tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post645232193250618870..comments2023-09-25T09:26:32.591-04:00Comments on The Loop and The Lou: National Free Market SocialismRollerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16904666850142252780noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-86357778717707453642008-11-23T21:32:00.000-05:002008-11-23T21:32:00.000-05:00Johnny, don't aim for the stomach, please go for t...Johnny, don't aim for the stomach, please go for the shoulder. think Keaneu "Shoot the hostage." What do you do? What do you do?<BR/><BR/>And the man in the pic was Richard and Karl's long lost cousin, Lysander Spooner. Interesting American philsopher who turned me on to the concept of identifying and reducing "coercion".Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-66815309835970269512008-11-21T10:21:00.000-05:002008-11-21T10:21:00.000-05:00Thanks for the shout out Gene. I have a new album...Thanks for the shout out Gene. I have a new album dropping on December 1, 2008. I think it would be a great stocking stuffer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-77232256644676038322008-11-21T08:49:00.000-05:002008-11-21T08:49:00.000-05:00I'm going to redirect here. Johnny's close, but I...I'm going to redirect here. Johnny's close, but I believe it is actually Richard Marx, photographed a year or two before the debut of his sweet, airy 80's hit, "Hold on to the Night." You should all take a moment to relive it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13264931475225109995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-23696883023727354992008-11-20T21:39:00.000-05:002008-11-20T21:39:00.000-05:00Karl Marx is the man in the picture. Ryan is it ok...Karl Marx is the man in the picture. <BR/><BR/>Ryan is it ok if I shoot you? It is a free country and I would really like to shoot you in the stomach. I hear that a shot to the stomach might not kill you for a while and I would really like to feel the freedom of shooting you in the stomach. <BR/><BR/>I have also been thinking about drinking 14 beers and then seeing if my new car really can do 160 mph like the speedometer says. Is it ok if your nieces and nephews are in the car with me? Ah FREEDOM! <BR/><BR/>(Molly if you read this please know that I being sarcastic)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-53998836716415015792008-11-20T13:48:00.000-05:002008-11-20T13:48:00.000-05:00OK, to sum up my original point in writing this po...OK, to sum up my original point in writing this post.<BR/><BR/>I am against the government subsidizing capitalism (rich people) as well as socialism (poverty). You might think, the government doesn't subsidize (support) poverty, but it absolutely does, it guarantees it.<BR/><BR/>The result of this is our country is experiencing record highs in wealth disparity. The answer to this is not taxing the rich more to transfer to the poor! The rich will only shield their riches and the poor will only lose faith.<BR/><BR/>The government should step in when companies abuse power and act outside of the rules of fair competition (just like sports referees -- imagine if the referees changed their interpretation of the rules just because one team started losing). The government should also step in when foreign countries try to put sectors of our economy out of business with similar non-competitive tactics.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-72605059954340525442008-11-20T13:12:00.000-05:002008-11-20T13:12:00.000-05:00Holly shitballs is right, as well as one of my fav...Holly shitballs is right, as well as one of my favorite expressions. Lots of great points, I hope people continue to debate.<BR/><BR/>Some responses:<BR/>Kevin made a very subtle and interesting point I had not thought of but is fitting. Why do people seem to rationalize (or accept) the inefficiencies brought about by the gov't rather than the seek the efficienciess of the free market?<BR/><BR/>It may not be the efficiency they're after, but the idea of security or certainty that comes from the guv involvement. Tons of work has been done in economic pscyhology and economic neuroscience to show that people are "wired" to seek certainty to secure positive rewards and seek risks to avoid negative losses. I.E., When asked if you would take $50 now or a 60% chance to win $100, people overwhelmingly take the sure $50. The reverse is true as well. If you could save 50 people in a burning building or have a 40% chance of saving all 100, people overhwhelmingly try to save everyone. Ummm, the scientists were more careful than I to make sure not to compare human lives to dollars.<BR/><BR/>But I think this mindsight really has driven us away from free markets. Free markets don't offer certainties of outcomes.<BR/><BR/>Eric, yes, it will be very good to see you and eat turkey with you, I imagine, our armes interlocked nibbling on giant drumsticks.