Another economic question

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.18.0925 MST)]

Another question about economics. Bill Williams used to castigate me about this, but my question still remains unanswered.

The question is, when the government takes public money and spends it "wastefully," what becomes of that money? I know it came from us, but when it is wasted, where does it go? If tax money were dyed red on receipt (really or electronically), where would we find it afterward? Does it end up in different places if it's spent wisely?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.18.1645 UT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.18.0925 MST)]

Another question about economics. Bill Williams used to castigate me about this, but my question still remains unanswered.

The question is, when the government takes public money and spends it “wastefully,” what becomes of that money? I know it came from us, but when it is wasted, where does it go? If tax money were dyed red on receipt (really or electronically), where would we find it afterward? Does it end up in different places if it’s spent wisely?

Consider two projects: a bridge to nowhere and a bridge to somewhere. Both projects employ people in the construction phase. They make the same contribution to present day economic activity. The bridge to nowhere, however, does not contribute to future economic activity. It does not facilitate commerce. It is wasteful when compared with the contribution to the infrastructure of the bridge to somewhere.

Bruce

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.0938 MST)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.18.0925 MST)]

Another question about economics. Bill Williams used to castigate me about this, but my question still remains unanswered.

The question is, when the government takes public money and spends it "wastefully," what becomes of that money? I know it came from us, but when it is wasted, where does it go? If tax money were dyed red on receipt (really or electronically), where would we find it afterward? Does it end up in different places if it's spent wisely?

Best,

Bill P.

It isn't the money that is wasted, it is the scarce resources that the money redirected. Of course "waste" is a normative term and is subjective.. The "loss" is the opportunity cost, the resources that might have been employed differently on other priorities. What becomes of the money? Presumably it continues to circulate, but it is now bidding on fewer resources. Government is probably considered more wasteful because it generally is more of a consumer than a producer, and it is considered a more inefficient manager. The problem of economics is the allocation of scarce resources. To the extent that resources are employed in freeing up other resources or producing more valuable resources, wealth can be increased and problem of scarcity decreased. What is "valuable" is, of course, also subjective.

Martin L

···

On 2/18/2010 9:29 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2010.92.18.1056 MST]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.0938 MST) --

ML: It isn't the money that is wasted, it is the scarce resources that the money redirected. Of course "waste" is a normative term and is subjective.. The "loss" is the opportunity cost, the resources that might have been employed differently on other priorities. What becomes of the money? Presumably it continues to circulate, but it is now bidding on fewer resources.

BP: You and Bruce Gregory give about the same answers. So the money remains in circulation, and isn't itself wasted, but the resources used in doing or building whatever the money bought are wasted.

ML: To the extent that resources are employed in freeing up other resources or producing more valuable resources, wealth can be increased and problem of scarcity decreased. What is "valuable" is, of course, also subjective.

BP: That's more or less what I was thinking. Bruce G. mentions the "bridge to nowhere" as an example of wasted resources. But as you say, the value involved is subjective -- it's a matter of reference levels, what different people are controlling for. The bridge to nowhere is an extreme example, but clearly there are differing opinions about the value of things like the James Webb Telescope, due to go up in 2014. Isn't this the basis of a lot of arguments about "wasteful" spending? Spending is wasteful if you would rather it had been spent on something else, now or later.

You mention increasing "wealth," but again, isn't this also a subjective matter? Can wealth be increased without using resources? Can I increase my wealth, even without having any resources to speak of?

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.18.1818 UT)]

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.0938 MST)]

It isn’t the money that is wasted, it is the scarce resources that the money redirected. Of course “waste” is a normative term and is subjective… The “loss” is the opportunity cost, the resources that might have been employed differently on other priorities. What becomes of the money? Presumably it continues to circulate, but it is now bidding on fewer resources. Government is probably considered more wasteful because it generally is more of a consumer than a producer, and it is considered a more inefficient manager. The problem of economics is the allocation of scarce resources. To the extent that resources are employed in freeing up other resources or producing more valuable resources, wealth can be increased and problem of scarcity decreased. What is “valuable” is, of course, also subjective.

