ELynah Forum

The following article really tempered my enthusiasm for Big Red basketball quite a bit this week: http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/8727/cornell-hoops-wall-streets-semipros

Several members of the media spent the week writing about the "purity" of our vision of student-athletes vs. the "semi-pro" nature of Kentucky (and by extension, most top NCAA programs). In my humble opinion, the fact that many of our most successful athletes end up within the investment banking / hedge fund pipeline serves to complicate such a comparison. While our beloved athletes certainly have a claim to the higher moral ground with respect to being true student-athletes, the fact that many of them end up being part of the "Wall St. establishment" post graduation seems to nullify it a bit.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an alum that works on Wall St. I have to say that I personally found the whole TARP / "Wall St. bailout" experience to be an enlightening one that has shaken the core of my belief in the reality of our democratic society (e.g., both parties serve Wall St. before anything / anyone else, etc.). However, I thought I'd share my perspective to see if it resonates with anyone else.

On a different thread (http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?7,158751), a discussion of graduation rates often assumes getting a job is the purpose of a college education. I would argue instead that elevating the individual, and thereby society, through education is the purpose. Just as college sports teams ought not be developmental programs for professional sports, neither should university academics be developmental programs for Wall St. or any other particular interests. But the reality is that many people, probably most, go to college to become more employable rather than more educated just for education's sake. Here the Ivies have a tremendous advantage because Ivy graduates have a good chance of securing employment just by virtue of their degree, while a graduate of North Northwestern State U has good reason to be less confident about their degree enhancing their employment and earnings potential. Hence the Ivy student can afford to spend time studying Plato and Chaucer, while the NNSU student is more likely to see mastering marketable skills as the purpose of any course.

Someone, I think Keith Olbermann, wrote a book that argues that sports in the U.S., particularly as presented on TV, are nationalistic and have a conservative bias. Certainly a sizable number of conservative politicians are former athletes. So it does not surprise me that college athletes do not question the societal implications of a speculative institution like Wall St. and see careers as investment bankers as financially attractive and perfectly legitimate.

One would like to think that a college devoted to a particular subject would be a place where one could learn the most important ways of understanding the subject from a wide variety of perspectives and approaches. Yet this is hardly the case with business schools. One can easily make the case that the work of people like Karl Marx or Vance Packard should be on anyone's top-twenty list of authors who give insight into the societal implications of business, but this is not what most business schools teach. Instead, they teach a mixture of skills framed in a set of doctrines that rationalize and legitimate the role of private business in our society. Except perhaps in an ethics course, one is unlikely to find business schools stressing courses dealing with such things as social inequality as the result of a business system or the increasing pace of global environmental destruction as an offshoot of the rise of business enterprise (since the Late Middle Ages).

So I do think the Ivies have the moral high ground compared to schools with athletic scholarships, it is also true that universities are reflections of their societies. and insofar as the society lacks moral integrity, we should expect to find a similar lack embedded within the structure of the university. If we could reform the university to have a less biased, potentially critical view of socioeconomic institutions, then the ethical implications would take care of themselves for both student athletes and students in general.

To be fair to the student-athletes, not all of them end up on Wall Street, and many non-student athletes (a lot of whom make a lot less significant contributions to the Cornell community) end up on Wall Street as well. A fair number of them will go on to be doctors, lawyers, researchers, farmers, or entrepreneurs. I know Adam Gore went back to help manage his family farm after graduating last year, Graham Dow went on to medical school, and Lenny Collins at Harvard Law. http://cornellbasketball.blogspot.com/2007/08/ugo-ihekweazu-off-to-medical-school.html

I think Wall Street will always attract bright athletes because of the sense of competition it offers. The career service center certainly tries to point a lot of students in that direction, and the money certainly helps too.

So I would argue that the larger problem is not with the student athletes, but in the way Wall Street has captured the American economy and rewarded itself with oversized compensation packages. I still don't know why we allow private equity and hedge fund managers to be taxed at a lower rate than everybody else. You can't place all of the blame on a 22-year old kid for wanting to follow the money, athlete or non-athlete.

Volker argues that the only beneficial innovation the financial services industry has come up with in the past 30 years has been the ATM. All the rest has essentially been a zero-sum game of pushing paper around and cutting a hefty fee. And based on economic growth rates, there certainly doesn't seem to be any more efficient allocation of capital happening today than there was in the 1950s or 1960s when Wall Street was much more heavily regulated. So maybe higher taxation and better regulation can return us to an era that produced such statesmen as Ken Dryden and Bill Bradley. But then again, Obama's Secretary of Education played basketball at Harvard during the 1980s before turning pro. So maybe Louis Dale will go on to become the head of the EPA. I don't know.

I think one of the things that makes Donahue such a classy coach is that he really tries to instill in his players the sense that they aren't just good, hard-working ball-players; they're good, hard-working, and lucky. You can see this through the team's interactions with his autistic son, etc. And I think acknowledging the fact that, gee Ryan Wittman was born with some pretty good genes and Jeff Foote just happens to be seven-feet tall, helps to develop a sense of appreciation for the certain amount of randomness that exists in life and sport. We might not be here if Princeton had happened to score one more three-pointer in the game at Jadwin.

Full disclosure: I work for a regional bank with a CEO who has been quite outspoken against Wall Street's practices.

Bill Gates when he was younger blew off questions about his philanthropy by saying he would get to that in a much bigger way later. But the man kept his promise. Nothing wrong with working hard, making money, and then easing out early to do good works. And his foundations ask tough questions about what's the best use of their money, about what gives the most bang for the buck.

As for Wall Street and athletes, perhaps it's the competitve drive of athletics that you channel into risk-taking and more competitiveness in an adult career. Being on Wall Street helps you keep score more readily than in other jobs.

There have been excesses on Wall Street. An op ed piece last fall by Calvin Trillin argued that the collapse happened because smart people (smart about math) started working on Wall Street. The old line Ivy Leaguer Wall Streeter was a jovial idiot and investors and Washington could figure out what his company was up to. Then the Ivy Leaguer bosses hired the really smart guys who figured out how to play with money in ways the feds and the idiot Ivy Leaguers couldn't understand but the Ivy guys were happy because that put more money in their pockets. I think it's meant as a tongue in cheek column. I think he's right, too. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/opinion/14trillin.html

Quote from: billhowardBill Gates when he was younger blew off questions about his philanthropy by saying he would get to that in a much bigger way later. But the man kept his promise. Nothing wrong with working hard, making money, and then easing out early to do good works.

You can certainly argue about whether it was worth all the money it cost, but at least Gates produced something of value, and something that has helped productivity and our leisure time. The problem with Wall Street is they are not producing much of value other than tax money for NY.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: billhowardBill Gates when he was younger blew off questions about his philanthropy by saying he would get to that in a much bigger way later. But the man kept his promise. Nothing wrong with working hard, making money, and then easing out early to do good works.

You can certainly argue about whether it was worth all the money it cost, but at least Gates produced something of value, and something that has helped productivity and our leisure time. The problem with Wall Street is they are not producing much of value other than tax money for NY.

I'm not trying to defend Wall St, but the whole concept of investment banking is that it puts capital in the hands of people so that they can build something and be successful.  While this obviously doesn't happen all the time, I don't think it's fair to say that an institution that provides capital for start-ups is valueless.  Most businesses can't start from nothing or from personal capital alone.  There is a place for it, if done well, no?

Quote from: BCrespi

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: billhowardBill Gates when he was younger blew off questions about his philanthropy by saying he would get to that in a much bigger way later. But the man kept his promise. Nothing wrong with working hard, making money, and then easing out early to do good works.

You can certainly argue about whether it was worth all the money it cost, but at least Gates produced something of value, and something that has helped productivity and our leisure time. The problem with Wall Street is they are not producing much of value other than tax money for NY.

I'm not trying to defend Wall St, but the whole concept of investment banking is that it puts capital in the hands of people so that they can build something and be successful.  While this obviously doesn't happen all the time, I don't think it's fair to say that an institution that provides capital for start-ups is valueless.  Most businesses can't start from nothing or from personal capital alone.  There is a place for it, if done well, no?

There's definitely a place for it, and I don't think any of us are really criticizing that aspect of Wall Street. We're criticizing the proprietary trading aspect of Wall Street, which makes highly leveraged bets on equities, bonds, and derivatives using borrowed money, often from the taxpayers.

The question to ask yourself is whether or not capital was allocated any better after the 1980s and 1990s deregulation than in the 50s 60s and 70s when Wall Street was more regulated. All evidence suggests not -- we ended up putting a lot of money into vaporbusiness.com and shitty housing stock in the desert. Don't forget that there's other methods of deploying capital that don't go through Wall Street, including angel and venture capital funds, commercial banking, R&D and seed spending from large corporations, and government-directed research and investment.

Getting back to the question of athlete's education, however, I'm not certain if capital theory is something they would want taught in their classes. It is certainly not something that mot non-athletes wan taught either. Not many people in my ILR classes were very much interested when we spent two weeks discussing Marx. Much more fun to do a stock market simulation or something. Better just to let the technocrats regulate and the athletes to have their regulated fun. (And be careful not to let the anti-regulation crowd touch any of the buttons.)

Yes, let's completely blame these kids with student loans to pay off because they didn't get athletic scholarships for becoming doctors, lawyers and bankers to pay off their loans. Maybe if the students got a balanced perspective from the faculty more students might be less dismissive of public service. Ithaca and Cornell seem to be tolerant of everything under the sun except genuine academic diversity, after all, every professor in the government dept. is a registered member of one party and several of the last convocation speakers have been: Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton and Obama's campaign manager. I'm all for these kids getting the best, highest paying jobs they can, but by the same token if they want to do public service, that's great too. There's no "immorality" associated with making an honest living.

QuoteThere's no "immorality" associated with making an honest living.

You believe that Wall Street has been 'honest' over the last decade?

Quote from: mnagowski

QuoteThere's no "immorality" associated with making an honest living.

You believe that Wall Street has been 'honest' over the last decade?

If individuals haven't operated within the confines of the law, convict them and send them to jail, but most 22 year olds right out of college? Yes, I think they're making an honest living as are the majority of people working on Wall Street. It's not a monolithic entity - Wall Street is made up of people, the overwhelming majority of whom are hardworking and honest. Of course there are a few bad eggs, but the government and public service workers? They're 100% honest because we never have Washington scandals and public interest groups like ACORN never do any wrong.

Quote from: CUontheslopes

Quote from: mnagowski

QuoteThere's no "immorality" associated with making an honest living.

You believe that Wall Street has been 'honest' over the last decade?

If individuals haven't operated within the confines of the law, convict them and send them to jail, but most 22 year olds right out of college? Yes, I think they're making an honest living as are the majority of people working on Wall Street. It's not a monolithic entity - Wall Street is made up of people, the overwhelming majority of whom are hardworking and honest. Of course there are a few bad eggs, but the government and public service workers? They're 100% honest because we never have Washington scandals and public interest groups like ACORN never do any wrong.

I tell you what, I'll take the public service workers over the others any day.

Business school curricula legitimize the role of private business in our society? truly shocking! who would have thought?

Inequality in income and wealth is a good thing. Gradients drive change, encourage innovation.

One would think the history of the twentieth century would serve to refute and discredit anything that Karl Marx had to say.

Quote from: KeithKBusiness school curricula legitimize the role of private business in our society? truly shocking! who would have thought?

Inequality in income and wealth is a good thing. Gradients drive change, encourage innovation.

One would think the history of the twentieth century would serve to refute and discredit anything that Karl Marx had to say.

You know, Keith, people who throw words like "Marx" and "socialism" around loosely really add nothing substantive to the discussion.  You can't be as shallow as propaganda artists like Palin and Beck and O'Reilly, can you?  Give us all a break and drop the right-wing blather.  It adds nothing to eLynah.

Quote from: Al DeFlorioYou know, Keith, people who throw words like "Marx" and "socialism" around loosely really add nothing substantive to the discussion.  You can't be as shallow as propaganda artists like Palin and Beck and O'Reilly, can you?  Give us all a break and drop the right-wing blather.  It adds nothing to eLynah.

Yes, Keith, please: you don't want to interrupt the left-wing circle jerk. ;-)

FWIW, I agree with Keith and I hardly consider myself "right-wing", being not really so interested in war, corporate welfare, deficits, bashing teh gheys, banning vices, or establishing religion.  But like most left-wingers I know, you lump everyone who doesn't agree with all your talking points into the right-wing bucket and dismiss them.  Real open-minded, Al.

QuoteInequality in income and wealth is a good thing. Gradients drive change, encourage innovation.

I suppose that's why the period associated with the highest rate of equality in the post-war era, the 1960s, are associated with the highest rates of economic growth?

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/images2/20050607_Growth_and_Distribution2.gif

I have nothing economically wrong with a moderate level of inequality, provided there's a high level of social mobility and a strong safety net. Culturally and socially, however, high levels of inequality can lead to political instability and unnecessary strife.

QuoteOne would think the history of the twentieth century would serve to refute and discredit anything that Karl Marx had to say.

I take it you have never actually read Marx? Because while Marx the political figure may have been wrong, Marx the philosopher and Marx the historian still have plenty of valid ideas to add to contemporary discussion.

And I agree with Swampy, it would be useful if business students were required to read Marx. Or at least a distillation of Marx. It obviously hasn't hurt China's economic growth rates.

Quote from: KeithKInequality in income and wealth is a good thing. Gradients drive change, encourage innovation

Well, we certainly have had change in our economy over the past 2 years. After all the ratio of executive to worker pay is about an all time high and look how it has helped us. The nice innovations have brought us closer to depression than any time in the last 80 years.

Look, I expect to get paid more than the garbage pick-up man, but there has to be a limit on how much the money changers make compared to the workers. I'd like to have you show me why our economy is so much better now than it was when the discrepancy was less.

Quote from: Jim HylaI expect to get paid more than the garbage pick-up man

I don't.  You literally could not pay me enough to be a garbage man, a soldier, or a middle school teacher.  That's where I'd pour money for fear that the talent would leave.  And all three jobs are a lot more important than anything with executive severance.

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: KeithKBusiness school curricula legitimize the role of private business in our society? truly shocking! who would have thought?

Inequality in income and wealth is a good thing. Gradients drive change, encourage innovation.

One would think the history of the twentieth century would serve to refute and discredit anything that Karl Marx had to say.

You know, Keith, people who throw words like "Marx" and "socialism" around loosely really add nothing substantive to the discussion.  You can't be as shallow as propaganda artists like Palin and Beck and O'Reilly, can you?  Give us all a break and drop the right-wing blather.  It adds nothing to eLynah.

I don't consider it throwing Marx around loosely when I'm responding to someone who brought up Marx as someone who should be taught in business school. Sure my post is a little snarky but it's far from right wing blather. I could say that people who immediately compare anyone with "right-wing" ideas to Palin, O'Reilly and Beck aren't adding anything substantive to the conversation either and are also being pretty shallow.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Jim HylaI expect to get paid more than the garbage pick-up man

I don't.  You literally could not pay me enough to be a garbage man, a soldier, or a middle school teacher.  That's where I'd pour money for fear that the talent would leave.  And all three jobs are a lot more important than anything with executive severance.

Funny thing how the market works.  I wouldn't want to be a garbage man either.  but apparently some folks do because we've got a pretty decent supply of them without needing to pay them seven figure executive salaries. Likewise soldiers and middle school teachers.  That's not to say it never makes sense to increase the pay of such fields in order to increase supply. But it's silly to think that teachers will be paid more than a business executive because you think it's more important.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Jim HylaI expect to get paid more than the garbage pick-up man

I don't.  You literally could not pay me enough to be a garbage man, a soldier, or a middle school teacher.  That's where I'd pour money for fear that the talent would leave.  And all three jobs are a lot more important than anything with executive severance.

Funny thing how the market works.  I wouldn't want to be a garbage man either.  but apparently some folks do because we've got a pretty decent supply of them without needing to pay them seven figure executive salaries. Likewise soldiers and middle school teachers.  That's not to say it never makes sense to increase the pay of such fields in order to increase supply. But it's silly to think that teachers will be paid more than a business executive because you think it's more important.

But Keith, you didn't respond to my original comment at all. Just to that snippet that Trotsky cut out.::whistle::

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Jim HylaI expect to get paid more than the garbage pick-up man

I don't.  You literally could not pay me enough to be a garbage man, a soldier, or a middle school teacher.  That's where I'd pour money for fear that the talent would leave.  And all three jobs are a lot more important than anything with executive severance.

Funny thing how the market works.  I wouldn't want to be a garbage man either.  but apparently some folks do because we've got a pretty decent supply of them without needing to pay them seven figure executive salaries. Likewise soldiers and middle school teachers.  That's not to say it never makes sense to increase the pay of such fields in order to increase supply. But it's silly to think that teachers will be paid more than a business executive because you think it's more important.

But Keith, you didn't respond to my original comment at all. Just to that snippet that Trotsky cut out.::whistle::

He also didn't respond to some of my empirical evidence...

Quote from: mnagowski

Quote from: Jim HylaBut Keith, you didn't respond to my original comment at all. Just to that snippet that Trotsky cut out.::whistle::

He also didn't respond to some of my empirical evidence...

Busy morning people.  I grabbed the low hanging fruit.  Geeez...

Why exactly does there have to be a limit on how much the money changers mke compared to the laborers?  They make money based on their economic value they provide for their employers. Like it or not a bank exec produces more value on average than a garbage man or your average worker. So he gets paid more.  Certainly there are inefficiencies and transients - in a bad year the bank exec might effectively be worth negative dollars but on average it works.

I'm not immune to the emotional raction you get when you see some folks making absurd amounts of money.  It annoys me that the folks in legal at my company make a lot more than I do when they produce absolutely nothing of value (they don't build satellites). But when I think about it rationally I understand that they protect the company from potential losses and thus "produce" more than I do per capita.

I'm not comfortable with having any government or external body enforcing compensation limits. If a company wants to limit itself fine. But if it wants to pay exorbitant salaries then that's their right, or ught to be.

Looking at the chart there hasn't been all that much variation in Top 1% income share through the years. There was plenty of inequality in the 60s by this measure. I'd be real hesitant to say that the relative decline in this one metric was the reason (or an especially big reason) for the growth in that time period.

I do agree that there is an extreme where inequity can lead to severe problems (put the metric you cited at 99% for instance :-)). But what constitutes "moderate" is highly subjective. I don't have any problem with the levels we have today especially considering the immense wealth that we have in this society.

Quote from: mnagowski

QuoteThere's no "immorality" associated with making an honest living.

You believe that Wall Street has been 'honest' over the last decade?

I've worked on Wall Street for the past 18 years and I certainly have been honest.  So have the two banks that I've worked for and my bank hasn't taken a dime of taxpayer money.  The VAST majority of bankers are honest people, don't paint us all with the same brush.

I'm presuming that those that argue that i-bankers make too much money would also argue that A-Rod is overpaid?  I'm not going to debate the worth of a banker versus a teacher (or other occupations), I think that both are necessary.  Without great teachers I wouldn't be able to do what I do.  But there's been a lot of hard work and personal sacrifice to get here (and stay here.......).

My $0.02.

Quote from: KeithKThey make money based on their economic value they provide for their employers.

It's a little more complex than that: this produces an easily-analyzed upper bound on pay, beyond which the work is not economic.  (E.g., if you pay out more in salaries than you receive in revenues for the work performed, you're going to go out of business.)  It does not lower bound pay, but in general if a job is difficult enough or requires enough training, there will be few enough people willing and able to do the job such that pay will be higher than for jobs requiring only unskilled labor.

A lower bound on pay would logically be related to the return on investment of training (e.g., increased pay vs. the time and effort spent learning the skills), but (a) we all know people whose parents shelled out $$$ for an Ivy League education and still ended up working at Starbucks because they had no plan and majored in something with no value and (b) the link between increased education and increased pay is not clearly causal, much less a certainty for any one person.  Furthermore, the market for skilled labor is much less liquid than the one for unskilled labor: it's easy to assess the economic value of someone who digs ditches based on how much dirt they are able to move in an hour, but how do you judge the value of a software engineer or a doctor?  There are too many variables and too many competing opinions of what makes a good one, which is why the market came up with money and prices.

If you sense a bit of begging the question in this explanation, you're right: the only way to assess economic value is by looking at what the market is willing to pay, and then working backward to try to figure out why the market values things the way it does.  Trying to pin a single number representing value on something based on deductive analysis is precisely why central planning fails.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: mnagowski

Quote from: Jim HylaBut Keith, you didn't respond to my original comment at all. Just to that snippet that Trotsky cut out.::whistle::

He also didn't respond to some of my empirical evidence...

Busy morning people.  I grabbed the low hanging fruit.  Geeez...

Why exactly does there have to be a limit on how much the money changers mke compared to the laborers?  They make money based on their economic value they provide for their employers. Like it or not a bank exec produces more value on average than a garbage man or your average worker. So he gets paid more.  Certainly there are inefficiencies and transients - in a bad year the bank exec might effectively be worth negative dollars but on average it works.

I'm not immune to the emotional raction you get when you see some folks making absurd amounts of money.  It annoys me that the folks in legal at my company make a lot more than I do when they produce absolutely nothing of value (they don't build satellites). But when I think about it rationally I understand that they protect the company from potential losses and thus "produce" more than I do per capita.

I'm not comfortable with having any government or external body enforcing compensation limits. If a company wants to limit itself fine. But if it wants to pay exorbitant salaries then that's their right, or ught to be.

Looking at the chart there hasn't been all that much variation in Top 1% income share through the years. There was plenty of inequality in the 60s by this measure. I'd be real hesitant to say that the relative decline in this one metric was the reason (or an especially big reason) for the growth in that time period.

I do agree that there is an extreme where inequity can lead to severe problems (put the metric you cited at 99% for instance :-)). But what constitutes "moderate" is highly subjective. I don't have any problem with the levels we have today especially considering the immense wealth that we have in this society.

Keith, you don't feel that it's all based upon economic value, do you? When I went into practice, payment to MDs by insurance companies was based upon UCR. That stands for usual, customary, and reasonable. Now how do you think they got that basis? They looked at charges and set a reimbursement at some average of charges. So what do you do, each year you increase your charges to make sure the average goes up. That insures the UCR goes up, and you always make sure your charges are larger than what they'll pay, otherwise you don't get as much as what they're willing to give you. It had no basis in fact to what the services were worth.

If you look at many executive and board member compensation, it's very similar. You hire an agency to look at comparable company reimbursements, then they recommend your company reimbursements based upon that. Of course your execs shouldn't be at the bottom of the scale, so each year they go up, not based upon value. If they were only based upon value, why don't they lose when the company loses. As an example one of our regional supermarkets, P & C, recently went bankrupt and was sold off. A year or so prior to that, they sold off a profitable distribution business, "wanting" to focus on their core business. That year they gave themselves a hefty bonus, all while their core business was losing money. Prior to going under, did they cut their compensation? Hardly.

Although I don't have it on hand, I presume you've seen the chart of exec compensation as a function of worker compensation? Over the last few decades it has been rising off the chart. Executives make a hugely larger multiple compared to their workers than they ever did before. Have they really added that much value, or is it that everybody on their board, most of whom are execs themselves, just raise the bar?

Quote from: KeithKLooking at the chart there hasn't been all that much variation in Top 1% income share through the years. There was plenty of inequality in the 60s by this measure. I'd be real hesitant to say that the relative decline in this one metric was the reason (or an especially big reason) for the growth in that time period.

I would think that a doubling in the amount of aggregate income "allocated" to the richest one percent of the population in the last forty years would constitute "significant variation. And I use the term "allocated" because that's exactly what happened -- tax and regulatory policies over the last forty years have become extremely beneficial to that segment of society.

Quote

Quote from: RatushnyFan

Quote from: mnagowskiThere's no "immorality" associated with making an honest living.

You believe that Wall Street has been 'honest' over the last decade?

I've worked on Wall Street for the past 18 years and I certainly have been honest.  So have the two banks that I've worked for and my bank hasn't taken a dime of taxpayer money.  The VAST majority of bankers are honest people, don't paint us all with the same brush.

I think we have different definitions of honesty. And keep in mind that I'm labeling the structures and institutions on Wall Street as inherently dishonest, not any one person or group of people. I'm a banker myself. I work for a commercial bank and am always honest in my own work as well, but that doesn't mean that there aren't institutional or industry-wide practices or policies in place that strike me as fundamentally dishonest. You can start with a lot of the industry's accounting policies, for one.

In my mind, the ideal professional would never make a deal with a client or another party that they wouldn't make to themselves, or to their grandmother. This is an "honest" deal, if you will, that lives up to the Golden Rule. And I think plenty of professions operate with this principle in mind -- doctors, teachers, engineers, etc. Hell, even oil companies aren't going to price gouge their grandmothers, they'll just charge them the going market rate. (But Jim, let me know if you are charging your arthritis patients any more than you would want yourself charged.)

But if you look at the practices of the financial sector and Wall Street in particular, you see this principle falling apart pretty rapidly. The credit card industry is ripe with hidden fees (these thankfully are in the process of being regulated away) that you would never want to impose upon your grandmother. Until two years ago mortgage brokers were encouraging their customers to sign-up for products that they themselves wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. And the Wall Street investment banks were eager to sell small town pension funds AAA-rated CDOs at the same time they were buying derivatives to bet against these CDO's performance. Or mutual fund executives that tout their high-fee, low-performance funds at the same time that they invest in index funds. In my view, these are all fundamentally unethical, dishonest practices due to the huge amount of information asymmetries at play and the abillity of the financial sector to exploit these asymmetries.

Now I know that certain posters on here will claim that my viewpoint is fundamentally naive, that this is a dog-eat-dog world and caveat emptor, and all that. But even if you don't agree with my assertion that businesses should abide by some notion of the Golden Rule, hopefully you can at least agree that when we have regulated the financial services industry more strictly in the past we have escaped a lot of the problems of the past decade without any significant fallbacks (e.g. economic growth rates were just as high, median household income was actually growing, etc.). Just look to your employer's home country: Canada.



Turning the discussion back to college sports, I think I was most struck by the outcome of the Penn-Brown basketball game this year, when Penn ostensibly won the game on the wrong call -- they scored after the buzzer sounded but it counted anyway. The fact that they refused to vacate their win (and that many posters on this board defended their decision) really struck a nerve with me, and I think it speaks volumes to just how morally and ethically bankrupt our culture has become. We all love the story of Cornell's fith down game against Dartmouth because Cornell did the right thing -- we treated others fairly, the way that we would want to be treated.  

But then I see that most of Penn's basketball starters are enrolled in Wharton, and I'm not exactly surprised. Win at all costs, I suppose, is what they teach them. Even if it undermines your community, your country, or your world in the process.

Quote from: mnagowski(But Jim, let me know if you are charging your arthritis patients any more than you would want yourself charged.)

Ohhh, it's so much different now. If only those days were here again.:-D After all, that's how all those highly paid specialists got to be where they are now.

Gosh. I love the off season.

Great discussion.::popcorn::

Quote from: Roy 82Gosh. I love the off season.

Great discussion.::popcorn::

I HATE the off season. Especially when it starts before the second Saturday in April. But at least I'm grateful for the community of friends here at eLynah and the conversations we have all year long.

Quote from: Roy 82Gosh. I love the off season.

Great discussion.::popcorn::

Yeah I just skipped the last dozen posts, I didn't miss anything did I?

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Al DeFlorio

Quote from: KeithKBusiness school curricula legitimize the role of private business in our society? truly shocking! who would have thought?

Inequality in income and wealth is a good thing. Gradients drive change, encourage innovation.

One would think the history of the twentieth century would serve to refute and discredit anything that Karl Marx had to say.

You know, Keith, people who throw words like "Marx" and "socialism" around loosely really add nothing substantive to the discussion.  You can't be as shallow as propaganda artists like Palin and Beck and O'Reilly, can you?  Give us all a break and drop the right-wing blather.  It adds nothing to eLynah.

I don't consider it throwing Marx around loosely when I'm responding to someone who brought up Marx as someone who should be taught in business school. Sure my post is a little snarky but it's far from right wing blather. I could say that people who immediately compare anyone with "right-wing" ideas to Palin, O'Reilly and Beck aren't adding anything substantive to the conversation either and are also being pretty shallow.

Keith, you're misrepresenting my point. I didn't say Marx should be taught in business schools. I said if business schools were about studying business impartially, then work by people like Marx and Vance Packard would be more central to what's covered. My point is that business schools are more vocational than purely academic/scientific or whatever term you want to use for impartial, objective education. I don't know what they teach in China these days, but I would not be surprised if the average Chinese student knows more Adam Smith and Milton Friedman than the average U.S. student knows of Marx or even Schumpeter and Keynes. And we have the nerve to accuse the Chinese of indoctrination!

As for Marx having something of value to add to our understanding of the twentieth century, read Giovanni Arrighi's The Long Twentieth Century (Verso 1994, 2006), which is heavily influenced by Marx but written in the early nineties. The book is remarkably prescient. Here's one example:

Quote from: Arrighi p. 215we shall designate the beginning of every financial expansion ... the "signal crisis" ... of the dominant regime of accumulation. It is at this time that the leading agency of systemic processes of accumulation [by which he means the dominant capitalist power] begins to switch its capital in increasing quantities from trade and production to financial intermediation and speculation. ... when the leading agency of systemic processes of capital accumulation reveals, through the switch, a negative judgment on the possibility of continuing to profit from the reinvestment of surplus capital in the material expansion of the world economy, as well as a positive judgment on the possibility of prolonging in time and space its leadership/dominance through a greater specialization in high finance.

If you don't recognize this as an apt description of Britain in the early 20th century and the U.S. since about 1980, then there's simply no point in further discussion. One would think the history of the the twentieth century would lead intelligent people to want to learn how Marx developed such insight.

Does anyone think we don't teach Marx because the guy was an anti-Semite?  He was one of the first philosophers to talk about the 'Jewish problem.'  The guy was absolutely nuts.  The Communist professors at Cornell don't teach about Marx and the 'Jewish problem' though.  Interesting.

Quote from: SwampyKeith, you're misrepresenting my point. I didn't say Marx should be taught in business schools. I said if business schools were about studying business impartially, then work by people like Marx and Vance Packard would be more central to what's covered. My point is that business schools are more vocational than purely academic/scientific or whatever term you want to use for impartial, objective education. I don't know what they teach in China these days, but I would not be surprised if the average Chinese student knows more Adam Smith and Milton Friedman than the average U.S. student knows of Marx or even Schumpeter and Keynes. And we have the nerve to accuse the Chinese of indoctrination!

Business schools are professional schools.  They are supposed to be vocational in the sense of teaching students how to succeed in business. This isn't a flaw or limitation. If you want academic/scientific study get a graduate degree in economics. And in what way is vocational training not "impartial" or "objective"?

I think there probably is no point in further discussion when it comes to Marx.  Maybe he did have a few insights - I haven't read his works. And Jefferson Davis had some good points about states rights.

Quote from: French Rage

Quote from: Roy 82Gosh. I love the off season.

Great discussion.::popcorn::

Yeah I just skipped the last dozen posts, I didn't miss anything did I?

Certainly nothing about hockey.

Quote from: KeithKI think there probably is no point in further discussion when it comes to Marx.  Maybe he did have a few insights - I haven't read his works.

So there you go. Al was right.

Quote from: French RageYeah I just skipped the last dozen posts, I didn't miss anything did I?

Not that you couldn't read a thousand times a day on any forum. ::wank::

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: SwampyKeith, you're misrepresenting my point. I didn't say Marx should be taught in business schools. I said if business schools were about studying business impartially, then work by people like Marx and Vance Packard would be more central to what's covered. My point is that business schools are more vocational than purely academic/scientific or whatever term you want to use for impartial, objective education. I don't know what they teach in China these days, but I would not be surprised if the average Chinese student knows more Adam Smith and Milton Friedman than the average U.S. student knows of Marx or even Schumpeter and Keynes. And we have the nerve to accuse the Chinese of indoctrination!

Business schools are professional schools.  They are supposed to be vocational in the sense of teaching students how to succeed in business. This isn't a flaw or limitation. If you want academic/scientific study get a graduate degree in economics. And in what way is vocational training not "impartial" or "objective"?

We're pretty close to agreeing on this. Your point that professional schools are supposed to be vocational is a good one. Still, I think professional schools today have an uncomfortable relationship with science and objectivity in general. Professional fields like accounting or law can be characterized as teaching students to deal with a complex set of social practices and rules. Fields like medicine, on the other hand, define themselves in relation to a simple end -- human health -- but rely almost entirely on scientific knowledge to achieve that end. Although there are lots of things wrong with both the practice of medicine and professional preparation for it, the relation to medical science is not that problematic. On the other hand, many aspects of education in business school today (e.g., marketing or management) rely heavily on what they call social science, but this "science" is limited by the fact that it can't discover anything too nasty about business and still be relevant (or it it permissible?) to business education. Business therefore belongs to a category of professional education (along with education for social work and several other professions) in which the educational institution stakes its legitimacy not on teaching complex, institutionalized procedures (as law) or teaching science rather independent of the profession (e.g., medicine or engineering) but on teaching about society, which necessarily opens up the possibility of  reflexive, critical analysis of the profession itself.

Recall that veeman5 started this thread by expressing dismay that so many players on the basketball team seem plugged into careers on Wall St. Veeman5 put this in the context of the disdain many of us share for the thinly disguised professional status of so-called "student athletes" at big-time basketball schools. I responded with a number of observations, one of which was that the relation between Ivy League business schools and Wall St. is very analogous to that between big-time basketball schools and the NBA. Veeman5's dismay reflected his assessment of Wall St. and its role in the world today.

So we can think of all sorts of real and imaginary professional schools: the military service academies, schools for torturers (the School of the Americas has been accused of this), schools for concentration camp designers, for gamblers, etc. To simply say they are professional schools and leave it at that evades veeman5's point. Morally, the NBA may even be preferable to Wall St. and, by extension, the big-time basketball school to the Ivy b-school. To evaluate such questions necessarily entails addressing bigger issues, such as the role of Wall St. (and the NBA) in the world today. If we're going to talk about the predominantly black basketball players who do not graduate but go on to the NBA after making millions for their alma maters, we necessarily have to look at the larger society, just as we do  for the predominantly white basketabll-playing students   who do graduate and go on to careers on Wall St.

Quote from: KeithKI think there probably is no point in further discussion when it comes to Marx.  Maybe he did have a few insights - I haven't read his works. And Jefferson Davis had some good points about states rights.

I'm not sure what this establishes. Marx may have had an insight or two, and then again he might have been the most insightful and profound social thinker in history. Surely we didn't need to spill so much electronic ink to establish this since it is obvious and almost tautological.

Quote from: SwampyOn the other hand, many aspects of education in business school today (e.g., marketing or management) rely heavily on what they call social science, but this "science" is limited by the fact that it can't discover anything too nasty about business and still be relevant (or it it permissible?) to business education. Business therefore belongs to a category of professional education (along with education for social work and several other professions) in which the educational institution stakes its legitimacy not on teaching complex, institutionalized procedures (as law) or teaching science rather independent of the profession (e.g., medicine or engineering) but on teaching about society, which necessarily opens up the possibility of  reflexive, critical analysis of the profession itself.

On the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

Quote from: RobbOn the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

"Things that have gone wrong in business" is a distinct category from "things that businesses do, by design, that have negative consequences for society at large." The former is about learning from the mistakes of others; the latter is about making sure not to repeat them even if it was profitable.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: RobbOn the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

"Things that have gone wrong in business" is a distinct category from "things that businesses do, by design, that have negative consequences for society at large." The former is about learning from the mistakes of others; the latter is about making sure not to repeat them even if it was profitable.

That's expecting rather a lot.  How many law schools teach the negative effects of lawyering?  Or poli-sci programs the negative consequences of governmental actions?  Etc.  That sort of study is more suited to Economics (if you're worried about the quantifiable consequences) or Philosophy (if you're more concerned about the less tangible aspects of "the human condition").  Business school is simply about learning the amoral tools and skills of business, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.  Would it be great if all Businessmen knew how to make those kinds of decisions themselves and had the moral fortitude to do so?  Of course.  But that's not realistic - better just to understand the world we live in and work to make it better than merely to wish for one that doesn't exist.

Quote from: RobbBut businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: RobbBut businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Absolutely a fair point.  Who regulates the regulators?

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: RobbBut businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Absolutely a fair point.  Who regulates the regulators?

This is the problem with bigger-dog approaches to regulation: there's always a biggest dog that answers to no one.  It also encourages rent-seeking, in which corporations buy regulations favorable to them and unfavorable to upstart competitors that have the net result of reducing market choice.

Quote from: RobbWho regulates the regulators?

Jesus?

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: RobbOn the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

"Things that have gone wrong in business" is a distinct category from "things that businesses do, by design, that have negative consequences for society at large." The former is about learning from the mistakes of others; the latter is about making sure not to repeat them even if it was profitable.

That's expecting rather a lot.  How many law schools teach the negative effects of lawyering?

All of them, probably? All states and the federal government have canons of ethics that are binding and I'd be shocked if every law school didn't have an ethics curriculum. Are you really asking "do lawyers act unethically/selfishly/stupidly/destructively in their professional capacities? Of course some do.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: RobbBut businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Nor is it clear that the reverse is true. Do you have some stats or just another nice saying?

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: RobbBut businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Nor is it clear that the reverse is true. Do you have some stats or just another nice saying?

If you want to take action that negatively affects someone else, at the very least you should be required to demonstrate in advance why you think that action is necessary and proper and will achieve the desired objective.  The presumption should not be that "It'll work!" and the driving justification should not be "We have to do something!"

People in favor of open-ended regulation, typically bought and paid for by the behemoths in the regulated markets, are basically declaring "Mission Accomplished" based entirely on good feelings and intuition.  We've all seen how well that approach has worked out in another area.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: RobbBut businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

Nor is it clear that the reverse is true. Do you have some stats or just another nice saying?

Well, one could list the hundreds or thousands of unitended consequences from well meaning laws and regulations that have caused great harm. But stats? In the end it's a subjective question depending on how you define "damage to society", let alone how you attempt to quantify it.

And I could come up with hundreds or thousands of harmful effects from companies, so what does that prove? The two of you always comment about how government is worse than business, but you don't really have facts to prove it. Let's face it both can be bad. There are some of us who feel we need both. You seem to feel only business can be right. I'm happy to have heard your opinion, but comments such as "It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.", don't really have basis in fact, just opinion.

Quote from: Jim HylaThe two of you always comment about how government is worse than business, but you don't really have facts to prove it.

You seem to be the one with the burden of proof since you are the one advocating action; that said, a few points come to mind:

How many wars have been started by businesses without the help of state-run armies?
Remind me again which of the two imprisons more than 1% of the population for non-violent behaviors.
Businesses in a free market trade services for money in mutually-beneficial voluntary trades; governments take money under the threat of violence irrespective of the service level provided.

Furthermore, I'm curious to know what you consider abusive business practices that need regulation.  If you could cite just one or two, maybe I could get a better idea of what your justifications for regulation are.

Exactly. Like I said, subjective.

I for one don't think government is all bad. There is a role for limied government. Few would argue that government doesn't provide some benefits to society. But given the current state of our society, in my opinion,  almost every increase in government power or authority results in a negative marginal benefit (costs outweight the benefits).

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: RobbBut businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

or as much good.

How about oil spills from ships with only one hull, how about lakes and rivers polluted to the point that fish can't live there. Those are a few obvious environmental ones.

You certainly won't get me to defend wars, although religion may be just as bad as governments.

My point isn't that governments are less bothersome than companies, rather to always say that government is bad and business is good is obviously not correct. Rules do have their good points, even in hockey.

All of this is subjective, opinion, and not facts. That's why I respond to all encompassing statements with a you can't prove that statement.

Quote from: Roy 82

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: RobbBut businesses run by Businessmen should be regulated by Politicians who are informed by Economists and Philosophers to prevent those Businesses from harming society.

It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.

or as much good.

Well it's hard to list all the ways. Do you at least like traffic rules? Do you think that fire departments are good? To get to more controversial subjects, you may want to argue abut Social Security and Medicare, but having heard about my family in the depression and seeing how much better senior care is now, I have no doubt as to it's worth.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: RobbOn the contrary.  I haven't been to business school, but from talking with friends who have, it seems to me that they do at least as many case studies about where things have gone wrong in business as they do where things have gone right.  It's almost a form of entertainment for them - laughing at the misfortunes and foibles of those who have gone before...

"Things that have gone wrong in business" is a distinct category from "things that businesses do, by design, that have negative consequences for society at large." The former is about learning from the mistakes of others; the latter is about making sure not to repeat them even if it was profitable.

That's expecting rather a lot.  How many law schools teach the negative effects of lawyering?

All of them, probably? All states and the federal government have canons of ethics that are binding and I'd be shocked if every law school didn't have an ethics curriculum. Are you really asking "do lawyers act unethically/selfishly/stupidly/destructively in their professional capacities? Of course some do.

But when you talk of ethics training for lawyers, you're talking about teaching them to do the right thing within the current legal framework.  That's not what you were talking about for business schools. What you are expecting business schools to do (questioning the very basis of the capitalist system) would be more like having law students study whether we should abandon our current system of common law and replace it with something else.  That's a topic a little too deep for a basic law school curriculum.

Quote from: Jim HylaHow about oil spills from ships with only one hull, how about lakes and rivers polluted to the point that fish can't live there. Those are a few obvious environmental ones.

Pollution causes problems when it comes up against someone's property or interest in property (e.g., water rights): those people have a claim to damages.  It would look very different from existing criminal environmental law, but it's not at all clear that it would be worse or less equitable.  It is in fact government that creates barriers to and restricts the standing of property owners to sue for environmental damages, making it effectively legal to pollute except when the government says otherwise.

QuoteYou certainly won't get me to defend wars, although religion may be just as bad as governments.

Don't gloss over wars: wars and genocide in the 20th century alone have killed about 200 million people.  This is a level of violence unmatched by all private enterprise throughout human history.  And I'd argue that religion is more akin to government than to private enterprise, though certainly it isn't a perfect comparison.

QuoteMy point isn't that governments are less bothersome than companies, rather to always say that government is bad and business is good is obviously not correct.

I've never asserted that business is always good.  I'm simply saying that it's not at all clear that government regulation is always, or even often, of net benefit to society: the evidence I've seen suggests that it causes more problems than it solves.

Quote from: Jim HylaWell it's hard to list all the ways. Do you at least like traffic rules?

Conventions, yes.  But it's already basically voluntary: there isn't a cop hiding at every intersection making people obey the rules, and from living around Massholes for 10 years I've come to know where conventions violate the rules and obey the conventions because that winds up causing fewer problems.  Furthermore, there is evidence that removing excessive traffic control devices actually reduces accidents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html).

QuoteDo you think that fire departments are good?

I have yet to hear a good argument against private fire insurance, just like flood insurance, liability insuance, or theft insurance.

QuoteTo get to more controversial subjects, you may want to argue abut Social Security and Medicare, but having heard about my family in the depression and seeing how much better senior care is now, I have no doubt as to it's worth.

Because there's no other substantive difference between the 1930's and the 2000's?

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Jim HylaHow about oil spills from ships with only one hull, how about lakes and rivers polluted to the point that fish can't live there. Those are a few obvious environmental ones.

Pollution causes problems when it comes up against someone's property or interest in property (e.g., water rights): those people have a claim to damages.  It would look very different from existing criminal environmental law, but it's not at all clear that it would be worse or less equitable.  It is in fact government that creates barriers to and restricts the standing of property owners to sue for environmental damages, making it effectively legal to pollute except when the government says otherwise.

But the rule for double hulled ships prevents the damage. Personally I feel that's better than trying to sue afterward. Corporate lawyers would almost for sure win out against me and my lakefront. They have a lot more bucks to throw at them than I do.

Quote

QuoteYou certainly won't get me to defend wars, although religion may be just as bad as governments.

Don't gloss over wars: wars and genocide in the 20th century alone have killed about 200 million people.  This is a level of violence unmatched by all private enterprise throughout human history.  And I'd argue that religion is more akin to government than to private enterprise, though certainly it isn't a perfect comparison.

I don't think that I "glossed over wars", I said I wouldn't defend them. Also I didn't mean to make religion akin to business, in fact I consider it a warped and dysfunctional form of government.

Quote

QuoteMy point isn't that governments are less bothersome than companies, rather to always say that government is bad and business is good is obviously not correct.

I've never asserted that business is always good.  I'm simply saying that it's not at all clear that government regulation is always, or even often, of net benefit to society: the evidence I've seen suggests that it causes more problems than it solves.

Well, I've not remembered when you ever put government ahead of business. I seem to think, like your statement that started this discussion "It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.", that you always come down on the side of business. I'd rather take an individualized approach.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Jim HylaWell it's hard to list all the ways. Do you at least like traffic rules?

Conventions, yes.  But it's already basically voluntary: there isn't a cop hiding at every intersection making people obey the rules, and from living around Massholes for 10 years I've come to know where conventions violate the rules and obey the conventions because that winds up causing fewer problems.  Furthermore, there is evidence that removing excessive traffic control devices actually reduces accidents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html).

Who does enforce the "conventions"? Sure you're going to say that the drivers do, because they see that it works. Well, I've certainly seen many reverse instances. Drivers trying to get through an intersection, but not able to get all the way through so no one can move.

Quote

QuoteDo you think that fire departments are good?

I have yet to hear a good argument against private fire insurance, just like flood insurance, liability insuance, or theft insurance.

So if your house is on fire, you're happy to have it burn and get the money, rather than have a fieman come put it out?::screwy::

Quote

QuoteTo get to more controversial subjects, you may want to argue abut Social Security and Medicare, but having heard about my family in the depression and seeing how much better senior care is now, I have no doubt as to it's worth.

Because there's no other substantive difference between the 1930's and the 2000's?

So your point is?

So... uh... does anybody care about the Penn basketball team's ethical lapse in judgment when they refused to vacate their "win" against Brown this season?

Quote from: Jim HylaBut the rule for double hulled ships prevents the damage. Personally I feel that's better than trying to sue afterward. Corporate lawyers would almost for sure win out against me and my lakefront. They have a lot more bucks to throw at them than I do.

You presume an expensive, monopoly justice system such as what we currently have.  I don't.

QuoteAlso I didn't mean to make religion akin to business, in fact I consider it a warped and dysfunctional form of government.

On this we agree.

QuoteWell, I've not remembered when you ever put government ahead of business.

I see very few areas in which government has anything but an ultimately parasitic role: every government regulation or program creates a constituency, which then becomes a parasite with the fangs of government law enforcement feasting on the free market.  Business isn't always good, and it's possible for individual businesses to get away with evil for a time, but I suspect that potential pales in comparison to the evils government has wrought even in just the 20th century.

The one distinguishing advantage business has over government is the voluntary nature of the trade: I can always choose not to do business with any particular corporation, but I'm stuck with paying taxes to and obeying the rules of the government where I live.  This is not a huge problem if government is local, but as the scope of government grows, the ability to shop around effectively disappears because the cost of moving (in terms of social and economic disruption) increases dramatically.

QuoteI seem to think, like your statement that started this discussion "It's not at all clear that it's even possible for businessmen to do as much damage to society as politicians have.", that you always come down on the side of business. I'd rather take an individualized approach.

"Better" is not equivalent to "good."  I'm saying government action is almost always net counterproductive.  Businesses can't work this way long-term: they have to produce value or they go out of business, because they can't tax you to pay for unprofitable services.

Combining messages:

Quote from: Jim HylaWho does enforce the "conventions"? Sure you're going to say that the drivers do, because they see that it works. Well, I've certainly seen many reverse instances. Drivers trying to get through an intersection, but not able to get all the way through so no one can move.

How exactly are traffic laws helping then if people are simply ignoring them?  I've seen eye contact between drivers correct a lot more antisocial behavior than laws ever will.  Try it: when somebody's doing something stupid, beep your horn to get their attention and then stare at them.  It works wonders.

QuoteSo if your house is on fire, you're happy to have it burn and get the money, rather than have a fieman come put it out?::screwy::

Don't you think it would be cheaper for the insurance company to have a private fire department put the fire out, rather than pay to completely replace the house? ::screwy::

Quote

QuoteBecause there's no other substantive difference between the 1930's and the 2000's?

So your point is?

That seniors are doing a lot better today for many reasons: how are you controlling for medical, social, and technological progress?

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Jim HylaHow about oil spills from ships with only one hull, how about lakes and rivers polluted to the point that fish can't live there. Those are a few obvious environmental ones.

Pollution causes problems when it comes up against someone's property or interest in property (e.g., water rights): those people have a claim to damages.  It would look very different from existing criminal environmental law, but it's not at all clear that it would be worse or less equitable.  It is in fact government that creates barriers to and restricts the standing of property owners to sue for environmental damages, making it effectively legal to pollute except when the government says otherwise.

You're right, but only if we ignore the impacts on future generations and animals, or an intrinsic ethic of protecting the environment. Considerations such as these are not amenable to resolution by claims for damages. Also, don't forget about our limited knowledge regarding unintended environmental consequences, as Fred Hayek was fond of pointing out. Just as is true for a central planner, a judge today cannot possibly know the long-term damages caused by, for example, cell phones.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Jim HylaYou certainly won't get me to defend wars, although religion may be just as bad as governments.

Don't gloss over wars: wars and genocide in the 20th century alone have killed about 200 million people.  This is a level of violence unmatched by all private enterprise throughout human history.

Well, until the twentieth century, when it came to killing millions the Atlantic slave trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Human_toll) gave governments a run for their money. Also don't forget that early capitalist enterprises, such as the Dutch chartered companies (e.g., the Dutch East India Company -- aka VOC) or the British East India Company were quasi-military for-profit organizations, as were the privateers. They were early-modern versions of Blackwater. While it is true that mass murder in Russia and China was largely a government enterprise, in Germany the Nazi government and private business (Nazi or not) worked hand-in-hand.

Why is everyone making such a sharp distinction between government, business, and religion? Why can't we have government-run concentration camps, private hospitals practicing eugenics, and an inquisition too?

The separation of church and state, such as it is, only became common in the West around 1800, but even today the separation is hardly complete. In the U.S. today, the separation of business and government is more rhetorical than real. Who could claim that in the U.S. today business and government are separate rivals rather than closely interlocked collaborators? ::drunk::  "It's not the economy Stupid, it's the system!"

Quote from: Kyle RoseAnd I'd argue that religion is more akin to government than to private enterprise, though certainly it isn't a perfect comparison.

Really? What's the argument?

Quote from: SwampyYou're right, but only if we ignore the impacts on future generations and animals, or an intrinsic ethic of protecting the environment. Considerations such as these are not amenable to resolution by claims for damages. Also, don't forget about our limited knowledge regarding unintended environmental consequences, as Fred Hayek was fond of pointing out.

This Exxon Valdez business is a red herring.  Yes, it's horrible that it happened, and yes, a private company was at fault.  But where's the evidence that a state-run oil company would not have similar spills or cause the exact same unintended environmental consequences?  Remember, the argument here isn't (yet) whether the petroleum infrastructure should exist at all, but whether it would be better for society if it were run by the government than by private corporations.  I would actually think that a state-run company would be more dangerous to society.  Since it's not in competition with other oil companies, it has less incentive to avoid problems, since it knows the government must bail it out and cover the damages anyway.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

QuoteSo if your house is on fire, you're happy to have it burn and get the money, rather than have a fieman come put it out?::screwy::

Don't you think it would be cheaper for the insurance company to have a private fire department put the fire out, rather than pay to completely replace the house?

When it comes to fire prevention there's a significant risk of one individual causing damage to others (fire spreads) when you're talking about a densely populated area. Liability breaks down when the losses become large enough, even if you can figure out who was to blame. Now it's true that insurance companies could provide private fire departments to clean up the mess.  But then there's a significant free rider concern. If I know my neighbor has good fire insurance and his company will come and put out my fire to protect his building then maybe I don't bother getting my own insurance.

There is a role for government, IMO. But it ought to be narrowly tailored to meet specific needs.  This is not what we have today.

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: SwampyYou're right, but only if we ignore the impacts on future generations and animals, or an intrinsic ethic of protecting the environment. Considerations such as these are not amenable to resolution by claims for damages. Also, don't forget about our limited knowledge regarding unintended environmental consequences, as Fred Hayek was fond of pointing out.

This Exxon Valdez business is a red herring.  Yes, it's horrible that it happened, and yes, a private company was at fault.  But where's the evidence that a state-run oil company would not have similar spills or cause the exact same unintended environmental consequences?  Remember, the argument here isn't (yet) whether the petroleum infrastructure should exist at all, but whether it would be better for society if it were run by the government than by private corporations.  I would actually think that a state-run company would be more dangerous to society.  Since it's not in competition with other oil companies, it has less incentive to avoid problems, since it knows the government must bail it out and cover the damages anyway.

This argument is the red herring. Nobody argued in favor of state-run enterprise but rather in favor of a robust regulatory regime. That way competition can breed efficiency, with government authority in place to prevent damage from externalities when competition becomes too robust at the expense of third parties.

Quote from: ugarteThis argument is the red herring. Nobody argued in favor of state-run enterprise but rather in favor of a robust regulatory regime. That way competition can breed efficiency, with government authority in place to prevent damage from externalities when competition becomes too robust at the expense of third parties.

So you like the system we have now, but think the government needs to regulate a bit more in some areas.  What's the controversy again?  I thought this was all in the context of whether Marx should be taught in business schools, i.e. outright socialism vs. capitalism.

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: ugarteThis argument is the red herring. Nobody argued in favor of state-run enterprise but rather in favor of a robust regulatory regime. That way competition can breed efficiency, with government authority in place to prevent damage from externalities when competition becomes too robust at the expense of third parties.

So you like the system we have now, but think the government needs to regulate a bit more in some areas.  What's the controversy again?  I thought this was all in the context of whether Marx should be taught in business schools, i.e. outright socialism vs. capitalism.

There are more threads here than in the Ritz-Carlton sheets.

Yes, I am in favor of some tweaks to our current regime. I am also in favor of business schools training their students to think critically about their role in the larger culture. Enron, for example, can be a case study in creating artificial value and the social cost of compensating executives based on easily manipulated, short-term-focused metrics like "stock price." In any event, teach Marx alongside Hayek because they both get a lot right and a lot wrong.

Me? I only wonder what the Kentucky post-season thread is talking about.

Quote from: KeithKWhen it comes to fire prevention there's a significant risk of one individual causing damage to others (fire spreads) when you're talking about a densely populated area.

Sure.  And if you live in an area with lots of uninsured houses, you'll probably pay more in premiums, just like you pay more in auto (theft) insurance premiums if you live in a place with lots of auto (home) theft.

QuoteLiability breaks down when the losses become large enough, even if you can figure out who was to blame.

I don't understand this at all: please explain.

QuoteNow it's true that insurance companies could provide private fire departments to clean up the mess.  But then there's a significant free rider concern. If I know my neighbor has good fire insurance and his company will come and put out my fire to protect his building then maybe I don't bother getting my own insurance.

Even if putting out the fire in your house is their only choice, you'll still have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage (fire and water) that isn't covered by insurance.  No court would find a fire department liable for water damage resulting from an effort to keep a fire that started in your house from causing damage to others' homes.  In fact, it is highly likely you would receive a summons to arbitration from the guy's insurance company, followed by a summary judgment against you if you decide not to show up.  Then the repo men get involved and things get nasty, which makes this situation highly unlikely in any area you'd probably want to live in.

Well, I think I'm done. When people think that insurance companies are going to form private fire companies for each of their insured; and traffic laws are not needed, just drive by conventions, then I have nothing to add other than, go find that society and live there. I don't think you'll be moving soon.

Quote from: Jim HylaWell, I think I'm done. When people think that insurance companies are going to form private fire companies for each of their insured; and traffic laws are not needed, just drive by conventions, then I have nothing to add other than, go find that society and live there. I don't think you'll be moving soon.

Check.  I'll file you in the "If you don't like it, move!" bucket.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

QuoteLiability breaks down when the losses become large enough, even if you can figure out who was to blame.

I don't understand this at all: please explain.

Because once liabilities become big enough, the company/interest/person can declare bankruptcy/fold/commit suicide and suddenly they are no longer liable?

What I find crazy in the private fire company discussion is just how poor the historical record of private fire companies has been. In the 19th century, these companies were known for purposefully starting fires just to spread fear and business. The Romans were known for letting a house continue to burn unless they didn't receive additional payments. And more recent attempts at privatization have resulted in inadequate reserve staffing for those 'tail risk' events. There was also the problem that sometimes fires wouldn't happen for a couple of years, conveniently convincing everybody to drop their insurance right before another string of fires would break out. Plus, wouldn't it suck to be the child who dies in a burning house because your parent's didn't have enough money for private fire insurance?

It's pretty clear with the case of public fire departments that even if some individuals are made worse off because of it, the community is much better-off as a result. And thankfully we live in a country that respects more than just property rights.

Come to think about it, there are a lot of parallels between fire fighting as a public good and a recent law that was passed...

Quote from: Jim Hylathen I have nothing to add other than, go find that society and live there.

I would totally pay to watch that.

I'd like Keith to explain what he meant.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

QuoteLiability breaks down when the losses become large enough, even if you can figure out who was to blame.

I don't understand this at all: please explain.

If I start a fire in the middle of Chicago that burns down the whole city it won't matter much whether I have insurance or not. The other owners in town may have a valid claim against me but there's no way they're going to be able to collect aginst such huge losses.

Now your response is probably that rational action by the other owners/insurance companies will prevent the losses from getting to this point.  Maybe so.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

QuoteNow it's true that insurance companies could provide private fire departments to clean up the mess.  But then there's a significant free rider concern. If I know my neighbor has good fire insurance and his company will come and put out my fire to protect his building then maybe I don't bother getting my own insurance.

Even if putting out the fire in your house is their only choice, you'll still have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage (fire and water) that isn't covered by insurance.  No court would find a fire department liable for water damage resulting from an effort to keep a fire that started in your house from causing damage to others' homes.  In fact, it is highly likely you would receive a summons to arbitration from the guy's insurance company, followed by a summary judgment against you if you decide not to show up.  Then the repo men get involved and things get nasty, which makes this situation highly unlikely in any area you'd probably want to live in.

Sure, letting someone else put out my fire may cause a lot of water damage.  But that's a risk I may be willing to take. Insurance is about risk calculation. If I think that the probably cost of damage times the probability of it occuring is less than the cost of insurance then it's rational to not get insurance. The presence of neighbors fire service who might be obligated to put out your fire reduces the potential cost for the fire ($10k water damage < $500k loss of entire property, for instance).

On what basis are you suggesting the insurance company would "issue" a summons to arbitration? Certainly for damage to the other guys property, but I'm assuming that the his fire company puts out my fire before it damages his property. Cost of services rendered? Seems a stretch since I didn't request any services.  Regardless, I don't think it changes the free rider question. It simply increases the potential cost of an incident a bit. But if I rate the probability as low enough or if I'm willing to take some risks (maybe because I want to use potential premiums for some other investment) I may still choose to forego insurance.

Quote from: mnagowskiIt's pretty clear with the case of public fire departments that even if some individuals are made worse off because of it, the community is much better-off as a result. And thankfully we live in a country that respects more than just property rights.

As is very often the case you have a balancing act between individual rights and community good. In the case of fire prevention I think the benefit is large and the cost is reasonably small. The solution (public fire departments) is pretty narrowly tailored to the problem and doesn't much impede th rights of citizens (beyond the forced payment). So I don't have a problem accepting this particular public function.

Quote from: mnagowskiCome to think about it, there are a lot of parallels between fire fighting as a public good and a recent law that was passed...

Sure there are parallels. But th cost/benefit calculus is extremely different. If the costs of a proposal outweight the benefits then it's a bad proposal even if it produces some good.

I can't believe people are actually arguing for Private fire departments... Hmm..

So we've got a couple of options on how they work:

Option 1: They only put out the fire in the houses that pay.
OK, but what happens if the fire starts next door? It could start small, but by the time it spreads to your it might be too huge to control and your city burns down. Insurance company can't afford to pay for the whole city*. Everyone loses.

Option 2: They put out the fire everywhere.
I chose not to pay for it because someone else will. Nobody does. City burns down. Everyone loses.

Are there any other options I'm missing?


* Even if they could, it's still a loss because saving your house is much better than getting paid for the materials/possessions that constitute your house.

QuoteBut the cost/benefit calculus is extremely different. If the costs of a proposal outweight the benefits then it's a bad proposal even if it produces some good.

I disagree that the costs of the health care reform outweigh the benefits. And thankfully a lot of well-respected economists, public health scholars, doctors, and the majority of the American public disagree with you as well. And that's even far underestimating the long term benefits of a healthier, richer, more productive country.

Because, really, let me tell you how much it sucks to wake up one day and realize that if you lose your job you will lose your insurance and that you will never be able to be insurable again, and thus never be able to have a job again, let alone have any much sense of a normal life. I'm probably never going to be able to walk around the block, ice skate, or take a hike again, but doesn't it make sense to at least keep me healthy enough to sit in front of a computer and work?

Quote from: mnagowski

QuoteBut the cost/benefit calculus is extremely different. If the costs of a proposal outweight the benefits then it's a bad proposal even if it produces some good.

I disagree that the costs of the health care reform outweigh the benefits. And thankfully a lot of well-respected economists, public health scholars, doctors, and the majority of the American public disagree with you as well. And that's even far underestimating the long term benefits of a healthier, richer, more productive country.

Because, really, let me tell you how much it sucks to wake up one day and realize that if you lose your job you will lose your insurance and that you will never be able to be insurable again, and thus never be able to have a job again, let alone have any much sense of a normal life. I'm probably never going to be able to walk around the block, ice skate, or take a hike again, but doesn't it make sense to at least keep me healthy enough to sit in front of a computer and work?

Well, obviously you think the benefits outweight the costs or you wouldn't be speaking positively about the bill. :-)  I don't agree that the dollar cost is worth the benefit (I expect the costs to be much higher than advertised).  But the cost is not just measured in money. There's a cost in freedom as well. Among other things the law says that the government has a right to force you to buy a commercial product that you may not want. This is a tremendous increase in government power and loss of freedom. As a corrolary it says that you can't choose to buy the kind of insurance you want - you have to buy what the government decides is proper. If I want catastropic insurance only because I'm young and healthy - sorry, not acceptable.

I have no doubt that there are benefits from this bill.  Some people may be very much benefited by it. But again, that doesn't necessarily outweigh the costs when all factors are considered (which is necessarily a subjective measure).  It also doesn't by any stretch mean the particular law that we just passed is the right way to address the problems that do exist.

Quote from: kaelistusI can't believe people are actually arguing for Private fire departments... Hmm..

Kyle is a radical libertarian *. I'm sympathetic to that philosophy because my ideal is probably closer to that than to our current government/regulatory scheme. Even if you don't think it's possible or practical to implement the ideal it can be instructive to discuss it.

It's at least as useful to consider radical libertarianism as it is to discuss communism.

* My description Kyle... apologies if you'd characterize differently

Quote from: KeithKIt's at least as useful to consider radical libertarianism as it is to discuss communism.

True, since the repeated total failures of communism to produce a tolerable state don't keep it out of the discussion.

I only wish every regulation and every deregulation weren't evidence that we are on the road to ... something.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Jim HylaWell, I think I'm done. When people think that insurance companies are going to form private fire companies for each of their insured; and traffic laws are not needed, just drive by conventions, then I have nothing to add other than, go find that society and live there. I don't think you'll be moving soon.

Check.  I'll file you in the "If you don't like it, move!" bucket.

Well, I have to respond to this, because that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about leaving if you don't like it. I'm not that kind of person and hope that you would be able to see the difference in what I wrote. "go find that society and live there. I don't think you'll be moving soon." Meaning, I don't think you'll leave because that society doesn't exist and I doubt it ever will. OK?

Quote from: KeithKKyle is a radical libertarian *.
...
* My description Kyle... apologies if you'd characterize differently

To be most accurate, I'd describe myself as a market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist.  "Libertarian" will do in most social situations because when most people hear I'm an anarchist they want to know how only 3 people can manage to flip a car over.

Quote from: Jim HylaWell, I have to respond to this, because that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about leaving if you don't like it. I'm not that kind of person and hope that you would be able to see the difference in what I wrote. "go find that society and live there. I don't think you'll be moving soon." Meaning, I don't think you'll leave because that society doesn't exist and I doubt it ever will. OK?

While I do grok the subtle difference between the two sentiments, in practical terms they amount to the same thing because the implication is that I will never have the freedom to create such a society with like-minded folks.  In a world in which every scrap of land is owned by a government (and if you dispute this, try not paying your property taxes and find out who really owns the land), this is a very difficult proposition without a change in attitude away from centralization.

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: SwampyYou're right, but only if we ignore the impacts on future generations and animals, or an intrinsic ethic of protecting the environment. Considerations such as these are not amenable to resolution by claims for damages. Also, don't forget about our limited knowledge regarding unintended environmental consequences, as Fred Hayek was fond of pointing out.

This Exxon Valdez business is a red herring.  Yes, it's horrible that it happened, and yes, a private company was at fault.  But where's the evidence that a state-run oil company would not have similar spills or cause the exact same unintended environmental consequences?  Remember, the argument here isn't (yet) whether the petroleum infrastructure should exist at all, but whether it would be better for society if it were run by the government than by private corporations.  I would actually think that a state-run company would be more dangerous to society.  Since it's not in competition with other oil companies, it has less incentive to avoid problems, since it knows the government must bail it out and cover the damages anyway.

You know, it's possible to have several publicly owned,non-profit enterprises competing with each other.

Also, as I said elsewhere in my post, I don't think the main line of debate should be between government and private corporations. In the U.S. at least, the distance is not very great.

Quote from: kaelistusI can't believe people are actually arguing for Private fire departments... Hmm..

I take it this is the "OMG, you people are so stupid: this can't possibly work!" kind of "can't believe"?

QuoteSo we've got a couple of options on how they work:

Option 1: They only put out the fire in the houses that pay.
OK, but what happens if the fire starts next door? It could start small, but by the time it spreads to your it might be too huge to control and your city burns down. Insurance company can't afford to pay for the whole city*. Everyone loses.

Option 2: They put out the fire everywhere.
I chose not to pay for it because someone else will. Nobody does. City burns down. Everyone loses.

Are there any other options I'm missing?

You provide a false dichotomy.  Read up, because I already outlined a potential way this might work out.

FWIW, if one admits the legitimacy and possibility of limited government, local fire protection is one of those things I don't think any minarchist would find unreasonable.  I'm not arguing that public fire departments can't work, only that private fire departments just might possibly be feasible.

Quote from: KeithKNow your response is probably that rational action by the other owners/insurance companies will prevent the losses from getting to this point.  Maybe so.

That would be part of my response, yes. :-)  E.g., the total destruction of a city (e.g., Chicago, SF earthquake, Katrina) is a disaster, something that government today handles through emergency funds.  There's no reason, however, that this can't be handled through reinsurance, where your insurance company pays to be part of a much larger pool.  The main difference between the two (government and reinsurance) is that one is a business and must make money, while the other taxes people for it in a way unrelated to disaster risk or just prints the money out of thin air.  Which do you think encourages bad planning and a lack of foresight?

QuoteSure, letting someone else put out my fire may cause a lot of water damage.  But that's a risk I may be willing to take.

And if you're willing to take that risk, more power to you.  My insurance will still prevent my house from burning down or will pay out if it does.

QuoteThe presence of neighbors fire service who might be obligated to put out your fire reduces the potential cost for the fire ($10k water damage < $500k loss of entire property, for instance).

On what basis are you suggesting the insurance company would "issue" a summons to arbitration? Certainly for damage to the other guys property, but I'm assuming that the his fire company puts out my fire before it damages his property. Cost of services rendered? Seems a stretch since I didn't request any services.

They still have a claim because they had to spend money to defend the policyholder's property against the negligence or aggression of the neighbor.  This is the sort of arena in which courts/arbitration and precedent start to ferret out the details of natural law, which may vary in subtle ways from place to place: e.g., in a city there's going to be a much stronger presumption than in the countryside that one is responsible for ensuring that one's own property does not present a hazard to neighbors.

It's also likely that the policyholder will be paying more in a neighborhood with lots of uninsured homes than he would in a fully-covered neighborhood.  This recasts the free-rider problem in a way that implies the likely resolution: people will pay more or less for insurance coverage depending on relative risk, where risk includes the behavior of others in the neighborhood.  It's no different from paying more for comprehensive car insurance in the Bronx than in Scarsdale: lower income area => higher crime rate => greater risk of one's own car being stolen => higher premiums.  People would begin to segregate themselves by their level of risk aversion (something that is likely to be very highly correlated with income), and put peer pressure on non-conformists.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: mnagowski

QuoteBut the cost/benefit calculus is extremely different. If the costs of a proposal outweight the benefits then it's a bad proposal even if it produces some good.

I disagree that the costs of the health care reform outweigh the benefits. And thankfully a lot of well-respected economists, public health scholars, doctors, and the majority of the American public disagree with you as well. And that's even far underestimating the long term benefits of a healthier, richer, more productive country.

Because, really, let me tell you how much it sucks to wake up one day and realize that if you lose your job you will lose your insurance and that you will never be able to be insurable again, and thus never be able to have a job again, let alone have any much sense of a normal life. I'm probably never going to be able to walk around the block, ice skate, or take a hike again, but doesn't it make sense to at least keep me healthy enough to sit in front of a computer and work?

Well, obviously you think the benefits outweight the costs or you wouldn't be speaking positively about the bill. :-)  I don't agree that the dollar cost is worth the benefit (I expect the costs to be much higher than advertised).  But the cost is not just measured in money. There's a cost in freedom as well. Among other things the law says that the government has a right to force you to buy a commercial product that you may not want. This is a tremendous increase in government power and loss of freedom. As a corrolary it says that you can't choose to buy the kind of insurance you want - you have to buy what the government decides is proper. If I want catastropic insurance only because I'm young and healthy - sorry, not acceptable.

I have no doubt that there are benefits from this bill.  Some people may be very much benefited by it. But again, that doesn't necessarily outweigh the costs when all factors are considered (which is necessarily a subjective measure).  It also doesn't by any stretch mean the particular law that we just passed is the right way to address the problems that do exist.

Keith, you're ignoring the main reason for this part of the legislation. It's a classic free-rider problem. Insurance is all about pooling resources to protect against risk. If people are "free" to choose any and all insurance, they're "free" play the odds while they're low risk, thereby making the cost to those of higher risk unaffordable. It's hard to see how this is an optimal solution in any way, particularly since international comparative data indicate much higher benefit/cost ratios associated with single-payer, universal systems.

Furthermore, there's freedom to act as an individual and freedom to act collectively. Are you assuming the former trumps the latter? If so, why?

We are not talking about a Pareto optimum here, either way. (It always amazes me how a a situation with extraordinarily rare conditions drives so much economic policy debates.) One person's "choice" to not have to purchase insurance necessarily impinges on another's "choice" to have universal health insurance. If you were allowed under the new bill to choose not to have to buy health insurance, how much would you be willing to pay in side-payments to everyone (even just on this list) who want both to have insurance for themselves and to know that you won't show up unconscious at an emergency room somewhere and receive high-cost treatment at the expense of everyone else (i.e. public expense)?

Quote from: SwampyIt's a classic free-rider problem.

False.  The free-rider problem only applies to non-exclusionary goods/services.  You can make this argument for fire protection (as we've seen), military protection, etc., in which you benefit even when you don't pay.  You can't make this argument about health insurance.

QuoteInsurance is all about pooling resources to protect against risk.

Also false.  Insurance is about hedging risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_%28finance%29).  Pooling is typically another result of insurance, but is not technically necessary for insurance to be economically feasible.

QuoteFurthermore, there's freedom to act as an individual and freedom to act collectively.

The latter is an oxymoron unless all the people involved agree.  Individuals can voluntarily associate to achieve things: in fact, that's how most things get done!  But, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner is not freedom in any useful sense.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Jim HylaWell, I have to respond to this, because that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about leaving if you don't like it. I'm not that kind of person and hope that you would be able to see the difference in what I wrote. "go find that society and live there. I don't think you'll be moving soon." Meaning, I don't think you'll leave because that society doesn't exist and I doubt it ever will. OK?

While I do grok the subtle difference between the two sentiments, in practical terms they amount to the same thing because the implication is that I will never have the freedom to create such a society with like-minded folks.  In a world in which every scrap of land is owned by a government (and if you dispute this, try not paying your property taxes and find out who really owns the land), this is a very difficult proposition without a change in attitude away from centralization.

Why shouldn't land be owned by society at large? With the possible exception of landfills, it's not as if anyone makes the land. You're assuming private property rights to argue for private property rights. This is a circular argument. You have to establish the desirability of private property not only in land but also land value independently first.

Both Henry George and U.S. housing policy (which deliberately makes private home ownership advantageous) are useful starting points for examining your statement.

Also, BTW, property taxes in the U.S. are usually on the combined value of land and structure, whereas George would have it almost entirely on land. So isn't your argument really that anything but a flat tax per head is confiscatory? And, isn't one of the the big flaws in this kind of tax the underlying assumption that individuals obtain wealth independently of society at large?

Lastly, what does centralization have to do with it? Property taxes are about the most decentralized form of taxes we have.

QuoteAmong other things the law says that the government has a right to force you to buy a commercial product that you may not want. This is a tremendous increase in government power and loss of freedom.

Not really. You're not forced to buy the product. You can always just pay the tax. (And, if you don't make any income, you're not going to have to pay the tax, anyways.) The U.S. government has always had the power to levy revenues to provide public services.

I really think you're grossly overreacting with the word 'tremendous'. If you think the Health Care Reform Law represents a fundamental shift in U.S. public policy, you have 210 years of history working against you. In 1798 Congress passed, and John Adams signed into law, something known as "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen". Provisions in the bill included:

QuoteBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled - That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen...

http://www.languageandpeace.com/blog/1StatL605.pdf

QuoteIf I want catastropic insurance only because I'm young and healthy - sorry, not acceptable.

That's the feature, not the bug. I was young and healthy at the age of 23 as well, climbing mountains and competing in triathlons. But now at the age of 26 it is costing over $20,000 a year to keep me able to walk to the mailbox (of course pharmaceutical law has something to do with that as well, even though the drugs I am on were developed with taxpayer money). It's what the term insurance is all about -- risk pooling. And if the insurance markets aren't working because of obscene amounts of adverse selection and profiteering, it's completely within our government's powers to do something about it.

Come to me in twenty years and we'll see how the costs turned out. Most respected public finance experts think that the bill is going to end up being much cheaper in the long run. And at least there's an attempt to pay for this bill with revenue increases and spending reductions, which is something that the Republicans never bothered to do with their tax cuts, the Iraq war, or Medicare Part D.

Quote from: SwampyKeith, you're ignoring the main reason for this part of the legislation. It's a classic free-rider problem. Insurance is all about pooling resources to protect against risk. If people are "free" to choose any and all insurance, they're "free" play the odds while they're low risk, thereby making the cost to those of higher risk unaffordable. It's hard to see how this is an optimal solution in any way, particularly since international comparative data indicate much higher benefit/cost ratios associated with single-payer, universal systems.

It's free-rider only insofar as we guarantee treatment to those who cannot pay for it. If I choose not to buy insurance and can't pay my medical bills then my medical treatment should stop, except when the providers are will to provide it pro bono. If 'm a twnetysomething professionalwho chooses to take the risk and not buy insurance then I should face the potential financial ruin if my bet goes bad.

For the insurer insurance is about poling risk. For the insuree it's about a cost-benefit analysis based on my situation. Now the two are related insofar as the polling is the only reason insurers can afford to provide the service. But that's just a matter of cost. From an individual perspective I don't have to care that my refusal to buy insurance makes your remiums go up. (And in point of fact, the older, sicker cohorts in this country on average have more accumulated wealth to pay for health care anyway.)

Quote from: SwampyFurthermore, there's freedom to act as an individual and freedom to act collectively. Are you assuming the former trumps the latter? If so, why?

Freedom to act collectively?  I consider that a contradiction in terms. More specifically, you are free to act in concert with whoever you please - that's freedom of association. But when you "collectively" force me to act in concert with you you have have taken away my freedom. So yes, individual freedom trump "collective".

Quote from: SwampyWe are not talking about a Pareto optimum here, either way. (It always amazes me how a a situation with extraordinarily rare conditions drives so much economic policy debates.) One person's "choice" to not have to purchase insurance necessarily impinges on another's "choice" to have universal health insurance. If you were allowed under the new bill to choose not to have to buy health insurance, how much would you be willing to pay in side-payments to everyone (even just on this list) who want both to have insurance for themselves and to know that you won't show up unconscious at an emergency room somewhere and receive high-cost treatment at the expense of everyone else (i.e. public expense)?

From my perspective you misunderstand what freedom is.  There is no right to universal health coverage, so I am not impinging on anyone's freedom by opposing it.  I do believe there are certain inherent rights regarding property ownership and if you force me to spend some of my property (money) on a product that I don't want then you are impinging on my rights.

Saying "you don't have to buy the product, you can just pay the tax" is ridiculou. I could similarly say "I don't have to pay my taxes, I can just go to jail... If the tax/fine is less than the cost of insurance premiums then the "rational" behavior is not to buy insurance until you need it (if they can't refuse you).  If it's more than the cost of premiums then it's forcing you to buy the product - see above.

I do understand that some young people will get sick unexpectedly. If they have taken the risk of not buying insurance then they may be in big trouble.  But a necessary part of freedom is being able to make incorrect decisions. I value freedom very highly. Just because I think a lot of people make dumb life decisions doesn't mean that I have the right or should he the authority to stop them from making them.

Some argue that it's not an individual decision because by refusing to buy insurance you raise costs for others.  If you follow this line of argument then there is absolutely no limit to government action. This is a BAD thing (assuming you value individual liberty at all.)

I don't believ that costs will be lower this way. I'm not willing towait 20 years to find out before passing judgement.

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: Jim HylaWell, I have to respond to this, because that's not what I said. I didn't say anything about leaving if you don't like it. I'm not that kind of person and hope that you would be able to see the difference in what I wrote. "go find that society and live there. I don't think you'll be moving soon." Meaning, I don't think you'll leave because that society doesn't exist and I doubt it ever will. OK?

While I do grok the subtle difference between the two sentiments, in practical terms they amount to the same thing because the implication is that I will never have the freedom to create such a society with like-minded folks.  In a world in which every scrap of land is owned by a government (and if you dispute this, try not paying your property taxes and find out who really owns the land), this is a very difficult proposition without a change in attitude away from centralization.

Why shouldn't land be owned by society at large? With the possible exception of landfills, it's not as if anyone makes the land. You're assuming private property rights to argue for private property rights. This is a circular argument. You have to establish the desirability of private property not only in land but also land value independently first.

Both Henry George and U.S. housing policy (which deliberately makes private home ownership advantageous) are useful starting points for examining your statement.

Also, BTW, property taxes in the U.S. are usually on the combined value of land and structure, whereas George would have it almost entirely on land. So isn't your argument really that anything but a flat tax per head is confiscatory? And, isn't one of the the big flaws in this kind of tax the underlying assumption that individuals obtain wealth independently of society at large?

Lastly, what does centralization have to do with it? Property taxes are about the most decentralized form of taxes we have.

I think that the question of true ownership of land involves a lot that is up for discussion. If you trace the ownership of most land in the US back far enough then it was probably obtained at gunpoint by settlers in collaboration with the government (or previous governments or crowns) or doled out by the government (160 acres and a mule).

I thought that it was kind of cool that the Vancouver Olympics opening and closing ceremonies thanked the "First Nations" for the use of their land. Of course, over the millennia there have been many tribal wars and so even the onwership of land by specific tribes is questionable.

I don't have any answers here but the notion of "property rights" begs a deeper discussion.

Quote from: SwampyWhy shouldn't land be owned by society at large?

Because for all but the last 0.1% of recorded human history, homesteading was an accepted way of asserting a first claim to property.  This only stopped in the last 100 years because the free land basically ran out.  So now it's okay to reappropriate all land and distribute it out according to the will of the majority?

QuoteBoth Henry George and U.S. housing policy (which deliberately makes private home ownership advantageous) are useful starting points for examining your statement.

I am familiar with Henry George.  Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action" is a good place for you to start.

QuoteAlso, BTW, property taxes in the U.S. are usually on the combined value of land and structure, whereas George would have it almost entirely on land. So isn't your argument really that anything but a flat tax per head is confiscatory?

Yes: if we are going to admit taxes as a valid way of financing public goods, a head tax is the only tax I'd consider equitable.

QuoteAnd, isn't one of the the big flaws in this kind of tax the underlying assumption that individuals obtain wealth independently of society at large?

Another straw man.  Individuals in a free market obtain wealth through voluntary trade.  "Society at large" has no claim to the benefits accrued by third parties involved in such an exchange.

QuoteLastly, what does centralization have to do with it? Property taxes are about the most decentralized form of taxes we have.

Centralization means that rules become uniform across a much wider territory, making competition between sets of rules impractical.  The snarky comment about property taxes was just an aside, not part of the main point, and hence in parentheses.

Quote from: Roy 82I don't have any answers here but the notion of "property rights" begs a deeper discussion.

I saw you reach for that bucket of popcorn...

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Roy 82I don't have any answers here but the notion of "property rights" begs a deeper discussion.

I saw you reach for that bucket of popcorn...

I'm knee deep in mine. ::popcorn::

Got it at Starbucks (http://www.starbucks.com/blog/10113/starbucks-listens-to-customer-request-for-more-sizes.aspx).

Quote from: KeithKSaying "you don't have to buy the product, you can just pay the tax" is ridiculou. I could similarly say "I don't have to pay my taxes, I can just go to jail... If the tax/fine is less than the cost of insurance premiums then the "rational" behavior is not to buy insurance until you need it (if they can't refuse you).  If it's more than the cost of premiums then it's forcing you to buy the product - see above.

You can say the same thing about Social Security or asbestos regulations, both of which are taxes, implicit or explicit. Nobody said you had to like them. But you have agreed to living under the law of the land.

QuoteI do understand that some young people will get sick unexpectedly. If they have taken the risk of not buying insurance then they may be in big trouble.  But a necessary part of freedom is being able to make incorrect decisions. I value freedom very highly. Just because I think a lot of people make dumb life decisions doesn't mean that I have the right or should he the authority to stop them from making them.

Some argue that it's not an individual decision because by refusing to buy insurance you raise costs for others.  If you follow this line of argument then there is absolutely no limit to government action. This is a BAD thing (assuming you value individual liberty at all.)

You're right. There is no limit to potential government action. We have seen just how poorly this can result in right-wing Italy and left-wing Russia. But, thankfully, in this country, we have something called the Constitution and a system that allows us to come to some sort of agreement on how we would like to govern ourselves based on our collective tastes and preferences.

What I'm really having trouble with is your insistence on 'freedom' without providing a clear definition of what it is and what it can be used for. You seem very keen on property rights, but it is unclear to me that you have thought of any other rights or freedoms that living beings might aspire to have. You can try reading Issiah Berlin, Henry George, or Kwame Appiah.

Just exactly what have people in Canada or Britain or Denmark lost with 'less' freedom? Better health outcomes? (No.) Higher quality of life? (No.) Longer life expectancy? (No.) Higher levels of civic involvement? (No.) Stable family life? (No.) Lower social mobility? (No.) Inability to travel or freely associate with others? (No.) Or an extra plasma television in their bedroom? (Possibly yes, although for some reason the European states have cell phone service that is decades ahead of the U.S. But I suppose that is the liberal's fault as well.)

But in America, I know that a lot of people have lost their health and their lives because of your ill-defined notion of freedom.

QuoteI don't believ that costs will be lower this way. I'm not willing towait 20 years to find out before passing judgement.

That's a really fantastic argument. Filled with facts and reason (and typos). I have hundreds of people who have studied the issue for decades on my side. Can you at least agree that the majority has spoken and health care reform is legal?

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: SwampyWhy shouldn't land be owned by society at large?

Because for all but the last 0.1% of recorded human history, homesteading was an accepted way of asserting a first claim to property.  This only stopped in the last 100 years because the free land basically ran out.  So now it's okay to reappropriate all land and distribute it out according to the will of the majority?

For all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

EDIT: I suppose it still is an acceptable form of behavior by some. But that still doesn't mean it's okay.

Quote from: mnagowskiThat's a really fantastic argument. Filled with facts and reason (and typos). I have hundreds of people who have studied the issue for decades on my side. Can you at least agree that the majority has spoken and health care reform is legal?

LOL.  Yes, tyranny of the majority does carry the day... at least until the economics of the situation assert themselves.  That's where the popcorn comes in. ::popcorn::

Keith: When someone gets frustrated enough to post an "I'm right and you're wrong"-type response full of fallacies (multiple instances of appeals to authority in this case), you know you have won as much as you can and should move on.

Quote from: mnagowskiFor all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowskiFor all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

Point out one of my logical fallacies. Just one.

Quote from: mnagowski

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowskiFor all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

Point out one of my logical fallacies. Just one.

I'll give you two:

QuoteFor all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights.

This is either:
Assuming false: you can prove anything if you assume false.
Straw man: restating someone's (potentially valid) argument as something else that is very easy to refute.

QuoteYou seem very keen on property rights, but it is unclear to me that you have thought of any other rights or freedoms that living beings might aspire to have. You can try reading Issiah Berlin, Henry George, or Kwame Appiah.

Appeal to authority: assuming Keith doesn't understand what freedom is and then dazzling him with a bunch of names of people who (obviously) know better than he does.

I'm sure I can find more.  Would you like me to?

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowski

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowskiFor all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

Point out one of my logical fallacies. Just one.

I'll give you two:

QuoteFor all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights.

This is either:
Assuming false: you can prove anything if you assume false.
Straw man: restating someone's (potentially valid) argument as something else that is very easy to refute.

QuoteYou seem very keen on property rights, but it is unclear to me that you have thought of any other rights or freedoms that living beings might aspire to have. You can try reading Issiah Berlin, Henry George, or Kwame Appiah.

Appeal to authority: assuming Keith doesn't understand what freedom is and then dazzling him with a bunch of names of people who (obviously) know better than he does.

I'm sure I can find more.  Would you like me to?

Those aren't fallacies, Kyle. They are rhetorical tools. Fallacies would have required there to be something incorrect in my logic.

In the first, I used a counterfactual to suggest that your argument for property rights (homesteading is an acceptable form of allocating property rights because it is a historical practice) didn't pass the sniff test because other historical practices for assigning property rights don't exactly pass the sniff test either.

If you want to go deeper into the argument, you later suggested that homesteading is okay because it happens between two consenting parties. But that's not exactly true. I never consented to property that was obtained via homesteading before I was born. And back in the days prior to the development of civilization, my ancestors certainly didn't agree to the land usurped by your ancestors, or vice versa.

Now, what did happen 230 years ago was that some of the forefathers of this country agreed to a basic set of principles upon which this country could be governed and in which decisions could be made by the majority with ample safeguards to protect the interests of the minority. And we've done a somewhat decent job in living up to their promise.

In the second, I didn't appeal to authority. I asked him to consider an opposing perspective when it was clear that he had not done so. He seemed quite surprised that there are competing definitions of freedom and property rights out there. I suggested places where he could see that minds differ.

Now are you going to keep on whining about my emotional appeals and egging us on to invoke the names of totalitarian dictators or are you actually going to engage in a conversation?

Quote from: mnagowskiIn the first, I used a counterfactual to suggest that your argument for property rights (homesteading is an acceptable form of allocating property rights because it is a historical practice) didn't pass the sniff test because other historical practices for assigning property rights don't exactly pass the sniff test either.

Funny, "sniff test" doesn't appear in my list of valid arguments.

QuoteIf you want to go deeper into the argument, you later suggested that homesteading is okay because it happens between two consenting parties.

Where did I say that?  Homesteading is something that one does with unclaimed land.  There is no other party, which is why it's primary land acquisition.

QuoteAnd back in the days prior to the development of civilization, my ancestors certainly didn't agree to the land usurped by your ancestors, or vice versa.

The point is that homesteading allows one to transform unclaimed land plus labor into a claim of ownership.  It's not sufficient to simply land on the moon and say, "All of this is mine!"  But it should be okay for one to set up a mine on the moon and claim the land around the mine.

QuoteNow, what did happen 230 years ago was that some of the forefathers of this country agreed to a basic set of principles upon which this country could be governed and in which decisions could be made by the majority with ample safeguards to protect the interests of the minority. And we've done a somewhat decent job in living up to their promise.

First of all, I don't think this has worked out particularly well: the Constitution is pretty well meaningless these days, as it means whatever nine people in black robes say so rather than what the text plainly says.

Second of all, I don't see what this has to do with the rest of the discussion.

QuoteIn the second, I didn't appeal to authority. I asked him to consider an opposing perspective when it was clear that he had not done so.

I read it as, "You are obviously not qualified to have this discussion because you don't understand what all these other people you've never heard of say about freedom."  Whether or not you intended it that way, that's the way I interpreted it, especially in light of your final statement in that post.  Having quite extreme views, I see this style of argument quite frequently from people who think democracy and liberty are equivalent or even related concepts.

QuoteNow are you going to keep on whining about my emotional appeals and egging us on to invoke the names of totalitarian dictators or are you actually going to engage in a conversation?

Thankfully, I know the limits of my patience.  Having a life, I am going to go back to living it. :-)

Quote from: Kyle Rose...the Constitution is pretty well meaningless these days, as it means whatever nine people in black robes say so rather than what the text plainly says...

If only it were ever so simple as plain language interpretation.

Quote from: KeithKIt's free-rider only insofar as we guarantee treatment to those who cannot pay for it. If I choose not to buy insurance and can't pay my medical bills then my medical treatment should stop, except when the providers are will to provide it pro bono. If 'm a twnetysomething professionalwho chooses to take the risk and not buy insurance then I should face the potential financial ruin if my bet goes bad.

IMHO this doesn't work this way. If I need to get, say $10,000 to survive, I will try EVERYTHING to get that money. Lie, cheat, steal, start a revolution, whatever. Because I want to live. I'm pretty sure many twentysomething professionals would do the same. They won't just lie down ad go to sleep.

Secondly, it's important to note that we absolutely do not have a health care system where you can just pay for the medical treatment. If I were to not have insurance and get medical service, I would be paying 3 or 4 times the cost that the insurance company is paying. For pretty much everyone (but maybe the top 1%), your options are: Health insurance, or get sick and go bankrupt (even if you could afford the real cost of your treatment). And heck, It's not even that - since I can't even get affordable health care insurance unless I belong to a corporation or somehow join some other powerful group (AARP when I retire) because they take a cut there.

I'm not sure how the U.S. health care system came about. I do know that it doesn't work and we need something else. Given that the corporations have mainly shaped the current system, I would be willing to say that they have failed and let the government give it a try. Maybe they can do better. I can't imagine them doing much worse, to be honest.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Kyle Rose...the Constitution is pretty well meaningless these days, as it means whatever nine people in black robes say so rather than what the text plainly says...

If only it were ever so simple as plain language interpretation.

They could at least try to get the low-hanging fruit correct.  Like the parts of the Bill of Rights that incorporate something like "Congress shall make no law..." or "...shall not be infringed."  Those parts seem pretty damn clear.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Kyle Rose...the Constitution is pretty well meaningless these days, as it means whatever nine people in black robes say so rather than what the text plainly says...

If only it were ever so simple as plain language interpretation.

They could at least try to get the low-hanging fruit correct.  Like the parts of the Bill of Rights that incorporate something like "Congress shall make no law..." or "...shall not be infringed."  Those parts seem pretty damn clear.

Is Massachusetts quartering troops in your residence again? I hate it when that happens. The soldiers are always leaving mud all over the kitchen tile.

I feel that I am in the middle of most of you guys politically.  I can almost always see good and bad points to any Republican or Democratic proposals.   Normally, if my choice doesn't win an election, I am bummed but I don't worry too much.  There are usually enough checks and balances and every candidate is usually moderate enough that nothing is done too far out of line for me.  For the first time in my life, the current president and congressional leadership have gotten me very frustrated, angry, and even a little bit worried.

As far as the health care goes, I do think that we need to make some tweaks to the system to prevent the preexisting conditions exclusions and to cut cost.  What drives me crazy, though, is the way this government has gone about it.  

I feel that our government has gone about the health care changes completely wrong.  I didn't bulldoze my house and build a new one to fix the leaky windows it had.  I replaced the windows.  Obama doesn't seem to operate that way.  Rather than making a few minor changes to the best health-care system in the world to make it even better (and, on a larger scale, the United States of America), he has completely changed the focus of the whole system.  Everyone talks about reducing costs, but this "reform" only succeeds in transferring the costs from private payments over to taxes.  There is nothing in here addressing tort reform or improving choice and therefore competition by allowing individuals to shop across state lines.

My wife works for a health insurance company here (nonprofit by the way as are many) in Vermont.  Because of the high level of regulations and small population, only 3 companies are willing to provide  insurance here.  She said their systems are 2-3 generations behind those of the company she used to work for near Boston. There are also many more glitches and SNAFUs implementing policies here compared to in MA.  What's the difference?  There are many companies all heavily competing and therefore driving the quality of the service they provide in MA.  If you still have complaints after being with all 3 companies in VT, all you can do is start over again.  I'm sure customer service and efficiency will really improve if some people get their way of having a single, government provided program with no other options.  How would you like to have only 3 car companies or 3 cell companies to choose from?  For that matter, how would any of us have liked it if all colleges were run by the government and provided the exact same experience with no options?


One of the biggest problems with health care costs is low-deductible plans which encourage people to abuse their insurance by getting checked for every cough or sniffle.  Companies with plans offering little-to-no-deductible often see high rate increases because people use them when they really don't need to.  Have we addressed this by encouraging people to take on plans with a little higher deductible which might make them think twice before running down to the emergency room?  Of course not.  Instead we are going to be fined if our plans don't meet certain limits imposed by the government.  Why shouldn't I be allowed to choose a high-deductible, catastrophic plan if I so choose?  If I have some sort of health issue or lead a high-risk life like a race car driver or extreme skier, I can pay the higher premium since I will be more likely to use it at some point.

I am all for improving our health care system by restricting exclusions based on preexisting conditions, eliminating the connection between jobs and health care plans, reducing costs by addressing tort reform to reduce the ridiculously high malpractice insurance, and increasing competition of private companies to drive efficiency and better service.  I also think we need to find a way to increase individual responsibility and hold people accountable for their own actions affecting their health risk.  

What drives me crazy with our current government is their encouragement of an entitlement society.  I'm all for helping anyone who is down on their luck, but their are enough people out there living off the government (and therefore those of us who work hard and pay taxes) without Obama acting as an enabler by acting like the government is a parent- watching out for our every step to make sure we don't fall and get hurt.  If we never fall down, we never learn how to get back up.

This country has succeeded through innovative ideas and the hard work and dedication to implement them.  

There is a big difference between the government being there to give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed and the goverment making everyone's success equal.

QuoteMy wife works for a health insurance company here (nonprofit by the way as are many) in Vermont. Because of the high level of regulations and small population, only 3 companies are willing to provide insurance here. She said their systems are 2-3 generations behind those of the company she used to work for near Boston. There are also many more glitches and SNAFUs implementing policies here compared to in MA. What's the difference? There are many companies all heavily competing and therefore driving the quality of the service they provide in MA. If you still have complaints after being with all 3 companies in VT, all you can do is start over again. I'm sure customer service and efficiency will really improve if some people get their way of having a single, government provided program with no other options. How would you like to have only 3 car companies or 3 cell companies to choose from? For that matter, how would any of us have liked it if all colleges were run by the government and provided the exact same experience with no options?

It's striking that you are pointing to Massachusetts as a model for the country to follow considering that Obamacare is essentially following Massachusetts's model.

QuoteI feel that our government has gone about the health care changes completely wrong. I didn't bulldoze my house and build a new one to fix the leaky windows it had. I replaced the windows. Obama doesn't seem to operate that way. Rather than making a few minor changes to the best health-care system in the world to make it even better (and, on a larger scale, the United States of America), he has completely changed the focus of the whole system. Everyone talks about reducing costs, but this "reform" only succeeds in transferring the costs from private payments over to taxes. There is nothing in here addressing tort reform or improving choice and therefore competition by allowing individuals to shop across state lines.

Couple of things:

1) Under no objective measure does the U.S. have the best healthcare system in the world. Perhaps we have the best medical technology, but there is no proof that the technology is actually providing something of value (except for maybe hope, which can come a lot cheaper in the form of religion). We're currently spending a lot of money to pay people how to figure out how to not insure sick people, and yet you call that "the best health care system in the world".

2) Nobody is bulldozing anything with the health care changes. (And that's why the bill has a received a lot of criticism from the left.) The (asinine) employer-based system is still the mainstay. Private insurance companies can still profit off of health insurance premiums. Doctors are still making all of their decisions with the patient (and the insurance company looking over their shoulder.) The small-group and individual insurance markets are still not going to be very deep or competitive markets.

3) Cost controls are very much embedded in the health care reform bill. For one, Medicare Advantage plans are going to have to be a lot more accountable and can't stop fleecing unsuspecting retirees. For two, we're now going to be funneling a lot of previously uninsured people into inexpensive primary care and away from the emergency rooms. This will help lower costs dramatically because now we;ll be able to treat diabetics instead of waiting for them to show up in the ER with acute renal failure. Three, we're going to start taxing the most expensive health care plans in an attempt to limit the amount of no-deductible "Cadillac plans" that cause some of the costs to continue to increase every year. There are other plans in the bill as well, including comparative effectiveness research as well as provider incentives that will hopefully keep doctors from doing high-risk, low-benefit (but high profit!) surgeries.

4) You say there are some things in the system that require changing. I imagine you are probably referring to the fact that insurers can deny people with pre-existing conditions and can choose to drop people who get sick. My sense is that you can't get rid of these practices unless you spread the risk pool around some more (or else everything becomes very expensive) and that you can't spread the risk pool around unless you mandate individual coverage. And you can't mandate individual coverage unless you can make certain that it's affordable for folks to pay for health insurance. Because I don't think a lot of your average freelance carpenter or plumber (with hypertension or what have you) with a family of four can afford premiums on the individual policy market with the wages they are making.

Quote from: mnagowskiIt's striking that you are pointing to Massachusetts as a model for the country to follow considering that Obamacare is essentially following Massachusetts's model.

I am referring to MA solely to emphasize the need for competition of private industries.  The companies in MA run more efficiently and provide better customer service than those in Vermont where overbearing regulations and redtape have reduced the choices to only three companies.  When competition is removed, there is not much incentive for companies (or the government) to provide a better product.

The vast majority of opinions I hear coming from MA regarding the state run aspect of MA health care complain about the cost to the state and how it is not sustainable.  I think the election of Scott Brown in such a liberal state speaks better than anything I can say regarding the success of government run health care there.

Kyle already said some of what I had in mind from reading your responses. But this does deserve a response. You're essentially telling me that I'm ignorant because I haven't read so and so and their different notions of freedom. I am aware that there are other theories out there. I wasn't surprised to hear someone talk about collective freedom. I simply reject the concept. I disagree.