<BR/><BR/>You also raise some very subtle points I haven't heard in a long time. I would argue that int he case of the cell phone companies, they are simply agreeing to standardized their products so as to make more money for themselves. Microsoft and Apple have existed without being able to talk to each other, and the guv never stepped in, and they never agreed, but other companies did step in to provide solutions that married the strengths of microsoft (ubiquity) with apple (quality technology).<BR/><BR/>I guess the key thing to look for there is does it make more sense for the players in the market to form their own guidelines or for the government to "regulate" them exogenously. The Electronic Medical Record is going through similar growing pains.<BR/><BR/>Johnny, I didn't mean to imply that charitable financial contributions necessarily go up during hard economic times, but that personal, human acts of charity always rise to meet the needs of our neighbors. <BR/><BR/>Geno, you're totally right about the arbitrariness of the $50k. But I actually wasn't intending it to come from your firm, but from donations. The idea being, a free market creates greater efficiency, which not only drives down the cost of the goods produced by that market, but results in more money in the pockets of consumers. In this way, charity towards healthcare will become more affordable, and the type of program I support through the Christian Children's Fund for $24/month that literally changes the lives of whole villages could, say, be available through our own insurance companies, who could then distribute these funds or vouchers to the most impoverished areas where they work.<BR/><BR/>My main point there, though, was that the decision of healthcare has to be completely between a patient an doctor, with free market mechanisms determining prices of treatments and local individuals (such as doctors) being empowered to make the right kinds of charitable decisions. You would be in a perfect position to say -- this 8 year old kid has asthma and needs $200 of medicine that his parents can't or wont' buy him... I can step in. The price and benefit fits the case. No overhead, no ubiquitous standards.<BR/><BR/>Also, please post what you charge insurance companies for strep tests, I think that's interesting. If it's a labor-intensive test, then Seattle prices should reflect cost of living disparaties, otherwise, I think we're seeing the effects of non-free markets determining price goofinesses.<BR/><BR/>Nicole, I've always had trouble with the word "ontological". It is also used in computer science in terms of math. I'll try to address your points generally.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a libertarian or a pure laissez-faire economist. I think these philosophies are overly-simplistic and only rarely do what they think they'll do. What happens when a Wal-Mart moves into a small town and uses its profits from its other stores or from other products in its same store to lower the price of lumber below the local market price in order to put the local lumber yard out of business?<BR/><BR/>That's not free market economics, nor can a free market compete with that. There is something to be said for economies of scale. The consolidation of many of these huge companies is allowed by wall street because it makes them ungodly profits. But we then find ourselves in teh position today, where companies are deemed too big to fail in spite of poor performance.<BR/><BR/>So I believe in intervention or regulation to help keep healthy free markets and local markets in tact. But these are usually at the level of keeping out coercive forces, never of price fixing or of preventing failure, etc.<BR/><BR/>In computer science, there are certain types of problems, that if you can show they have certain characteristics, can be called greedy problems that can be solved optimally by greedy solutions.<BR/><BR/>Hill climbing is an example. If I plop you down randomly on a big smooth hill, blindfolded, and say, keep taking steps up the steepest path and you will get ot the top, you will. Some types of planning problems also work this way. But if I dropped you inot a mountain range and gave you teh same rule, you would most probably not reach the peak of the highest mountain but would stuck on some "local maxima".<BR/><BR/>That's why it's a fair debate to talk about rudders and kicks in the butt, etc, because as you said, people are not perfectly rational, do not have access to total information and make decisions for a huge variety of reasons, not just self-interest.<BR/><BR/>whew. I need to go to a bar and have a smoke now.<BR/><BR/>Wait. Nevermind.