—“Doctors are paid way too much”— Robin Banks
That’s not true – if anything they’re underpaid. Doctors are (empirically) the most talented subroup in america, spending an absurd amount of wealth on their educations, and their cost per patient is trivial. The problem is the overhead administration costs of regulation placed upon doctors and the vast army of clerks that are needed to support them. (that’s the deal, really).
A doctor takes four years undergraduate, four years medical school, and three to seven years of internship, before they are eligible for a license. And they are in control of your life and death. A doctor’s average salary is 180k (round up to 200k). Thats 15 years of training. They have huge debt to repay – usually around 170k.
Now, if you are say, a computer software engineer with the same or higher IQ than a doctor, you need little or no university education, although it helps dramatically, and if you work equally as hard, you can make as much as a doctor does for fifteen more years than a doctor does.
So 15*200,000 = $3m + 250k for medical school, + 100K for university degree = $3.35M. Now, a resident for – let’s take an average of four years – is paid an average of 55K per year. So that’s 200-55 = 145k * 4 years = 580K. So 3.35M + .58M = $3.9M.
Now, that means that a 30 year old MD has accumulated an average of 170k in debt before he can earn that income, despite being one of our top performing people. But can work 45 to 50 years once obtaining that – while paying an average of 20k liability insurance per year.
Now, a software developer cannot (and need not) work that many years, but by his late 30’s has earned millions of dollars.
The principle benefits to being a doctor are social and long term financial, for the simple reason of ever-increasing demand, and persistent shortage.
The primary threat to your income is not the market but the government.
Theme: Class
-
“Doctors are paid way too much”— Robin Banks That’s not true – if anything the
—“Doctors are paid way too much”— Robin Banks That’s not true – if anything they’re underpaid. Doctors are (empirically) the most talented subroup in america, spending an absurd amount of wealth on their educations, and their cost per patient is trivial. The problem is the overhead administration costs of regulation placed upon doctors and the vast army of clerks that are needed to support them. (that’s the deal, really). A doctor takes four years undergraduate, four years medical school, and three to seven years of internship, before they are eligible for a license. And they are in control of your life and death. A doctor’s average salary is 180k (round up to 200k). Thats 15 years of training. They have huge debt to repay – usually around 170k. Now, if you are say, a computer software engineer with the same or higher IQ than a doctor, you need little or no university education, although it helps dramatically, and if you work equally as hard, you can make as much as a doctor does for fifteen more years than a doctor does. So 15*200,000 = $3m + 250k for medical school, + 100K for university degree = $3.35M. Now, a resident for – let’s take an average of four years – is paid an average of 55K per year. So that’s 200-55 = 145k * 4 years = 580K. So 3.35M + .58M = $3.9M. Now, that means that a 30 year old MD has accumulated an average of 170k in debt before he can earn that income, despite being one of our top performing people. But can work 45 to 50 years once obtaining that – while paying an average of 20k liability insurance per year. Now, a software developer cannot (and need not) work that many years, but by his late 30’s has earned millions of dollars. The principle benefits to being a doctor are social and long term financial, for the simple reason of ever-increasing demand, and persistent shortage. The primary threat to your income is not the market but the government. -
IT’S NEVER BEEN CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM. THAT WAS A NONSENSE GAME. The capitalis
IT’S NEVER BEEN CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM. THAT WAS A NONSENSE GAME.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.)
In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity.
In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals.
The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’.
An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves.
We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment.
Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying.
So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military).
So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in.
SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples.
Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 13:42:00 UTC
-
It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty. -
It’s Never Been Capitalism Vs Socialism. That Was A Nonsense Game.
