Date: Nov 10, 2012 11:57 AM
Author: kirby urner
Subject: Re: Obama's win - good or bad for the US/the world?
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Paul Tanner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Do you know how much is spent on charity each year in the US? It's
> always been around 2% of nominal GDP. That's 300 billion dollars per
> year presently, for all charity of all types. How much of that present
> charity spending could be realistically increased and/or diverted to
> meet this 800 billion dollars per year in unmet need? Maybe 10%?
> That's roughly 30 billion, enough to cover only a few percentage
> points of that 800 billion dollars per year of unmet need....Just as I
> told you. (Yes, we could make the system more efficient with such as
> single payer, making that 12,000 figure go down to maybe 9,000. And
> how do we know this? Because that "pseudoscience" you condemn says so.
> But even so, charity still can handle only a very small percentage of
> the total need.)
The % given for charity is a variable.
We already agreed that, holding GDP constant, we could create various
mixes. Lets say prisons versus schools (like the old guns and
Here's a general systems theory diagram that encapsulates the tradeoff
(lets think of the entire planet as having a GDP for the moment):
Currently we don't call it "charity" to give to political campaigns or
military campaigns. Nor is video poker considered charity, even
though someone freely chooses to part with their money in a game
playing context. Or maybe that *is* charity? Is church bingo a
charity? Can you take a tax deduction for what you lose playing bingo,
if the funds go to a recognized charity? Maybe so.
In the CSN model, vendors / sponsors commit their % for charity to
accounts which the players then commit on their behalf. I walk into a
coffee shop and play games to advantage causes I support and to
enhance my profile / track record in so doing. Charity becomes
entertainment in this model. Many of the games have didactic value.
Think again of video poker, but at the end of the game I commit my
winnings to a health care operation in Sicily that I personally
support. Or maybe the funds go to an animal shelter nearby.
Different games come with different constraints.
Charity-for-sport becomes a leading pass time for many people in this
model. Some skip going to high school to play in these coffee shops
instead and, depending on the zip code, may be the better for it.
> Yes, I commend your charity work. (But think: What percent of all
We can call it charity, sure. I call it school work. How to mitigate
food waste in cities? It's an engineering question and those thinking
mathematically about it have come up with solutions that accommodate
all parameters, including the decay rate of various vegetables (they
need to be dealt with right away).
Expanding this model would be easy, but USAers sit around whining
about how "the government" should be solving these problems whereas
they *are* the government (in theory -- in practice they've been
trained not to think that way).
> those MRIs or surgeries or drugs that need to be given to those 80
> million that your charity pays for?) But the numbers are what the are
That was a funny part of Michael Moore's film where he found those 911
ground zero first responders, who'd been denied coverage yet were
suffering from related medical conditions, and took them as a group
down to Cuba for MRIs and stuff. I got a chuckle out of that one.
> and the facts are what they are with respect to the massively
> staggering amount of unmet need, and it is proved beyond all doubt
> that only government can end this evil of unmet need - it is proved
Which government? You mean government in general? You fling a lot of
I assume the Chinese foreign aid groups providing dental services in
Detroit come under the heading of "government" in some way? Like the
Peace Corps. Perhaps you mean "the US government" in particular?
I'm suggesting that some US homelanders (I didn't say how many) might
avail of medical services with charitably funded branch operations in
their vicinity. These could be clinics funded by donations from people
who've moved away but still want to see health care in places like
The fact is, the USA is *not* taking good care of its citizens. You
say it's evil not to do so and I'm agreeing.
The USA in its current decrepit form is not competent on so many
levels. That's why Micheal Moore took 911 victims to Havana for
treatment, to showcase this state of affairs. That's why we need more
Chinese Peace Corps volunteers, not only providing health care, but
teaching in our schools. Russians too.
I'm not saying this strategy completely makes up for the USA's abysmal
incompetence, not by a long shot. Canadians can't shoulder the burden
of providing all the low cost pharmaceuticals either. Nor can Havana
provide all the MRIs, I understand that.
We're dealing with a basket case situation with millions of
malnourished (obese in many cases). The most effective health care
solutions do not involve treatment after the fact, when the damage is
already done. Effective health care is preventative.