<BR/><BR/>Rolls and others, I like the smoking bans, but I think they need to provide wiggle room. The dangers of second hand smoke were extremely exaggerated and advertised with agenda in mind (when I say "coercion" you say "hoooo"). Yes, if you are around second hand smoke constantly, it is bad for you. But this is still a free country, and if there is only one bar in a town where everyone goes to hang out and be social, I think they should be able to say screw the gov, this is our bar and we can smoke! (cough)<BR/><BR/>P.S. bonus points if anyone can name the guy with the beard in the post.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-75287724757831453162008-11-19T22:13:00.000-05:002008-11-19T22:13:00.000-05:00Sorry, I took too long with my last post, which is...Sorry, I took too long with my last post, which is now unimportant. Nicole intervened, and I love it. <BR/><BR/>The shit just hit the fan. I'm again confussed, but certain to be smarter because of the philosiphicators amongst us. I have thoughts on Nicole's question, and previous posts will suggest I think we need to protect ourselves from ourselves at times, but I'll shut up. My main reason for reposting was to acknowledge Nic re-upping the discussion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13264931475225109995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-75805465321093628332008-11-19T22:03:00.000-05:002008-11-19T22:03:00.000-05:00Holy shitballs!400 bones for a strep test? I'd ha...Holy shitballs!<BR/><BR/>400 bones for a strep test? I'd have to look up what we charge, but I know it is less than half of that. Do you live in a really shieky part of LA, SF, or Manhattan where it might be cool to get such a bill? If not, fight that, my friend. If you weren't billed and your insurance simply paid for it, let Ryan know that our current system is working just fine, thank you. <BR/><BR/>Overpriced procedures, underserved individuals, and absolute lack of respect for physicians capable of deductive thought. <BR/><BR/>Room for improvement.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13264931475225109995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-56184606410618270642008-11-19T21:49:00.000-05:002008-11-19T21:49:00.000-05:00Ryan,So I've been trying to make sense of your und...Ryan,<BR/>So I've been trying to make sense of your underlying philosophical bent here: is McCabe a true believer in libertarian political philosophy or more of a free-marketer? I must say that while the two views often coalesce they are not necessarily inseparable. <BR/><BR/>In other words, do you find yourself more interested in the ontology of it or in the economics of it? <BR/><BR/>I would rant and rant about the health care issue and the smoking ban, but instead I'd like to challenge a core assumption of libertarianism. Or really, I'm asking if you and the rest of the panel think this it is true. <BR/><BR/>So here is my question of the day: will individuals left largely unregulated act in their own short and long term best interest? <BR/><BR/>It is a descriptive question, not a normative one, since clearly we could probably all agree that individuals OUGHT to act in their own best interests.<BR/><BR/>But, descriptively: Do we act in our own best interests? Are we capable as reasoning creatures of really determining what is in our own short and long term interests? If we are then okay libertarians proceed with your argument. If we are either not capable of living lives as such sound reasoners (or simply not doing it for whatever reason), then what happens to a philosophical and economic theory that is based on the idea that we can and/or will?Nicolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14562386466231328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-36531347611643384582008-11-19T20:47:00.000-05:002008-11-19T20:47:00.000-05:00Ryan, where are you getting your information about...Ryan, where are you getting your information about charitable giving increasing when the economy gets worse? I am very interested in this. <BR/><BR/>I am a very big fan of the no smoking laws in the state of Florida. One of the things I hate about coming home (St. Louis) for Thanksgiving and Christmas is how bad I smell after I come home from a bar.<BR/><BR/>I have found a lot of information about second hand smoke some of it is listed below. <BR/><BR/>Exposure to secondhand smoke does cause cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent)<BR/>Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. <BR/>Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children. Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers. <BR/><BR/>I am a very big fan of capitalism and free markets but free markets take a long time to correct themselves. The smoking industry is a good example of the market not correcting quickly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-33859884747690149012008-11-19T16:02:00.000-05:002008-11-19T16:02:00.000-05:00Hey Ryan, I hear you're gonna be gobblin some turk...Hey Ryan, I hear you're gonna be gobblin some turkey over at my place! I had a couple quick thoughts, and I apologize if you've discussed these things in depth in the comments.