Originally Posted by Dr. Feller
Under that logic the situation that the Miners in Chile went through should happen again in the near future, the safety regulations before the accident did not exist, or several Countries that have reached major developments with a strong State and Goverment regulations in the economical arena should leave their current model and so on. It all depends on the context. I believe in the Free Market for the American Society, but I also know that this Liberal or Neoliberal concept has not worked in poor countries were 95% of the GDP is in the hands of a couple of families while the rest is starving. In this situations I would definetly aim for a stronger, more regulated and social focused gov. Did you know that several State own Companies around the world produce higher revenues than the Private ones in the same country and sector and respect workers right and pay ethical salaries? That for me is a clear example on how the Gov has done better.
I graduated second of my class in Economics and decided to work for the Goverment because I believe in making my country a better place and by doing this I lost big time in the income spectrum to the extent that I need to safe for a long time before I can have an HT with you =)
Coming back to the main topic, I agree with you regarding the neograft and I woudn't have a procedure done with this "technique" after reading your statement so I thank you very much for taking the time on putting your valuable opinion on here. I have been promoting you big time in the Spanish forums and people are impressed with your results.
ps: I apologize for my english.
IAHRS Recommended Hair Transplant Surgeon
Thank you for the comment Ritchie. I always enjoy speaking with economists and politically active people from around the world.
From experience I have found it necessary to qualify my position with respect to those professionals who work in gov't positions before I debate or discuss issues with them. They often believe that because I am for SMALLER gov't that I am ANTI gov't and therefore may disparage those who choose to work in gov't. Quite the contrary. For all you have contibuted to your gov't since the day you were born in terms of time and money, the salary you take from them I consider to be recompense for that which was taken from you mostly against your will your entire life. In other words, if you can get a job with gov't, or a grant, or a guaranteed loan...take it!
With that said, I'm not sure about your point with miners. If you are saying the current (almost) catastrophy could have been avoided with gov't regulation, put the situation into perspective. Until this accident, when have you heard of mining accidents in Chile and how does this number compare to say the U.S. or England where mining is overly regulated? I know I've never heard of a mining accident in Chile before this one and they have been mining for hundreds of years in South America.
As for gov't run business outperforming their private counterparts, that's like comparing apples to refridgerators. It is a grossely disingenuous comparison. Gov't run company's (an oxy-moron)does not have to worry about paying for overhead or turning a profit. When they begin to fail, and they ALWAYS do, they simply take more tax dollars from the populace to prop up the failing business. A private business, in sharp contrast, MUST perform well enough to be SELF SUSTAINING. Another difference is power. A gov't run business usually has all the power. Should any competitor not yield to this power, they can literally shut down the competitor at the point of a gun (Russia, China, present day Venizuela). In contrast, the private business has to create and sustain mutually beneficial relations with the population and other businesses.
With respect to "workers rights", as you put it, you've got it inverted and upside down. Private companies have no power to abrogate the rights of it's workers, only gov't entities have that power. If a worker in a private firm believes their rights are being infrindged upon they can always leave their job. They have the freedom to vote with their feet. However, in socialist and communist countries (the same thing) workers rights are TRULY trampled daily. It is central control of an economy that limits workers rights, never private industry UNLESS they are in bed with the gov't.
You are obviously bright and educated Ritchie, but if you want to help your country, in my view, work to convince your leaders that less gov't is best gov't. BREAK the unions, free private enterprise, and watch your country's GDP skyrocket and along with that enjoy a prosperity that only the U.S. has enjoyed up until fairly recently.
Dr. Alan Feller
Feller Medical, PC
287 Northern Blvd., Suite 200
Great Neck, NY 11021
"in my view, work to convince your leaders that less gov't is best gov't. BREAK the unions, free private enterprise, and watch your country's GDP skyrocket and along with that enjoy a prosperity that only the U.S. has enjoyed up until fairly recently"
Ok, now this is a very powerful statement and imo a very wrong one. As I said in my previous post we have to put things into CONTEXT.
Let me tell you a little story ( hope you are not bored already ! ). In 1977 an American Economist called Milton Friedman travelled to Chile to have a chat with Mr Pinochet, a right wing Dictator that had been in power for the last 5 years. The economy was sick, Friedman and his Chicago boys told Pinochet that there were 2 ways to get it healthy again, there was a slow and gradually one and a fast and schocking one. They went for the second one, basicly an all around Neoliberal political and economical Policy. They axed 200.000 goverment jobs, reduced the general budget saving millions and most improtant of all, they privatised 750 State own companies for 10% their real value ( One of the people that took advantage of it and bought everything is the current president Piner).
