|
How does the writer intend to quote an article from 2006 as indication, and presumably proof, that there are 'shackles' holding back medicine in the US or the West today? Throwing around words like 'socialism' and 'libertarianism' is a wonderful way to gain following by readers under-informed about economic theory and highly polarized from the 24hr news cycle, but I would argue it's also good way to water down the validity of the authors points.
If you're not certain of the definition of those words, then I would avoid using them.
For singularitarians, it shouldn't be a surprise that we see groundbreaking medical research going on in places outside of the Western world. It's arguably good to see other nations developing technologies for the rest of the world, as it encourages meaningful competition in the highly monopolized economies of the West. An example of why that makes sense is evidenced by the way Western success has interested the governments of Asia in competing with the Western-bloc.
Those Asian countries (India, Vietnam, Malaysia) have long been (literally) 'shackled' by the extraction-economies historically imposed to them by the British and French colonial powers. Economies which were vibrant and not underdeveloped before the arrival of European powers. It was those extraction economies which enabled the West to grow at a much faster pace than the rest of the world. A double edged sword of success; crippling your competition, while profiting from the cheap natural resources you're industries are exporting from their land.
Today, those Asian economies are getting back on their feet. After triumphing over colonialism and the behavior of international bankers for the last 150 years, these people are beginning to contribute in a meaningful way rather than just exploiting their land and their youth for imperial or corporate interests.
Rather than pointing a Macarthian Shouting Stick @ so-called Socialist Western governments and throwing around loaded terms like 'socialism,' the author could consider articulating the claims that he's making and not letting readers decide for themselves what is meant by "socialist command and control systems such as those that shackle medicine in the US." It should be noted that the article that link refers to barely mentions the US and almost exclusively deals with European governments (which heavily subsidize *private* medical research... and wouldn't be described as socialism by an educated social scientist).
I challenge the author to offer a real critique of mixed economies (or classical economies, either way) if he's going to write disparaging and unfounded claims about their effects. Otherwise, he would be best off writing as an impartial journalist and not a pundit.
There is an abundance of good information on this blog, it's a shame that so much of it is tainted with what comes across as just parroted neoliberal economic theory. Which, I suspect, is not what you would have expected me to accusing you of parroting.
Thoughts?
-dv-
[Posted by: David V. at March 18, 2010 4:20 PM]
|
