Islam and Universal Healthcare (Zakat And What We Can Learn)

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Bromius Bacchus

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

The biggest irony of the tea party is that their teachings come from Ayn Rand.

Isn't she notoriously leftist?

I'd headdesk after reading that but I like my forehead without a big divot in it, unlike yourself apparently.

I'm pretty sure she is, but I hate Ayn Rand.

Hitler was pretty artsy and totally into eugenics and fascism and stuff too.

Fix'd He also stopped being artsy when art school said he wasn't artsy enough for them.

The differences between the two in practice are generally relativley minor.

One gives the power to the people and the other to state, which ends up being the same thing.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

The biggest irony of the tea party is that their teachings come from Ayn Rand.

Isn't she notoriously leftist?

I'd headdesk after reading that but I like my forehead without a big divot in it, unlike yourself apparently.

I'm pretty sure she is, but I hate Ayn Rand.

Actually, you're totally and utterly wrong.

Quote:

Hitler was pretty artsy and totally into eugenics and socialism and stuff too.

No he wasn't.

You keep digging deeper and deeper into this, don't you?

National Socialist German Worker's party = Nazi Party = Hitler was Socialist

Just saying.


Also, Ayn Rand associated herself with the left, quite regularly.

lol Ayn Rand is leftist

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected ethical altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. She promoted romantic realism in art. She was sharply critical of most other philosophers and philosophical traditions.

Sounds pretty damn leftist to me.

Libertarianism is ultra-right, not ultra-left. In order to be left-wing you need to support state intervention on matters of taxation on welfare, which Rand did not support under any circumstance.

The left believe in collective rights. Rand only believed in individual rights.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

Suicidesoldier#1

azulmagia

I'd headdesk after reading that but I like my forehead without a big divot in it, unlike yourself apparently.

I'm pretty sure she is, but I hate Ayn Rand.

Actually, you're totally and utterly wrong.

Quote:

Hitler was pretty artsy and totally into eugenics and socialism and stuff too.

No he wasn't.

You keep digging deeper and deeper into this, don't you?

National Socialist German Worker's party = Nazi Party = Hitler was Socialist

Just saying.


Also, Ayn Rand associated herself with the left, quite regularly.

lol Ayn Rand is leftist

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected ethical altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. She promoted romantic realism in art. She was sharply critical of most other philosophers and philosophical traditions.

Sounds pretty damn leftist to me.

Libertarianism is ultra-right, not ultra-left. In order to be left-wing you need to support state intervention on matters of taxation on welfare, which Rand did not support under any circumstance.

The left believe in collective rights. Rand only believed in individual rights.

Yet she called her group the collective.

[Jorgunmandr]

Isn't welfare, welfare? Most if not all States have programs towards free or extremely low cost healthcare. When I was poor my premium was $4 a month.

[Firebird Trans Am GTA_87]

Brandan J Cromartie

Isn't welfare, welfare? Most if not all States have programs towards free or extremely low cost healthcare. When I was poor my premium was $4 a month.

UN Rankings put the United States well below the top 10 for healthcare services provided for citizens other than seniors, and is put in the top 10 for healthcare services provided to seniors because of Medicare.

[Jorgunmandr]

Firebird Trans Am GTA_87

Brandan J Cromartie

Isn't welfare, welfare? Most if not all States have programs towards free or extremely low cost healthcare. When I was poor my premium was $4 a month.

UN Rankings put the United States well below the top 10 for healthcare services provided for citizens other than seniors, and is put in the top 10 for healthcare services provided to seniors because of Medicare.

To which I agree but this isn't due to a lack of welfare but instead a lack of social unity and condemnation based on economic status. It is as you said a prideful thing but I believe it is the inability to pay and fear of debt that weakens the system not the lack of resources available to begin with.

[Firebird Trans Am GTA_87]

Brandan J Cromartie

Firebird Trans Am GTA_87

Brandan J Cromartie

Isn't welfare, welfare? Most if not all States have programs towards free or extremely low cost healthcare. When I was poor my premium was $4 a month.