<BR/><BR/>I think the definition of a good regulation is one that results in a more efficient outcome than the free market. I think this can happen in many situations where there are collective action problems or aggregations of individually irrational behavior. It also happens when unregulated entities can exert market power to artificially raise prices for consumers. The easiest example is a monopoly, where there is not enough competition (so regulations let the free market in). <BR/><BR/>However, there can also be good regulations in certain sectors where there is too much competition, most notably for energy and other utilities. How efficient is it for many companies to invest the astronomical fixed costs to build pipelines or power-lines to service every market? It is much more efficient from a total social welfare standpoint to allow a single entity to do so. Where there are high fixed costs and low marginal costs, it can be more efficient to regulate the industry and thwart competition while reducing the amount of wasted duplicative fixed costs. <BR/><BR/>I would argue that the consumer electronics market is not a perfect example of the free market. Consumer electronics involve an inordinate amount of standard-setting, where hundreds of patent owners come together to set license agreements to establish uniform product formats like BluRay or USB. We basically allow collusive price fixing for technological licensing in these markets because if we failed to, there would be too much wasted investment in competing standards, and transaction costs prohibit each patent owner from setting prices with every other owner in the free market.<BR/><BR/>Its always good to keep transaction costs in mind when discussing optimal levels of regulation. In a world without transaction costs, all laws or regulations would be unnecessary, as the free market would allow every person to contract for efficient outcomes with every other person (Ronald Coase won a Nobel prize for this seemingly obvious observation). In many situations, transaction costs impede efficient bargaining, so we need regulations to set imperfect (yet more efficient) defaults.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07734491558536999118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-5237181289061763062008-11-19T14:35:00.000-05:002008-11-19T14:35:00.000-05:00rollo - there is nothing better than smoke free ba...rollo - there is nothing better than smoke free bars and other public places. but i say leave it up to the states. the dangers of second hand smoke seem pretty hyped up to me, so i'd be OK if bars were free to make their own rules.<BR/><BR/>i'm glad the conversation has heavily drifted towards health care, as that seems to be the meatiest part of the posts (although the addition of palin did push me left).<BR/><BR/>i usually prefer the free market and i respect its efficiencies. i like profit as a motivator. i think a truly free and unregulated health care system would be more effective than today's. However, that would never happen even if ron paul himself were sworn in. <BR/><BR/>i also think an overly regulated, top down health care system would work better than today's as well. it seems that that may be a much more likely outcome. <BR/><BR/>i think people have an easier time rationalizing inefficiency (which in the case of health care is a euphemism for people dying for avoidable reasons) caused by gov't programs than by profit driven free markets. i'm not sure why that is.<BR/><BR/>the fact that my insurance just paid $400 to the health clinic by my house for a strep throat test is crazy to me. a truly free market would eliminate that insanity - but so would price fixing by uncle sam. <BR/><BR/>right now, the whole thing is broken, and there are so many entrenched gears in the wheel that a small tweak here and there is silly.<BR/><BR/>if the unregulated option is unfeasible, (esp in this political climate), i hope obama does drastically overhaul our system. <BR/><BR/><BR/>good posts ry - i think it's pretty tough to organize your thoughts into complete paragraphs and into a cogent framework of larger concepts. even my thoughts above are not really convincingly spelled out or backed up (even though they are all spot on - trust me).