Economics assumes that resources are always scarce. It has trouble when resources are abundant. 10% unemployment, no shortage of labor. Unless, of course, you are convinced that all unemployment is voluntary. Who knows why all those people decided to enjoy more leisure at almost the same time throughout the world. Something in the air, no doubt. Global warming? (Love your use of the passive voice. Who considers government to be an inefficient manager? How about those single-payer countries with lower health costs? I like your idea of getting government into the production business…)

Bruce

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.1205 MST)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.18.1818 UT)]

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.0938 MST)]

It isn’t the money that is wasted, it is the scarce resources that the
money redirected. Of course “waste” is a normative term and is
subjective… The “loss” is the opportunity cost, the resources that
might have been employed differently on other priorities. What becomes
of the money? Presumably it continues to circulate, but it is now
bidding on fewer resources. Government is probably considered more
wasteful because it generally is more of a consumer than a producer,
and it is considered a more inefficient manager. The problem of
economics is the allocation of scarce resources. To the extent that
resources are employed in freeing up other resources or producing more
valuable resources, wealth can be increased and problem of scarcity
decreased. What is “valuable” is, of course, also subjective.

Economics assumes that resources are always scarce. It has
trouble when resources are abundant. 10% unemployment, no shortage of
labor. Unless, of course, you are convinced that all unemployment is
voluntary. Who knows why all those people decided to enjoy more leisure
at almost the same time throughout the world. Something in the air, no
doubt. Global warming? (Love your use of the passive voice. Who
considers government to be an inefficient manager? How about those
single-payer countries with lower health costs? I like your idea of
getting government into the production business…)

Bruce

When everybody can't have as much as they want at zero cost, then the resource is scarce. The unemployed aren't willing to work for free, so labor is still scarce. The government has a monopoly on the creation of money yet has failed to supply enough. The US has a luxury health care system with shorter waiting times and more services than is "cost effective" and one that is parasitized by attorneys and where the government has raised barriers to entry into the service provider market. Single payer systems require all to pay whether it is one of their subjective priorities or not and they ration care. In the
US people can decide other priorities are more important, such as
sending money to relatives in other countries for more basic needs like
food and shelter.

If your single payer system makes decisions consistent with your
subjective values, you might think it is wonderful to impose it upon
others. But single payer systems reflect the subjective values of
those in control. Consider the Texas single payer system for
textbooks:

There may be times when you don’t find coercive systems as
coincidentally in accord with your values.
Martin L

···

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.1224 MST)

You mention increasing "wealth," but again, isn't this also a subjective matter? Can wealth be increased without using resources? Can I increase my wealth, even without having any resources to speak of?

Best,

Bill P.

Yes, wealth is subjective as well. If you are convinced cow patties or Picasso's are magnificent works of art, you might feel quite wealthy contemplating a couple despite what society in general might consider your material deprivation. But humans are not a blank slate, they have enough shared values either naturally or culturally that are competing priorities for many resources. Getting some things might require them to exchange more resources than other things. We can subjectively consider what other people value to be a waste and frown for instance, on people frittering their money away for a few hours pleasure gambling, watching a movie or chilling on recreational drugs. All leave you with nothing material to show for your money after you are done. Even when they have something material to show for their money, we may consider it frivolous such as fashionable garments, hot air balloons or 4 wheelers, or three baths in their home. Is a society really wealthier that provides these goods and services? But by honoring the subjective values of those we disagree with, we manage to obtain their voluntary cooperation in and contribution to society. That voluntary contribution, historically has produced more surplus to enable the material benefits of mass society than "contributions" extracted from them by force.
So, yes, in order to enjoy all the scientific research, vicarious sports, films and luxury health care that mass society makes available, I'm willing to give others the freedom to waste their time and money.

