Socialized Medicine

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]The Mage wrote:
orion wrote:

Only the Fed does that. You are creating value.

Value and money is not the same and trust me that by treating it as the same at lot of economists have made a lot of flawed arguments.

Well I wasn’t worried about being that technical. Yes it really isn’t money, but for all intents and purposes, it kind of is. Sure value would be a proper term, but it does not have the psychological impact that the word money does.[/quote]

It is an important distinction in welfare theory though.

If people say that they have transferred so and so many dollars in services to the poor you must ask yourself what would the poor have paid themselves to acquire those goods?

Very often you find out that the goods and services provided by welfare agencies rank very low on the desirability scale of those poor, they would spend no money at all to purchase them if you gave it to them directly.

So, while those people have transferred money, they have destroyed value.

Imagine a welfare program giving refrigerators to Eskimos.

102

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:

The point was that the “poor” in the US are better off because of hundreds of years of capital accumulation.

Very true

If you interfere with that process by redistributing money capital grows slower so the “poor” of tomorrow will be far worse off than they would have been otherwise.

It’s a great theory, and mostly true. But I wonder, as a card-carrying libertarian, are there any investments that are worth taxation in your world? Universal primary education? Roads?

Also, from a libertarian perspective, why is it that China and Viet Nam are progressing so rapidly with such a heavy government hand and with such slow deregulation whereas Russia and other did so poorly with “shock therapy?”

I think that there are some investments that call for taxation but not that many because most of f.e infrastructure financing could be done with user fees which would have the advantage of no unwanted cross subsidies.

Why pay for a highway you never use?

Well, that might work for maintenance. But you’ve still not addressed how they could be built.

Elementary school, no, but just because in England before mandatory schooling 96% of all children went to school. That beats what we have now.

We are talking about subsidization for schooling (I suppose I should have left the “universal” part off). I very much doubt tht 96% of all children went to school w/o government financing…

…but even if that’s true, you know as well as I that throughout the developing world regression after regression has shown a huge rate of return for primary education. Are you honestly arguing that government has no role?

As you know, roads and primary education are somewhat “easy” cases where almost everyone agrees that government should play a role. Just one more time to make sure, Are you honestly answering that, in fact, you don’t believe that government should be collecting taxes for roads and primary schooling? Not just in the developed world but in the developing as well?

Then, what is a heavy government hand? I think a market can suffer a lot of abuse if it is at least consistent. If in the case of Russia you can be thrown into jail and lose everything you got merely because Putin says so that is far worse than some stupid rules.

(I think)This is my point exactly. Inconsistency increases risk and slow, incremental movement towards capitalistic principles is by far better than a rapid movement. In short, government has a huge role to play, in practice.

All in all I would be happy if government just got out of the redistribution business. Then they would be somewhere around 10% GDP and could probably finance themselves through indirect taxes.

[i]Imagine there’s no taxes. It’s easy if you try. No redistribution below us. Above us only 10% growth rates. Imagine all the people, living for today…

Imagine there’s no country, it isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people, living life in peace.

You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will be as one. …[/i]

10% growth rates, huh? That sounds like reality in the developed world.

I think they should have a bidding who wants to build a road as specified in the details. Let us see who shows up to build it.

Well then, can we at least collect a little tax money for those who set up the bidding?

And yes, even primary education should be private. If there is one thing that we know it is that parents will send their kids to school if they can, and if a whole family saves to send a kid to school that kid automatically gets that eduction is important.

We were talking about subsidization, were we not? If “we know…that parents will send their kids to school if they can” isn’t that part of the rationale for subsidization?

Are you sure you’re so against taxes? Sounds more like you have a different vision for how taxes should be spent.

No.

I am for INDIRECT taxation to finance the police, military and courts and for a system of user fees to finance the rest that absolutely positively had to be supervised or planned by the government.

It is not taxes or no taxes, it is what kind of taxes for what purpose.

A government is a necessary evil, an abomination we must live with.

I am by no means willing to use the government for any other purpose than keeping people from initiating violence against others, prevent and punish fraud and some other things that must be decided collectively, like pollution.