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-6704976518521240382008-11-18T22:21:00.000-05:002008-11-18T22:21:00.000-05:00Sorry Ryan, I had a lot I was trying to get in wit...Sorry Ryan, I had a lot I was trying to get in without posting too much. To be brutally honest I didn’t ask. What I took his comments to mean were that he would like to retire but doesn't because people need doctors and until medicine is more socialized he wants to make sure that people get the care they need. He could have also meant that he think medicine should be socialized but thinks it will be a total pain in the ass to be a doctor then so he would retire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-24523924611198250762008-11-18T10:30:00.000-05:002008-11-18T10:30:00.000-05:00Did someone say Tahiti? Shotgun!Did someone say Tahiti? Shotgun!Coovohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515173149807926852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-33888505009701373242008-11-18T10:19:00.000-05:002008-11-18T10:19:00.000-05:00Matt, I agree that the government is still a rudd...Matt, I agree that the government is still a rudder in such a situation. I was alluding to a comment a made a ways back that included a "kick in the pants" and "incentives." <BR/><BR/>I also need to make an apology. Since my last comment, I've received a flood of complaints from families and friends of rudders, rudder sales and marketing department heads, and even from rudders themselves. No, I don't think you are stupid. Sensitive as all get out, but not stupid.<BR/><BR/>Ryan, am I correct that this $50,000 discretionary fund comes from the pocket of my business? If so, screw the kids! I'm taking my own family to Tahiti! <BR/><BR/>I jest, but my point is serious. I realize you picked an arbitrary number that could be easily changed to reflect the success of a business, so saying a company can't afford this has a fairly quick rebuttal (not to mention the $$ saves with tax cuts.) That is not my main argument, however. My fear is that people, while inherently good, are not as reliable as a whole as you make us out to be. I fear that there are people who would happily do their duty to see a certain percentage of medicaid patients, but would be much more stingy with their charity when it requires creating a discretionary fund and voluntary disbursement of their hard earned greenbacks. <BR/><BR/>As for the right to good healthcare, I think we agree more than we've stated. If we have a moral responsibility to provide this for those who can't provide for themselves, then one can further deduce that this is a fundamental good or right for every individual. Where we've diverged is how this right is to be provided. You do not want the government in charge of this, primarily because the government historically does a crappier job than the free market. My fear is that the free market, while composed of inherently good people, will inevitably leave that moral responsibility in the dust.<BR/><BR/>I was boarding an American Airlines plane over the weekend and they were short on overhead storage space. A flight attendant requested AT LEAST 9 times that no one place their coat or more than one bag overhead. 9 times? 9 times. After we landed, I saw two guys each pull down two decent sized bags and a coat, careful not to make eye contact with anybody while they were doing it. People do this shit. I'd hate for crap like that to happen when we're dealing with people's lives.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13264931475225109995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-44287522977091705032008-11-17T22:51:00.000-05:002008-11-17T22:51:00.000-05:00Been a little busy and finally got time to read th...Been a little busy and finally got time to read this. I thought of too many things to address as I read the great post and comments, but they've already skedaddled out of my brain. <BR/><BR/>I read that Economist article, too, and took away the same lesson, I think. Geno, it seemed as though you were suggesting that subsidizing was a more valid implementation of your "rudder" position than a cap-and-trade system? I might be misinterpreting, but it's seems that the gov't is a rudder in either case. <BR/><BR/>Here's a point on which I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts. I was in a discussion with a colleague last week and expressed how much I wished smoking within any institution would be banned by the government. He disagreed, suggesting that the free market should drive smoke-free buildings. <BR/><BR/>To me, I don't believe the free market would produce the same societal benefits that the government could in this situation. Smoking has individual and national costs that seem to cry out for regulation. Throw in the fact that almost all smokers couldn't quit if they wanted; it just seems like a logical place for the government to step in for the good of society.<BR/><BR/>But I understand that it's also a slippery slope to throw such a large blanket of regulation on the nation. What's next? Food? Alcohol? Heroin? No way. I need my smack. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!!!!<BR/><BR/>Just wanted everyone's thoughts on this. Also, one thing I didn't understand from Ryan's post was the phrase Coercive Brutality. Hopefully Ryan will explain that in a future post.Rollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16904666850142252780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-1159694512804440962008-11-17T20:51:00.000-05:002008-11-17T20:51:00.000-05:00Great points.First, JOhnny, from the other thread,...Great points.