Letters to the Editor

• @saintlucid -- You don't always get what you pay for

  [Read the article: Various items]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  The rights (i.e, opportunity) of the individual to make choices is also a consequence of the available choices. The concept of a perfect system in the social sciences (any system containing perfect information, equally distributed resources and no extraneous variables) are economic, philosophical and ideological "models", not to be confused with everyday reality. Our everyday reality is polysystemic.

  The US is a monopoly capitalistic society more than it is a free market society. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Monopoly capitalism is a guarantee that you will not get what you pay for.

  We flatter ourselves that our health care system is cutting edge. Yet our health outcomes are not only worse than Britain’s, they look bad in a global context.

  The United States spends more of its income on health care than any nation on earth, nearly $6,000 per person per year, more than 15 percent of our total income. In contrast, the countries of the European Monetary Union spend about $2,500 per person per year, less than 10 percent of their income.

  What do we get for our money? One simple test is to see where the United States stands in a comparison of the most basic health statistic of all: life expectancy at birth.

  The answer is that the United States appears to be doing badly, not just compared to Britain but compared to every advanced country in the world. Taking into account the overall standard of living and spending on health care, we should expect a newborn in the United States to live 81 years. [1] In fact, life expectancy at birth is 77 years. Of 25 high-income industrialized countries, the United States is in last place, both in life expectancy at birth and in the gap between actual life expectancy and predicted life expectancy given the standard of living and spending on health care. The next worst outcome, behind U.S. life-expectancy deficit of four years, is a deficit of 2.7 years in Denmark. In contrast, a Japanese newborn is predicted to live about 79 years but actual life expectancy in Japan is nearly 82 years. A Japanese newborn can be expected to live two and a half years more than Japanese living standards and medical spending would lead one to expect, while an American lives four years fewer.

  The four year deficit in life expectancy in the United States is one of the worst outcomes anywhere outside Sub-Saharan Africa. (emphasis mine) All the other countries with life expectancy outcomes substantially worse than predicted are developing countries or part of the former Soviet Union.

  http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1287

  There are graphs in the article that are devastating in their critique of US medical care. Medical care is only one component of quality of life. Quality of life in the US is increasingly homogenized and measured almost entirely in materialistic terms. The concept of status and self-worth is increasingly synonymous with an individual's net worth. Where the traditional concept of contemporary civilized society is concerned, the US is a farce that is fast becoming a tragedy.

  Personally, I think it's going to get better eventually (as long as we don't start a nuclear holocaust before 2009).

  Permalink Thursday, August 2, 2007 06:35 PM

• @saintlucid -- Merger and Acquisition as a measure of monopoly

  [Read the article: Various items]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  From Wikipedia:

  The Great Merger Movement happened from 1895 to 1905. During this time, small firms with little market share consolidated with similar firms to form large, powerful institutions that became even market dominating. The vehicle used were so-called Trusts. To truly understand how large this movement was—in 1900 the value of firms acquired in mergers was 20% of GDP. In 1990 the value was only 3% and from 1998–2000 is was around 10–11% of GDP. Organizations that commanded the greatest share of the market in 1905 saw that command disintegrate by 1929 as smaller competitors joined forces with each other.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions

  The M&A as a percentage of GDP is telling, particularly comparing 1990 to 1998-2000.

  Things are more complicated now given the increase in cross-border M&A resulting from globalization. The EU experienced a tremendous run in M&A activity at the end of the century. Recent M&A activity in the US is once again approaching 1999-2000 levels.

  http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/tables/mergevalue.htm

  The US is now third after Russia and Mexico in terms of inequality within industrialized nations.

  Individual wealth is a sign of monopoly as well:

  It has been a busy year in the fortune-hunting business. Strong equity markets combined with rising real estate values and commodity prices pushed up fortunes from Mumbai to Madrid. Forbes pinned down 946 billionaires, including 178 newcomers and 17 people who climbed back into the ranks after being absent for a year or more. Two-thirds of last year's billionaires are richer. Only 17% are poorer, including 32 who fell below the billion-dollar mark. The billionaires' combined net worth climbed by $900 billion to $3.5 trillion. That equates to $3.6 billion apiece.

  http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/07/billionaires-worlds-richest_07billionaires_cz_lk_af_0308billie_land.html

  In 2005 Forbes reported 691 billionaires, up from 587 in 2004.

  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150093,00.html

  So we are looking at an increase to 946 global billionaires from 587 in two years or an increase of 61 percent.

  So what does that tell you about the likely distribution of wealth in a fully integrated global economy?

  Permalink Thursday, August 2, 2007 07:58 PM