[/quote]

lol. Yeah,yeah I know. It’s just fun to see just how far out there you are.

103

[quote]Unaware wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Unaware wrote:

I’m going to have to claim ignorance here. I’m not familiar enough with Russia and China’s intricacies to comment further.

That’s cool. My only real point is one shouldn’t jump on the “all government is bad” bandwagon that a lot of utopians and libertarians are on. A strong, limited government is essential for economic growth.

I would be happy with a strong limited government, asumming none of the past few administrations fit that description. I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of people think Obama’s or Bush’s administration fits the bill of ‘limited government’.[/quote]

Well, in what context are you looking at these administrations? Are you comparing them to other countries? With an ideal in your mind? With past administrations?

I harp on Orion that he’s a Utopian and idealist because his proposals would only work on his dream world. It’s much more difficult to deal with what actually exist and has existed. Don’t get me wrong, there is value in dreamers and dreams, but as for myself, I’ll keep pointing out the historical record, and looking beyond Europe and the USA in my analysis. I thought perhaps you were a dreamer like him, I’d be happy to hear you say your not.
…You also gotta give him some credit for explaining econ 101 to people.

A good book to look at that analyzes these ideas is Fracis Fukuyama’s “State-Building” http://www.amazon.com/State-Building-Governance-World-Order-Century/dp/0801442923
I disagree with a lot of these guys politics and conclusions, but I like his arguments and analysis.

104

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Yeah,yeah I know. It’s just fun to see just how far out there you are. [/quote]

As far out there as most people were 100 years ago.

I am very conservative in so far as I do not have to share every mass delusion.

105

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Unaware wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Unaware wrote:

I’m going to have to claim ignorance here. I’m not familiar enough with Russia and China’s intricacies to comment further.

That’s cool. My only real point is one shouldn’t jump on the “all government is bad” bandwagon that a lot of utopians and libertarians are on. A strong, limited government is essential for economic growth.

I would be happy with a strong limited government, asumming none of the past few administrations fit that description. I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of people think Obama’s or Bush’s administration fits the bill of ‘limited government’.

Well, in what context are you looking at these administrations? Are you comparing them to other countries? With an ideal in your mind? With past administrations?

I harp on Orion that he’s a Utopian and idealist because his proposals would only work on his dream world. It’s much more difficult to deal with what actually exist and has existed. Don’t get me wrong, there is value in dreamers and dreams, but as for myself, I’ll keep pointing out the historical record, and looking beyond Europe and the USA in my analysis. I thought perhaps you were a dreamer like him, I’d be happy to hear you say your not.
…You also gotta give him some credit for explaining econ 101 to people.

A good book to look at that analyzes these ideas is Fracis Fukuyama’s “State-Building” http://www.amazon.com/State-Building-Governance-World-Order-Century/dp/0801442923
I disagree with a lot of these guys politics and conclusions, but I like his arguments and analysis. [/quote]

I am a dreamer?

Do I believe in the merits of central planning?

Do I believe that you can legislate morality?

Do I believe that coercion is a better motivator than self interest?

Most of my ideas and convictions are rooted in the realization how little governments can actually achieve.

There is nothing romantic about limiting the scope of an organization that is in the final analysis nothing but organized violence.

I am wide awake and those things that seem to be God given to you are already collapsing under their own weight.

Let us see how those realistic non dreamers will do when the systems they depend upon breaks down.

106

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Yeah,yeah I know. It’s just fun to see just how far out there you are.

As far out there as most people were 100 years ago.

I am very conservative in so far as I do not have to share every mass delusion.
[/quote]

All we have to do is listen to you and we get 10% growth rates, right? Yeah, you’re a dreamer.

107

[quote]The Mage wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

In our system , the only way to create wealth is to have a trade surplus , when was the last time that happened ?

Incorrect. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed all the time. You need to get over this idea that money is static, and fixed. It is not.

Money is not real, a construct of you will. It is only a medium of exchange, and item to facilitate the action of barter.

As such it can be created. Lets say you took a house, paid a contractor $5,000 to improve it, and as a result the value of the house increases by $10,000. Where did that extra $5,000 come from? Wealth was created.