<BR/><BR/>First, JOhnny, from the other thread, could you clear up what your doctor was saying? It seemed like on one hand he would retire if medicine became more socialized and the other hand he wanted it to become more socialized. Maybe he was sneaking purcocets?<BR/><BR/>Geno, don't worry about arguing both sides of the coin here. That is what is needed to find the right kind of compromise. As I've tried to say, no one philosophy can be applied to achieve some ultimate results. However, I have been arguing more for the free market approach simply because I think it is very misunderstood and scapegoated by the press. Basically, I believe that anything the federal government can do, the free market can do better.<BR/><BR/>However, that doesn't address poverty or dead-beat parents.<BR/><BR/>I have read the same stuff you found in the Economist in several other places as well. It has made me rethink my own good intentions when I feel like playing King. I also really hesitate to allow the guv to step in and do "charity".<BR/><BR/>Imagine if, along with tax cuts and cuts on federal spending, a free market created cheaper healthcare access. Mostly, focus on ideas of returning purchasing decisions to consumers and healthcare decisions to doctors and patients.<BR/><BR/>So if there were still people, let's say in that 35% medicaid group who lacked insurance, imagine if your office had a discretionary fund of like $50,000 to be spent as you and your partner see fit. YOu see an 8 year old with asthma who can't afford the meds, you could pay for it out of the fund.<BR/><BR/>Imagine if every wealthy parish in west county teamed up with a less wealthy parish east of them. 10% off the top of the collection basket goes to the other parish for healthcare vouchers.<BR/><BR/>I just received the annual report for Christian Childrens Fund, which I've been supporting for a long time now. They do a tremendous amount of good, and with this report, I could quickly and easily see where there efforts were geographically, what services they focused on providing, the economic scope of their contributions and even that 83 cents of every dollar goes directly to the kids I think I'm helping.<BR/><BR/>I have yet to receive my annual report from Medicare or Medicaid, yet I pay for these services.<BR/><BR/>The tremendous increase in non-profit charitable corporations over the past two decades is proof to me that this stuff works. The continued efforts of other charities too, all add together to create a collage of support for folks.<BR/><BR/>Now, there is an old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. It is hard for me to know the proper level of state involvement in over ruling parental consent, but if it is a question of money, then I agree with you.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I do not think that people have a "right" to healthcare in our country. I just think that's a bad way to state what you and I both believe. I think we all have the moral obligation to help all those in need, and if healthcare is the main need, then so be it.<BR/><BR/>But the rights specified in the bill of rights and dec of independence are supposed to be sort of general and limited, afterall, they are intended to *constrain* the federal government so as to enable the individual and community. Every new "right" would just be an excuse for new taxation and would further divide us as a country.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-46078367933865363692008-11-17T12:55:00.000-05:002008-11-17T12:55:00.000-05:00Ry,You gave an anecdotal response to Johnny's SS n...Ry,<BR/><BR/>You gave an anecdotal response to Johnny's SS numbers on poverty, so I will counter with my own personal account. Roughly 35% of my patients are on medicaid. With a huge overhaul of the healthcare system and elimination of medicare/medicaid, you are suggesting that an entirely free market with charity on hand would provide care for the vast majority of these patients? Sure, some may have working parents who could potentially afford some form of coverage, especially if your premise turns out to be true that increased competition would lower prices. What about the children of unemployed parents? What about the children of shit-pot parents? I'm failing to understand what happens to them. I may be missing something here, but it still comes back to unalienable rights. Do you believe that the 8 year old child with asthma only deserves whatever healthcare his parents are willing and/or able to provide? If so, that is precisely where we respectfully disagree.<BR/><BR/><BR/>A few asides: <BR/> <BR/>(1) Regarding the "good" regulation discussion, I agree, G, that we are dealing with "We" the government. Goes back to your emphatic response to Sean's mass email a couple weeks back. Ryan voiced an interesting concern, though, in his bailout blogs that a relatively few number of individuals (e.g. the Federal Reserve Chairman) are responsible for decisions of economic impact. What is more, many are appointed.