From: Rudy Canoza on
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of
>>>> course,
>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let
>>>> the
>>>> price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>
>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>>
>> Ya znaiyu.
>>
>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
>>> corporate model is wrong.
>>
>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
>> not like what you advocated earlier.
>
> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
> why shouldn't it be democratic too?

Because it's not a country and not an economy. It's a
company that's privately owned.


>>> And while the price feedback mechanism is
>>> generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
>>> think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
>>> ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
>>> regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs.
>>
>> Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from
>> the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since
>> administration is the purview of the executive branch.
>>
>>> And the
>>> cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
>>> system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
>>> the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
>>
>> It's broken because there is unlimited demand.
>
> What do you mean?

With every post, you show you don't understand a thing
about economics. The consumers of medical care don't
internalize the cost of the care. To them, the medical
care appears "free", so they want too much of it. More
care is demanded by consumers than is available at that
price.

Medical care is no different from any other good or
service. There is a cost to providing the stuff, and
there's no reason suppliers shouldn't make a profit in
doing a good job of supplying the goods or service.


>>> We need to take the money out
>>> of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
>>> respond to the needs of their constituents.

Getting to decide how several trillion dollars are
spent is valuable. Why would you think huge resources
wouldn't be spent to be in that position?

If you want to get the money out of politics, you first
need to get rid of the ability of politicians to decide
winners and losers. Then running for office won't seem
so attractive.


>>
>> If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and
>> later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes?
>
> Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign
> contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting.

Won't work. Getting to be the "decider" is too
valuable. It will draw the money one way or another.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on


Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
> >>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
> >>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
> >>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
> >>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
> >>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
> >>>price controls off, the bread was available.
> >>
> >>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
> >>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
> >>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
> >
> > Ya znaiyu.
> >
> >>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
> >>corporate model is wrong.
> >
> > Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
> > not like what you advocated earlier.
>
> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
> why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>
1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
many shares you have.
2) Because the workers don't own the company.


> >>And while the price feedback mechanism is
> >>generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
> >>think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
> >>ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
> >>regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs.
> >
> > Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from
> > the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since
> > administration is the purview of the executive branch.
> >
> >>And the
> >>cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
> >>system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
> >>the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
> >
> > It's broken because there is unlimited demand.
>
> What do you mean?
>
I mean that people will pay anything, demand anything, when it comes to
health care because their life is on the line. It's hard to have the
market or anything including government policy limit this demand.



> >>We need to take the money out
> >>of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
> >>respond to the needs of their constituents.
> >
> > If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and
> > later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes?
>
> Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign
> contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting.
>
You just said they shouldn't be able to make much money in office.



--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Rudy Canoza on
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>>> Ya znaiyu.
>>>
>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
>>>> corporate model is wrong.
>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
>>> not like what you advocated earlier.
>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
>> why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>>
> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
> many shares you have.
> 2) Because the workers don't own the company.

jeffy just doesn't "get" private property. But then,
he's a wacky socialist of some kind, so that explains it.


>>>> And while the price feedback mechanism is
>>>> generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
>>>> think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
>>>> ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
>>>> regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs.
>>> Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from
>>> the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since
>>> administration is the purview of the executive branch.
>>>
>>>> And the
>>>> cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
>>>> system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
>>>> the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
>>> It's broken because there is unlimited demand.
>> What do you mean?
>>
> I mean that people will pay anything, demand anything, when it comes to
> health care because their life is on the line.

No, that's not the issue. The issue is that the
consumer *doesn't* expect to pay anything when their
life is on the line. They expect they're owed it.
Look at how people react in a hostage situation. The
hostages themselves and their families expect an
all-out effort to get the hostages back without any
regard to cost at all.


> It's hard to have the
> market or anything including government policy limit this demand.