Martin L

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.18.1255)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.0938 MST) --

The problem of economics is the allocation of scarce resources.

I disagree with this premise. I see the problem of economics as the
distribution of the goods and services produced by specialization to
the producers of those goods and services It's not scarcity but
specialization that creates the "problem" of economics.

Scarcity implies that an economy does not produce enough goods and
services to meet the needs (references) of the population. This may be
true of some (or all) economies, but it is not _necessarily_ true.
Indeed, it's probably not true of the economies of developed nations,
which seem to produce enough to meet the needs (and even the wants) of
the entire population, and then some.

But while scarcity is not necessarily a feature of an economy
(certainly not an economy like that of the US), specialization
certainly is (as Adam Smith recognized so articulately). Without
specialization it would be every person for himself, getting what they
want and need on their own as best as they can. There was probably
never a human society that was completely without specialization;
early human groups probably had the men hunting and the women cooking
and raising the kids. But as soon as their is specialization there has
to be a way to share the fruits of this more efficient means of
production. With the low specialization level in early human groups,
it was probably easy to share; the men brought home the food, the
women cooked it and everyone ate it.

In modern economies, specialization is much more detailed so sharing
the products of specialization becomes much more complex. And that's
what I think an economy is about; distributing the products of
specialization to the producers of those products. The market
certainly plays an important role in this distribution process, but it
does not work by magic and it certainly doesn't produce what many
people would consider to be equitable results when left to its own
devices (non regulation).

Specialization is a great tool of production but it has its downside
too, of course, both for the producer (brilliantly portrayed in
Chaplin's _Modern Times_) and for the consumer (as indicated by the
high rates of childhood poverty in rich nations like the US).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.18.1340)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.1205 MST)--

If your single payer system makes decisions consistent with your subjective
values, you might think it is wonderful to impose it upon others.� But
single payer systems reflect the subjective values of those in control.

I like to think of it as cooperation rather than control. When we
cooperate certain things work better than when it's every person for
himself. Of course, when you're dealing with large populations there
will always be those who won't go along no matter what; that's why we
have police and firemen. But by and large cooperation works really
well. That's why single payer systems work so much better than private
for profit health care systems.

Every country in which there is a single payer type system pays less
(as a proportion of GDP) for health care and has better outcomes than
countries that don't have such a system. There is always a small
proportion of people in those countries who don't like their
healthcare system -- I think it's 3% in Canada, which does come out to
be over a million people -- but by and large people like such systems
better than what they see in the US.

So I've got to wonder what it is about "free market" healthcare
systems that you like? Is it just some problem you have with
government? Or do you have evidence that a free market healthcare
system such as you envision would actually be better in some way than
the single payer, "government" systems that work so well in the
civilized world? Do you know of a country that has a free market
system that is close to the one you envision for the US that costs
less and has better outcomes than what we see for the "government" run
systems in countries like, say, France. Is there evidence of the
existence of a free market health care system that is best for anyone,
not just the richest people? Or are rich people really the only ones
who deserve healthcare? Certainly those ne'er do well poor people
don't.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.02.18.2240 UT)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.18.1340)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.1205 MST)–

If your single payer system makes decisions consistent with your subjective
values, you might think it is wonderful to impose it upon others. But
single payer systems reflect the subjective values of those in control.

I like to think of it as cooperation rather than control. When we
cooperate certain things work better than when it’s every person for
himself. Of course, when you’re dealing with large populations there
will always be those who won’t go along no matter what; that’s why we
have police and firemen. But by and large cooperation works really
well. That’s why single payer systems work so much better than private
for profit health care systems.

I’m a bit puzzled. Is it not the case that cooperation is a perception and controlled like any other perception? I intend to cooperate and feedback lets me know how well I am succeeding?

