patrick.net

indigenous says

The trade deficit causes more dollars to be in possession of other countries than there would otherwise be this allows the US to print more dollars without as much inflation as there would be otherwise be.

Do you realize that the trade deficit is worse BECAUSE of a strong dollar?

indigenous says

One of the keys is that unmolested trade be allowed which allows the basic building block of the economy to work its magic, which it would if left on it's own.

I honestly think you don't even know why you post some of the things you post.

Wow.

You'd think they use the power of the government to put a stop to things which hurt society, such as healthcare.

tatupu70 says

Do you realize that the trade deficit is worse BECAUSE of a strong dollar?

Yes that is my point.tatupu70 says

I honestly think you don't even know why you post some of the things you post.

Thank you for sharing but I have a better command of this than most of you mutts.

debyne says

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

Perhaps you'd care to list where WHO ranks US healthcare and how much you spend on it in comparison to others.

debyne says

I'm definitely not a purist, and I actually support regulation in certain areas in order to foster equal opportunity and protecting society as a whole. For example, I'm in favor of the green agenda to force us off fossil fuels because of the pollution it produces, among other things they support to protect our planet. I'm also in favor of anti-trust laws to keep one company (or gov't) from owning an industry. I don't align purely to any political party or ideology, I just pick and choose ideas that make sense to me.

Bless your heart for wanting 'to foster equal opportunity.' It's just a bit unfortunate that you want to remove any sort of social safety net for those in need in order to achieve this supposed ambition of yours.

Bigsby says

debyne says

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

Perhaps you'd care to list where WHO ranks US healthcare and how much you spend on it in comparison to others.

Why bother?

Bigsby says

debyne says

I'm definitely not a purist, and I actually support regulation in certain areas in order to foster equal opportunity and protecting society as a whole. For example, I'm in favor of the green agenda to force us off fossil fuels because of the pollution it produces, among other things they support to protect our planet. I'm also in favor of anti-trust laws to keep one company (or gov't) from owning an industry. I don't align purely to any political party or ideology, I just pick and choose ideas that make sense to me.

Another idea is to have slop houses (like soup kitchens, but worse) in large cities where aged food that's still safe to eat (but grocery stores don't want it anymore) is served. The idea here is to make "welfare" a painful experience, not business as usual.

Bless your heart for wanting 'to foster equal opportunity.' It's just a bit unfortunate that you want to remove any sort of social safety net for those in need in order to achieve this supposed ambition of yours.

I think having some minimal safety net would be fine if we just wouldn't keep expanding it. It's like the old saying..."give them an inch, and they take a mile." For example, offer 3 months unemployment and that's it. Only allow food stamps for a period of 6 months if, and only if, they have a full time job.

debyne says

I think having some minimal safety net would be fine if we just wouldn't keep expanding it. It's like the old saying..."give them an inch, and they take a mile." For example, offer 3 months unemployment and that's it. Only allow food stamps for a period of 6 months if, and only if, they have a full time job.

And if that person fails to find employment during that period (through no lack of trying), then what? And food stamps only for those with a job? What?

debyne says

Bigsby says

debyne says

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

Perhaps you'd care to list where WHO ranks US healthcare and how much you spend on it in comparison to others.

Why bother?

Why do you think? You seem to be raising up the American healthcare system as the best in the world. It isn't. It can't even supply basic affordable coverage to a good percentage of the population. Your country has by far the most expensive healthcare system, and even with this, has poorer outcomes in comparison to pretty much all other developed nations.

ThreeBays says

debyne says

I actually kinda like ACA and hope it's successful just as long as we stay away from a single payer structure, which is what would destroy competition and the innovation to improve.

The "provider" can contribute to innovation, not the "payer".

Not true at all. There's opportunities to innovate on the provider side as well as the payer side...we need improvement in both.

indigenous says

Yes that is my point.

So you're arguing for more printing and a weaker dollar?

