Exactly what I meant, mutual benefit.

Dear Comrade Boborobdos

It is amazing how you leftists can twist your brains to make an argument to accommodate your preconceived notions. In logic, it is called pepito pricipcii, or, begging the question. The undefined "living wage" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. You say "I'm for a free market in most cases. (I have some very carefully thought out exceptions I'll get to later.)". You mean that Capitalism cannot work without government intervention or as a caretaker. Also this "Yes or no will suffice." courtroom claptrap is just your way to interrogate a witness. I don't think khalling needs to jump to your snappy commands

This.

Thanks Rob. I was suggesting nothing.

I was asking more about what you got out of Atlas philosophically. Referring to the bracelet scene (one of my favorites as well), you stated "thus speaking volumes."

What were the volumes that you got out of that moment?

BTW, "Dagney" is spelled "Dagny."

If you compare the US by ethnic group to country of origin, you will see the US compares favorably. For instance, Japanese americans have the same lifespan as those in Japan. Please see an article on point:
http://hallingblog.com/us-health-care-ho...

For example: on infant mortality: the US is the only country that counts a stillborn birth as infant mortality.
Are you suggesting we can compare two different sets of data per grouping andand come up with a rational conclusion?

Rob 1:"So, who is greedier? The workers who sweat and toil each hour, or the investors who put their money down and grab it back with both hands?"
Rob2: "First, what's going to become of those janitors who were supporting families? Oh! I get it, they can get money from the kid working as a janitor. That and a couple more folks working at MickyD's will almost make ends meet. Second... Well, there really is no second until you can explain child labor and how it exploits kids."
Rob3:"Ben & Jerry's is an excellent example how they can both pay a livable wage (almost twice the minimum) and get by."

Rob,
I am responding directly to your comments in all cases. Rob 1. An emotionally charged statement that grants virtue to one side and vice to the other. You clearly advocate for one group here.
Rob2: Teens working a part-time position violates child labor laws????? The rest of your statement stands to show bias.
Rob3: "living wage" inherently is a concept which requires govt intervention in the labor market. No free market advocate would use that phrase. Oh, and unions use that phrase all the time.

"I advocate no government intervention or any special advantages for either side." The three quotes above are in conflict with this statement. I am not putting words in your mouth, You are being deceptive.

What exactly about Atlas did you "enjoy" Rob?

Let us suspend reality as you seem to enjoy doing. It doesn't matter if the Japanese government has enjoyed the excess wealth of not having to fund a military for more than half a century (or that we, the American taxpayer has had to foot that bill). It doesn't matter if that money was used to fund technology, hospitals, research and development, exploration and a variety of businesses which have colluded to provide an unfair advantage in the free market. It doesn't matter if the Japanese government subsidizes doctors and nurses or people health care costs. And, so you realize that I haven't forgotten the one point you liked to avoid, that modern medicine CANNOT 100% reliably cure every person even if everything works properly. ("If a patient dies should a doctor be paid.")

I think I finally understand where your coming from. Unfortunately, I don't subscribe to fantasyland.

" It doesn't matter where the money comes from."
it does MATTER to the people it actually comes from!

you say you have no narrative, but you clearly advocate for unions. The group of laborers to which you refer, enjoy special privilege under the law. National Labor Relations Board. spooky. Under the Act in 1935, under socialist President Roosevelt. the inherent assumption that somehow labor is mistreated and therefore govt intrusion is needed to balance the negotiating, is false. You have spent the better part of a day advocating this. You don't want to admit it.

Sounds right to me although they aren't really against each other

the influx of government monies directly lowers cost to the consumer. Eg. if a procedure cost $10,000 and the government is paying $8,000 it leaves the consumer to pay $2,000. How many people's health care cost could be offset by the US government by not funding a single aircraft carrier? The Japanese had 60+ years of this luxury from their entirely military machine being outlawed by treaty. Its not hard.

This might fit here...from Ayn Rand:

"The artificially high wages forced on the economy by compulsory unionism imposed economic hardships on other groups—particularly on non-union workers and on unskilled labor, which was being squeezed gradually out of the market. Today’s widespread unemployment is the result of organized labor’s privileges and of allied measures, such as minimum wage laws. For years, the unions supported these measures and sundry welfare legislation, apparently in the belief that the costs would be paid by taxes imposed on the rich. The growth of inflation has shown that the major victim of government spending and of taxation is the middle class. Organized labor is part of the middle class—and the actual value of labor’s forced “social gains” is now being wiped out.

Labor’s concern was aroused only in defense of its rights; still, whoever defends his own rights defends the rights of all. But labor was pursuing a contradictory policy, which could not be maintained for long. In many issues—notably in its support of welfare-state legislation—labor violated the rights of others and fertilized the growth of the government’s power. And, today, labor is in line to become the next major victim of advancing statism."