Bruce

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.18.1500)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.02.18.2240 UT)

Rick Marken (2010.02.18.1340)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.1205 MST)--

If your single payer system makes decisions consistent with your subjective
values, you might think it is wonderful to impose it upon others.� �But
single payer systems reflect the subjective values of those in control.

I like to think of it as cooperation rather than control. ..

I'm a bit puzzled. Is it not the case that cooperation is a perception and
controlled like any other perception? I intend to cooperate and feedback
lets me know how well I am succeeding?

Yes, of course. Cooperation (like everything else people do) is
control. I was referring to Martin's suggestion that single payer
systems must be imposed on people, which implies that it is a case of
interpersonal control. They could be imposed (by a dictator, I
suppose). But in mos Western democracies the single payer systems are
agreed to cooperatively.

When people control for acting cooperatively there is considerable
risk involved; they have to trust that others will control for
cooperation as well; people who don't want to cooperate can take
advantage of those who do. That's why we have police, to enforce the
agreed on rules. Then the people who don't want to follow the rules
and get caught feel like they are being "imposed on". Cooperation can
be an imposition to those that don't see any reason to control for
cooperation.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2010.02.18.1723 MST)]

[From Martin Lewitt
(2010.02.18.0938 MST)]

It isn’t the money that is wasted, it is the scarce resources that the
money redirected. Of course “waste” is a normative term
and is subjective… The “loss” is the opportunity cost,
the resources that might have been employed differently on other
priorities. What becomes of the money? Presumably it
continues to circulate, but it is now bidding on fewer resources.
Government is probably considered more wasteful because it generally is
more of a consumer than a producer, and it is considered a more
inefficient manager. The problem of economics is the allocation of
scarce resources. To the extent that resources are employed in
freeing up other resources or producing more valuable resources, wealth
can be increased and problem of scarcity decreased. What is
“valuable” is, of course, also
subjective.

Bruce G (I think) Economics assumes that resources are always
scarce.

BP: I think I know what is behind that assumption. Economic theory
contains nothing corresponding to a reference level, so there is no
concept of “enough.” Marginal utility is as close as it gets.
The assumption is, as near as I can tell, that if you reduce the price
enough, people will buy as much as they can of anything. Supply creates
demand. Of course that means that there is no way to meet the demand –
when supplies get scarce, the price will go up, but they will not start
going up until then. So scarcity is all but guaranteed.

Simon got his Nobel for discovering that managers do not maximize; they
“satifice.” They set finite goals and try to meet them. It’s
time for another economist to discover that consumers don’t maximize,
either; in fact. no organism does that. They set goals and try to meet
them. That’s what PCT can do for economics.

Best,

Bill P.

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1146 MST)

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.18.1340)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.18.1205 MST)--
     
If your single payer system makes decisions consistent with your subjective
values, you might think it is wonderful to impose it upon others. But
single payer systems reflect the subjective values of those in control.
     

I like to think of it as cooperation rather than control. When we
cooperate certain things work better than when it's every person for
himself. Of course, when you're dealing with large populations there
will always be those who won't go along no matter what; that's why we
have police and firemen. But by and large cooperation works really
well. That's why single payer systems work so much better than private
for profit health care systems.

Every country in which there is a single payer type system pays less
(as a proportion of GDP) for health care and has better outcomes than
countries that don't have such a system. There is always a small
proportion of people in those countries who don't like their
healthcare system -- I think it's 3% in Canada, which does come out to
be over a million people -- but by and large people like such systems
better than what they see in the US.

So I've got to wonder what it is about "free market" healthcare
systems that you like? Is it just some problem you have with
government? Or do you have evidence that a free market healthcare
system such as you envision would actually be better in some way than
the single payer, "government" systems that work so well in the
civilized world? Do you know of a country that has a free market
system that is close to the one you envision for the US that costs
less and has better outcomes than what we see for the "government" run
systems in countries like, say, France. Is there evidence of the
existence of a free market health care system that is best for anyone,
not just the richest people? Or are rich people really the only ones
who deserve healthcare? Certainly those ne'er do well poor people
don't.

