patrick.net

indigenous says

The way it does work is that money given to public sector worker above what the private sector would pay (which in the case of Federal workers is about double) is taken out of the economy to be exchanged for private sector goods.

Uh?

You give a pay check to a teacher, he spends it on the rent, groceries, gas etc....
You give a pay check to a waiter at your private eatery, he spends it on the rent, groceries, gas etc....

No difference in how the money circulates.
Gov workers do add to the economy.

The only difference is one of structure: The private sector is more adaptable. The public sector can be organized top-down to provide a centralized service (army, roads), and it can be organized to provide services that wouldn't otherwise exist but are seen as valuable for the country (NASA).

Diva24 says

That's where the wonder of capitalism comes in. If a business keeps making the wrong product they will eventually go out of business. e.g.. Kodak. If a company makes the right products, they will thrive e.g.. Apple.

And the rest of us go to hell in a hand basket due to their anti-human, anti-environmental practices.

Pure myth. The rest of us are the consumers who wait all night in the cold rain just to be the first ones to buy their iPhones. I found out yesterday the iPhone can even be used as a remote control. Now a couch potato does not have to go through the trouble of reaching for the remote. Just ask Siri for help.

Heraclitusstudent says

No difference in how the money circulates.

Gov workers do add to the economy.

Just not so.

If you pay a federal worker $40.00 to shovel horse shit and pay him twice as much as what an immigrant would shovel horse shit for, say $20.00, the difference is not contributing to the economy, as the job is not valued to be worth $40.00 per hour. The difference of $20.00 is made up in additional taxes.

Now that red dawn is upon us, I expect no less than $6,666 reduction in my federal taxes over the next 6 years. And we don't need no willy loman sexist segregation neither.

First, abolish the estate tax before reinstating slavery.

Ceffer says

First, abolish the estate tax before reinstating slavery.

The true slave is the one who is leaving something to the progeny. The parasites will devour the nest egg; the "slave" would have been better off enjoying the money b4 the sand in the hourglass succumbed to the force of gravity.

Good luck campaigning against ObamaCare in 2016. Each year this will get harder to do...

Strategist says

Here is an example:

Why does a strawberry picker get paid more in California than in Mexico, when they are doing the exact same work. Because our society has much higher productivity levels.

Assuming they are indeed paid more, I guess unless you pay them enough to cover what it cost them to be here, there is no reason for them to work here.

This is about their costs, this is disconnected from how efficiently they pick strawberries.

indigenous says

If you pay a federal worker $40.00 to shovel horse shit and pay him twice as much as what an immigrant would shovel horse shit for, say $20.00, the difference is not contributing to the economy, as the job is not valued to be worth $40.00 per hour. The difference of $20.00 is made up in additional taxes.

Obviously if you pay the fed worker $40, he will either spend it or invest it, thus re-injecting it in the economy.

If you say "shoveling horse shit is worth $20 not $40", you are assuming that there is perfect price discovery for all jobs. There isn't. Private businesses like telecom companies make more money in the US than Europe because there is less competition. Financial companies make tons of money through scams and fraud hidden in complexity. The economy is full of private toll booths with little competition. How do you find the exact price they deserve? You don't. Everyone extort what they can from the rest.

Here comes the Bullshit....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29919793

The US Senate's new Republican leader and President Barack Obama have both promised to end the political gridlock that has so frustrated American voters.

Republicans made historic gains in the mid-term elections and now control both legislative chambers.

Incoming Senate leader Mitch McConnell said he would make the ineffective Senate function and pass bills.

Mr Obama said he was "eager to work with the new Congress to make the next two years as productive as possible".

Strategist says

The US Senate's new Republican leader and President Barack Obama have both promised to end the political gridlock that has so frustrated American voters.

Was there a reason why they did not do it before?
Promises Promises Promises.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

Mr Obama said he was "eager to work with the new Congress to make the next two years as productive as possible".

I think he's been known to lie...