If one is a consultant and not a FTE, a bank will request a work contract and tax returns x 2 years at a minimum. They also usually require more $ as a down payment and a higher cash reserve balance not to mention excellent credit scores.

ThreeBays says

And... I'm waiting for you to give some example of innovation on the payer side (that is not single payer).

Cutting out the middle payer completely would be 100% improvement.

Bundled payments are a good example. Check out the company QLiance out of Seattle...they couldn't have developed their successful model of healthcare if single payer was in place. Plus, it's innovation as to how payers can run as lean as possible but still being able to get actuarial right based on actual claims. Anything "single payer" means they don't have to be efficient because they'll just get more gov't budget to pay for their inefficiencies, fraud, etc. On what planet do you think the gov't is efficient and able to contain cost? Oh, let's look at healthcare.gov as a good example. How much did that website cost and how much time did they have to implement it? How well did that turn out?

Cutting out the payer would mean no insurance underwriting, which isn't really an option because what happens if catastrophe strikes? And if you're advocating cutting out the middle man, that would mean no single payer, so not sure I understand the comment.

Oh, and let's not forget that single payer causes innovation to decline...look at the number of new drugs produced by the US compared to single payer nations.

This may be a clearer graph, showing a tripling since 1960. It also may need adjustment for the increase in women working. That is to make inferences about income per hour.

How about this...just from 1970

OF course rents and other investment income are included in this. I'm sure that many right wingers or austrians would argue that workers are not entitled to a piece of the rents that the rich get to collect.

Understanding this aspect of the situation is a big part of understanding how our system works.

Bigsby says

And if that person fails to find employment during that period (through no lack of trying), then what? And food stamps only for those with a job? What?

Go live with family or find a homeless shelter. There are always low-paying jobs available...people just don't want to do them.

marcus says

I'm guessing the percentage working must be at least 35% higher than in 1950.

Btw, I know some might argue this is high, because the workforce participation rate is only about 5% above where it was in 1950. But there are way more people over 68 than there were back then. still 35% may be high.

Bigsby says

Why do you think? You seem to be raising up the American healthcare system as the best in the world. It isn't. It can't even supply basic affordable coverage to a good percentage of the population. Your country has by far the most expensive healthcare system, and even with this, has poorer outcomes in comparison to pretty much all other developed nations.

I didn't say it was the best. We just haven't had a free market implementation of it yet, so let that work before considering going to a socialized model and stifling innovation and progress. Through ACA, competition will get fiercer, which only benefits us.

Show me stats on poorer outcomes. I bring it up because it often has nothing to do with our healthcare system...it's the fact that we have a nation of fat people.

debyne says

We just haven't had a free market implementation of it yet, so let that work before considering going to a socialized model and stifling innovation and progress.

It can't work. Free market requires information availability, the ability to shop, etc. which will not ever exist for healthcare. If you get hit by a car, are you going to be able to shop around before having surgery?

ThreeBays says

debyne says

You're being too short-sighted. Evolutionary principles take generations and generations to take force. Over time, rich idiots, such as the Paris Hiltons of the world, would eventually fail and not survive unless behavior was changed. The point is, don't mess with what nature intended in how we evolve and improve over time.

The human race is far beyond the point where progress is determined by natural selection. If you're waiting for the people or groups you dislike to die out you better not hold your breath.

Then we're doomed as a race...watch as the weak multiply and the lazy and inept continue to take over. Oh, and don't make accusations that I want people I don't like to die...it's not about me.

debyne says

ThreeBays says

debyne says

You're being too short-sighted. The point is, don't mess with what nature intended in how we evolve and improve over time.

I'm not going to say that there is nothing to the idea of social derwinism, but it's way too easy for idiots to way take it too far. Nobody has ever argued that we need to give those who are unwilling to work a lifestyle that will make them feel that not working is a good deal.

We are humans, and it's our collective intelligence or lack there of that will determne our future. That is if we're lucky..