Best

Rick
   

If you've been following the healthcare debate in the US, you would have heard that the US system has better survival rates after diagnosis for most cancers than Canada. This is apparently due to earlier screening, diagnosis and treatment. The US screens more and earlier than is cost effective and has shorter waiting times for diagnostic imaging and procedures.

I can't be so dismissive of 3% of the people. My reference level for fascism may not be zero like Bill P, but it is very low.

Martin L

[Bruce Gregory (2010.02.19.2045)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1146 MST)

I can’t be so dismissive of 3% of the people. My reference level for fascism may not be zero like Bill P, but it is very low.

BG: Your sensitive concern for the opinion of others is deeply touching.

Bruce

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1146 MST):

[Bruce Gregory (2010.02.19.2045)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1146 MST)

I can’t be so dismissive of 3% of the people. My reference level for
fascism may not be zero like Bill P, but it is very low.

BG: Your sensitive concern for the opinion of others is deeply
touching.

Bruce

I think you misunderstand. I wasn’t using “fascism” in the colloquial
merely pejorative sense, but in the more meaningful sense, the Hegelian
idea that the national or ethnic collectives are organisms with rights
that can supersede the rights of individuals. The US constitutional
system is perhaps the least fascist among the western democratic
nations. By construction, perhaps the chief duty of the government is
to protect the people not just from other governments, but from
itself. The division of powers, the checks and balances, the standards
of proof and evidence and the restrictive bill of rights, etc. By
contrast other admittedly more “democratic” governments act more as
mechanisms for imposing the will of the majority that speaks for the
ethnic or national collective. I don’t deny that many of those more
fascist governments are more progressive.

There is some evidence for group selection in the human species,
although for most of our evolution those groups have been more at the
size of the village or tribe, may have left us with some
characteristics, such as vulnerabilities to collective identities that
are problematic in mass societies. One of the leading hypotheses for
the small effective population size is group inbreeding and competitive
group extinction, either through extermination or displacement to more
marginal environments.

Martin L

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.19.1450)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1146 MST)

Rick Marken (2010.02.18.1340)--

Every country in which there is a single payer type system pays less
(as a proportion of GDP) for health care and has better outcomes than
countries that don't have such a system.

If you've been following the healthcare debate in the US, you would have
heard that the US system has better survival rates after diagnosis for most
cancers than Canada.

How much better? And at what cost? If you've been following the
healthcare debate you might also know that the only western industrial
democracy where people are driven into bankruptcy due to illness is
the US. But maybe that plus high infant mortality and worse outcomes
for all other diseases is a price you are willing to pay for slightly
better cancer survival rates.

I can't be so dismissive of 3% of the people. �My reference level for
fascism may not be zero like Bill P, but it is very low.

I wasn't dismissing the 3% of Canadians who are unhappy with their
health care system. Indeed, I was recognizing that they exist. Their
existence proves that no policy, not matter how good (and 97% positive
seems pretty good) will make everyone happy. The problem is that some
policies only work if everyone cooperates. This is particularly
obvious with health insurance. If healthy people decide not to
cooperate and share in the risk by purchasing insurance then the
insurance becomes prohibitively expensive for the people who are in
the pool (as happened recently here in California with Anthem Blue
Cross). See Krugman's recent column for an explanation of the problem
of non-cooperation
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19krugman.html). That's
why, once a policy is agreed on, even if only by a slight majority,
there has to be enforcement for it to work. Most reasonable people
understand this. They may not like to pay their taxes, for example,
but they know that, as Oliver Wendall Holmes once said, taxes are the
price we pay for civilization.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1659 MST)
[From Rick Marken (2010.02.19.1450)]
Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1146 MST)
Rick Marken (2010.02.18.1340)--

Every country in which there is a single payer type system pays less
(as a proportion of GDP) for health care and has better outcomes than
countries that don't have such a system.

