Re: equation to describe the economy

On 2 Jun 2005 07:11:36 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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.

Not. Few species exhibit _any_ level of mutual aid.

>> >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.

Yet whatever he meant, the form of what he said is correct.

>> >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.

Yet even poorer people in other countries do not exhibit the same
prevalence of such behavior as poor Americans do.

>> >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,

Interest is not a loss, it's a payment for a contribution to
production. And I know of no evidence to indicate a significant
difference between Japan and the USA in fraction of GDP paid in
interest (though consumer debt might account for it, that would not
affect the GINI index).

>so the _level_ of wages remains significantly high.

But infant mortality was low in Japan as far back as the 1960s, at
least, when even middle class Japanese were poorer than poor
Americans.

>> 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.

But they weren't before the 1980s, and their infant mortality was
lower than the US rate anyway.

>> 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

Yeah, too many confounding variables, including law, religion, medical
insurance provisions, etc.

>> >> 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.

See the #1 cause of infant mortality, below.

>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.

Those benefits are paid to people who were once able-bodied. Nothing
to do with birth defects.

>> >Infant Mortality Rate does not correlate with instances of 'incurable
>> >disability,'
>
>> It does, especially with incurable neurological damage caused by drug
>> exposure.
>
>False.

Fact.

>> >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?

See below.

>> >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?

See below.

>> >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.

The 10 leading causes of infant death:

1) Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal
abnormalities: the risk of these conditions rises with maternal
exposure to toxins, including alcohol, tobacco (many young American
women smoke, almost no Japanese women do) drugs, and especially
typical impurities found in illegal drugs. In addition, some types of
birth defects are associated with depletion of micronutrients
associated with alcohol and tobacco use, and poor eating habits (i.e.,
expensive junk food instead of cheap real food).

2) Disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight: given
that in the USA, obesity rates are inversely related to income, low
birth weights for babies of poor American women are clearly not due to
lack of food. Furthermore, the retail price of food in Japan is about
double the price in the USA. Premature labor is definitely related to
poor maternal health practices.

3) Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS): higher risk with maternal
smoking.

4) Maternal complications: definitely far higher risk with chronic
drug abuse.

The above four causes account for nearly half of all US infant deaths.

5) Complications of placenta, cord and membranes: no information.

6) Unintentional injuries: i.e., mostly just carelessness.

7) Respiratory distress of newborn: no information.

8) Bacterial sepsis of newborn; even poor Japanese are fanatical about
cleanliness -- when you are eating raw fish, raw eggs, and food kept
at room temperature for extended periods of time, you have to be.
Americans, sorry, just are not.

9) Diseases of the circulatory system: no information.

10) Intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia: no information.

-- Roy L
.

Quantcast