🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@DaveFernig While that seems accurate im not sure how much of it is training vs the system. The change has been too short term (particularly worse the last few years) for it to be a training issue.

As best I can understand the issue comes about from the FDA and the legal system which has caused them to be unable to treat and act out of fear of law suits. Plus rules out of the FDA seem to strongly discourage prescription drugs.

@DaveFernig seem to have the same problem from older doctors. In fact might be worse from the older generation.

@Gustodon

Conservatives a box of gravel, liberals a box of pebbles. Which vox of worthless roxks shall we vote for this time :)

@uspolitics

@ceoln

> I tend to disagree; the fact that 1% of the people in the world control half the wealth seems unjust to me, and it's certainly due to the world's economic structures and institutions.

People being able to keep what they earn and work hard and take the risks on is not unjust.

If i am the only one int he village spending all my time chopping wood and therefore have much more wealth than everyone else its kinda childish and silly for allt he villagers to complain and demand some free wood. go chop your own.

The majority of rich people in the USA started out poor or middle class, there is injustice, but not in the ways you imagine.

@stux

@ceoln @stux

There are plenty of unjuat aspects. But having ubeven wealth distribution is not caused by injustice if we are talming rich vs poor ratio. There is unjustice when we talk about distribution between some demographics like race.

@ceoln @stux

You said the unjust aspects of the structure, we disagree on that notnif structures are involved.

@ceoln @stux

Well depends what you mean. If you mean the fact that somenpeople have a lot of money, then no. If you mean the fact that money is a bit easier for nonminorities than minorities in any particular society, then yes.

@ceoln @stux

Not in any way causally...

@ceoln @stux

Not at all. They can be indirectly correlated by not causative association.

@ceoln @stux

Then stick to arguing about unjust structures rather than how much someone has earned for themselves.

@ceoln @stux

Communist really struggle with the simple concept that just because someone has a lot more than you doesnt mean you are suffering or in duress.

@ceoln @stux

Not according to every us court every, or for that matter any other court.

They are hugely different things. The fact that you can compete fornhire with multiple other employers or even work for yourself and do the same work as a contractor means you arent under duress and have many choices.

@ceoln @stux

So this is different than what you said. Its not about if onenparty has overwhlmingly more power at all. You are talki g about signing under duress, which obviously doesnt apply to communism/capitalism as you dont even need to take the employment contract at all, you can start your own company or just contract for your employer as well.

@ceoln @stux

Which law? Lets be specific.

@ceoln @stux

Who said equal power? Why would they or should they. You shoukd have the power you invested into earning.

@ceoln @stux

> Of course it is! Capitalism is when a worker produces $X of value, and that $X goes to the owner of the means of production that the worker used to produce the value; the owner then gives the worker a wage of some $Y << $X, and keeps the rest. (And mutatis mutandis for landlords, police, etc.)

But thats not accurate at all. In capitalism is where the owner lets the worker borrow their stuff to make stuff with, at a fixed agreement where both owner and worker get the cut they agreed to.

In communism the equipment is stolen from the person who worked to buy them.

@ceoln @stux

Not really capitalism is not defined as taking the things i paid for, again absurdity.