Jesus prepared food on site for thousands with five loaves and a couple of fishes. We are living in the stone age compared to that. because the rich want to keep new ideas for themselves and so they not only impoverish us but themselves as well. Due to technology the poorest of us in developed nations are better off in terms of simple comforts than the richest people of a couple of hundred years ago. The rich of today want the benefits of the next technological wave without the plebs that are the only people that can create it. It just shows what an upside down world these people inhabit in their deranged souless minds.
A fantastic anecdote that illustrates why, in general, I began to doubt libertarianism and complete laissez-faire markets. Sure, the libertarian might argue that this is only happening because the NHS is state-run, but there are scores of examples of this kind of soulless corporatism happening everywhere, especially in the US with privately run hospitals, prisons and airports. Sodexo and HMS Host are EVERYWHERE, and no one really knows where all this "food" is coming from.
So, I'm joining the hippie leftist "eat locally" crowd when I can, but for different reasons. The problem with the perverse mixed economy means that small local businesses simply cannot compete in the market with these global giants, especially with the myriad of ever encroaching regulations that seek to destroy them.
The libertarian position is thus to shrink or eliminate the State and do away with these incentives, but of course that ignores the reality of power structures and hierarchies. So yes, I can now unironically say that yes, things would get better "if only the right people are in charge".
In AA's words- clear those in power out and replace them with people who care about the human soul.
'The customer is always right'. There will never be good food in these hospitals delivered by caring people at a reasonable price. Because the customers aren't eating the food. The customers are bureaucrats in an office somewhere. The 'customers' also aren't paying for it with their own money. They are paying for it with yours. And while they take some sort of pride in a job well done and can be assumed to be somewhat patriotic and civic minded and whatnot, it isn't their money at the end of the day.
The patients aren't the customers, they are just a product and so what is good for them is way down the list. The perversity of the whole thing is that giving the patients the best food provided by caring staff would actually be the best thing for the system, but it is difficult to demonstrate that. A classic example of long term objectives being sacrificed to short term objectives. In any 'third party payer' system everybody loses, except the vendors of course, which is why these systems really proliferate. It is fantastic to sell anything to the government because they don't care about quality or service or cost. Again, they aren't eating it and it isn't their money. Just check the all boxes and you can be Vendor of the Year every year, serving cold hot dogs for 10 bucks apiece.
I used to work in the NHS; everyone - from therapists, rehab assistants, to team leaders, to department managers - hated it, they hated the bureaucracy, the stripping away of the human, the atmosphere of being in a Stalinist gulag as both prisoner and office clerk. It was there I read all of Theodore Dalrymple's online essays.
I'd also like to add that Woe's point at the end is what I agree with most. Again, from the libertarian viewpoint, opening up to competition and profit will invariably lead to some better results but we see where this is going with the utter soullessness of everything.
To have the kitchen that Woes is talking about, where people CARE, cannot be done with financial incentive or rulemaking or nagging or scolding or nannying.
It must be done because people are good.
It's been my position that politics really doesn't matter as much as the quality of people living in your community, or city, or country. A good people will take care of their neighbors out of genuine care and compassion for them. My father was in a (US) hospital with a severe illness and while the nurses and staff treated him (for the most part) with the kind of politeness that comes from customer service training, it was apparent that he was just patient x who needs this or that treatment at this or that time.
I suppose what I'm advocating for is for people to just start evaluating themselves and how they live their lives and what they find important. Maybe this takes an experience with the Divine. But the social rot we see every day bleeds in to every aspect of our lives, and no amount of money or efficiency projects or votes is going to change that
In other words we get what we fucking deserve. At least, on the whole.
It's the Robert Putnam principle. Social capital decreases with diversity, even among people of the same race. I bet in places like Hungary a lot more people care.
I just returned from a trip to Spain. We stayed in an apartment in Ávila that was right next to a medieval church. The Church would post notices of death for local residents on a message board outside, and town residents would periodically come up and check the board. Probably because, you know, they actually cared about their neighbors.
You're absolutely right, I think. I should note that the vast majority of people in Ávila who were not tourists were, well, Spaniards.
Oh yeah, I should also point out that these people were most likely checking out that board to be informed of who they should PRAY for in their community.
If you've heard of the concept of asabiya, it's a pretty straight correlation. The complexity and prosperity of a society tend to negatively correlate with the number of fucks given, as giving a fuck is no longer directly affecting your survival (systems and bureaucracies do not care who you are, just that you fall under their criteria).
Creating local power centers and networks is the only way to get people to give a fuck, but because returns to scale usually increase, rather than decrease as most economists have it, it becomes difficult to build and maintain these networks on a money basis.
Logically this also means that free market libertarianism suffers from a shortage of fucks to give - if people are motivated by market prices, they pay for the cheapest thing - usually the one with the biggest asset base and who gives the fewest fucks.
In a stunning reversal of evolution, the modern world has fucks given as the scarce resource.
I used to work for an accountancy department of the NHS. The bureaucracy is insoluble, the waste of money is barely imaginable. It is a minor miracle that meals get regularly provided at all. As long as you have a national organisation, completely divorced from local areas and people, there is no solution. Hospitals used to be run by the managers of that hospital, now hundreds of hospitals are all run by people hundreds of miles away who have never even visited them.
