2 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Yeah, it’s the bull philosophy Reaganomics is based on, enlightenment is rare in the human species.

It's not a "bull" philosophy. It's a proven fact that people ultimately profit more by providing a better service or product that people who skimp out and produce a shabby product or service. Thus, it is in an individuals' or company's best interest to provide the best possible product or service at the best price. Also, without the incentive of profit, people aren't as likely to put forth the effort to provide the best product or service they can.

18 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You mean the terrible mess where we have government intervention...I'm confused...Also to get the most profit you need to provide good product. Cutting corners will have you going out of business pretty quick.

To get the most profit you need the cheapest manufacturing costs. Quality of the product is not that much of a factor in the equation comparatively. If cutting corners made you go out of business there wouldn't be any major company left.

Fastfood certainly wouldn't be even a concept.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's a proven fact that people ultimately profit more by providing a better service or product that people who skimp out and produce a shabby product or service.

Unleashed capitalism isn't about making the best profit, ultimately, in the long run. It's about making unrealistic, unsustainable profits right now. If companies cared about the long term even a little bit we wouldn't have all of this climate crap going on.

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

Unleashed capitalism isn't about making the best profit, ultimately, in the long run. It's about making unrealistic, unsustainable profits right now. If companies cared about the long term even a little bit we wouldn't have all of this climate crap going on.

No. It isn't. The most successful companies with the longest lifespans have always provided the best services or products for the best prices. The ones that only concerned themselves with short term profits quickly go out of business because customers don't return for repeat business, and also spread the word that that company is a bad business, with shoddy producs and poor customer service. That is going to kill a company real quick.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. It isn't. The most successful companies with the longest lifespans have always provided the best services or products for the best prices.

This is blatantly not true. The most successful companies with the longest lifespans have done nothing of the sort.

2 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

This is blatantly not true. The most successful companies with the longest lifespans have done nothing of the sort.

Yes, they have. Good business practices promotes repeat business as well as good recommendtions. Bad business practices inhibits repeat business and results in bad recommendations. Repeat business and recommendations is what companies live or die by.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, they have. Good business practices promotes repeat business as well as good recommendtions. Bad business practices inhibits repeat business and results in bad recommendations. Repeat business and recommendations is what companies live or die by.

Oh? So I guess we are dreaming the delocalisation of industries in countries with little worker protection & fiscal paradises abuses by all big businesses?

you do know it's a proven fact that compared to appliances 50 years ago, industries make them less durable with parts literally designed to break down faster so they can sell us more for example?

52 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You mean the terrible mess where we have government intervention...I'm confused...Also to get the most profit you need to provide good product. Cutting corners will have you going out of business pretty quick.

Shareholders and CEO's can still make profit without a good product. Theranos raised 700 million dollars and was valued at a billion on the stock market with a product that was a scam. Yes, they would have gone out of business, but investors and the CEO could have bailed out earlier and made a ton of profit. A common method in CEO circles when it comes to raising profitability is aggressive down sizing where they sell off company assets and fire personal. Which shows as profit in the quarterly reports and means you can take out additional loans based on future profit analyzes and those loans then show up as further profit. Shareholders get a pay-out and the CEO gets a nice bonus, then the company goes bust and they move to a new company. Don't even get me started on the shady side of planned obsolescence, a good product is not needed to get the most profit. Long-term profit is not the name of the game. Getting the most the quickest and then moving to a new area is the name of the game.

4 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

Why would they give more? What is their incentive? What is a lot ,that people in your experience, give? Is what they give based on what's needed, what they earn or what makes them feel good? Also what is the framework for distribution here? There is a big difference between just giving to those in the immediate vicinity who are needy and saying charity would take care of all problems.

Badly filled in paperwork that doesn't match the reality of the situation is evidence, which means they can be held accountable. What level of legal intervention in the free market is acceptable? I thought the idea here was an unregulated free market.

Why did so many people donate for the Tsunami relief? why do so many give to all the various charities that exist? What makes you think they wouldnt gove more if the government wasn't stealing so much of their paychecks? i find most people like giving to others. It feels good.

Pages and pages of opinions with very little Star Wars relevance. Goes to show this board has no moderator...

I can't believe this thread has been going on as long as it has, but at least now it's easy to know which people are generally terrible human beings.

As for the initial, topic, I think that in the empire you would be more likely to have a universal healthcare due to a few reasons,

1. the power contained by the unified empire makes it possible for unilateral decisions to be made on a galactic basis
2. universal healthcare being cheaper for the government in the long run
3. authoritarian governments need to find ways to control their population. We know that the empire enjoyed the use of the stick in the form of the Tarkin Doctrine, but that does not mean that it did not also employ the carrot and universal health care is an easy way to create a sense of wellbeing within the population and allow them to be more willingly controlled.

I think that a galactic universal health care under the republic would be less likely due to the fact that the republic was a confederacy of planets, each having its own individual sovereignty along with some restrictions. We also know that the republic employed some methods that it viewed would save itself money, such as not maintaining a standing army. I say viewed because as we know this opened of shipping companies like the trade federation to attacks by pirates which ultimately lead to their ability to argue for higher levels of militarization of their ships until they became the perfect base for the separatist movements warships during the clone wars. In the same way as they made the mistake about the cost/value of keeping a standing army, I could see them making a similar mistake with respect to having universal healthcare.

26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, they have. Good business practices promotes repeat business as well as good recommendtions. Bad business practices inhibits repeat business and results in bad recommendations. Repeat business and recommendations is what companies live or die by.

The fact that AG Bayer and Union Carbide India Limited are still around sort of contradicts your statements. Or you know, BP and Exxonmobil still being around as well. Chiquita being good old United Fruit company also sort of contradicts your assertion that you need good business practices to survive and thrive. Some of those have survived over a century while doing stuff like you know, producing poison gas for the holocaust or causing a leak that immediately killed 3000 people. Ok that last one has only been around since '34.

10 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Why did so many people donate for the Tsunami relief? why do so many give to all the various charities that exist? What makes you think they wouldnt gove more if the government wasn't stealing so much of their paychecks? i find most people like giving to others. It feels good.

Which Tsunami? What charities? Again, what is the framework for distribution making sure my donations go where I expect them to go and how would I in case of disaster apply for these charities? Could I expect these charities to also work in a preventative manner and pay for my catastrophic cover insurance or do I need to wait until after disaster has struck before I can apply?

Just now, Darth Revenant said:

Shareholders and CEO's can still make profit without a good product. Theranos raised 700 million dollars and was valued at a billion on the stock market with a product that was a scam. Yes, they would have gone out of business, but investors and the CEO could have bailed out earlier and made a ton of profit. A common method in CEO circles when it comes to raising profitability is aggressive down sizing where they sell off company assets and fire personal. Which shows as profit in the quarterly reports and means you can take out additional loans based on future profit analyzes and those loans then show up as further profit. Shareholders get a pay-out and the CEO gets a nice bonus, then the company goes bust and they move to a new company. Don't even get me started on the shady side of planned obsolescence, a good product is not needed to get the most profit. Long-term profit is not the name of the game. Getting the most the quickest and then moving to a new area is the name of the game.

Notice how government does not actually prevent that.

Just now, Daeglan said:

Notice how government does not actually prevent that.

The EU, as well as individual governments, has been fighting for years against planned obsolescence with regulations. As well as fighting against proprietary hardware, predatory roaming costs, slash and burn business practices and exploitative business practices. So yeah, they are combating the issue and working to prevent it. Especially the more socialist governments, like you know, what Chavez had going in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba if you want to go to the extremes.

3 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

Which Tsunami? What charities? Again, what is the framework for distribution making sure my donations go where I expect them to go and how would I in case of disaster apply for these charities? Could I expect these charities to also work in a preventative manner and pay for my catastrophic cover insurance or do I need to wait until after disaster has struck before I can apply?

Do you have that now with the government? I mostly see more of my tax dollars go to killing people in other countries whether I want them too or not. And there are charity rating places that will rate various charities. I would prefer the control I get over my charitable donations to the money taken from me misused for various things.

daegan, did you actually read my post before liking it?

Just now, Darth Revenant said:

The EU, as well as individual governments, has been fighting for years against planned obsolescence with regulations. As well as fighting against proprietary hardware, predatory roaming costs, slash and burn business practices and exploitative business practices. So yeah, they are combating the issue and working to prevent it. Especially the more socialist governments, like you know, what Chavez had going in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba if you want to go to the extremes.

No Chavez was literally raiding the charity and stealing from the people of his country. Dont fall for the lie. His policies resulted in people starving and eating their pets. I wouldnt use that as a model for good governance. And notice how ineffective the governments policies are. All they do is deny people better stuff.

1 minute ago, Norr-Saba said:

daegan, did you actually read my post before liking it?

yes I did. And I agree the the Empire is exactly the kind of government who would use single payer healthcare precisely because of the control it gives over the population. They also can easily deny care to "undesirables" which could be anything from alien species to the wrong political views. Many people dont realize the danger of giving government control of healthcare and the many subtle ways they can use that control to control the people.

12 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Notice how government does not actually prevent that.

« A turning point came in 2015, when medical research professors John Ioannidis and Eleftherios Diamandis, and investigative reporter John Carreyrou of The Wall Street Journal, questioned the validity of Theranos' technology. The company faced a string of legal and commercial challenges from medical authorities, investors, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS), state attorneys general, former business partners, patients, and others »

you have a weird definition of the government doing nothing

Just now, Daeglan said:

yes I did. And I agree the the Empire is exactly the kind of government who would use single payer healthcare precisely because of the control it gives over the population. They also can easily deny care to "undesirables" which could be anything from alien species to the wrong political views. Many people dont realize the danger of giving government control of healthcare and the many subtle ways they can use that control to control the people.

I asked if you had read my post because you're one of the generally terrible human beings i mentioned in it, but you may not have realized that because you seem to be very unintelligent. whatever the case i can tell you are a true believer in your ideology, like a flat earther refusing to believe the overwhelming evidence that they are mistaken. So i'll just be saying good bye now and adding you to the ignore list.

1 minute ago, Norr-Saba said:

I asked if you had read my post because you're one of the generally terrible human beings i mentioned in it, but you may not have realized that because you seem to be very unintelligent. whatever the case i can tell you are a true believer in your ideology, like a flat earther refusing to believe the overwhelming evidence that they are mistaken. So i'll just be saying good bye now and adding you to the ignore list.

Ahhh Ad Hominem attack. That does not make you a good person.

3 minutes ago, MB -Fr- said:

« A turning point came in 2015, when medical research professors John Ioannidis and Eleftherios Diamandis, and investigative reporter John Carreyrou of The Wall Street Journal, questioned the validity of Theranos' technology. The company faced a string of legal and commercial challenges from medical authorities, investors, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS), state attorneys general, former business partners, patients, and others »

you have a weird definition of the government doing nothing

Eleftherios Diamandis has go to be the most player character name I have ever seen that belongs to a real person, and I'm half of a mind of stealing it for the next elf I play.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. It isn't. The most successful companies with the longest lifespans have always provided the best services or products for the best prices. The ones that only concerned themselves with short term profits quickly go out of business because customers don't return for repeat business, and also spread the word that that company is a bad business, with shoddy producs and poor customer service. That is going to kill a company real quick.

You know what, I'm gonna give you another example as well to go with the previous ones. Let's take Grünenthal, they sold Thalidomide, a drug that lead to a whole slew of miscarriages and birth defects. These side effects were proven in 1959 as well as again in 1962. They survived this and continued to market this drug up to the 80's. Wanna guess if they're still around? No need to guess, they are. These days they're making Tramadol, a favorite among drug dealers who sell opioid pain medication. Their revenue for 2018 was 1.3 billion euros. Despite being the company who sold a drug that lead to birth defects and miscarriages, then kept marketing said drug after the issues were known, they seem to be doing fine. They're still around 58 years after their shoddy dealings were exposed.

18 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Do you have that now with the government? I mostly see more of my tax dollars go to killing people in other countries whether I want them too or not. And there are charity rating places that will rate various charities. I would prefer the control I get over my charitable donations to the money taken from me misused for various things.

I do with mine. It's a shame you don't with yours, seems like you should advocate for a change where you feel like you can actually trust your government and feel like the people who are representing you actually do represent you. They're supposed to be part of the societal contract where you fulfill your obligations and in turn they fulfill their obligations towards you, their citizen.