I've focused on property rights because they are particularly relevant to this case. As a general rule I don't believe in positive rights (I don't recognize a right to health care, for instance) so that eliminates (from my POV) a lot of other rights/freedoms that you might bring up. Not that you did, of course. You just said "[ I]t is unclear to me that you have thought of any other rights or freedoms" and then told me to go read so and so. You come off as a bit snide and insulting.

QuoteI have hundreds of people who have studied the issue for decades on my side. Can you at least agree that the majority has spoken and health care reform is legal?

Appeal to authority. I happily admit that there are plenty of folks who agree with you.  There are plenty who disagree with you too. Even if it was 99-1 against me I'm still going to make up my own mind.

I agree that the majority of the current members of Congress have spoken. (Which isn't the same as the majority of people, who oppose the bill according to polls. But we don't live in a direct democracy.) I don't agree that the bill as passed is legal because I think that at least the mandate is unconstitutional. (That pesky Constitution that you mentioned.) Even if SCOTUS upholds the law I will support candidates who will work to repeal the bill because I don't agree with it.

Quote

QuoteI don't believ that costs will be lower this way. I'm not willing towait 20 years to find out before passing judgement.

That's a really fantastic argument. Filled with facts and reason (and typos).

This is my favorite part of your post. Dripping with insult. You know, it can be funny to point out someone's typos when we're just playing around. It tends to detract from actual discussion. Especially when I'm obviously not some dumb ass troll on this board whose constant typos tell you you should just ignore him. (For the record, my typing suffers when I'm spewing out thoughts right before running off to do something productive at work.)

My disbelief in the cost numbers isn't a matter of conservative faith. I don't believe the cost estimates because 1) very few government cost estimates are ever correct 2) especially health care cost estimates (see Medicare) 3) the bill has budget gimmicks to make it look palatable (e.g. many benefits don't kick in for four years after revenue streams kick in) and 4) I have read analyses (summaries anyway) that disagree with the estimates. There's some subjectivity there obviously - which sources do you believe? But that's always the case.

Is it okay to demand that this thread be moved to JSID now?

Quote from: RichHIs it okay to demand that this thread be moved to JSID now?

Come on, this is totally a sports discussion!

And do you really have a right to demand anything here? :-P

Quote from: mnagowski3) Cost controls are very much embedded in the health care reform bill. For one, Medicare Advantage plans are going to have to be a lot more accountable and can't stop fleecing unsuspecting retirees. For two, we're now going to be funneling a lot of previously uninsured people into inexpensive primary care and away from the emergency rooms. This will help lower costs dramatically because now we;ll be able to treat diabetics instead of waiting for them to show up in the ER with acute renal failure. Three, we're going to start taxing the most expensive health care plans in an attempt to limit the amount of no-deductible "Cadillac plans" that cause some of the costs to continue to increase every year. There are other plans in the bill as well, including comparative effectiveness research as well as provider incentives that will hopefully keep doctors from doing high-risk, low-benefit (but high profit!) surgeries.

This is nonsense.  None of these things are going to lower the % of GDP that we collectively spend on healthcare.

Your "stop fleecing unsuspecting retirees," is "forcing a one-size-fits-all solution to Medicare Advantage plans so that consumers no longer have choices about what they would like included in their plans and letting the market price those choices accordingly" to me.  

Getting people to primary care instead of waiting for them to turn up in the ER may or may not save cost.  What if you prevent a guy from needing $500k of renal failure care but that extends his life long enough that he later has a $1M heart attack?  We're all going to die someday; therefore, we're all going to need serious care at some point in our lives - that cost is roughly fixed.

Adding new taxes just shifts money from being paid to private companies to being paid to the government.  Where's the cost savings there?

We currently spend ~16% of GDP on health care, and under the status quo that was projected to rise to ~20% by 2020.  Come back in 10 years, and if we're spending less than that due to this bill, I'll eat my hat.

Quote from: mnagowski4) You say there are some things in the system that require changing. I imagine you are probably referring to the fact that insurers can deny people with pre-existing conditions and can choose to drop people who get sick. My sense is that you can't get rid of these practices unless you spread the risk pool around some more (or else everything becomes very expensive) and that you can't spread the risk pool around unless you mandate individual coverage. And you can't mandate individual coverage unless you can make certain that it's affordable for folks to pay for health insurance. Because I don't think a lot of your average freelance carpenter or plumber (with hypertension or what have you) with a family of four can afford premiums on the individual policy market with the wages they are making.

The problem with this argument is that we're NOT going to be spreading the risk pool out very much more.  We're only going to be increasing the number of people in the system by ~10-15%, which is not nearly enough larger of a pool to spread out the additional costs that all these new users (ESPECIALLY those with pre-existing conditions) will incur.  Clearly, if you force companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, then forcing people to buy insurance does help spread the cost to some degree, but I've never read anything that convinces me it's a slam-dunk that the additional costs will be spread thin enough to reduce the overall amount spent on health care.  Don't forget that now that you're forcing perfectly healthy people to buy insurance, they'll start using health care services at a much greater rate themselves, so the premiums they pay is not just free money for the health insurance companies.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowskiFor all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

For fuck's sake, if it will kill this thread, then Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

Quote from: cth95One of the biggest problems with health care costs is low-deductible plans which encourage people to abuse their insurance by getting checked for every cough or sniffle.  Companies with plans offering little-to-no-deductible often see high rate increases because people use them when they really don't need to.

This is what classical economics and "moral hazard" would suggest - and it is insurance industry cant - but, for the record, there is very little evidence that this is true when it comes to health care. It isn't true with low deductible plans and it isn't true with actual socialized medicine. The pay the typical person loses from not working, not to mention the inconvenience of office visits, swamps the effects of a low deductible. High deductible plans serve the purpose of cost shifting much more than they control behavior for the vast majority of insured.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowskiFor all but the last fraction of recorded human history, raping and pillaging was a completely acceptable way of acquiring property rights. But that doesn't mean it's okay.

Mmmmkay.  I suspect that's not really true, since the people raped/pillaged were likely involuntary parties.  But thanks for playing.

Can you just come right out and call me and/or Keith a Nazi?  At least then we could Godwin the thread and save us all from more of your emotional invective and logical fallacies.

For fuck's sake, if it will kill this thread, then Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

(http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/Hitler.gif)

QuoteFor fuck's sake, if it will kill this thread, then Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

It wasn't a part of an argument, so I don't think it counts.

QuoteI've focused on property rights because they are particularly relevant to this case. As a general rule I don't believe in positive rights (I don't recognize a right to health care, for instance) so that eliminates (from my POV) a lot of other rights/freedoms that you might bring up. Not that you did, of course. You just said "[ I]t is unclear to me that you have thought of any other rights or freedoms" and then told me to go read so and so. You come off as a bit snide and insulting.

I don't see how property rights are relevant to the health care talk at all. People are decrying the mandate and the tax, but mandatory taxation to provide public goods has been a part of this country for a long time. This was an issue settled 200 years ago.

Positive rights are more than just the right to ensure a certain standard of living, or a right to health care. The much more basic positive right is being able to have a role in choosing who governs the society (and how it is governed) of which one is a part. It's the right to be a social being and be able to interact with others to come to agreements about governance. I suppose you might suggest that this is really just a reflection of property rights and everything can be a contractual agreement between parties, but what happens if you have no property?

QuoteI agree that the majority of the current members of Congress have spoken. (Which isn't the same as the majority of people, who oppose the bill according to polls. But we don't live in a direct democracy.) I don't agree that the bill as passed is legal because I think that at least the mandate is unconstitutional. (That pesky Constitution that you mentioned.)

For what it is worth, the bill has been tracking at around a 50/40/10 favorable/unfavorable/no opinion rate in unbiased popular polls since it has been passed. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm) And if you think the mandate is unconstitutional, I imagine you must think that a lot of other things must be unconstitutional, like that act from the 1790s that taxed ship captains to provide for the hospitalization of their crews. But how about a compromise -- I'll agree to to get rid of a mandate provided we provide a public option to buy-in to Medicare.

QuoteMy disbelief in the cost numbers isn't a matter of conservative faith. I don't believe the cost estimates because 1) very few government cost estimates are ever correct 2) especially health care cost estimates (see Medicare) 3) the bill has budget gimmicks to make it look palatable (e.g. many benefits don't kick in for four years after revenue streams kick in) and 4) I have read analyses (summaries anyway) that disagree with the estimates. There's some subjectivity there obviously - which sources do you believe? But that's always the case.

Well, now there's an actual argument. To respond to your arguments:

1) very few budget forecasts are ever correct, but we need to work with the best of what's available, and this forecast shows that we'll actually be reducing the deficit in the long run, unlike any other piece of legislation passed in the last decade.

2) I think everybody knows that Medicare is on a rapidly unsustainable path. That's why the Democrats realized they had to do something about it, unlike the Republicans who actually started to defend Medicare benefits tooth and nail. But other government estimates aren't really that bad provided it is coming from the CBO or the Congressional Research Service and not the political parties. That's why a lot of us knew that Bush's tax cuts or the Iraq War or Medicare Part D were massive blunders before they even happened.

3) I'm really not certain what budget gimmicks you are talking about. The front-loading of taxes is really just a Republican talking point and not the truth. Here's a chart from the CBO:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/holtz.png

4) That's fair. You are certain to believe any source that you want. I tend to believe sources that have a clear sense of objectivity and don't have an obvious political agenda working on their side. Like the Congressional Budget Office.

QuoteGetting people to primary care instead of waiting for them to turn up in the ER may or may not save cost. What if you prevent a guy from needing $500k of renal failure care but that extends his life long enough that he later has a $1M heart attack? We're all going to die someday; therefore, we're all going to need serious care at some point in our lives - that cost is roughly fixed.

Adding new taxes just shifts money from being paid to private companies to being paid to the government. Where's the cost savings there?

We currently spend ~16% of GDP on health care, and under the status quo that was projected to rise to ~20% by 2020. Come back in 10 years, and if we're spending less than that due to this bill, I'll eat my hat.

I disagree that the cost is fixed. A lot of other first-world countries aren't spending the same amount of money as us, with often better health outcomes as well.

I hope that we don't reach 20% of GDP, but it might very well happen due to the amount of excessive private-sector bureaucracy we are leaving in the system to deal with billing and enrollments and advertising and all that. A public option would have definitely been cheaper for us.

QuoteClearly, if you force companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, then forcing people to buy insurance does help spread the cost to some degree, but I've never read anything that convinces me it's a slam-dunk that the additional costs will be spread thin enough to reduce the overall amount spent on health care.

I don't think anybody has been talking about reducing the overall amount spent on health care. That would require single-payer to get rid of the bureaucratic bloat that exists. Or rationing. What most studies I have read about the bill think it will do is start to curb the annual increases we see in rising costs. This is because of a) the preventive health measures that will pay dividends down the future, b) the programs that are in place that encourage doctors to be more efficient in their practices. Some communities in this country are spending three times more than other communities with the same health and economic characteristics for the same health outcomes? Why? Some doctors follow the 'best-practices' better than others.

QuoteDon't forget that now that you're forcing perfectly healthy people to buy insurance, they'll start using health care services at a much greater rate themselves

This doesn't make much sense to me. Perfectly healthy people choose to go to the doctor just to chat? Or are they going to start demanding open heart surgery just because they have insurance? Perhaps they are going to start getting tested for their cholesterol levels every other year, but that is not what is causing health care costs to skyrocket. It's end of life care.

Quote from: mnagowskiI don't see how property rights are relevant to the health care talk at all. People are decrying the mandate and the tax, but mandatory taxation to provide public goods has been a part of this country for a long time. This was an issue settled 200 years ago.

How is individual health a public good?

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowskiI don't see how property rights are relevant to the health care talk at all. People are decrying the mandate and the tax, but mandatory taxation to provide public goods has been a part of this country for a long time. This was an issue settled 200 years ago.

How is individual health a public good?

Because when everybody around you has tuberculosis you have a problem? Because when the majority of the country's teenagers are too fat to qualify for military service you have a problem? Because when a country's labor force becomes increasingly too sick or diseased to be productive suddenly you find it hard to obtain all of the great products and services that used to be available to you it kind of sucks?

Quote from: mnagowski

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowskiI don't see how property rights are relevant to the health care talk at all. People are decrying the mandate and the tax, but mandatory taxation to provide public goods has been a part of this country for a long time. This was an issue settled 200 years ago.

How is individual health a public good?

Because when everybody around you has tuberculosis you have a problem?

Okay, so preventing contagious epidemics is a public good.  How is, for instance, preventing or healing an individual's heart disease or MS or correcting his or her vision a public good?

QuoteBecause when the majority of the country's teenagers are too fat to qualify for military service you have a problem?

That sounds like a feature, not a bug.  And even a vast majority of fatties still leaves millions of limbs for IED's to blow off ideal-weight teenagers.

QuoteBecause when a country's labor force becomes increasingly too sick or diseased to be productive suddenly you find it hard to obtain all of the great products and services that used to be available to you it kind of sucks?

By your logic, anything that affects productivity is a public good.  "I don't have a plasma TV set, so I'm unhappy, so I'm less productive.  Plasma TV's only cost $1200, and my lack of one is making me much more than $1200 less productive, so clearly I need a subsidy."  So where do you draw the line?  I draw the line at non-exclusionary goods and services, because there's a natural dividing line there.  If your philosophy is to attempt to maximize national productivity, then you have to admit policies like this if you admit individual health as a public good.  Otherwise, please tell me what your guiding philosophy is.

QuoteSo where do you draw the line?

We can draw the line wherever we choose to as a society. That's the beauty of our system of government. We can decide what we can afford and can't afford, what we think is valuable for us to invest in, and budget for it.

In the 1930s we created a wildly successful and beloved anti-poverty program for the elderly, orphans, and the disabled that didn't happen to increase the nation's productivity but certainly improved the social and physical well-being for a lot of the country and probably increased aggregate demand because most elderly people live hand to mouth. In the 1860s we provided lots of funds to create institutions of higher education that helped to foster a lot of important research/discovery/education in this country. In the 1800s we purchased enough land to double the country's size, allowing hundreds of thousands of settlers to prosper as a result of this investment.

I haven't seen any research backing the notion that lack of plasma televisions has resulted in worse social or economic outcomes for the country. If you can find decent evidence to this fact, maybe we should consider it.

But the productivity losses due to the current structure of health care payment are quite high. Millions of people are currently suffering from "job-lock" because they can't afford to lose their employer's health care coverage. They have a great business idea that they can't invest in, or they can't go back to school to get the advanced degree in engineering. That's why the rates of entrepreneurship suddenly jump at the age of 65.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1305280

And countless others are too sick to work today because they didn't get the relatively cheap care they needed when it would have mattered. Like a lot of the 6,000 people who die of asthma every year.

Quote from: mnagowski

QuoteDon't forget that now that you're forcing perfectly healthy people to buy insurance, they'll start using health care services at a much greater rate themselves

This doesn't make much sense to me. Perfectly healthy people choose to go to the doctor just to chat? Or are they going to start demanding open heart surgery just because they have insurance? Perhaps they are going to start getting tested for their cholesterol levels every other year, but that is not what is causing health care costs to skyrocket. It's end of life care.

"Perfectly healthy" was a poor choice of words on my part.  I'm thinking of people who don't currently have health care, but once they do will begin to make appointments with their PCF for every sniffle and muscle ache.  At the very least, these people will affect the access to care, if not the overall cost.

I completely agree that end-of-life care is the biggest issue.  You don't think it's a fixed cost.  What specifically, in this bill, reduces the cost of end of life care?  Increased preventive care delays it at best, and at worst extends lives into the regime where multiple systems begin failing simultaneously which will actually increase the end-of-life costs.  Or is it merely a hope that 85 year olds will demand less end-of-life care and just go into the night more quietly than their 75 year old counterparts would have?

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

No it isn't.

Quote from: Greenberg '97

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Greenberg '97

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Oh I'm sorry.  This is abuse.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Greenberg '97

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Oh I'm sorry.  This is abuse.

Stupid git.

Quote from: mnagowskiWe can draw the line wherever we choose to as a society.

This is a misconception.  "Society" doesn't choose anything because society is not sentient.  Individuals can choose for themselves, and the resulting aggregate of those choices is what produces society as we experience it.

You are talking about substituting democracy for individual choice.  Democracy is just one way among many (monarchy, oligarchy, etc.) to legitimize the act of one group of individuals forcing their preferences on others.  You can use all the high-minded rhetoric you want to describe this, but this is in fact exactly what democracy is: the elimination of individual freedom in favor of majority preference.

Damn, I thought we had successfully derailed this conversation.  I'll try again.

Quote from: Kyle RoseDemocracy is just one way among many (monarchy, oligarchy, etc.) to legitimize the act of one group of individuals forcing their preferences on others.

"Help, help, I'm being repressed!  Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

Quote from: Greenberg '97Damn, I thought we had successfully derailed this conversation.  I'll try again.

Quote from: Kyle RoseDemocracy is just one way among many (monarchy, oligarchy, etc.) to legitimize the act of one group of individuals forcing their preferences on others.

"Help, help, I'm being repressed!  Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

Bloody peasant!

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: mnagowski

QuoteDon't forget that now that you're forcing perfectly healthy people to buy insurance, they'll start using health care services at a much greater rate themselves

This doesn't make much sense to me. Perfectly healthy people choose to go to the doctor just to chat? Or are they going to start demanding open heart surgery just because they have insurance? Perhaps they are going to start getting tested for their cholesterol levels every other year, but that is not what is causing health care costs to skyrocket. It's end of life care.

"Perfectly healthy" was a poor choice of words on my part.  I'm thinking of people who don't currently have health care, but once they do will begin to make appointments with their PCF for every sniffle and muscle ache.  At the very least, these people will affect the access to care, if not the overall cost.

Sure. And there are provisions in the bill to produce more primary care physicians and increase funding for community health centers.

But let me ask you this: Do you currently have health insurance in Switzerland? And do you go see a primary care physician for every little sniffle or muscle-ache? Do all the people who live in Switzerland go see their doctor every week because they scratched their hand? If not, what makes you think that all those who are currently uninsured in America will take time out of their incredibly busy days, leave work, and pay money to see a doctor for a trivial issue?

When I lived in England for a year, I never had to go to the NHS because I thankfully didn't get sick. Even though it was free! (My friends did, and they had pretty glowing reports, much like my friends in Canada. And the UK and Canada have two of the "draconian" systems.) My father at the age of 60 has good insurance but he has only been to the doctor twice in the past two years because he hasn't been sick! People don't go to the doctor a) if they're not really sick, or b) they can't afford it.

I have a friend who just came back from the Peace Corps who is 25 and uninsured. She's afraid to take a cross-country road trip because if something happens, she has no insurance. And I can guarantee you that when does get insurance, she's probably not going to be running off to the doctor right away if nothing is wrong (except for perhaps, her annual gynecological exam).

QuoteI completely agree that end-of-life care is the biggest issue.  You don't think it's a fixed cost.  What specifically, in this bill, reduces the cost of end of life care?  Increased preventive care delays it at best, and at worst extends lives into the regime where multiple systems begin failing simultaneously which will actually increase the end-of-life costs.  Or is it merely a hope that 85 year olds will demand less end-of-life care and just go into the night more quietly than their 75 year old counterparts would have?

I don't think people with chronic conditions are a fixed cost. Give a man with high blood pressure some meds and get him on an exercise regime and the likelihood of him needing $250,000 bypass surgery goes way down. Make certain I can stay on my medications and that I do my physical therapy and the likelihood that I will ever receive very expensive joint replacement surgery goes way down. Hell, treat people with Type II diabetes the right way and their condition will likely reverse itself.

End of life care is a different story. But first, it should be noted that we're turning the conversation away from how we can insure everybody under the age of 65 to how we curb skyrocketing end-of-life costs. They're completely separate issues, and I think a lot of that has less to do with questions of insurance and more with the practices of physicians and hospitals

A lot of end-of-life care costs don't come in the final years of your life, they come in the final weeks. What's amazing is that even though everybody thinks that Medicaid is a program from the poor underclass, 80% of its spending actually goes to individuals over the age 80! So it's really a program for the old (who by being old, tend to be poor, and sick).

There is a wide level of variation in the type of end-of-life care that you will receive, mostly based on which hospital and which region of the country you end up in. If you're 85 and show up with metasized lymphoma, some hospitals will actually try to do chemo on you because there is money in it. Others will just give you same pain kills and tell you to try to enjoy life because they don't want you to suffer and they know that your life expectancy is the same anyway.

What the Affordable Care Act does is implement some programs that try to start working through this issue. It includes taxes for hospitals that have high re-admission rates and additional penalties for hospitals that see high rates of hospital-acquired infections. On top of that, there will be incentive payments for hospitals that demonstrate the lowest cost of care by age, sex and race adjusted per enrollee spending for Medicare. So the hospitals are finally being incentivized to start looking at their own practices and ask themeselves "why does it cost that county so much less to treat their patients than we do"?

None of these programs will be a magic bullet, but it's a start. And it's more than we have done in the last fifty years. It would have been nice if we could have done more. I know that there were at least 51 or 52 senators who wanted to go much further, but unfortunately the fillibuster prevailed.

Quote"Help, help, I'm being repressed!  Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

QuoteBloody peasant!

Oh, what a give away.  D'ja hear that, did you hear that, eh?  That's what I'm on about.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: mnagowskiWe can draw the line wherever we choose to as a society.

This is a misconception.  "Society" doesn't choose anything because society is not sentient.  Individuals can choose for themselves, and the resulting aggregate of those choices is what produces society as we experience it.

You are talking about substituting democracy for individual choice.  Democracy is just one way among many (monarchy, oligarchy, etc.) to legitimize the act of one group of individuals forcing their preferences on others.  You can use all the high-minded rhetoric you want to describe this, but this is in fact exactly what democracy is: the elimination of individual freedom in favor of majority preference.

I don't know what to tell you Kyle. We're social animals. Group behavior is what this species is all about. Just as groups of cells can be sentient, groups of people can be sentient as well. We've developed an imperfect system to encourage peaceful, cooperative group behavior to foster decision-making in terms of the allocation of our resources. While this system curbs certain individual actions (like the abillity to own nuclear weapons, earn an incoming without paying taxes, or building structures with asbestos in them) it also provides a lot of benefits to everybody in the group as well. Common defense. Research in basic science. Education for our youth. Public provisions to the young, old, and suffering. Greater prosperity and well-being.

If you really dislike democracy as a system of government, you can: 1) run for public office on a platform of getting rid of democracy, or 2) try to find another group of people somewhere else in this universe that will have you.

Quote from: mnagowski

QuoteFor fuck's sake, if it will kill this thread, then Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

It wasn't a part of an argument, so I don't think it counts.

Oh, so who are you to decide what counts and what doesn't? Last century in Germany there was a man who thought that he could tell everyone what should count and what shouldn't. He ended up murdering millions. Thread Nazi!

Quote from: mnagowskiI don't know what to tell you Kyle. We're social animals. Group behavior is what this species is all about. Just as groups of cells can be sentient, groups of people can be sentient as well.

OMG, we've gone off the deep end.

QuoteWe've developed an imperfect system to encourage peaceful, cooperative group behavior to foster decision-making in terms of the allocation of our resources.

No, people form governments primarily to protect them from external threats.  That all this other stuff has been tacked on later, and the power of government levy taxes used to fund further erosions of our liberty, is just more evidence in favor of my argument.  There is no reason why my desire to have an army to defend me from invading Mongols must come paired with pension payments to old people: the two are entirely orthogonal, and implying that they are somehow inexorably linked is disingenuous.  Total government may be the inevitable endpoint of any government, but it isn't necessary to achieve the objectives that people had in mind when they formed the government in the first place.

QuoteWhile this system curbs certain individual actions (like the abillity to own nuclear weapons, earn an incoming without paying taxes, or building structures with asbestos in them)

Straw man.  But don't let me stop you.

Quoteit also provides a lot of benefits to everybody in the group as well.

You reject the possibility that a far more limited government might benefit some people much more than the existing system?

QuoteCommon defense. Research in basic science. Education for our youth. Public provisions to the young, old, and suffering. Greater prosperity and well-being.

So you assert that these things are not possible in the absence of total government?

QuoteIf you really dislike democracy as a system of government, you can: 1) run for public office on a platform of getting rid of democracy, or 2) try to find another group of people somewhere else in this universe that will have you.

As expected, I will file you in the "If you don't like it, move" bucket.  Cheers.

QuoteAs expected, I will file you in the "If you don't like it, move" bucket. Cheers.

Not at all. I eagerly await your run for public office.

Quote from: mnagowskiIf you really dislike democracy as a system of government, you can: 1) run for public office on a platform of getting rid of democracy, or 2) try to find another group of people somewhere else in this universe that will have you.

While we're seem to be on the same side of health care, I absolutely hate the leave the country statements.

I'd love to move to a country that has a more socialist type government*. But in order to do this I need to be given full citizenship or a permanent green card for said country. Otherwise I can't actually make a living there. So it's not an option. (I'd probably also need language lessons for me and my wife if the country I move to is not Spain or the U.K.). Given what are real options for me, I chose to live in one of the most socialist of American cities.

(Kyle would want to move to a less socialist country but the point still stands. Although I'm not sure why he would want to live in Boston.)

* Not a fan of full socialism either. But unlike what some screamers might say, socialism vs capitalism does not have to be a black and white thing.

Quote from: RichHMe? I only wonder what the Kentucky post-season thread is talking about.

I hear they're having an in-depth discussion on the merits of an integrated European economic market.

Quote from: kaelistus(Kyle would want to move to a less socialist country but the point still stands. Although I'm not sure why he would want to live in Boston.)

I love everything about Boston except for the government.  (And the terrible drivers, of course, but that's really not so bad once you figure out the specific ways in which Boston drivers are retarded.)  In all seriousness, Boston is a great place to live because it's full of young, energetic people with passions for nearly everything: if you have a hobby, no matter how esoteric, you can find a group of like-minded people here.  I also like the fact that at practically any time of the day or night somewhere there is a pickup hockey game I can get in on: there are at least 80 hockey rinks in the greater Boston area.

The government here, OTOH, is a corrupt, one-party, old boys' club that is in serious need of major turnover.  For example, the last three speakers of the Massachusetts House have been indicted.  But the people vote Democrat because they've always voted Democrat and their daddies voted Democrat, and I suspect they also have the voting equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome: secretly, they've come to identify with their terrible government.  "They're assholes, sure... but they're our assholes!"  I suspect this will change eventually, but right now the Republican party (anti-gay, pro-war, anti-freedom) isn't exactly a viable alternative.  People here are educated and rightfully look on populism and politicians like Sarah Palin with disdain: but that doesn't leave them much of a choice on election day.

Quote(And the terrible drivers, of course, but that's really not so bad once you figure out the specific ways in which Boston drivers are retarded.)

Well, at least we can agree on some things. I felt the highway driving in Boston was pretty awful, as well as through some of inner suburbs. Part of it has to do, I think, with the shorter acceleration lanes. I biked a lot during the summer I first got sick because I couldn't walk but I could still bike, and I felt the drivers throughout Cambridge and downtown were always fairly courteous to bikers.

As for Massachusett's corruptness, I didn't feel it was that bad. But that's because I come from Upstate New York, which is pretty awful. Massachusett's state government looks like a model of efficiency and restraint relative to New York State. Much lower taxes as well. The 'Taxachusetts' name is not deserved at all.

Quote from: Kyle RoseNo, people form governments primarily to protect them from external threats.  That all this other stuff has been tacked on later, and the power of government levy taxes used to fund further erosions of our liberty, is just more evidence in favor of my argument.  There is no reason why my desire to have an army to defend me from invading Mongols must come paired with pension payments to old people: the two are entirely orthogonal, and implying that they are somehow inexorably linked is disingenuous.  Total government may be the inevitable endpoint of any government, but it isn't necessary to achieve the objectives that people had in mind when they formed the government in the first place.

Do not people form governments to also protect themselves from internal threats? You know, prohibitions against killing, stealing, physical harm, etc....laws. Are there not other forms of internal threats that governments by the people and of the people could also protect people from like hunger, slavery, and many of the common good issues discussed somewhere above?

But let's stick with the assertion that government exists primarily to protect us from external threats. Who decides whether or not there is an external threat to act on? What is the method by which we should act on it? War? Alliance? How do we decide this? How is the tyranny of the majority any different in this case from the case in which the government acts against an internal threat?

One other deep issue to consider in addition to the fundamental legitimacy of property rights is what about children? If the parents choose not to insure themselves or their family is it the child's fault? Should they suffer for it and fail to receive care?

QuoteOne other deep issue to consider in addition to the fundamental legitimacy of property rights is what about children? If the parents choose not to insure themselves or their family is it the child's fault? Should they suffer for it and fail to receive care?

But children are just the property of their parent's until the age of 18 so we don't have to worry about them, right?  ::rolleyes::

I think dealing with the issue of children and what you are born into is one of the fundamental problems with a property rights only approach to liberty and justice. Specifically, there are many scenarios in a property-rights only universe that fail the Rawlsian test that freedoms and liberties should have meaningful value to you.

More specifically, if you aren't granted any of our positive rights (the right to life, the right to eduction, the right to nourishment, etc.) your freedoms to interact in a property-rights regime will be seriously encroached upon.

In your ideal property-rights world, let's suggest that for whatever reason a lot of adults die. So you could find yourself in a situation where you have a lot of feral children roaming around, technically squatters on other people's property, trying to steal food, and constantly being chased away by the property-owners, with guns. Because they had stunted linguistic and cognitive skills, these feral children would lack the capacity to interact in a property-rights universe. Hell, they would lack the capacity to live. And, well, you can't worry about "freedom" unless you are pretty certain you are going to live the next day, right?

One could suggest that all of the property-rights holders could donate charity to an orphanage. But because it's voluntary, only some do, and eventually the orphanage gets overcrowded and underfunded. Soon there's no food for the orphans and the children start to die.

Questions:

1) Would either Kyle or Keith agree to the possibility of being born into a system like this?
2a) If not, describe to me how a property-rights only view of liberty could possibly safeguard this outcome. Because I wouldn't have wanted either of you to die in an orphanage at the age of five.
2b) If yes, assume that you become that dying orphan. Could you then tell me that none of your liberties had been encroached upon by your perfect 'property-rights' regime?

No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

Quote from: Roy 82No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

In short my answers is: life sucks if you're a dying feral orphan.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Roy 82No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

You have your theory, we have ours.::snore::

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Roy 82No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

In short my answers is: life sucks if you're a dying feral orphan.

I'm sorry, your arguing time is up. That's it. Good morning!:-)

P.S. Dying Feral Orphans is a great name for a rock band.
P.P.S. No I haven't had an original thought in years.

Quote from: Roy 82P.S. Dying Feral Orphans is a great name for a rock band.

No argument there.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Roy 82P.S. Dying Feral Orphans is a great name for a rock band.

No argument there.

Quitter.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Roy 82No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

In short my answers is: life sucks if you're a dying feral orphan.

Life also sucks if you are a child who is discriminated against in the provision of health insurance. That's our point.

Quote from: mnagowski

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Roy 82No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

In short my answers is: life sucks if you're a dying feral orphan.

Life also sucks if you are a child who is discriminated against in the provision of health insurance. That's our point.

Yes, but when Keith says "life sucks"  I think he means, "sometimes life is going to suck for some people, no matter what we do - it's just an inherent feature of life" whereas I get the feeling that you might be saying, "isn't it horrible that life sucks for this person?  We must rally to do everything that we can to help alleviate the suckiness."

Quote from: RobbYes, but when Keith says "life sucks"  I think he means, "sometimes life is going to suck for some people, no matter what we do - it's just an inherent feature of life" whereas I get the feeling that you might be saying, "isn't it horrible that life sucks for this person?  We must rally to do everything that we can to help alleviate the suckiness."

Not "everything."  To be consistent, we can either sell all our stuff and give it to the starving or avert our gaze and intone they must pull themselves up by their boot straps.  The only people who are logically consistent are saints and sociopaths.

Quote from: Trotskysaints and sociopaths.

Another good name for a rock band.  ::rock::

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: mnagowski

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Roy 82No response from Kyle or Keith. By the Official Rules of Internet Fora Arguments we (lefties/liberals) have been declared the winners. ::banana::

Challenging the basic moral authority and fundamental limitations of the property rights approach was a strong factor in the victory. However, in the end the neo-libertarians/neo-anarchists succumbed to the classic "what about the children" maneuver. ::doh::

No, I believe I succumbed to the "it's Saturday so I have better things to do than argue on the internet" argument (the last post was on a Saturday).

In short my answers is: life sucks if you're a dying feral orphan.

Life also sucks if you are a child who is discriminated against in the provision of health insurance. That's our point.

Yes, but when Keith says "life sucks"  I think he means, "sometimes life is going to suck for some people, no matter what we do - it's just an inherent feature of life" whereas I get the feeling that you might be saying, "isn't it horrible that life sucks for this person?  We must rally to do everything that we can to help alleviate the suckiness."

'Everything that we can' is a bit of a stretch. Somewhere in the world a child is drowning right now and you don't see me going all Baywatch to save the poor kid.

But it's entirely fair that we might want to consider rights other than property rights when devising our society so starving feral orphan children are less of a problem. Oops. I said "society". There's that word that doesn't exist again.