This is exactly how an economy works, you are literally creating money.

pittbulll wrote:
In your equation your customer did not buy the bread from his usual baker or the meat from his usual butcher nor did spend the time to make the sandwich. As far as the Money he lost it and you gained it.

And your not getting what I am saying. It doesn’t matter, because he wanted the sandwich, and decided not to make it himself, his choice. But the money is coming back to him when I want something from him, or somebody else wants something else from him.

Regardless you are still not seeing how $100 resulted in more then $100 in economic exchange. You also don’t get the idea that regardless of there only being $100 in this theoretical world, there is still an unlimited supply of products worth an unlimited amount of money.

Just because there is only $100 in this world doesn’t mean I can’t own $1,000,000 worth of gold.

Which brings up another thing you obviously do not understand. The wealthy generally do not hold cash. They hold assets. We call them Multi-Millionaires, or Billionaires, but the chances of even one of them having even $50,000 cash is quite minuscule.
[/quote]

Well you can keep your wealth and send me your dollars, Ok you say by my standards Bill Gates is not a billionaire. What does he have a billion of? Your points are understood clearly. You are arguing semantics

108

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Yeah,yeah I know. It’s just fun to see just how far out there you are.

As far out there as most people were 100 years ago.

I am very conservative in so far as I do not have to share every mass delusion.

All we have to do is listen to you and we get 10% growth rates, right? Yeah, you’re a dreamer.

[/quote]

I never claimed that.

I do claim however that if redistribution just slows down economic growth by a mere 1-2% each year, meaning only 2-3% growth instead of 4-5% it makes an enormous difference after a few decades because such is the nature of exponential growth.

Had the New Deal never happened and the US would have had 5 % growth rates instead of around 3% the difference is 1,03^ 70 compared to 1,05^70.

The difference is ca 8 vs 30.

Meaning the US economy would be 8 times as big with an annual growth of 3% and 30 times as big as in 1940 with 5% annual growth and that does not even take into account public debt and the wars fiat money made possible.

So, there is no need to exaggerate my position, the very nature of exponential growth makes even small differences huge over time.

109

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Well you can keep your wealth and send me your dollars, Ok you say by my standards Bill Gates is not a billionaire. What does he have a billion of? Your points are understood clearly. You are arguing semantics[/quote]

Why do you even want dollars if you do not want to spend them?

What other use could you possibly have for them?

110

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Well you can keep your wealth and send me your dollars, Ok you say by my standards Bill Gates is not a billionaire. What does he have a billion of? Your points are understood clearly. You are arguing semantics

Why do you even want dollars if you do not want to spend them?

What other use could you possibly have for them?

[/quote]
Oh I could buy assets; you can send me dollars ,rubles, gold silver copper, aluminum. They all have worth

111

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Well you can keep your wealth and send me your dollars, Ok you say by my standards Bill Gates is not a billionaire. What does he have a billion of? Your points are understood clearly. You are arguing semantics

Why do you even want dollars if you do not want to spend them?

What other use could you possibly have for them?

Oh I could buy assets; you can send me dollars ,rubles, gold silver copper, aluminum. They all have worth[/quote]

Ah, you want to buy things with it.

Yet when you get things for dollars you feel you are poorer than before, even though you wanted those things more.

The same is true for the US economy.

112

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Well you can keep your wealth and send me your dollars, Ok you say by my standards Bill Gates is not a billionaire. What does he have a billion of? Your points are understood clearly. You are arguing semantics

Why do you even want dollars if you do not want to spend them?

What other use could you possibly have for them?

Oh I could buy assets; you can send me dollars ,rubles, gold silver copper, aluminum. They all have worth

Ah, you want to buy things with it.

Yet when you get things for dollars you feel you are poorer than before, even though you wanted those things more.