The capitalism < — > socialism <—> communism debate has always been one framed by the jewish counter enlightenment. (It used to be referred to as ‘a jewish question’.) In the west, we have always held that the decision is only between rule of law under natural law which creates markets by necessity, or rule by arbitrary discretion which reduces markets by necessity. In history, in general, the natural nobility and aristocracy determined the use of taxes for the production of commons – in no small part because common people were often little more than semi-domesticated (superstitious) animals. The change from knights to riflemen, then from agrarianism to industrialism, altered the demand for influence over the commons such that far more people were participating in the market economy rather than the subsistence economy. and the emergent middle class wanted to direct proceeds to increasing markets, rather than territorial expansion of ‘aesthetic’ commons. Furthermore, once entered into the market common people were less and less ‘barely domesticated (superstitious) animals’. An american doesn’t really know what he is saying when he is dedicated to the constitution as if it is a sacred text, but he intuits it. And that is that western man – at least the aristocracy that until 1960 we all sought to aspire to imitate – has sought rule of law from which markets spread. And that commons should be produced by those contributing to its costs. And that the monarchy is welcome to spend its earnings as it wishes on commons or not. The ruling classes held more influence in french, less influence in german, and far less influence in english nations. And no one can rule the italians – even themselves. We reveled in the Italian aesthetic enlightenment. We all felt the vast shudder of the english enlightenment, more so the french counter-englightenment, more so the german counter enlightenment, and much more so the jewish counter enlightenment (marx, boas, freud), and its attempted fulfillment as the russian counter-enlightement (the USSR), – and since 1960’s the new French counter-enlightenment (postmodernism), and now the american left’s counter-enlightenment. Like all technologies, the counter enlightenment technologies all built upon one another, with outright lying (postmodernism) the replacement for supernatural lying. So. I argue, often, and for six to eight years now, that each people and each class of people requires an economic system suitable to their abilities. And that what we call a ‘mixed’ economy would be better termed a ‘hierarchical’ economy. Where just as in the past(present) we had(have) wild beasts (prisoners), slaves (soldiers), serfs(the majority of the underclasses), freemen (the majority laboring and working classes), citizens (the entrepreneurial and financial classes), Priests (the state, academy, media complex), Nobility (those few hundred very persistently wealthy inter-generational families) and Aristocracy (those few inter generational families that consistently produce warriors for the military). So I don’t see much in the 18th-21st century that tells me anything other than a series of attempts to impose a MONOPOLY economy of false equality on a hierarchy of people with different abilities each requiring a different economy to participate in. SO the future, in my mind, will consist, as it always has consisted, of a hierarchy of economies, that suit the needs of peoples. Will capitalism play out? Capitalism as we mean it, requires a mean of the distribution of talents above 105, if not above 110. Until we can cull enough of the lower classes again, so that the capitalist classes can carry the underclasses and the working classes, then I do not see how capitalism as we mean it (as that jewish extreme) can survive. However, i do see consumer capitalism remaining the dominant force in human affairs until we see some large enough leap in technology that a small number can organize the provision of consumption for all the rest. And if that happens we will return to slavery not liberty. -
NO MORE MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS Aesthetic and generational returns for
NO MORE MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMICS
Aesthetic and generational returns for the aristocracy. Investment returns for the bourgeoise. Discounts for the laymen.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 13:15:00 UTC
-
No More Monopoly Government And Economics
Aesthetic and generational returns for the aristocracy. Investment returns for the bourgeoise. Discounts for the laymen. -
No More Monopoly Government And Economics
Aesthetic and generational returns for the aristocracy. Investment returns for the bourgeoise. Discounts for the laymen. -
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION BY DEMONSTRATED MERIT. by Bill Joslin This undergirds my i
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION BY DEMONSTRATED MERIT.
by Bill Joslin
This undergirds my issue with intergenerational transfer of title status, as well status by recognition.
I’ll deal with the later fist. A corporate body which grants status by recognition – for instance induction into peerage provides a means corrupting market information via gatekeeping.
An alternative, which you can find in brehon law, stems from demonstration alone. You demonstrate position.
For instance in brehon law a Freeman was defined by the holder of two lots of a set size. If a Freeman extended his landholding to a particular size he would rise in status to an interim landholder. If these lands were held over two generations the family would be considered official nobility.
What dictates membership to elite status stems from demonstration not recognition. If you demonstrate ability, it can not be denied or ignored.
Intergenerational transfer should be combined with demonstration of ability at the coming of age. The “shrrt sleeves” are not always passed on or received across generations. If offspring do not demonstrate worthiness they lose the social-political standing.
The combination of the above prevents spoiled children of great people from “gaming” the system to protect their status (gatekeeping) and incentivizes those who have risen to ensure their offspring are capable or risk losing their legacy.
I could go into more reasons but this covers the gist of it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 15:17:00 UTC
-
Social Stratification By Demonstrated Merit.
by Bill Joslin This undergirds my issue with intergenerational transfer of title status, as well status by recognition. I’ll deal with the later fist. A corporate body which grants status by recognition – for instance induction into peerage provides a means corrupting market information via gatekeeping. An alternative, which you can find in brehon law, stems from demonstration alone. You demonstrate position. For instance in brehon law a Freeman was defined by the holder of two lots of a set size. If a Freeman extended his landholding to a particular size he would rise in status to an interim landholder. If these lands were held over two generations the family would be considered official nobility. What dictates membership to elite status stems from demonstration not recognition. If you demonstrate ability, it can not be denied or ignored. Intergenerational transfer should be combined with demonstration of ability at the coming of age. The “shrrt sleeves” are not always passed on or received across generations. If offspring do not demonstrate worthiness they lose the social-political standing. The combination of the above prevents spoiled children of great people from “gaming” the system to protect their status (gatekeeping) and incentivizes those who have risen to ensure their offspring are capable or risk losing their legacy. I could go into more reasons but this covers the gist of it.