Jesus prepared food on site for thousands with five loaves and a couple of fishes. We are living in the stone age compared to that. because the rich want to keep new ideas for themselves and so they not only impoverish us but themselves as well. Due to technology the poorest of us in developed nations are better off in terms of simple comforts than the richest people of a couple of hundred years ago. The rich of today want the benefits of the next technological wave without the plebs that are the only people that can create it. It just shows what an upside down world these people inhabit in their deranged souless minds.
A fantastic anecdote that illustrates why, in general, I began to doubt libertarianism and complete laissez-faire markets. Sure, the libertarian might argue that this is only happening because the NHS is state-run, but there are scores of examples of this kind of soulless corporatism happening everywhere, especially in the US with privately run hospitals, prisons and airports. Sodexo and HMS Host are EVERYWHERE, and no one really knows where all this "food" is coming from.
So, I'm joining the hippie leftist "eat locally" crowd when I can, but for different reasons. The problem with the perverse mixed economy means that small local businesses simply cannot compete in the market with these global giants, especially with the myriad of ever encroaching regulations that seek to destroy them.
The libertarian position is thus to shrink or eliminate the State and do away with these incentives, but of course that ignores the reality of power structures and hierarchies. So yes, I can now unironically say that yes, things would get better "if only the right people are in charge".
In AA's words- clear those in power out and replace them with people who care about the human soul.
'The customer is always right'. There will never be good food in these hospitals delivered by caring people at a reasonable price. Because the customers aren't eating the food. The customers are bureaucrats in an office somewhere. The 'customers' also aren't paying for it with their own money. They are paying for it with yours. And while they take some sort of pride in a job well done and can be assumed to be somewhat patriotic and civic minded and whatnot, it isn't their money at the end of the day.
The patients aren't the customers, they are just a product and so what is good for them is way down the list. The perversity of the whole thing is that giving the patients the best food provided by caring staff would actually be the best thing for the system, but it is difficult to demonstrate that. A classic example of long term objectives being sacrificed to short term objectives. In any 'third party payer' system everybody loses, except the vendors of course, which is why these systems really proliferate. It is fantastic to sell anything to the government because they don't care about quality or service or cost. Again, they aren't eating it and it isn't their money. Just check the all boxes and you can be Vendor of the Year every year, serving cold hot dogs for 10 bucks apiece.
I used to work in the NHS; everyone - from therapists, rehab assistants, to team leaders, to department managers - hated it, they hated the bureaucracy, the stripping away of the human, the atmosphere of being in a Stalinist gulag as both prisoner and office clerk. It was there I read all of Theodore Dalrymple's online essays.
I'd also like to add that Woe's point at the end is what I agree with most. Again, from the libertarian viewpoint, opening up to competition and profit will invariably lead to some better results but we see where this is going with the utter soullessness of everything.
To have the kitchen that Woes is talking about, where people CARE, cannot be done with financial incentive or rulemaking or nagging or scolding or nannying.
It must be done because people are good.
It's been my position that politics really doesn't matter as much as the quality of people living in your community, or city, or country. A good people will take care of their neighbors out of genuine care and compassion for them. My father was in a (US) hospital with a severe illness and while the nurses and staff treated him (for the most part) with the kind of politeness that comes from customer service training, it was apparent that he was just patient x who needs this or that treatment at this or that time.
I suppose what I'm advocating for is for people to just start evaluating themselves and how they live their lives and what they find important. Maybe this takes an experience with the Divine. But the social rot we see every day bleeds in to every aspect of our lives, and no amount of money or efficiency projects or votes is going to change that
In other words we get what we fucking deserve. At least, on the whole.
It's the Robert Putnam principle. Social capital decreases with diversity, even among people of the same race. I bet in places like Hungary a lot more people care.
I just returned from a trip to Spain. We stayed in an apartment in Ávila that was right next to a medieval church. The Church would post notices of death for local residents on a message board outside, and town residents would periodically come up and check the board. Probably because, you know, they actually cared about their neighbors.
You're absolutely right, I think. I should note that the vast majority of people in Ávila who were not tourists were, well, Spaniards.
Oh yeah, I should also point out that these people were most likely checking out that board to be informed of who they should PRAY for in their community.
Psh, so old fashioned and backwards amirite?
Sounds like a wonderful ritual, in maybe a morbid sort of way. But I find it sweet
If you've heard of the concept of asabiya, it's a pretty straight correlation. The complexity and prosperity of a society tend to negatively correlate with the number of fucks given, as giving a fuck is no longer directly affecting your survival (systems and bureaucracies do not care who you are, just that you fall under their criteria).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah
Creating local power centers and networks is the only way to get people to give a fuck, but because returns to scale usually increase, rather than decrease as most economists have it, it becomes difficult to build and maintain these networks on a money basis.
Logically this also means that free market libertarianism suffers from a shortage of fucks to give - if people are motivated by market prices, they pay for the cheapest thing - usually the one with the biggest asset base and who gives the fewest fucks.
In a stunning reversal of evolution, the modern world has fucks given as the scarce resource.
I used to work for an accountancy department of the NHS. The bureaucracy is insoluble, the waste of money is barely imaginable. It is a minor miracle that meals get regularly provided at all. As long as you have a national organisation, completely divorced from local areas and people, there is no solution. Hospitals used to be run by the managers of that hospital, now hundreds of hospitals are all run by people hundreds of miles away who have never even visited them.