.  Ryan on the other hand was more focused on Obama than on anything that him and Mitt Romney would do.  His speech didn’t seem to have the same positive outlook of Americas position.  Ryan seemed stuck on the idea that Obama hasn’t brought us back to a booming economy in his four years and that he has only issued in more government control.  He even acknowledged the fact that Obama had inherited a very week economy but unlike Clinton, who assured the public that there was absolutely no president that could have fixed everything he inherited in only four years, Ryan believed him to have had his chance and that he blew it.  Even though he admitted that it was eight years of failure form before that put him in that hole he acted like it was something America could have immediately pulled itself out of  He also blatantly attacked the president for running attack ads claiming that with those Obama is just throwing away more money.  I felt that with statements like those he was just contradicting himself and his party.  Overall Ryan felt more stereotypical, simplistic and vague while Clinton was more concerned, genuine and specific.

What Surprised Me

• Though in didn’t entirely surprise me it was interesting to see the shots of the crowd and the lack of diversity had the RNC.  Every time the camera panned to the audience it was just a sea of white people, while at the DNC their seemed to be a good mix of all types of demographics.
• I was surprised by the amount that Barrack Obama really has done in his presidency.  I think that it has been to easily for everyone to overlook what he has actually accomplished, especially if you’re listing to the republicans who would like to act as if he has left America in the same shape he got it four years ago.
• How well Clinton articulated the goals of the democratic platform compared to the vague rhetoric hear by Ryan and the republican ticket.
• The fact that Bill Clinton got me feeling inspired, positive and patriotic again, the feeling that yes we can do this.
• Also it also surprises me to see how our two party system is just stuck in this stagnant polar opposite ideology and yet a third party is never taken seriously.

Strongly Agreed or Disagreed With

I disagree with the way the republican ticket is running their campaign.  I feel it is solely based on hate for the president and the democrats and not enough about the convictions of the republican party and their plan to help America.  Paul Ryan’s speech gave of the impression of propaganda.  Of course he had to pull out the rhetoric of “yes you did build that” to continue to use a distorted version of what Obama said to try and sell him as anti-business  He was constantly alluding to Obama and his government orientated agenda  with negativity yet hes running for one of the biggest offices in government.  He was also very stereotypical and fake.  He used anecdotes about his childhood with his father dieing when he was young and his single mother working very hard also about his grandmother and her end use of medicaid when she was getting to old to take care of herself.  These are just all non controversial topics that almost everyone could relate to or sympathize with.  I felt they were forced and awkward and really not of any relevance really.  He also used way too many vague, generic phrases when talking about what him and Romney plan to do such as ” we’re going to solve this nations economic problems” but with no explanation to how.  Also  that they “plan to build a strong middle class” and that the will introduce tax fairness and regulatory reforms.  And at the end he catered to the religious and anti gays by talking about and Romney and his strong faith and conviction to uphold the sanctity of marriage.  At one point saying “our rights come from nature and god not from government”.  I just disagreed with his whole style of the speech never my his ideology.  I really tried to look at the two from and independent perspective  and just found the negativity and ideology of the Ryan and the republicans to be one of the worst things that could happen to America.

Remaining Questions

• How can so many people be swayed into voting against their own best interest?
• Why the republicans are trying to move the country backward by continuing to argue about issues that most thought were finished with long ago?
• How can the rich be so greedy as to continue to make tax breaks for the wealthy their number one issue while so much else is going on in this country that really needs attention?