He looks so honest. I would buy a used car driven by a little old lady from him.

Strategist says

Was there a reason why they did not do it before?

Promises Promises Promises.

Agreed.
Though at least they defenestrated a lot of baggers.

Heraclitusstudent says

Obviously if you pay the fed worker $40, he will either spend it or invest it, thus re-injecting it in the economy.

But it puts a bigger and bigger burden on the rest of the economy. The money that would otherwise be available for people to spend on other things is instead spent on taxes. So those other things disappear from the economy. This also discourages investment.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you say "shoveling horse shit is worth $20 not $40", you are assuming that there is perfect price discovery for all jobs. There isn't.

There absolutely is, unless it is skewed by the government through public sector unions, subsidies, tariffs, regulations, manipulation such as the money supply or an inorganic interest rates.

Heraclitusstudent says

Private businesses like telecom companies make more money in the US than Europe because there is less competition.

There is still price discovery, the fact that it is cheaper in another country just means that that country has a comparative advantage. Often certain countries will develop an industry and the workers required for that industry as with the US and passenger planes, Germany and capital goods, Switzerland and banking, Japan and electronics, China and manufacturing.

Heraclitusstudent says

Financial companies make tons of money through scams and fraud hidden in complexity.

This is fine and they generally get bit by there risky investments. It is only a problem when the government bails them out.

Heraclitusstudent says

How do you find the exact price they deserve? You don't.

Sure you absolutely do, you simply find out what people will pay for that product that is all there is to it. And that changes constantly Moore's law and all.

The only ones who do not do this are the companies that are protected by tariffs e.g. the sugar companies are so protected from foreign competition that corn syrup has become a viable alternative, with it's alleged hazards.

It does not happen when collective bargaining is allowed as this allows public sector workers to be paid without any regard to the private market.

It's does not occur when ADM is subsidized by the government to grow corn for ethanol even though without these subsidies it would not be profitable to grow corn for ethanol. It also does not occur when defense contractors are subsidized by the government.

The housing industry enjoyed a boom over the last 20 years because of printing too much money for the money supply this has also gone to the stock market.

Heraclitusstudent says

indigenous says

The way it does work is that money given to public sector worker above what the private sector would pay (which in the case of Federal workers is about double) is taken out of the economy to be exchanged for private sector goods.

Uh?

You give a pay check to a teacher, he spends it on the rent, groceries, gas etc....

You give a pay check to a waiter at your private eatery, he spends it on the rent, groceries, gas etc....

No difference in how the money circulates.

Gov workers do add to the economy.

Goes to show just how messed up Keynesian "Macro" religion is. What a person contributes to the economy is not the money s/he spends but the productive goods/service that s/he provides others. Otherwise, why don't we just legalize private counterfeiting? Would that "jump start" the economy if everyone is allowed to print their own money and force others to accept it? How is that different from robbing your neighbor and spending his money into the economy? Should we praise the North Koreans dictator for printing super-high quality counterfeit notes?

Spending money and "consuming" is no different from inflicting a natural disaster on the economy, as far as the rest of the economy / other people are concerned. Yes, it creates more demand, but that demand has to be met by others sacrificing their needs and wants.

EBGuy says

Meanwhile, in the world's eight largest economy... all major statewide offices went to Democrats. Voters passed Prop 2 which will divert 1.5% of revenues to a rainy day fund to pay down debt and help out in lean years. There's snow in the Sierras and its sunny outside.

You forgot to mention, the Republicans made net gains in both congress and the state legislature in California for the first time since 1994. California is still obviously a solid Democrat state but they lost their super majority in the senate due to the election and all the Democrats who have been convicted, or in the process of being convicted for felonies in the last year or so.

Heraclitusstudent says

That's exactly what's wrong with economists:

1 - They make a simplistic assessment,

2 - come up with a principle that looks great on paper: "wages follow productivity",

3 - then hurry to forget all the assumptions they made,

4 - then when confronted with reality they rationalize like crazy why the principle is still true instead of admitting their 'principle' applies in narrow conditions and we are not in these conditions.

