june gloom on 19/8/2013 at 09:54
I'm mostly just making fun of him. So maybe it's me. It's all my fault. I'm responsible.
faetal on 19/8/2013 at 11:09
The ideology of the free market - focus on the bottom line, fuck everything else.
CCCToad on 19/8/2013 at 15:23
Quote Posted by faetal
The ideology of the free market - focus on the bottom line, fuck everything else.
Nope. It's caused by the exact opposite of a free market, because in a truly free market businessmen with a "fuck the customer" mentality usually get undercut by others who are able to offer the same product with better quality, better price, better customer care, or even all of those.
Almost all of the most egregious abuses are the result of corporate ownership and corruption associated with corporate culture.....which results in that ideology.
And yes...it actually is caused by something that I disapprove of, and I disapprove of it for good reason.
faetal on 19/8/2013 at 15:56
Corporate consolidation you mean? Squeezing the truly free market to the periphery where it becomes invisible.
SubJeff on 19/8/2013 at 16:31
Quote Posted by faetal
Corporate consolidation you mean? Squeezing the truly free market to the periphery where it becomes invisible.
One could argue that this is what you get if you have free market. It's an inevitable consequence of companies getting big.
faetal on 19/8/2013 at 16:43
I agree. Well, more specifically, it's what you get when the free market has next to no regulation. I remember having a long chat with an economy professor who told me that capitalism is only an effective system when you have tight (like, really tight) regulation, as it stimulates innovation. When regulations are relaxed and you get a few huge entities swallowing everything up, the whole system becomes incredibly stifled.
Being a biologist, I related it to an experiment I did at undergraduate level looking at the effect of rabbits on plant diversity. Long story short - in the areas where there were rabbits, the vegetation was under more stress and thus was hugely diverse, whereas rabbit free zones tended to be dominated by just a few species.
Rabbits yo.
SubJeff on 19/8/2013 at 17:46
I think the problem is with the definition of free, and I agree with this professor of yours.
People think that free means just totally free and you can do what you like. I think that because of corporate growth and potential dominance by large entities you should have lots of regulations.
The problem with regulations is that you put it in the hands of some people and it just becomes a yoke without purpose.
The English, for example, appear unable to apply common sense at the same time as regulations. The number of times I've heard that we can't do this or that in the hospital because "it's not protocol" is truly sad. It's pretty well know, within the NHS, that in the NHS things are often done because "dems rules, innit?" and not because it's sensible (4hr A&E waiting time, hello o/). On occasion when I'm told I can't do something (or have to do something) because the protocol says it - despite it being the best thing do - I counter with "If the protocol says we're to stop breathing oxygen, do we follow it?" in a totally non-aggressive, almost musing manner. The response tells me exactly what kind of person/people I'm dealing with.
Examples of "rules, innit":
1. Very old lady with a hip fracture. This is mortal wound (in case you didn't know). Totally demented, lives in a home for people with dementia, has 24hr care. Lovely little lady, very pleasant. However - dementia means she will not allow a spinal, not allow venous cannulation and will not allow an anaesthetic mask on her face to anaesthetise her that way. You cannot reason with her, you cannot discuss things with her. Without this operation she will die from her injury. 100% chance. Mortal wound. Protocol says you cannot restrain her in any way at all. It would take 30 seconds of holding a mask, gently, on her face whilst she struggles a little bit and she'd be asleep and we could fix her. Nope. Protocol says no. Result - death. Who is "responsible" for the death? Not the support staff who are kicking up a fuss and calling matron etc to stop anyone gassing this woman to sleep. Nope, it's the doctors responsibility. The same doctors who, by protocol, are not allowed to do anything.
2. Any prisoner that is ventilated, and thus in a drug coma, in Intensive Care and is of the type that must be handcuffed to the bed at all times. I don't know how they get in this category but they do. Drugs have rendered them unconscious and possibly paralysed. They are less likely to escape from this than from any prison in the world imho. Even if they stay in ICU for many days or weeks in this state you cannot remove the handcuffs so they will end up getting pressure sores at the wrist which are prone to infection. They are in ICU, level 3, one to one nursing care, so they are already amongst the sickest people in the hospital. In the country in fact. But you cannot remove the handcuffs and, and this is the kicker for me, you cannot move them temporarily onto their ankles to give their wrists some respite because handcuffing the ankles, ha ha ha, is against their human rights. Potential infection and death for you then. Protocol says so.
Enjoy your dinners.
CCCToad on 19/8/2013 at 18:04
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
The problem with regulations is that you put it in the hands of some people and it just becomes a yoke without purpose.
The English, for example, appear unable to apply common sense at the same time as regulations. The number of times I've heard that we can't do this or that in the hospital because "it's not protocol" is truly sad. It's pretty well know, within the NHS, that in the NHS things are often done because "dems rules, innit?" and not because it's sensible (4hr A&E waiting time, hello o/).
Americans are getting there. Welcome to a world run by small, dark, beetle-like men scurrying through the corridors of their place of work.