Now what happened, the first 6 months were horrible, unenploytment rates and inflation was higher than ever and the country was still in recession, but then, BOM, the miracle of this model, the country started growing and growing up to 8% for the next 4 years until finally it stoped.
Chile became the most uneven Country in income distribution of Latin America, with the richest people of all and the poorest at the same, this social bridge between calsess caused criminal rates to go very high, differential education for children and 65% of the pople in debt with banks etc..
Now you mention the US, which with this same sustained model have had the major economical crisis since 1930 that has affected the entire world, this is the way it is, the financial world fluctuates but you canc ertainly prevent this with a bigger, not smalle, state. The us has has a shocking poor's rate of 17% living below that line, that is around 40 million people, 3 times the population of the Netherlands or Chile or 80% of the United Kingdom.
Now countries with big goverments like Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, were you pay up to 65% in tax have virtually no pooverty at all. Its a concept brought by Keynes after the war names the Wealthfare State, whicch was born under the necessity to provide care and basic needs to soldiers coming back home from the frontline, back in that day there was no National Insurance, no Public Hospitals or any kind of benefits.
I have mentioned the examples of Chile, a mixed economy, with low taxes to the private sector, neoliberal constitution but a lot of social care, the US, quite strong in the first one, not so much in the second and the Wealthfare State that we have in Europe ( I am half Dutch half Chilean ) which provides and guarantees basic needs such as education and health to all their Citizens. Now there is a 4th way, which is strng socialismt
Please don't say that Comunism and Socialism are the same, It's a very common mistake that people make, you are the smartest guy and I am very pleased to exchange this thoughts with you, Communism is a criticism to the means of production that keep man Alinated and without emancipation. Socialism is way of Goverment, Marx and Engel who wrote the Communist Manifest and "The Capital" said the state should be abolished, but never gave a clue on what to do after that. Socialism, which comes in the hand of Neo Marxist an usually wrong interpretators of the Theory fills that gap and invented a way that they thought it was right with the principles and values of the movement.
Now there is 2 big reasons why socialism didn't work, one is the violence desviations particulary in the Eastern European States which caused suffering, killing and violation of human rights. The second one is that ALL Socialist/Communist ( with the Political Party names Comunist) Goverments arised from a revolution and were not politicly elected, all but one case, Allende 1970 in Chile, who was actually voted.
I don't agree with this paritcular model, where the big central state controlls and planifies all aspects of the economy, like the Neoliberal one, it has never achived sustainable growth either and I usually all big names in the goverment are their for political favours, instead of being professionals in their fields, another reason for it to Fail. But don't Forget the The Soviet Union, once the poorest country in Europe, became the largest steel producer and exporter, defeated germany in the second world war and became a superpower to rival the US in the 70ties with a Socialist Goverment. At the cost of 10 million peoples lives obviolsy, not a good example to follow.
Just fo finish, I am sorry for the long post and as I said, for me mix Goverment is the Key, I support and will never try to convince the authorities above me to change what we have and take public health aid away or cutting funds for childs benefits or a better Education. Not everybody has money and some people have major needs, the world is unfair and we have a responsabilty , utleast to provide them with the tools and support to change their circunstances, in my viw, not having a public free health sector in the XXI century is a social crime.
Look forward hearing from you
Hair Loss Sucks, But Not with This Vacuum
For years, men worried about thinning hair, or going bald have turned to hair plugs, toupees and transplants.
Now, there's a procedure being done in the Phoenix metro area that uses vacuum technology.
No, it's not the "Flowbee!" It's called Neograft.
You know i see another potential in stuff like this way beyond FUE. If hair plucking and acell works this could be used to make hair plucking less time consuming :-)
But what do i know iam only a member in the baldness club
It is so pitiful to see this type of irresponsible reporting. It makes it seem like the Neograt magically sucks the hair from one part of your head and places it another to give you a full head of hair. This is such rubbish I canít stand it! Absolutely appalling and totally misleading!!
Originally Posted by gmonasco
since the device is somewaht like $8k,i`m really surprised the clinics charge more than in a manual FUE..shud be the other way around-or did prices drop by now..
anyone know docs in europe/germany that practise this?
i meant $80k ofc-but still,it should be redeemed in notime..
By tbtadmin in forum IAHRS Info Center Discussion
Last Post: 08-16-2009, 08:18 PM
By Jkel in forum Hair Transplant: Start Your Own Topic
Last Post: 12-18-2008, 11:39 AM
Tags for this Thread
» The Bald Truth