When I haul vegetables that would otherwise be composted by trailer,
to a kitchen (sometimes I help cook), I'm getting exercise and I'm
eating healthy food. This helps keep me out of the ER and keeps me
from needing too many expensive services.
That's why more USAers should be doing their school work the way I am,
role modeling a government of the people, by the people. They'll get
healthier. Instead they drive their cars everywhere and sit in front
of TVs like potatoes. Of course they develop heart problems and
diabetes. No one taught them how to eat or even cook in many cases.
> beyond all doubt that saying otherwise to is horrible evil of
> promoting suffering and death from lack of health care.
Right, more like the USA does, by spending its money on WMDs and
preemptively attacking here and there with them, pretending it's some
kind of British Empire on steroids.
USAers are not psychologically cut out to be imperialists, given their
own history (Singapore agrees). I understand why these overseas
adventures haven't been going well. Too bad so much infrastructure
development is therefore unavailable to the homelanders, as a cost of
"doing business" with NATO etc.. They die in droves as a result of
> And this is just for health care. There is much more need in terms of
> proper shelter for so many.
Tell me about it. Bucky Fuller bought Shelter Magazine so he could
use it to promulgate his ideas on that score. This was before he got
into the domes. 4D Timelock was an early manifesto. Providing
shelter was the theme there as well. Lots of good ideas, some
implemented. He ended up working with the USG quite closely from time
to time (same with my family).
> Your musings do not tells us how to close the deficit and otherwise
> find the revenues so that we do not have to tell people on Medicare
> and/or Medicaid "go join the ranks of those 50 to 80 million", thus
> swelling those ranks immensely. Your musings do not tells us how to
> come up with the financing to meet 800 billion dollars per year of
> unmet health care need.
Giving a "meth addict" more money to buy WMDs and stalk people with
drones is not necessarily a good solution. The USA has been using its
money to conduct shock and awe campaigns against people who were
manifestly *not* a threat (even the US president said so, mocking the
search for WMDs that were never found).
Why encourage such manifestly idiotic / psychopathic behavior with
more borrowing authority?
Uncle Sam is perhaps too psychotic to be trusted with more dough?
He's a mental patient at the moment, not really a constructive player.
Lets wait until we see more signs of courage and health.
Or rather, the kind of charity I'm doing, as one of the people, for
the people, is maybe a sign that Uncle Sam is getting healthier? At
least Cascadia is showing some signs of rejuvenation.
The bikes need dispatching centers, maybe some helmet cams. The bikes
themselves could be improved (using bike trailers lets us get right
inside the warehouses and farmer's markets).
Uncle Sam could give us more / better PR instead of trying to
criminalize feeding the homeless. I'm also open to more charitable
funding from the Russians (we have lots of Russians in Oregon).
> The "pseudoscience" you condemn is the only thing that can tell us
> such. And it does tell us what we need to do.
Right, give more money to the evil WMD addict so he can rain bombs
down on the latest "threats" -- people far away from these scared
little homelanders who sit in front of their televisions,
malnourishing themselves, pale, ignorant, sick in the head from all
that televised unreality.
Helping their bomb victims is much higher priority than helping them
at the moment -- that's how a lot of good doctors think. Lets help
the Iraqis get back on their feet. The Americans can wait. Their
health care is maybe not a priority for the most skilled health care
planners, given their commitment / track record as USAers is to maim
and kill somewhat indiscriminately, out of fear and ignorance. The US
is manifestly anti-healthcare.
> It is plain evil to promote not doing what it tells us to do to lower
> the suffering and death rates. It is plain evil to promote anything
> that would keep these suffering and death rates where they are or even
> cause them to rise....Even if while doing charity work.
That's why I'm skeptical that the USA should be permitted to continue
on its murderous / psychopathic course. You seem to want to fund it
indefinitely. You want to feed the monster so it can continue
morphing into Prison Nation and weapons pusher to the world. That's
where DC seems to be taking us. As long as DC has such a negative
influence, I say we should not provide any encouragement.
My goal is to get more of the people, the real government, off their
duffs and out there doing things to assist with building
infrastructure and taking care of people.
You call that evil, whereas you want to give money to a murderous
misanthropic Beltway Junta. That's what your "mathematical economics"
tells you to do. Sorry, not buying. Once again you prove me right,
that you can't think clearly or intelligently about world problems.