UN Rankings put the United States well below the top 10 for healthcare services provided for citizens other than seniors, and is put in the top 10 for healthcare services provided to seniors because of Medicare.

To which I agree but this isn't due to a lack of welfare but instead a lack of social unity and condemnation based on economic status. It is as you said a prideful thing but I believe it is the inability to pay and fear of debt that weakens the system not the lack of resources available to begin with.

The only people who fear the accumulation of debt are the top 1% because they have the strongest voice. The Federal Reserve can print more money. Yes, that will lead to inflation, but the poor don't care because they can't pay for anything anyways. It's only the big dogs who cry and moan when they're left in a bad situation. We are not the EU. We are not Greece. We have the ability to print a lot of money; unlimited at that. Let the rich fall, or let them become Atlas. There is no half-way point.

[Jorgunmandr]

Firebird Trans Am GTA_87

Brandan J Cromartie

Firebird Trans Am GTA_87

Brandan J Cromartie

Isn't welfare, welfare? Most if not all States have programs towards free or extremely low cost healthcare. When I was poor my premium was $4 a month.

UN Rankings put the United States well below the top 10 for healthcare services provided for citizens other than seniors, and is put in the top 10 for healthcare services provided to seniors because of Medicare.

To which I agree but this isn't due to a lack of welfare but instead a lack of social unity and condemnation based on economic status. It is as you said a prideful thing but I believe it is the inability to pay and fear of debt that weakens the system not the lack of resources available to begin with.

The only people who fear the accumulation of debt are the top 1% because they have the strongest voice. The Federal Reserve can print more money. Yes, that will lead to inflation, but the poor don't care because they can't pay for anything anyways. It's only the big dogs who cry and moan when they're left in a bad situation. We are not the EU. We are not Greece. We have the ability to print a lot of money; unlimited at that. Let the rich fall, or let them become Atlas. There is no half-way point.

However what I am saying is that the American people have demonized debt. It is functionally a social problem and not a system failure that drives this more now than ever. Universal Healthcare will someday because the world's ethical standard however that does not make the Zakat better or worse in comparison to other forms of welfare. The only difference is that it is religiously driven but that in itself makes quite a difference.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Profit creates debt. In the middle of operation someone has to make more money- in a closed system, that means someone else loses out.

Assuming there is a reason for the money, it must be spent for base survival- that means you must spend money you don't have sense things are sold more than their worth, and we assume that previously they got payed what they were worth in a supposed fair environment, and everyone, except for the person making a profit, goes into debt.


The only way to compensate is by introducing more into what was a closed system- thus, causing inflation.

In that way any for profit business causes inflation, which causes the rapid decline of an economy, and thus any economy and every economy is doomed.


Unless everything is non-profit and we are able to add more to the economy for quite some time.

We are eventually doomed, but we might last billions of years.

[Wraith of Azrael]

*Twitch*...The s**t in this thread, some of it makes me want to bash my skull in good god.

Good god.

Suicidesoldier#1

Profit creates debt. In the middle of operation someone has to make more money- in a closed system, that means someone else loses out.

Assuming there is a reason for the money, it must be spent for base survival- that means you must spend money you don't have sense things are sold more than their worth, and we assume that previously they got payed what they were worth in a supposed fair environment, and everyone, except for the person making a profit, goes into debt.


The only way to compensate is by introducing more into what was a closed system- thus, causing inflation.

In that way any for profit business causes inflation, which causes the rapid decline of an economy, and thus any economy and every economy is doomed.


Unless everything is non-profit and we are able to add more to the economy for quite some time.

We are eventually doomed, but we might last billions of years.

Let's start with this.

How does profit create debt?

Profit comes from the difference between the actual cost of goods and services and the stated cost of goods and services. AKA the Value added.