The same is true for the US economy. [/quote]

I do not understand your statement

113

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Well you can keep your wealth and send me your dollars,[/quote]

Realize I don’t have that much in cash on me, wouldn’t get you a meal at a decent restaurant. I have a bank account, which says I have money in it, but actually the bank is using that money itself.[quote]

Ok you say by my standards Bill Gates is not a billionaire. What does he have a billion of? [/quote]

A billion dollars [b]WORTH[/b] of stock[quote]

Your points are understood clearly. You are arguing semantics[/quote]

Honestly? Are you actually this thick, or are you just trolling?

You say you understand, then you point out you don’t.

114

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Yeah,yeah I know. It’s just fun to see just how far out there you are.

As far out there as most people were 100 years ago.

I am very conservative in so far as I do not have to share every mass delusion.

All we have to do is listen to you and we get 10% growth rates, right? Yeah, you’re a dreamer.

[/quote]

What, no response?

Just because a dreamer knows about compound growth could not possibly mean he has a point?

I mean really, just because I am able to show that even a small move in the direction I suggest yields enormous dividends over time could not possibly mean that I am not a radical utopian.

I am waiting for a an argument why I am wrong, put forth by a man as deeply rooted in reality as you.

115

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Yeah,yeah I know. It’s just fun to see just how far out there you are.

As far out there as most people were 100 years ago.

I am very conservative in so far as I do not have to share every mass delusion.

All we have to do is listen to you and we get 10% growth rates, right? Yeah, you’re a dreamer.

I never claimed that.

I do claim however that if redistribution just slows down economic growth by a mere 1-2% each year, meaning only 2-3% growth instead of 4-5% it makes an enormous difference after a few decades because such is the nature of exponential growth.

Had the New Deal never happened and the US would have had 5 % growth rates instead of around 3% the difference is 1,03^ 70 compared to 1,05^70.

The difference is ca 8 vs 30.

Meaning the US economy would be 8 times as big with an annual growth of 3% and 30 times as big as in 1940 with 5% annual growth and that does not even take into account public debt and the wars fiat money made possible.

So, there is no need to exaggerate my position, the very nature of exponential growth makes even small differences huge over time.

[/quote]

Thanks for the math lesson. I’ve certainly never seen such a thing. Certainly not in high school.

Lol. You didn’t bite, why would I respond? I think we’ve already been over why you’re a dreamer a few times now, and it has nothing to do with simple math equations that begin with the word “if.”

You admit that most economists disagree with you, right? You’re a utopian and a dreamer because you think, how did doc put it?, that there’s some sort of backwards running clock with an eraser attached. You’ve got great theories, but nothing connecting them with what we have in the present. Further, when countries try to “jump” to a free market system (e.g. russia) they fail and economies shrink, but slower movement coupled with export oriented growth (e.g. government interference a la China, Viet Nam, the Asian Tigers) countries develop and growth rates are virtually astronomical. Even further, roads and primary schooling… come on … 'Course we’ve been over all this before.

PS being proud about “knowing” about compound growth? Seriously? Are we 18 again?

116

[quote]The Mage wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Well you can keep your wealth and send me your dollars,

Realize I don’t have that much in cash on me, wouldn’t get you a meal at a decent restaurant. I have a bank account, which says I have money in it, but actually the bank is using that money itself.

Ok you say by my standards Bill Gates is not a billionaire. What does he have a billion of?

A billion dollars [b]WORTH[/b] of stock

Your points are understood clearly. You are arguing semantics

Honestly? Are you actually this thick, or are you just trolling?

You say you understand, then you point out you don’t.[/quote]

I think you have confused yourself, if you add up Bill gates stock and his real estate and all other assets he is worth a Billion dollars His worth depends on all the present markets , Money is just the medium, Not rubles, not stocks , not anything else. Now if you go to Afghanistan you can barter in goats. but we live in America… Hope that helps Mage.

117

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

lol. Yeah,yeah I know. It’s just fun to see just how far out there you are.

As far out there as most people were 100 years ago.

I am very conservative in so far as I do not have to share every mass delusion.

All we have to do is listen to you and we get 10% growth rates, right? Yeah, you’re a dreamer.

I never claimed that.

I do claim however that if redistribution just slows down economic growth by a mere 1-2% each year, meaning only 2-3% growth instead of 4-5% it makes an enormous difference after a few decades because such is the nature of exponential growth.