That's not true, either. If you make people pay a
substantial deductible and co-payment, the demand for
medical care goes down. People *ought* to have to pay
a substantial amount of money for health care if the
cost of the care is high. The real problem is that
people have a wrong idea about health care, that it is
some kind of "right" or entitlement. It is not. It is
a good/service like any other: if the price is higher,
people demand less of it. There is nothing "holy"
about health care, or education or any of the other
ones that anti-market people like jeffy think should
not be provided by the market (but then, socialist
jeffy thinks *nothing* should be provided by the
market; jeffy wants to eliminate markets.)


>>>> We need to take the money out
>>>> of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
>>>> respond to the needs of their constituents.
>>> If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and
>>> later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes?
>> Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign
>> contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting.
>>
> You just said they shouldn't be able to make much money in office.

jeffy does not understand incentives.
From: Jeffrey Turner on
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of
>>>>> course,
>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We
>>>>> saw
>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they
>>>>> let the
>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>
>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>>>
>>> Ya znaiyu.
>>>
>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
>>>> corporate model is wrong.
>>>
>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
>>> not like what you advocated earlier.
>>
>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
>> why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>
> Because it's not a country and not an economy. It's a company that's
> privately owned.
>
>>>> And while the price feedback mechanism is
>>>> generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
>>>> think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
>>>> ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
>>>> regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from
>>> the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since
>>> administration is the purview of the executive branch.
>>>
>>>> And the
>>>> cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
>>>> system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
>>>> the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
>>>
>>> It's broken because there is unlimited demand.
>>
>> What do you mean?
>
> With every post, you show you don't understand a thing about economics.
> The consumers of medical care don't internalize the cost of the care.
> To them, the medical care appears "free", so they want too much of it.
> More care is demanded by consumers than is available at that price.

This is the "world of hypochondriacs" argument, it doesn't reallly hold
up to experience.

> Medical care is no different from any other good or service. There is a
> cost to providing the stuff, and there's no reason suppliers shouldn't
> make a profit in doing a good job of supplying the goods or service.

No one has argued that doctors and hospitals should go penniless.

>>>> We need to take the money out
>>>> of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
>>>> respond to the needs of their constituents.
>
> Getting to decide how several trillion dollars are spent is valuable.
> Why would you think huge resources wouldn't be spent to be in that
> position?

Because it runs counter to democracy.

> If you want to get the money out of politics, you first need to get rid
> of the ability of politicians to decide winners and losers. Then
> running for office won't seem so attractive.

Congressmembers should decide based on their consciences and the will of
their constituents, not based on who gives them money.

>>> If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and
>>> later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes?
>>
>> Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign
>> contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting.
>
> Won't work. Getting to be the "decider" is too valuable. It will draw
> the money one way or another.

There's always corruption, there's always jail.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Jeffrey Turner on
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
>>>>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
>>>>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
>>>>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
>>>>>price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>>
>>>>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
>>>>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>>>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>>>
>>>Ya znaiyu.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
>>>>corporate model is wrong.
>>>
>>>Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
>>>not like what you advocated earlier.
>>
>>It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
>>why shouldn't it be democratic too?
>
> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how
> many shares you have.
> 2) Because the workers don't own the company.

But they are at least as dependent on it as those who do. Kings and
queens are mostly ornamental now, it's about time to do the same with
private monarchs.

>>>>And while the price feedback mechanism is
>>>>generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
>>>>think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
>>>>ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
>>>>regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs.
>>>
>>>Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from
>>>the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since
>>>administration is the purview of the executive branch.
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the
>>>>cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
>>>>system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
>>>>the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
>>>
>>>It's broken because there is unlimited demand.
>>
>>What do you mean?
>
> I mean that people will pay anything, demand anything, when it comes to
> health care because their life is on the line. It's hard to have the
> market or anything including government policy limit this demand.

Right now the market does limit it. But it's very inefficient and
adds tremendously to the cost. That's the system that's broken, and
it's not being fixed because of the influence of the insurance and
pharmaceutical lobbies.

>>>>We need to take the money out
>>>>of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
>>>>respond to the needs of their constituents.
>>>
>>>If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and
>>>later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes?
>>
>>Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign
>>contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting.
>
> You just said they shouldn't be able to make much money in office.

I said they shouldn't be open to bribery or "contributions."

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt