[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 14 1330 MDT]
[From Bill Powers (2011.07.14.1148 MDT)]
Martin Lewitt 2011 July 14 0952 MDT --
ML: Let's discuss
what the
“people with means” really have. What if that is really
just stock in companies they control and manage. Sure they
could
sell the stock and become just consumers? How do they benefit
society that way? Did it ever occur to you that we are better
off
having founders and managers “keep what they have” and that by
keeping it they really are sharing “it with
others”?
BP: Sure, but why do they have to have so much for themselves that
they
don’t share? Are they that much more deserving than everyone else
is?
I’ve met quite a few of them, and they range from selfish pigs to
very
good people who care about others almost as much as they care
about
themselves. They don’t just own stocks and manage companies (which
any
reasonably competent person can do). Unfortunately, too many of
them have
delusions of grandeur like those of John Galt, thinking that
they’re some
kind of royalty who have to be coddled and reassured of their
importance
by being given huge amounts of money and even huger privileges.
I don't recall Galt being given money, or expect money except in
return for value given.
They
think they’re the only ones smart enough to run things and (as
imagined
by Ayn Rand) they threaten to take their footballs and go home if
they’re
not appreciated enough, and see how the complainers like that.
It’s sort
of grade-school braggadocio, or middle school on a good day.
I can forgive someone for having delusions until they start
getting
dangerous.
BP earlier: You are
proposing
that we evaluate the health-care system by how well it serves
the needs
of those who don’t have to worry about how expensive it is.
That, of
course, suits a small part of the population very well indeed.
They are
quite satisfied with their health care and they can pay the
premiums and
extras with ease.
ML: The current healthcare system does benefit a large
supermajority of
the people, not a “small part”, it is one of the possible flaws
that they don’t have to worry about how expensive it is, that
does lead
to over consumption, but it is a luxury system, with little
queuing, and
fear or comfort based rather than science based cost effect
levels
of screening for scary conditions.
BP: Yes, lots of people with insurance benefit from the health
care
system, but not without worry and strain on the budget the way the
wealthy do.
Don't 47 million people without health insurance weigh just a tiny
bit on
your conscience?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737 . Doesn’t that
large a
number, 15.8 percent of the population, rather defy your attempts
to
minimize the problem? Or are you thinking that if only 15.8% are
without
insurance, that isn’t much of a problem when so many people have
it?
It is only my my conscience to the extent that I have voted for
people in the past that contributed to our current system,
politicians that supported the FDA for instance, but the election of
Obama has cured me of that, I now accept the less of two evils
excuse.
Doesn't it weigh on your conscience that burdening the American
economy with healthcare expenses for that 15.8 percent might mean
far more deaths through less people lifted out of poverty in the
third world by trade with a healthy US economy? Dialysis or a
kidney transplant for just one of those 15.8 percent represents
resources that could save 100s of lives in the third world. But
that is the kind of selfish thing that most developed countries do.
Worst of all may be Europe where month long vacations are the norm,
instead of producing much needed wealth that could save millions of
lives.
You know, if the people who have insurance were to contribute 16%
of
their current premiums they could buy health insurance for those
who
don’t have it. That would cost me $22 per month if my premiums are
average.
You must just be referring to your contribution, who is paying for
the rest for you and for that 16 percent, because $352 per month
doesn’t purchase health insurance, unless it is the kind that I have
that has a $10,000 deductible.
ML: I actually think
the poor
are making the correct decisions, in most of the world there are
more
basic priorities than healthcare, and forcing them to choose
otherwise
via mandates is what would be inhumane. As it is there are
already
too many mandates in the system that price healthcare out of
their range,
e.g., having to see a doctor for prescriptions, or do you think
the poor
are stupid too?
BP: So you recommend a system under which large numbers of people
have to
make a choice between getting health care for their families and
feeding
their families or themselves? If you have ever had to live on a
limited
budget, you seem to have forgotten how that feels, especially if
you’re
trying to take care of others beside yourself.
Having been unemployed for two years, I understand living on a
limited budget, since it is still occuring, I haven’t had time to
forget. I recommend a system where everyone gets wealthy, since
that is unlikely to happen in most of the world for another century,
I favor a system where everyone has a chance to get wealthy.
I'm sure you're not really a cold, selfish, uncaring person, but
the way
you’re putting spin on everything could mislead people into seeing
you
that way.
Of course not, but I am an analytical person, who can see that
emotional arguments often aren’t valid, even as the tears well up
in my eyes.
BP erarlier:
Understanding this
gives some hope of reforming the system, because it shows that
at least
the rich do feel that their way of life requires
justification, and that
deliberately shutting the poor out of the health care system
or simply
being indifferent to their plight would be unacceptable –
unacceptable
to others who judge them, certainly, but maybe in some small
way
unacceptable even to themselves. If they can find a way to
reason out
that it’s not their fault, they can feel free of guilt or at
least
culpability. You are describing how they do that, and helping
them do
it.
ML: Actually, it isn't their fault, so finding a "way to
reason" that it isn’t, is not necessary. Apparently you think
merely having wealth makes it their fault.
BP: Their having enormous wealth (let's use the right adjectives
here)
qualifies them as persons of interest, at least. Variously
attributed, it
has been observed that “Behind every great fortune there is a
great
crime.” Those with great fortunes and those who depend on the
owners
of fortunes for income do not normally agree with that, of course.
Not
hard to figure out why.
Since the government has the biggest fortune of all then perhaps it
has committed the greatest crime. I just recently read “The Myth
of the Robber Barons”, some of the evidence for that “crime” is pure
Marxist class warfare rhetoric, great wealth seems more likely to be
associated with great achievement and service. Where there was
crime, it was their competition with the government as a partner.
BP earlier:
Somebody famous
among Christians said, “Father, forgive them; for they know
not what
they do.” I wouldn’t presume to give advice to God, but to
human
beings I will suggest that to understand all is to forgive
all, so we
should focus on understanding what is really going on here,
and do our
best to make it so clear that nobody can continue to pretend
it’s not
going on.
ML: I try to have no pretensions.
BP: Try harder.
Really? I'm a nihilist already, how do you hold on to pretensions
of higher values except by self-delusion?
BP earlier: It
should be quite
possible to find out which of these invented facts are true,
which are
not true, and which are unknowable.
BP: No comment on this? I left out a category: facts which are
held to be
theoretically true but are unverified.
ML: Donald Trump is
not an
attractive persona, but I suspect that Buffet has done more good
for
humanity than Ghandi, whose nationalistic independence movement
cost
millions of lives, as India disintegrated in sectarian
warfare.
BP: Golly, I hadn't realize that Ghandi caused all that
destruction and
death. What an evil person! How could anyone have admired him for
persuading people to resist without violence, thus nefariously
causing
the helpless British soldiers to fire their weapons in
self-defense and
kill a few towel-heads? A few hundred, a few tens of thousands,
what’s
the difference?
He just was duped by the religion of nationalism, his non-violence
would have been better spent seeking individual rather than
collective rights.
ML: Unfortunately,
too many rich
have been duped into feeling guilty for their wealth, and few
are as
capable of doing much good with it other than creating more
wealth, than
say, Bill Gates is, who has proven as good a manager of giving
as he was
of Microsoft. Buffet, as usually, recognized good management,
and
will give his wealth to Gates foundation. Contrast that with a
Ted
Turner who instead of working to create more wealth, is instead
purchasing large tracts of land for the benefit of buffalo
rather than
the poor.
BP: So you think Ted Turner should use his wealth for the benefit
of the
poor? Funny, I do too. Using common sense, of course: not every
poor
person is that way involuntarily.
Benefitting the poor is a standard I especially apply to liberals
since they have to be the most vocal in adopting that standard,
since they have the high burden of justifying coercion.
Conservatives don’t have to shout the standard from the rooftops,
even though their philosophy is probably more helpful to the poor,
they don’t have immoral means they have to justify.
Isn't it funny how the "liberals" are such misanthropes, caring more
for animals and the environment, or taking the rich down a notch,
than for the poor. Turner could probably have helped the poor by
turning his fortune over to a money manager to be put to productive
use creating more wealth, if he wasn’t interested in managing it
himself anymore.
I suspect that with further back-and-forth this discussion will
only
degenerate. I’m going back to what this discussion forum is
about.
Why would it degenerate, I'm civil?
-- Martin L
···
On 7/14/2011 1:12 PM, Bill Powers wrote:
Best,
Bill P.