<BR/><BR/>(2) An editorial in The Economist urged caution on part of my rudder argument. A proposed answer to many of our current problems is governmental investment in green technology, thereby increasing demand, producing green jobs, reducing our dependence on the middle east and OPEC, and saving the world from our own carbon footprints. The editorial cries "Foul!" citing subsidies to solar panels in nearly sunless Germany and ethanol subsidies in the US as failed policies that, if anything, have contributed to world hunger and escalating silicon prices. Penalties, and not subsidies, are the way to go with this problem. <BR/><BR/>It's an interesting thought. More of a free market process with some regulation in place (e.g. emmission penalties, etc.) which would still theoretically produce jobs and save the world. <BR/><BR/>All in a day's work.<BR/><BR/>And Yes, I do know I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth. Stupid rudder.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13264931475225109995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-32399397357446066852008-11-16T23:52:00.000-05:002008-11-16T23:52:00.000-05:00How true, how true. But Johnny, there is a very g...How true, how true. But Johnny, there is a very good chance that every old person in our country plays bingo within six degrees of separation of our own old folks. Neither we, nor Kevin Bacon, should be worried about it.<BR/><BR/>Pay it forward... via bingo.<BR/><BR/>Also, if you win loser's bingo, do you really win?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-39978588879255287662008-11-16T21:29:00.000-05:002008-11-16T21:29:00.000-05:00Ryan, I am not worried about people I know I am wo...Ryan, <BR/>I am not worried about people I know I am worried about Americans I don't know and American that don't have large families to help them. We come from huge Irish Catholic families that is not the case with most American families.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-48167817256914147502008-11-16T14:19:00.000-05:002008-11-16T14:19:00.000-05:00Ooofta. A lot of what people are saying are being...Ooofta. A lot of what people are saying are being constrained by the current realities, rather than a total package picture. We can't do this small thing, because all these other things are in place.<BR/><BR/>I certainly meant that in order to deregulate the healthcare/hc insurance industry, we must destroy medicare/medicaid. In that event, adding together all those on care/caid and currently uninsured would be a large number. The free market would gobble up a huge number of these people (resulting in a net loss of uninsured), and our charities, funded by us, would do the rest, resulting in a system where not only the poor and elderly would be better taken care of but so would we. This would also involve a huge tax reform, eliminating the insane collage of taxes we pay today, putting more money into our pockets to spend as we see fit.<BR/><BR/>I can assure you that in times of economic downturn, human charity reaches all time highs. If you mistakenly equate the federal government inefficiently redistributing our money as "charity" then you will be quick to argue this point.<BR/><BR/>G, you need to do better than that with your SS comments. Study the history of SS. You will find out that is was insanely small for a long time, then as it expanded into the monster it is, it relied upon this earnings bubble, while racking up $40-50 trillion in future promises. That is not short term, is it. And the meek arguments that this program is merely in need of a fix offer no such simple solutions to what is claimed to be a minor flaw.<BR/><BR/>These mentalities are what allow each of these government programs to grow, because they are argued out of context in isolation. The net picture is that our country is broke because of these programs, and the people whom you try to argue need our money the most are the ones who will be hurt the most by our national poverty.<BR/><BR/>Johnny, every old person I know who relies on SS alone is in poverty, not kept from it. And far too many young people do not save because they honestly think SS will take care of them. <BR/><BR/>If we reduced the size of the federal government substantially and renewed our commitment to our families and friends, no old people we know would be in trouble. This is also a scalable solution, whereas bureaucracy is not.