My general impression of mainstream economists is that they seem out of touch. They remind me of the Credit Analysts I used to work with at a bank. Credit Analysts are the people who decide if somebody gets a loan (when the computer can't do it). The problem with these Credit Analysts is that none of them ever worked in the Collections department. I have a feeling that they would make better credit decisions if they actually had to have some experience in the Collections department making those phone calls to deadbeats.

indigenous says

Heraclitusstudent says

Obviously if you pay the fed worker $40, he will either spend it or invest it, thus re-injecting it in the economy.

But it puts a bigger and bigger burden on the rest of the economy. The money that would otherwise be available for people to spend on other things is instead spent on taxes.

So is the money spent on healthcare not spent on other things. So is the money spent on groceries not spent on other things. It's just a different circuit through the economy. From a purely economic perspective, it doesn't matter. It's just work being done and paid on things we need, and money being spent.

Again the only difference is the structures. Is that the best way to organize work? In many cases the

indigenous says

There absolutely is, unless it is skewed by the government through public sector unions, subsidies, tariffs, regulations, manipulation such as the money supply or an inorganic interest rates.

There is always hundreds of different factors, including in the private sector, affecting what money is spent on what, and the resulting prices. Including market positions, financial games, competition, culture, tariffs, regulations, bribes, corruption, fraud, scam, disinformation.

Tariffs and regulations are not optional. You can't have a private sector without regulation. Sound industry is based on the rule of law. Whatever regulations you choose to have affect the outcome. It's just a choice.

You would have to be extremely naive to believe the private sector is all textbook competition on a level playing field, and one nice rounded price comes out of that.

indigenous says

It does not happen when collective bargaining is allowed as this allows public sector workers to be paid without any regard to the private market.

Of course there is a problem there. It's not an economic problem in the sense I explained: the money circulate regardless. A little bit more is spent on 1 activity and less on an other.
Examples:
- The US spent twice as much on healthcare as other industrial countries. Is that ruining the US? nope. There is a private industry that profits from it.
- We spend far more on housing now than a few decades ago. Is living under a roof more worthy than it was 30 yrs ago? I don't think so. But there is a lot of private workers making a living out of it.

The problem is structure: what mechanism you have to adjust the price? In the private sector it is fluid and changing all the time. In the public sector, with unions you mention, you wait until the city is bankrupt and defaults on its obligations. It's structure.

gsr says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Ballsy! The RNC will get her to file legislation to repeal the 13th and 14th Amendment so she can prove how true to party even Negresses can be.

There was even one like to this. I can imagine the heat "CaptainShuddup" would have got if he had spoken the same way about a Black Democrat woman.

Love is progress, whether so-called progressives want to embrace it or not. Her election is a reflection, yea an extension of the Rev.. Martin Luther King Jr's dream. The daughter of Haitian immigrants, born in Brooklyn, living in Utah, a state that is less than 1% black, judged by the content of her character. And because of that, she is coming to Washington. If that is not what the dream is all about then we truly have lost our way.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/05/opinion/granderson-mia-love-victory/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Reality says

What a person contributes to the economy is not the money s/he spends but the productive goods/service that s/he provides others.

So you are saying teachers, the army, the justice system do not provide a service to the country? Of course they do.

Reality says

Spending money and "consuming" is no different from inflicting a natural disaster on the economy, as far as the rest of the economy / other people are concerned.

Yeah public teachers are like a natural disaster.

Let's take other examples:
- Very private Wall Street people making a fortune by using HFT to front run trades. Very productive people. Very different from robbing your neighbor. They provide a HUGE service to the economy that totally deserves to be rewarded by wages way above the average Joe.

- Let's take the cable guys: Obviously an industry with a LOT of competition forced to adjust their prices rather than extort a premium. Again, very different from robbing your neighbor.
- healthcare drug companies: yeah selling a drug $80,000 is very different from extortion.
- housing
- etc, etc....

The republican welcoming committee has guns, bacon, beer and hot chicks doing heterosexual things to each other.

And they have soda just literally flowing from fountains.

And... Standard & Poor’s raised its rating on California’s general obligation debt to A+ from A on Wednesday, the day after voters approved Proposition 2, which will bolster the state’s rainy day fund.
Or, as lakermania points out, this may be a result of Dems losing their supermajority.

Lookie there! A SBH Selfie!!

sbh says

As usual you shit on yourself, bent over, scooped it up and ate it all.

Yellin was shocked how much shit you ate. Go check out Zerohedge, it's all there with an interview no less.

Heraclitusstudent says

So is the money spent on healthcare not spent on other things. So is the money spent on groceries not spent on other things. It's just a different circuit through the economy. From a purely economic perspective, it doesn't matter. It's just work being done and paid on things we need, and money being spent.

Again the only difference is the structures. Is that the best way to organize work? In many cases the

For one thing it is immoral as the public sector is benefiting themselves at the private sectors expense.

For another that money does not go trough the public sector at a 100%

IOW a certain percentage gets hoarded by spending on luxury goods that will not come back to the taxpayer at all unless they work for Gucci or Tiffany or Rolls Royce or another high end goods producer.

A large percentage goes to pension funds that are guaranteed by the taxpayer that will not come back to the economy for a long time.

The money will be hoarded as the Fed is accusing the rich of doing now regarding QE.

Etc, etc, etc

The point is a large percentage of that money will not come back to the economy.

Heraclitusstudent says

Tariffs and regulations are not optional. You can't have a private sector without regulation. Sound industry is based on the rule of law. Whatever regulations you choose to have affect the outcome. It's just a choice.

BULL SHIT, tariffs are completely unnecessary and always to the detriment of the consumer.

You could have a fraction of the regulation without any affect, most are just pretend jobs all aimed at fleecing the business. IOW it is a charade. E.G. OSHA only comes around after an accident the usual fine is 20 - 50k. A friend of mine had a situation where one of his workers put a step ladder on the forks of a forklift and fell from about 25'. Osha fined him 30k for that claiming it was responsibility for the employee not to do this. Mind you the worker was paid through workmen's comp. Or look a court costs on just paying a traffic ticket.

The rule of law is very cumbersome and not aimed at justice instead as with the civil forfeiture law it is aimed at fleecing people. Actually Somalia has a very workable rule of law called xeer law, look it up. It is common law as opposed to statutory law which is what costs us dearly.

Heraclitusstudent says

You would have to be extremely naive to believe the private sector is all textbook competition on a level playing field, and one nice rounded price comes out of that.

As one who has been in business for decades I think you are the one who is naive. The difference is a business is held accountable to the market place the government agencies are not.

A business has to produce competitively priced goods the government does not.

The business gets sued government does not.

The business has very little protection where as a teacher e.g. cannot even be fired for misconduct.

Heraclitusstudent says

Of course there is a problem there. It's not an economic problem in the sense I explained: the money circulate regardless. A little bit more is spent on 1 activity and less on an other.

BULL SHIT, as I explained above it is very much a problem.

Heraclitusstudent says

- The US spent twice as much on healthcare as other industrial countries. Is that ruining the US? nope. There is a private industry that profits from it.

- We spend far more on housing now than a few decades ago. Is living under a roof more worthy than it was 30 yrs ago? I don't think so. But there is a lot of private workers making a living out of it.

Sure it is a problem. The reason for the health care costs is a because of limited competition states only license a certain amount of companies to compete in that state. The overarching problem is that the government controls spending through medicare which puts more money into the industry than otherwise would be there, this by definition creates inflation of healthcare costs. Just like it did for housing.

Heraclitusstudent says

The problem is structure: what mechanism you have to adjust the price? In the private sector it is fluid and changing all the time. In the public sector, with unions you mention, you wait until the city is bankrupt and defaults on its obligations. It's structure.

Say what? WTF you talking about Willis, It is called price discovery it is know and accepted, your ignorance of it does not make it invalid.

So your solution is to let cities go bankrupt?

EBGuy says

And... Standard & Poor’s raised its rating on California’s general obligation debt to A+ from A on Wednesday, the day after voters approved Proposition 2, which will bolster the state’s rainy day fund.

Or, as lakermania points out, this may be a result of Dems losing their supermajority.

I voted for prop 2. What we really need is a balanced budget amendment. These extremely stupid politicians in Sacramento need to take common sense financial management. They think money grows on trees.
It's usually the short sighted librul politicians who just love to spend the money we have not even earned yet.

indigenous says

For one thing it is immoral as the public sector is benefiting themselves at the private sectors expense.

Explain why it is more immoral to pay for common roads through taxes than paying repairs in my condo through my HOA, or paying repairs on my house myself.

Just because you put a tag "public sector" on it and you change the way it is paid doesn't change the nature of buying a service.

indigenous says

IOW a certain percentage gets hoarded by spending on luxury goods that will not come back to the taxpayer at all unless they work for Gucci or Tiffany or Rolls Royce or another high end goods producer.

Hoarded, means saved at the bank, right? And invested by the bank. Or invested directly buying stocks (pension funds). In any case used by the private sector, right?

Gucci or Tiffany or Rolls Royce are private companies, right? What was your point already?

Plus are you claiming that public teachers are buying luxury goods?

indigenous says

You could have a fraction of the regulation without any affect, most are just pretend jobs all aimed at fleecing the business. IOW it is a charade

Right. It's well known banks don't need regulations: let them take care of their business, they will not try to manipulate markets, or defraud people by any way they can. It's well known that if we let the chemical industries do whatever they want they will not dump toxic waste in our water. Etc, etc...

Let's not have legal accounting principles, mandatory public companies reporting or fiduciary duties. Who needs regulations?

Only a total idiots would claim you could have capitalism without laws.

Your remaining argument is just how much and which regulations you have, which is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is any regulations you have (and you need some) change the playing field. period.

indigenous says

A business has to produce competitively priced goods the government does not.

Right, because again:
- HTF traders deliver a "competitively priced good".
- private healthcare deliver a "competitively priced good". (mind to explain why private healthcare in the US is more expensive than any government provided healthcare in the world?)
- cable companies have strong competition and the resulting price is not extortion.
etc, etc...

indigenous says

The reason for the health care costs is a because of limited competition states only license a certain amount of companies to compete in that state. The overarching problem is that the government controls spending through medicare which puts more money into the industry than otherwise would be there, this by definition creates inflation of healthcare costs. Just like it did for housing.

Mind to explain why medicare provides cheaper healthcare than private insurances?
Mind to explain why private insurances in the US are more expensive than any government provided healthcare in the world?

Last time you were in an ambulance, did you shop around to find the better deal?
When your doctor prescribes a pill, do you shop around to see if a cheaper pill will do it?

There isn't any competition in healthcare because of the nature of this business.

indigenous says

So your solution is to let cities go bankrupt?

No my solution is to (1) minimize public services to things that need to be centralized, or are needed but not profitable, and (2) avoid public unions at all costs.

None of which means the public workers are not part of the economy as you were claiming.

Are the adults in charge now?
Wednesday McConnell told reporters, “There will be no government shutdowns.” McConnell is such an adult that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, the head scout in last year’s failed bid to “defund Obamacare,” pointedly refused to endorse McConnell as GOP leader in a recent Washington Post interview.
Sigh... I did miss the GOP mini-recession this year...

Heraclitusstudent says

Explain why it is more immoral to pay for common roads through taxes than paying repairs in my condo through my HOA, or paying repairs on my house myself.