Besides, it can easily be argued that our growing wealth inequality is putting more and more power in the hands of an aristocracy that got their wealth (or the future generation that will get it's wealth) by inheriting it, and then paying experts to invest it.

In your view these are the strongest and best fit people who get to make decisions about our government and our societies ? They are the ones that will be deciding how we evolve.

marcus says

Besides, it can easily be argued that our growing wealth inequality is putting more and more power in the hands of an aristocracy that got their wealth (or the future generation that will get it's wealth) by inheriting it, and then paying experts to invest it.

Then that would remove equal opportunity, so you regulate it so monopoly of power doesn't happen. I never advocated for a completely free market...regulation is still very important.

tatupu70 says

debyne says

We just haven't had a free market implementation of it yet, so let that work before considering going to a socialized model and stifling innovation and progress.

It can't work. Free market requires information availability, the ability to shop, etc. which will not ever exist for healthcare. If you get hit by a car, are you going to be able to shop around before having surgery?

Lol...first off, most healthcare dollars are not emergencies. Second, I'm not saying get rid of insurance...I'm a big supporter of catastrophic coverage for all as a mandate.

Yes, but who will be voted in?

Fair enough.

tts says

It never could of course, as we Americans learned from Ronnie Raygun in the 80's, trickle down economics never works.

why delete deluge up roberto? how did i offend thee? pray tell.

Bellingham Bill says

Hmm, doing *both*, taxing rents and using the money to build new supply -- that actually makes sense, LOL.

Such a scheme would work as well as the soviet scheme of robbing the rich successful farmers' farming implements and farm animals to build communes . . . contrary to dreams of plenty, the result was mass starvation!

The socialist mind doesn't understand in order to get results, you need to give people incentives! After-tax rent return is the incentive for building more rental units! If you tax rent return heavily, less rental units would be built by the private sector. If you want government monopoly to build rental units instead of letting private sector players competing against each other, the incentive becomes for the bureaucrats and their cronies to maximize the budget allocation . . . and build nothing! The worse the schools, the greater the public outcry for more funding to schools; the higher the crime rate , the greater the public outcry for more funding to police departments . . . it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if housing construction is monopolized by government bureaucracy, the more acute the housing shortage the more funding for the monopolistic department of rental housing. . . so what would you do if you are in charge of such a department and want to maximize your own wealth and power? spend every cent of the budget and then demand more, while build nothing!

tatupu70 says

debyne says

We just haven't had a free market implementation of it yet, so let that work before considering going to a socialized model and stifling innovation and progress.

It can't work. Free market requires information availability, the ability to shop, etc. which will not ever exist for healthcare. If you get hit by a car, are you going to be able to shop around before having surgery?

Come on! The solution in that case is quite simple: a dog-tag or wrist band referencing a data base indicating which list of emergency rooms you should be sent to. Do your own shopping and make the list before being hit, heck before getting into the car.

Don't they already do that with your decision on whether you are willing to be an organ donor? It's not like they bring you back to sign papers after you die in a car accident.

Churchill was the guilty party burning london to the ground to monopolize whatever housing survived while blaming it all on nazi aggression.

Reality says

Don't they already do that with your decision on whether you are willing to be an organ donor? It's not like they bring you back to sign papers after you die in a car accident.

Yeah, because that's the same thing.

Reality says

Utter nonsense. Government transfers almost always work out to benefit the 0.01% at the expense of the 99.99%, once you figure out how the tax revenue is spent. Even Section 8 housing program benefit the slumlords at the expense of the taxpayers.

The free market always works out to benefit the 0.01% over the 99.99%. Regardless of inflation/deflation, capitalism tends toward inequality. It has nothing to do with any government actions.

Reality says

Inflation is the worst trickled down economics. New money reach the banksters first.

No it doesn't--that's crap. New money goes to everything the government funds.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Don't they already do that with your decision on whether you are willing to be an organ donor? It's not like they bring you back to sign papers after you die in a car accident.

Yeah, because that's the same thing.