Had the New Deal never happened and the US would have had 5 % growth rates instead of around 3% the difference is 1,03^ 70 compared to 1,05^70.

The difference is ca 8 vs 30.

Meaning the US economy would be 8 times as big with an annual growth of 3% and 30 times as big as in 1940 with 5% annual growth and that does not even take into account public debt and the wars fiat money made possible.

So, there is no need to exaggerate my position, the very nature of exponential growth makes even small differences huge over time.

Thanks for the math lesson. I’ve certainly never seen such a thing. Certainly not in high school.

What, no response?

Just because a dreamer knows about compound growth could not possibly mean he has a point?

I mean really, just because I am able to show that even a small move in the direction I suggest yields enormous dividends over time could not possibly mean that I am not a radical utopian.

I am waiting for a an argument why I am wrong, put forth by a man as deeply rooted in reality as you.

Lol. You didn’t bite, why would I respond? I think we’ve already been over why you’re a dreamer a few times now, and it has nothing to do with simple math equations that begin with the word “if.”

You admit that most economists disagree with you, right? You’re a utopian and a dreamer because you think, how did doc put it?, that there’s some sort of backwards running clock with an eraser attached. You’ve got great theories, but nothing connecting them with what we have in the present. Further, when countries try to “jump” to a free market system (e.g. russia) they fail and economies shrink, but slower movement coupled with export oriented growth (e.g. government interference a la China, Viet Nam, the Asian Tigers) countries develop and growth rates are virtually astronomical. Even further, roads and primary schooling… come on … 'Course we’ve been over all this before.

PS being proud about “knowing” about compound growth? Seriously? Are we 18 again?[/quote]

Apparently you regressed far below 18 because you know what it is and yet refuse to accept the consequences.

Then, I would be highly interested in what major economist disagrees with me that redistribution equals lower growth rates. I would also be interested in what economist disagrees that either the welfare or the warfare state is possible without a fiat currency.

I have never claimed that I am against a government that keeps up public order so I feel no need to adtress that strawman.

So, if you want to “harp” on me, show me where I am wrong, preferably using statements I actually made and without to the most obvious fallacies like appealing to the majority.

That would at least mean to become aware that most nations could cut most of their taxes without a welfare state that is inherently harmful over time, as I have shown.

118

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think you have confused yourself, if you add up Bill gates stock and his real estate and all other assets he is worth a Billion dollars His worth depends on all the present markets , Money is just the medium, Not rubles, not stocks , not anything else. Now if you go to Afghanistan you can barter in goats. but we live in America… Hope that helps Mage.[/quote]

Ah, you are trolling.

119

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
When I was in my 20’s I had some lousy health insurance. Instead of waiting for a handout from Uncle Sam, I decided to go to school, bust my ass studying and get a science degree. As a result, now I have health insurance. What a concept! Instead of sitting on my ass and waiting for Uncle Sam to give me something I obtained it myself through hard work!

Whatever happened to this concept of working hard to get things in this country instead of everyone wanting something for free?

Why has socialized or nationalized medicine now been given the cozy term “health care reform?”

In fact, everything is “reform” under Obama! Amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants has now become “immigration REFORM.”

The way that this administration is trying to rush through this socialized medicine is a joke!
CNN claims that illegals will not be covered, but Obama wants to make the illegal immigrants legal, ergo they WILL be getting covered if Obama gets his way!

But back to the point… why is it that people now whine and cry about things like not having health insurance instead of working to improve themselves? Why if you are either 1) Too lazy or 2) Too stupid to get a decent job should I have to pay for your health care?
[/quote]

FINALLY!!! there ARE still people out there with a decent brain in their head!!! ok-maybe there IS hope…

120

[quote]The Mage wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I think you have confused yourself, if you add up Bill gates stock and his real estate and all other assets he is worth a Billion dollars His worth depends on all the present markets , Money is just the medium, Not rubles, not stocks , not anything else. Now if you go to Afghanistan you can barter in goats. but we live in America… Hope that helps Mage.

Ah, you are trolling.[/quote]

No, you are the one arguing semantics