Also, you're assuming it's a closed system and that someone (inevitably) loses out. Not true. People benefit from trade. One individual gets to enjoy a good the other gets money. If a person did not believe that the good was worth its stated cost, they would not buy it.


You're forgetting something here, labour.
What is the actual cost of labour? This is something which is difficult to measure. The stated cost of labour is inherently reliant on the supply and demand of said labour. The easier it is to be replaced the less your labour is worth.

In Marxist thought, the value added is often thought of as coming from the difference between the actual cost of your labour and what you're actually getting payed.

This explains how people can get profit. You're being payed less than what your labour is actually producing and thus the surplus value to the good.

The amount that you get payed is in essence a conversion of your type of labour into cash. Although it is technically less than what you're actually worth, you can still use this cash to buy goods.

Also, you're assuming that inflation causes decline, it doesn't, UNCONTROLLED inflation causes decline. Inflation is only bad when it is over the growth rate of GDP. If Inflation is less than actual GDP growth you can get economic growth. This is because the money supply is growing at a rate which is slower than the economy is, so the worth of your economy goes up. If Inflation is growing at a FASTER rate than the economy the value of your economy tends to go down abit.

Example:
If your economy is growing at 3% per year but your inflation is 4% a year in 25 years your economy will have grown by 75% but your prices will have increased by 100%. This may mean that goods will infact cost 25% more than what they did 25 years ago. It should be noted that the actual number of dollars does not matter but what matters is what those dollars can buy (purchasing power).

If your economy is growing at 4% per year but inflation is 3% a year in 25 years your economy will have grown by 100% and inflation would have grown by 75%. What does this mean? Well, it might mean that the goods of 25 years ago are now infact less expnsive now then they were 25 years ago BUT most likely, it means that you can buy 25% more now with your money than you could 25 years ago.

It's all about balance.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Wraith of Azrael

*Twitch*...The s**t in this thread, some of it makes me want to bash my skull in good god.

Good god.

Suicidesoldier#1

Profit creates debt. In the middle of operation someone has to make more money- in a closed system, that means someone else loses out.

Assuming there is a reason for the money, it must be spent for base survival- that means you must spend money you don't have sense things are sold more than their worth, and we assume that previously they got payed what they were worth in a supposed fair environment, and everyone, except for the person making a profit, goes into debt.


The only way to compensate is by introducing more into what was a closed system- thus, causing inflation.

In that way any for profit business causes inflation, which causes the rapid decline of an economy, and thus any economy and every economy is doomed.


Unless everything is non-profit and we are able to add more to the economy for quite some time.

We are eventually doomed, but we might last billions of years.

Let's start with this.

How does profit create debt?

Profit comes from the difference between the actual cost of goods and services and the stated cost of goods and services. AKA the Value added.

Also, you're assuming it's a closed system and that someone (inevitably) loses out. Not true. People benefit from trade. One individual gets to enjoy a good the other gets money. If a person did not believe that the good was worth its stated cost, they would not buy it.


You're forgetting something here, labour.
What is the actual cost of labour? This is something which is difficult to measure. The stated cost of labour is inherently reliant on the supply and demand of said labour. The easier it is to be replaced the less your labour is worth.

In Marxist thought, the value added is often thought of as coming from the difference between the actual cost of your labour and what you're actually getting payed.

This explains how people can get profit. You're being payed less than what your labour is actually producing and thus the surplus value to the good.

The amount that you get payed is in essence a conversion of your type of labour into cash. Although it is technically less than what you're actually worth, you can still use this cash to buy goods.

Also, you're assuming that inflation causes decline, it doesn't, UNCONTROLLED inflation causes decline. Inflation is only bad when it is over the growth rate of GDP. If Inflation is less than actual GDP growth you can get economic growth. This is because the money supply is growing at a rate which is slower than the economy is, so the worth of your economy goes up. If Inflation is growing at a FASTER rate than the economy the value of your economy tends to go down abit.