If you've been following the healthcare debate in the US, you would have
heard that the US system has better survival rates after diagnosis for most
cancers than Canada.
How much better? And at what cost? If you've been following the
healthcare debate you might also know that the only western industrial
democracy where people are driven into bankruptcy due to illness is
the US. But maybe that plus high infant mortality and worse outcomes
for all other diseases is a price you are willing to pay for slightly
better cancer survival rates.

It is expensive, but people are willing to pay the price. Forget for
the moment that the prices are far higher than they need to be because
of government interference. Compared to what most of humanity faces,
bankruptcy is a minor concern, infant mortality is not a priceborn by
those who are getting the healthcare.


I can't be so dismissive of 3% of the people.  My reference level for
fascism may not be zero like Bill P, but it is very low.

I wasn't dismissing the 3% of Canadians who are unhappy with their
health care system. Indeed, I was recognizing that they exist. Their
existence proves that no policy, not matter how good (and 97% positive
seems pretty good) will make everyone happy. The problem is that some
policies only work if everyone cooperates. This is particularly
obvious with health insurance. If healthy people decide not to
cooperate and share in the risk by purchasing insurance then the
insurance becomes prohibitively expensive for the people who are in
the pool (as happened recently here in California with Anthem Blue
Cross). See Krugman's recent column for an explanation of the problem
of non-cooperation
(). That's
why, once a policy is agreed on, even if only by a slight majority,
there has to be enforcement for it to work. Most reasonable people
understand this. They may not like to pay their taxes, for example,
but they know that, as Oliver Wendall Holmes once said, taxes are the
price we pay for civilization.
Best
Rick

Before coercing people into risk pools, perhaps we should first try to
allow larger multistate voluntary risk pools. Many healthy people do
want insurance, perhaps larger pools, a more competitive environment
and less government interference will result in more affordable
coverage.
What is reasonable depends on perspective. For someone not identifying
with the national collective, but having an international socialist
perspective, it would be more reasonable not to “waste” healthcare on
the elderly at all, but instead help two orders of magnitude more
people in third world countries for the same cost. Those countries
with single payer systems are just being selfish and coddling the
elderly who have outlived their usefulness.
The US may well be helping more poor and infants by having open
borders, global trade and protecting the sea lanes and by deterring
fascist regimes.
Do we have an obligation to the national collective? to all humanity?
Should we oppose and demonize the “other”, or the ones who do not want
to cooperate or be our sacrificial lambs? Doesn’t the US have as much
right to tax Canada’s and Norway’s rich as those coutnries do, or do
those countries have an exclusive right to exploit their rich? Is it
wrong for human animals to succumb to their mammalian nature and want
to invest in their own survival and in the reproductive success of
their children, rather than serve the collective?
While the national collectives in Europe and Canada may currently seem
benign, but the same “reasonable” perspective that justifies
sacrificing a few, making the rich and healthy pay, and rationing some
care to the elderly, also justified the most destructive weapon of mass
destruction in history, which laid waste to the world over the last two
centuries … conscription.
Be careful, identification with national collectives has been
demonstrate to interfere with conceptual ability. This from a WWI
Supreme Court case:
“Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction
by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and
noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of
the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative
body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary
servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment,
we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect
is refuted by its mere statement.”

A rather selective deficit of conceptual ability. Down with fascism.

Martin L

···

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19krugman.html

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.19.1740)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1659 MST)

Before coercing people into risk pools, perhaps we should first try to allow
larger multistate voluntary risk pools.

Why try that when we already know that it doesn't work (see Krugman
for an explanation of how we know that) and when we already know what
does work (non-profit, universal coverage)? I'm afraid I just can't
listen to conservatives' suggestions about policy anymore, anyway. You
simply don't learn from your failures. The failures of conservative
policies are always said to be because the policy was not implemented
properly or because of a business cycle or because Clinton got a blow
job or whatever; there is always an excuse. I'd really rather watch
the Olympics.