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-72500413536907023452008-11-15T20:28:00.000-05:002008-11-15T20:28:00.000-05:00Studies have found that without Social Security be...Studies have found that without Social Security benefits, 47.6 percent of the 32 million elderly people in the United States would be living in poverty. For those of you keeping score at home that is 15,040,000 people that would be living in poverty without social security. I realize that the program could be better and that we need to make changes but I personally would not classify it as a failureAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-10708742013556524382008-11-15T20:11:00.000-05:002008-11-15T20:11:00.000-05:00I've fallen asleep at the wheel here for a second ...I've fallen asleep at the wheel here for a second - but I do like some of this discussion about economics. I think it's big step to recognize that some regulation of the private market is good, and I agree that it is we the government that needs to provide this rudder. <BR/><BR/>I also really like that Ryan was able to incorporate Phil Collins into his post, not easily done. <BR/><BR/>I have to say for reasons already stated, that the example of health care being better off unregulated is a bad one. If a side affect is that more people would become uninsured and unable to afford health care, and thus dependent on charities (more on that in a moment) then it seems to be a pretty bad solution. If history is any guide this would only increase inequality - not the direction most of us want to go.<BR/><BR/>I also want to take up the idea that charitable institutions need to be the ones to pick up those who fall through the free market cracks. As much as I'd like to think that the kindness of human nature would be sufficient to handle this burden, there are simple economic barriers. This is an especially dangerous idea during an economic downturn, when more people are in need of help, and fewer people feel they can donate money. Multi-million dollar foundations that fund a lot of good non-profits are dependent on a good stock market. Again, as the economy slows, there is less money available. <BR/><BR/>Social safety nets are important in the short term. This is why it's important for a country of our size, that our government maintains them. It seems to be against human nature to wait for the invisible hand to move people to start up charities to alleviate suffering.<BR/><BR/>And on Social Security - Ryan, your comment about just giving it more time (more than 73 years!) and it'll fail reminds me of Keynes arguement - in the long run, we're all dead.G. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10769920745579306671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-20807163410179537192008-11-15T17:52:00.000-05:002008-11-15T17:52:00.000-05:00Ryan, I posted a little more on the bail out on th...Ryan, I posted a little more on the bail out on the new prez link.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778556107185533687.post-53058414191439247412008-11-15T12:36:00.000-05:002008-11-15T12:36:00.000-05:00Johnny, glad to see you pop up for the first time....Johnny, glad to see you pop up for the first time. I didn't know you read the communist manifesto ever, so I will definitely keep an eye on you. A crooked eye.<BR/><BR/>Two things, and I know you work in finance so speak up if you have a way to convince me otherwise. but I think your Tito the builder example is off. The bailout wasn't to protect our money. Our money as deposits are already insured. This was to protect the bottom line of a lot of financial houses who made really bad decisions. And the fear-pushing line that if we didn't do it there would be a global catastrophy beyond comprehension just irks me. Why don't you try to explain it to me instead of just trying to scare me? Because it seems to me that the there already is a global catastrophy, that the bailout was rushed rather than debated and that it is going to Wall St elites rather than me... (my accounts are way down, I thought you said the bailout would help my accounts).<BR/><BR/>My "theory", which it's not, is certainly not ludicrous, it's much more practical. I believe I've made the distinction between helping some people and helping people in the wrong way. To go back to your Tito example, you seem to suggest that as long as you steal $1000 from me, blow $900 of it on yourself but give away $100 to a poor person, then you've done good.<BR/><BR/>SS is a failure in almost every sense of the word. Yes, some elderly have been helped, but they've been helped only because of the baby boomer earnings bubble working its way through time. That's a fluke, not a success. The fact that this false signal of success has been around for 73 years has led to the mistaken assumption by untold millions that SS will take care of them when they're old. Furhtermore, it's been advertised by our beloved gov't officials as a pay-in pay-out system, when it's not.<BR/><BR/>Again, it is a deeply flawed program, and the burden of proof falls on you to show why it is a "success" and should be "fixed" rather than tourniquetted.<BR/><BR/>We're in the hole already for $40-50 trillion of SS obligations, so if I were you, I would start there.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17256070703334899567noreply@blogger.com