Example:
If your economy is growing at 3% per year but your inflation is 4% a year in 25 years your economy will have grown by 75% but your prices will have increased by 100%. This may mean that goods will infact cost 25% more than what they did 25 years ago. It should be noted that the actual number of dollars does not matter but what matters is what those dollars can buy (purchasing power).

If your economy is growing at 4% per year but inflation is 3% a year in 25 years your economy will have grown by 100% and inflation would have grown by 75%. What does this mean? Well, it might mean that the goods of 25 years ago are now infact less expnsive now then they were 25 years ago BUT most likely, it means that you can buy 25% more now with your money than you could 25 years ago.

It's all about balance.

Right, an economy has to continue to grow and there is only so much growth that can be had. Thus we eventually get a collapse when we cannot sustain it anymore.

Profit means that an individual gets more than what their product is really worth- it is however, essential for business. Thus we get inflation due to the fact that people run out of money, sense they receive equal amounts- actually, less than what their labor is worth- but then pay unequal amounts for goods.


Thus we have to compensate somehow, or let people burn. If these people burn, how can a person continue to make profits- in every way, we have to introduce more. This causes inflation. Then sense continued growth would mean eventually taking up more resources than we actually have, and we have a finite number of resources at our disposal, the economy will eventually collapse.

Hence we are all doomed. But what do we do, get rid of profit- exactly, we can't do that, hence we are doomed.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Suicidesoldier#1

Yet she called her group the collective.

Ironic title, ********.

[Wraith of Azrael]

Suicidesoldier#1

Right, an economy has to continue to grow and there is only so much growth that can be had. Thus we eventually get a collapse when we cannot sustain it anymore.

Profit means that an individual gets more than what their product is really worth- it is however, essential for business. Thus we get inflation due to the fact that people run out of money, sense they receive equal amounts- actually, less than what their labor is worth- but then pay unequal amounts for goods.


Thus we have to compensate somehow, or let people burn. If these people burn, how can a person continue to make profits- in every way, we have to introduce more. This causes inflation. Then sense continued growth would mean eventually taking up more resources than we actually have, and we have a finite number of resources at our disposal, the economy will eventually collapse.

Hence we are all doomed. But what do we do, get rid of profit- exactly, we can't do that, hence we are doomed.

/facepalm.

You know, there's a very interesting thing that happens...
When economies go into recessions, some deflation tends to happen.
This tends to happen since inventories tend to increase and producers try and get rid of their goods when nobody wants them. They tend to do this by slashing prices usually.

If an economy collapses, there's going to be a recovery and return back to normal.
And if we reach the supposed pinnacle of growth chances are what you're going to get is a back and forth between these.
You'll get periods of growth back to the pinnacle and then decline and then growth back to the pinnacle, just like how today we get periods of growth and then recessions and then growth. The only difference will be is that there will be a pinnacle and nothing above this growth instead of going above like we do today, it's not doom and gloom.

Sigh..
As I've told you before, you'r assuming that it is more than what it's actually worth based on a different concept on the origin of surplus value. As I've mentioned before, According to Marxist thought surplus value is not because the good is more than what it's actually worth, it's because people are payed less than what their labour is worth.

So no, the good isn't priced above it's actual value, people are payed less than what they are actually worth. People being payed less than they are actually worth does not cause inflation. What people being payed less means is that the amount which people can buy is less than the amount that they produce.

Inflation is not caused by this, inflation is caused by the boom and bust cycle. I should know, the second major which I'm working on is in economics.

As people try to keep up with the "boom" more and more workers are required. Since more and more workers are required, workers wages go up. As products run out of stock, the prices of the products go up. When products run out of stock, more stuff is needed and so more stuff is sent. If there's too much of a demand, more workers are needed to make more stuff and it repeats until it pops.

When the pop happens, deflation tends to occur but usually less than the inflation before it so you get an increased price level.

The "compensation" in the system is the recession. It's the bubble popping.

