A right versus a privilege isn't really referring to privileged people; it's more of a legal concept. For example, freedom of speech is a right granted by the Constitution. Driving a car is a privilege, i.e., something you have to be licensed for and meet certain criteria like insurance. You have no inherent right to drive.

Ginger, thank you. I think this is the way I was interpreting it.

Five Myths about Health Care in the Rest of the World

I keep reading articles like this and keep wondering why so many people are opposed to health care reform.

Who in the US doesn't have to wait weeks or months for non-emergency care?? And hours for (non heart attack, non bleeding) emergency care???

And who in the US has more than a limited number of choices of provider (assuming they don't have unlimited funds)?????

Grrr.

DH takes aciphex. And his double dose was approved. However, with our new insurance, 3 of my drugs got a no. I wonder how long I get to go with out them.

I do not consider health care/insurance a right or a privilege. It is a practical matter. If every one has healthcare/insurance and the ability to stay home when they are sick -- CEO's don't get sick because the office cleaner is sick, less disease is spread through work places, and less productivity is lost because of the flu sweeping through an office.

Who in the US doesn't have to wait weeks or months for non-emergency care??

Well, Dick Cheney has a wing named after him in the hospital where my Mom works. I don't think he has to wait for appointments.

Can I get quick check in from the hivemind about a question I've been mulling recently?

It stems from selling some books at Half-Price Books and getting almost nothing for them - especially compared to CDs or DVDs at Amoeba.

And also noticing that there are sellers on Amazon that can still make money by selling books for one cent (somehow making profit on the mailing charge).

And knowing that my publisher pulped a bunch of the Bubblegum books because it cost him more in taxes to warehouse them than they worth.

One of the things that the internet does is it changes the means of distribution and eliminates local market inefficiencies. A local bookstore might be able to corner the market on vintage Baum Oz books and keep the prices up, but an online search will find somebody somewhere that will sell it cheaper.

So my question isn't about publishing so much as my sense that the production cost to make books has gotten extremely cheap. Which is also true for most digital media.

And indeed, other bargain hunts on the interpipe suggest that manufacturing is almost throwing away some items. That they're so cheap to produce that if they don't sell, they can be dumped for almost nothing.

So my question is, Are production costs getting so low that the world economy could feasibly house and feed everybody in the world?

Because it seems to me that we could, and the biggest impediment to that is Capitalism.

I know it's a raging commie sort of question to ask, and I'm not advocating switching to worldwide socialism tomorrow. But it seems to me that the worldwide economy is such that you could feed, house, educate and provide healthcare for everybody in the world.

Is my supposition unfounded? Is it a near possibility? Would we need to make an energy breakthrough to make it feasible?

I don't think anybody's giving up on their profit line anytime soon, and there are plenty of political interests inimical to such a structure. But it just feels like we've reached a tipping point of abundance.

Which is what Marx implied would happen with capitalism. And also Guy Debord argued that capitalism only works by creating the illusion of need. That markets can only continue to grow well past the point of necessities by creating false needs.

Well, Dick Cheney has a wing named after him in the hospital where my Mom works. I don't think he has to wait for appointments.

Hmph!

So my question is, Are production costs getting so low that the world economy could feasibly house and feed everybody in the world?

I don't understand how you get there from where you started. Please elaborate.

So my question is, Are production costs getting so low that the world economy could feasibly house and feed everybody in the world?

Food production costs have been going up a lot worldwide, as they are largely dependent on the cost of fuel (for fertilizer, fieldwork, transportation, etc).

In other news, my poor coworker is like 14 weeks pregnant, and showing so much! Everyone has to talk to her about it, including some relative who was like, "Are you SURE you're not having twins?" Here's the thing: she's a wee person -- there was nowhere else for the placenta to go but straight out! She's got a long road to hoe.

I don't understand how you get there from where you started. Please elaborate.

As I see the internet eliminate local market inefficiences, I suspect I'm seeing something closer to the actual production value of things being sold.

In sum, it really doesn't cost that much to make the things we buy. That market values are manipulated to maintain profits. (And I'm not arguing that in an OMG! I'm shocked to find profiteering in a capitalist economy! I just think that's inherent to the system.)

Food production costs have been going up a lot worldwide, as they are largely dependent on the cost of fuel (for fertilizer, fieldwork, transportation, etc).

Yeah, but fuel costs are subject to a huge amount of collusion and market manipulation.

eta: The more cynical part of my assumption is that free market forces aren't allowed to work because (as 19th century industrial barons noted - "Competition is death to profits.") But that's not my main point. I just have the feeling that if you divided the wealth of the world economy by the population then everybody would have plenty.

Of course, I can't really imagine how the economy continues to work without rich people having all their dosh and other people striving to get theirs.

But I think the spectacle (in Debord's sense) necessary to maintain continued economic growth is harder to maintain when there's a saturation of abundance.

Someone invented a new food thingie! The "Silly Rabbit," which is "French toast breaded in crushed Trix cereal."

[link]