It shows that apriori wishes and plans can be made before the person is incapacitated.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Utter nonsense. Government transfers almost always work out to benefit the
0.01% at the expense of the 99.99%, once you figure out how the tax revenue is
spent. Even Section 8 housing program benefit the slumlords at the expense of
the taxpayers.

The free market always works out to benefit the 0.01% over the 99.99%.
Regardless of inflation/deflation, capitalism tends toward inequality. It has
nothing to do with any government actions.

That is utter nonsense. Free market capitalism is the effective social mechanism for equalizing ever known to men: through monetization of power, those with existing power can be chipped away by more efficient upstarts one tiny pieces at a time. The "equality" in socialist societies is an accounting fraud: the real power and wealth is simply not monetized and counted while withheld tightly by the tiny ruling elite and their families. Sound money is the ultimate antidote to feudal privileges . . . and all political privileges are effectively feudal privileges as political power and privileges are tied to specific geographic regions.

tatupu70 says

Reality
says

Inflation is the worst trickled down economics. New money reach the banksters
first.

No it doesn't--that's crap. New money goes to everything the government
funds

The biggest sinkhole for emergency government funding is the banking system; trillions at a time when the money is worth the most. Everything else government funds out of deficit spending is just an excuse to give the banksters a cut on the future output of the rest of the society: banksters conjure money out of nothing when lending to government, as government bonds are counted as reserve assets at the banks . . . so the banksters can literally create $1Trillion out of nothing to lend to the government, even at 1%, that's $10Billion a year free cash income for the bank with zero capital tied up! That's really how bank bailouts work: banks taking bailout money to lend to the government is a paper fraud covering up a government promise to deliver to the banksters the "interest payment" on zero pricinple! That's the crux of fiat money system robbing the middle class blind to enrich the top 0.01%.

Reality says

That is utter nonsense. Free market capitalism is the effective social mechanism for equalizing ever known to men: through monetization of power, those with existing power can be chipped away by more efficient upstarts one tiny pieces at a time

OK--could you please list a few examples of free market capitalism leading to improved wealth disparity? Specific time periods? Because I can list several periods that show the exact opposite of what you state.

Reality says

Everything else government funds out of deficit spending is just an excuse to give the banksters a cut on the future output of the rest of the society

Really? More than half the budget is military spending. Regardless, you obviously don't like bankers. Neither do I.

Reality says

That's really how bank bailouts work: banks taking bailout money to lend to the government is a paper fraud covering up a government promise to deliver to the banksters the "interest payment" on zero pricinple! That's the crux of fiat money system robbing the middle class blind to enrich the top 0.01%.

We're not talking about bailouts. That's a once in a century event that will almost certainly not be repeated. Like I said--new money goes to everything the government funds.

Jackie Mason the Jew of the Goy.

Give it up. You lost. Obama was re-elected, and the world did not end.

Call it Crazy says

There used to be a time when you would worship the president, even if you didn’t like him. You knew he told the truth because he’s the president of a country.

Exactly when was that?

Go through the list of presidents and enumerate the ones that didn't lie. If you list has more than zero elements, I reserve the right to challenge it.

tatupu70 says

We're not talking about bailouts. That's a once in a century event that will almost certainly not be repeated. Like I said--new money goes to everything the government funds.

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

mell says

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

Who receives money via ZIRP and is getting rich? Please elaborate.

tatupu70 says

mell says

ZIRP has been a constant bailout thus far. Anyone and anything receiving money via ZIRP will eventually become incredibly wealthy at the expense of the others. We're talking 5+ years of ongoing bailouts/enrichments here, and counting..

Who receives money via ZIRP and is getting rich? Please elaborate.

Central banks around the world print money and give it to banks who can make close to riskless loans, making them rich at the expense of the taxpayers (debasement). This happens at a slow pace since it is is generally not particularly attractive for banks to make low-yield loans, but beats any of the options the little taxpayer guy has. Heck, I'll take it - can you hook me up with a crony ZIRP line asap? Much appreciated ;)