Also, this is something that is really annoying me and I've noticed it in your posts before but it's SINCE not SENSE.

SENSE is when you percieve something, such as "I Sense a presence nearby"

SINCE is usually after the fact or so, "I've been living in a whole ever since i lost my job"
As well as other occasions.

[Haha Coffee]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Haha Coffee

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Haha Coffee

It's the best of things.

Not for everyone. I seem to remember you having quite the issue with people who refuse to believe in Islam. Of course, I could be mistaken.

I don't have a thing against then, I just think they are mistaken.

And that the mistaken should be "properly educated"? Or am I confusing what you said upon the matter of non-believers and conversion?

Without knowing exactly what post your referring to I can't say for sure.

But I view Religious Education as very important for everyone.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Wraith of Azrael

Suicidesoldier#1

Right, an economy has to continue to grow and there is only so much growth that can be had. Thus we eventually get a collapse when we cannot sustain it anymore.

Profit means that an individual gets more than what their product is really worth- it is however, essential for business. Thus we get inflation due to the fact that people run out of money, sense they receive equal amounts- actually, less than what their labor is worth- but then pay unequal amounts for goods.


Thus we have to compensate somehow, or let people burn. If these people burn, how can a person continue to make profits- in every way, we have to introduce more. This causes inflation. Then sense continued growth would mean eventually taking up more resources than we actually have, and we have a finite number of resources at our disposal, the economy will eventually collapse.

Hence we are all doomed. But what do we do, get rid of profit- exactly, we can't do that, hence we are doomed.

/facepalm.

You know, there's a very interesting thing that happens...
When economies go into recessions, some deflation tends to happen.
This tends to happen since inventories tend to increase and producers try and get rid of their goods when nobody wants them. They tend to do this by slashing prices usually.

If an economy collapses, there's going to be a recovery and return back to normal.
And if we reach the supposed pinnacle of growth chances are what you're going to get is a back and forth between these.
You'll get periods of growth back to the pinnacle and then decline and then growth back to the pinnacle, just like how today we get periods of growth and then recessions and then growth. The only difference will be is that there will be a pinnacle and nothing above this growth instead of going above like we do today, it's not doom and gloom.

Sigh..
As I've told you before, you'r assuming that it is more than what it's actually worth based on a different concept on the origin of surplus value. As I've mentioned before, According to Marxist thought surplus value is not because the good is more than what it's actually worth, it's because people are payed less than what their labour is worth.

So no, the good isn't priced above it's actual value, people are payed less than what they are actually worth. People being payed less than they are actually worth does not cause inflation. What people being payed less means is that the amount which people can buy is less than the amount that they produce.

Inflation is not caused by this, inflation is caused by the boom and bust cycle. I should know, the second major which I'm working on is in economics.

As people try to keep up with the "boom" more and more workers are required. Since more and more workers are required, workers wages go up. As products run out of stock, the prices of the products go up. When products run out of stock, more stuff is needed and so more stuff is sent. If there's too much of a demand, more workers are needed to make more stuff and it repeats until it pops.

When the pop happens, deflation tends to occur but usually less than the inflation before it so you get an increased price level.

The "compensation" in the system is the recession. It's the bubble popping.

Also, this is something that is really annoying me and I've noticed it in your posts before but it's SINCE not SENSE.

SENSE is when you percieve something, such as "I Sense a presence nearby"

SINCE is usually after the fact or so, "I've been living in a whole ever since i lost my job"
As well as other occasions.

The problem with that theory is that inflation and stagnant growth can be occurring in what's known as "stagflation" so the idea that the market handles it self in this form of balance is unfortunately not true.

And workers are payed less than they are worth and then pay more for products than they are worth, hence they are never given what's needed, they don't break even, and eventually go into debt. So we either let these people lose everything (and then starve and whatnot) or we try to give them more to compensate- in doing so we need more, which produces more of an artificial currency which indeed, leads to inflation.


Which eventually collapses an economy.

So it's doomed.