Would you say someone robbing you at gun point was immoral? The public sector is doing the same thing. They take things by force.

Heraclitusstudent says

Just because you put a tag "public sector" on it and you change the way it is paid doesn't change the nature of buying a service.

It is very different because of the waste involved.

Heraclitusstudent says

Hoarded, means saved at the bank, right? And invested by the bank. Or invested directly buying stocks (pension funds). In any case used by the private sector, right?

As Yellin was complaining the other day the money is not put into circulation.

Heraclitusstudent says

Gucci or Tiffany or Rolls Royce are private companies, right? What was your point already?

The point is that the hoarded money which is in excess of the workers consumption then goes to those who receive the cheap or free money. Yesterday Southerby's auction house set a record for the most money paid for some art work. This is typical of what happens when the Fed prints money as it benefits those closest to the source of the money i.e. the .1%.

Heraclitusstudent says

Plus are you claiming that public teachers are buying luxury goods?

Many public sector workers, as George Will stated a while back, "public service may be it's own reward but Gucci and Tiffanys is nothing to sneeze at", this in response to all the high end luxury stores popping up in DC because of the excess money given to the public sector workers there.

Heraclitusstudent says

Right. It's well known banks don't need regulations: let them take care of their business, they will not try to manipulate markets, or defraud people by any way they can. It's well known that if we let the chemical industries do whatever they want they will not dump toxic waste in our water. Etc, etc...

Interest rates could very easily and infinity more efficiently be set by private banks. The money supply does not need to change one iota. You can google this at the Mises institute.

The chemical companies could be sued by the victims, the customer of the chemical company could vote with their feet and not buy goods from that company.

The real problem is say that the government should do something about this. NO you should do something about this.

Heraclitusstudent says

Let's not have legal accounting principles, mandatory public companies reporting or fiduciary duties. Who needs regulations?

BULLSHIT, take Sarbanes Oxley, it has been estimated to cost the economy 1.5 trillion dollars per year, yet in it's 10yr history it has yet to find one instance of financial irregularities.

As I stated earlier OSHA was self funded IOW a private company like the BBB or Consumer Reports could easily fill the functions and if they were not they would simply go out of business but as you can see Consumer Reports and the BBB are still here.

Heraclitusstudent says

- HTF traders deliver a "competitively priced good".

I assume you mean HFT, yes they deliver value to their customers, if they did not the customers would vote with their feet.

Heraclitusstudent says

- private healthcare deliver a "competitively priced good". (mind to explain why private healthcare in the US is more expensive than any government provided healthcare in the world?)

That is the point it is not private healthcare, it is cronyism.

Heraclitusstudent says

- cable companies have strong competition and the resulting price is not extortion.

etc, etc...

Apparently not as the EU gets twice the bandwidth for the price. The cable companies are de facto a public utility.

Heraclitusstudent says

Mind to explain why medicare provides cheaper healthcare than private insurances?

Because they use force to coierce their regulations upon us.

Mind to explain why private insurances in the US are more expensive than any government provided healthcare in the world?

Again because of cronyism.

Heraclitusstudent says

Last time you were in an ambulance, did you shop around to find the better deal?

When your doctor prescribes a pill, do you shop around to see if a cheaper pill will do it?

Since I was unconscious I did not have much of a choice regarding the ambulance, but sure would have otherwise. Same with the medicine my blood pressure medicine is $50 at CVS where as it is $8 at Target. I could probably take less if I did not talk to liberals.

Heraclitusstudent says

There isn't any competition in healthcare because of the nature of this business.

As I explained earlier that is not the reason at all.

Heraclitusstudent says

No my solution is

You have solution, yet not a perfunctory understanding of economics. Bullshit you need to learn enough to have an opinion.

Heraclitusstudent says

minimize public services to things that need to be centralized, or are needed but not profitable

Bullshit the lobbyists will demand that what they are selling is needed and vital. All the wars we are fighting currently were CREATED BY THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORSHeraclitusstudent says

avoid public unions at all costs.

