Re: equation to describe the economy

royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On 31 May 2005 04:18:25 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >No idea what you are saying here.
>
> Evolution is based on differential reproductive success, especially,
> for large primates, differences in probability of surviving infancy.

Evolution depends even more on a species's perpencity of Mutual Aid,
which Infant Mortality is a good indicator of.

> >> _If_ keeping them alive is going to compromise the community's
> >> outcomes.

> >Which, in the main, it doesn't.

> But sometimes it does.

Not in any measurable way that relates to Infant Mortality.

> >Must be quite a creepy feeling finding yourself having sympathy for a
> >view held by Ku Klux Kolker.

> The most evil person who ever lived believed that 2+2=4.

Yet you can bet that he is lying, and the real quantities are neither 2
nor 2, thus the result of 4 is irrelevant misinformation.

> >More to the point, it should cause you to reexamine the premise, as you
> >know full well that KKKolker's only purpose in posting here is to
> >spread misinformation and perpetuate hatred.
>
> But he relies on a careful mix of fact and fallacy to give him some
> credibility. It is important to isolate what is true and reasonable
> from what is fallacious and unreasonable, and argue against the
> latter, not the former.

If you think so, I think he can safely be ignored, apart from the
occasional derision. He's not fooling anyone but his fellow Klan
sympathizers, and, IMO, he's not worth your time.

There are far more worthwhile adversaries here. Responding to
KKKolker's "points" is just noise.

> >It is not infants that will "be a drain on society" that die and
> >inflate Infant Mortality Rates, but the existence of poverty in the
> >community, and children, who never had a chance to be an asset to
> >society, die because they had the misfortune of being born in a
> >community suffering from poverty.
>
> And to parents, especially mothers, suffering from ignorance,
> stupidity and irresponsibility.

And ignorance, stupidity and irresponsibility result from same social
relationships as does the poverty, and in no small part, directly as a
result of the poverty.

> >Unlike KKKolker, you know the economic roots of this poverty.
>
> Right. And I also know poverty is only part of the story. Landowner
> privilege is even more egregious in Japan than in the USA, yet Japan
> has the second lowest rate of infant mortality among the countries you
> listed.

It also has a GINI index, 24.9 (1993), that is also near the top of all
nations, and far better than the US, 40.8 (1997).

Indicating that while they may lose more wealth to Rents, they lose
less to Interest, so the _level_ of wages remains significantly high.

> The reason is quite simple: Japanese women are much more
> conscientious about their own health than American women, and they do
> not have children they are not prepared to care for.

I disagree, the reason is the they are wealthier.

> I would hazard a
> guess that the ratio of abortions to live births is as good a
> predictor of infant mortality as poverty.

I don't have per live birth, but here it is per capita. I don't see
your correlation.

1. Poland 0.01 per 1000 people
2. Greece 0.11 per 1000 people
3. Germany 1.18 per 1000 people
4. Finland 1.90 per 1000 people
5. Canada 2.19 per 1000 people
6. Italy 2.31 per 1000 people
7. France 2.67 per 1000 people
8. Japan 2.69 per 1000 people
9. United Kingdom 2.78 per 1000 people
10. New Zealand 2.82 per 1000 people
11. Iceland 2.87 per 1000 people
12. Norway 3.00 per 1000 people
13. United States 4.17 per 1000 people
14. Sweden 4.22 per 1000 people
15. Hungary 7.66 per 1000 people

> >> It costs
> >> money to keep infants alive, in some cases a very great deal of money,
> >> and in many of those cases that money doesn't buy a commensurate
> >> return. Even if you assume that public expenditures on keeping
> >> incurably disabled infants alive are all paid for by taxing rents,
> >
> >'Incurably disabled infants' is a red herring, that it is not what we
> >are talking about here.
>
> But that is the kernel of truth in Kolker's claim they are a "drain on
> the rest of us."

It is NOT a kernel of truth, it is a load of bull***, as can be
expected from Ku Klux Kolker.

It tries to frame the proposition so that the babies that die are
thought of as disabled babies, as opposed to potentially health babies,
the disease is in the community, not the baby.

Percentage of 20 to 64-year-olds receiving disability benefits.

1. Norway 9.2%
2. Netherlands 9.0%
3. Sweden 8.2%
4. Denmark 7.7%
5. United Kingdom 6.6%
6. Belgium 6.0%
7. Italy 5.5%
8. Switzerland 5.3%
9. Australia 5.2%
10. United States 4.7%
11. France 4.7%
12. Austria 4.6%
13. Germany 4.2%
14. Canada 3.9%

Once again, no correlation, Canada and Germany, near the top of the
Infant Mortality Rate, near the bottom in regards to disability
recipients. Not even an inverse relation, as Norway and Sweden are
among those high on both lists.

> It is important to isolate, identify and address it.

> >Infant Mortality Rate does not correlate with instances of 'incurable
> >disability,'

> It does, especially with incurable neurological damage caused by drug
> exposure.

False.

> >the vast majority of infant deaths are preventable ones
> >caused by lack of common medical attention, nutrition and hygiene for
> >mother and child.

> Not in the USA they aren't. They're caused by drug abuse.

Citation?

> >All you need to do is look at economic and regional disparity to see
> >the proof of this.

> Poor Americans who don't abuse drugs or engage in other
> self-destructive behavior have middle-class rates of infant mortality.

Citation?

> >I would propose that The USA spends far more money than the average
> >nation in my list, to keep 'incurably disabled infants' alive, this, as
> >we see, does not translate to generally low infant mortality rates.

> Right. Other countries are much more willing to let the really severe
> cases die, whereas the USA taxes young working people into poverty to
> keep those cases alive.

And despite this has Infant Mortality rates closer to Cuba than any
OECD nation.

> >The
> >availability of common medical attention, as well as good nutrition and
> >hygiene does.

> How many junkies have good nutrition, even if they are rich?

I don't know, and don't see the relevance.

All stats here are from nationmaster.com, btw.

Regards.

.

Loading