Best

Rick

···

Be careful, identification with national collectives has been demonstrate to
interfere with conceptual ability.� This from a WWI Supreme Court case:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by
government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty
of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the
result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can
be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the
prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the
conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere
statement."

A rather selective deficit of conceptual ability.� Down with fascism.

Martin L

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1932 MST)

If you google on

     krugman wellpoint

You will see some analysis and criticism of Krugman's editorial. I still don't think Krugman's reasoning justifies coercing people for the benefit of the collective. If someone thinks some other use, such as sending money to relatives in Mexico or the Sudan is more important, it is presumptuous of the collective to assert ownership rights over them. I admit the market incentive to sell insurance to those that don't need it is perverse. I haven't quite gotten it figured out. I've looked into posting bond in place of the state mandated auto insurance. The government makes it more expensive than just purchasing the insurance. You should be able to just entail your home equity for much less than posting a bond.

Unfortunately, what the democrats have proposed is not health insurance but comprehensive health management. I haven't liked how doctors and insurance companies managed my healthcare, I doubt I'd like the government any better. I'd prefer true catastrophic health insurance, and managing my healthcare myself.

Dang government. The tea party movement at least gives us some hope of putting this bloated government back within its constitutional bounds.

Martin L.

···

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.19.1740)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1659 MST)
     
Before coercing people into risk pools, perhaps we should first try to allow
larger multistate voluntary risk pools.
     

Why try that when we already know that it doesn't work (see Krugman
for an explanation of how we know that) and when we already know what
does work (non-profit, universal coverage)? I'm afraid I just can't
listen to conservatives' suggestions about policy anymore, anyway. You
simply don't learn from your failures. The failures of conservative
policies are always said to be because the policy was not implemented
properly or because of a business cycle or because Clinton got a blow
job or whatever; there is always an excuse. I'd really rather watch
the Olympics.

Best

Rick

Be careful, identification with national collectives has been demonstrate to
interfere with conceptual ability. This from a WWI Supreme Court case:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by
government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty
of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the
result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can
be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the
prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the
conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere
statement."

A rather selective deficit of conceptual ability. Down with fascism.

Martin L

[From Rick Marken (2010.02.19.1945)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.02.19.1932 MST)

If you google on

� �krugman wellpoint

You will see some analysis and criticism of Krugman's editorial.

Yes, just what I want; analysis and criticism from the same geniuses
who said that cutting taxes would life all boats and reduce the
deficit. It's the data, stupid. Universal, non-profit health care
works; private, for profit health care doesn't. Get over it.

�I still
don't think Krugman's reasoning justifies coercing people for the benefit of
the collective. If someone thinks some other use, such as sending money to
relatives in Mexico or the Sudan is more important, it is presumptuous of
the collective to assert ownership rights over them. I admit the market
incentive to sell insurance to those that don't need it is perverse. �I
haven't quite gotten it figured out. �I've looked into posting bond in place
of the state mandated auto insurance. �The government makes it more
expensive than just purchasing the insurance. �You should be able to just
entail your home equity for much less than posting a bond.

Your ideas don't work. Look at the data!

Unfortunately, what the democrats have proposed is not health insurance but
comprehensive health management. �I haven't liked how doctors and insurance
companies managed my healthcare, I doubt I'd like the government any better.
�I'd prefer true catastrophic health insurance, and managing my healthcare
myself.

Yea, that Medicare is really awful stuff. Damn government, indeed.

Dang government. �The tea party movement at least gives us some hope of
putting this bloated government back within its constitutional bounds.

Oh, really. By cutting the big ticket items like Medicare and Social
Security. Yep, get rid of all that bloat that feeds those fat old tea
partiers. No, the tea partiers just want the tea for free; not taxes
but don't touch my Medicare. Those people are beyond awful.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com