That is the first thing you said the makes sense, on that I agree 100%

Heraclitusstudent says

None of which means the public workers are not part of the economy as you were claiming.

I have backed up what I have said quite well, you on the other hand are just saying things are this way because I says so.

This may be hard for you to look at but I really am saying take the red pill to see what I'm talking about or take the blue pill and see the same fairy tale that the powers to be want you to see. But I'm am not making this up.

Strategist says

Why does a strawberry picker get paid more in California than in Mexico, when they are doing the exact same work.

Rent in Mexico is a chicken a month.

Rent in US for the same filthy shack is a full chicken coup a month.

New Renter says

Rent in Mexico is a chicken a month.

How much does a duck buy?

indigenous says

New Renter says

Rent in Mexico is a chicken a month.

How much does a duck buy?

Same shack, but with a nice view of the garbage dump.

indigenous says

The public sector is doing the same thing. They take things by force.

So does the HOA. Or so does the bank take the mortgage money by force.
If you want to have a roof, what choice do you have?

So HFT traders take their cuts if you trade. If you want to trade they take it by force. What choice do you have?

In any case this is a moral question, which is irrelevant from an economic perspective.

indigenous says

It is very different because of the waste involved.

Are you claiming there is no waste in the private sector? You have never worked for a large company, have you?

Further it doesn't change the fact that public workers are part of the economy, and what is spent circulate in the economy.

indigenous says

As Yellin was complaining the other day the money is not put into circulation.

I thought we were talking about whether it is returned to the private sector. Which it is.

indigenous says

The point is that the hoarded money which is in excess of the workers consumption then goes to those who receive the cheap or free money. Yesterday Southerby's auction house set a record

Are you seriously claiming public teachers are shopping at Gucci and Sutherby?

indigenous says

The chemical companies could be sued by the victims

An army of lawyer fighting. How is that more efficient than having a clear rule and enforcing it?
I would say it's a much worse solution.

indigenous says

BULLSHIT, take Sarbanes Oxley, it has been estimated to cost the economy 1.5 trillion dollars per year, yet in it's 10yr history it has yet to find one instance of financial irregularities.

BS out of your ass.

So let's give up ANY accounting principle? Let companies report WHATEVER THEY WANT? Is that what you are proposing?
What do you think would be the cost of that?

indigenous says

I assume you mean HFT, yes they deliver value to their customers, if they did not the customers would vote with their feet.

Whose customers, you moron? At the expense of whom?
Yeah those who pay the robbers to rob profit. Thanks for that great lesson of moral.
Are you expecting the victims to vote with their feet? to go where?

indigenous says

That is the point it is not private healthcare, it is cronyism.

Assuming this, we always go back to the same point: THESE ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES.
Yeah private companies corrupt.

Welcome to reality.

The only force that could police corruption is the government itself, but this is exactly where the corruption happens...
Thanks for showing your assumption of a perfect "private world" doesn't apply. It will never apply.
You can keep chasing an utopia or see the world as it is: groups of people fighting to extract a living out of other people.

This happens whether public or private.

If you are just looking how much money flow in the hands of people, it doesn't make any difference.
You simply have shown nothing to disprove this.

I have illustrated my points quite well but you only answer with conjecture that is deteriorating into ad hominem. You have decided to take the blue pill, "have a nice day"...

indigenous says

New Renter says

Rent in Mexico is a chicken a month.

How much does a duck buy?

(and that's just the gate house).

http://www.youtube.com/embed/YN6uMI6TCAw

New Renter says

indigenous says

New Renter says

Rent in Mexico is a chicken a month.

How much does a duck buy?

(and that's just the gate house).

Lucky duck.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/1lGL3FsveZ4

Did that guy win a Grammy for that performance?

I mean it was so damn good, you can put any dialog to it, and it works.