Grover Norquist and the Republicans have betrayed the US military!

[NineSpine]

Sorry, I meant they don't reduce their debt. It's a central part of Keynesianism, which you espouse.

Much of Keynes' theories has been proven correct by repeated testing over the decades. This is also true for many concepts proposed by Austrians. However, you treat these things like ideologies, as opposed to blocks of theories, and it ends up warping the way you approach the topic. The idea that government borrowing can stimulate the economy is as much an economic fact as the evolution is a biological fact.

Again. I did not say flat tax. I meant closing loopholes. Then decreasing the general level of taxation by an amount reflected in the increased taxation caused by the closing of the loopholes.

- States restrict competition in the insurance market by prohibiting competition between states

The problem exists just as much in states with large amounts of competition as states with little competition. California is one of the largest economies on the planet, and the problem is still prevalent there.

- US medical license boards (controlled by AMA members) artificially restricting the supply of medical professionals. You can only get licensed from a few elite universities. This control of the supply of doctors allows the wages of the doctors already licensed to go up, and they are now about double of their European counterparts

The lack of doctors has more to do with skyrocketing tuitions and the fact that high school prepares people very very poorly for technical education. It's not an elaborate conspiracy. Occams razor, your worst enemy.

- Bad regulation on what health procedures must be done by doctors, which for example restrict nurses from conducting certain simple procedures to create more employment and higher salaries for the doctors. E.g. prohibiting nurses from delivering babies.

I've spent a lot of time in hospitals in my life, in numerous countries. I've spent significantly less time with doctors here. Nurses do Almost everything here. It's ridiculous. I've had six hour emergency room visits that included less than ten minutes with a doctor.

-Medicaid & Medicare driving up costs. For example medicare&medicaid compensates doctors by how many procedures are performed instead of how many problems are solved, or even how many problems have been attempted to be solved.

Yet Medicare and Medicaid show better costs per person than private insurance. Wile the problem you cite is certainly real, it cut ally goes to show how dramatically warped private insurance is, because even with this problem, they are still obscenely expensive.

-'Certificate of Need'-programs restrict new hospitals or other healthcare providing from being created, and the established holders of the certificates can easily deny new entrants.

What this prevents is from competing hospitals from racing to the bottom and creating a situation where there are no good options in an area. It's easy to ignore this issue in a small country, but it isn't in the united states.

-States regulate the content of healthcare insurance, which means that they're filled with crap people don't really need which raises the cost. The less people pay out of pocket the less people care about the cost of the healthcare services they seek, which means that price competition is not an option for healthcare providers.

This problem is almost uniform throughout the states, and every state has a different degree of regulation, including very little in some States.

Bad analogy. You can't solve a debt problem by more debt, or a spending problem through more spending.

Spoken like someone who has never owned a business. If your business is failing, it is frequently the best course of action to take out a loan to keep yourself going. I've done it before, and it's the only reason I'm still in business.

Here's a simple real world example: you have a car and it's in rough shape. You are already in debt and need to car to get to work and pay off the debt. If you wait for the car to break down, you'll lose your ability to make money and be in way worse shape. In this situation, it's better to go further into debt in order to secure your position and prevent a complete catastrophe.

When it comes to governments, this is even easier. You are arguing against something that has a proven track record of success in dozens and dozens of examples over the last seventy years.

I hate to say this, but you really often come off like a sixteen year old kid who has lived in a country with a tight social safety net, coming from a wealthy family, and really has no idea how the world actually works. To say something like you can't solve a debt problem with more debt is freaking nuts and totally shows a lack of ever having to deal with real life circumstances. When I was young, I worked for a pizzeria that was doing horribly. They took out a business loan to revamp the pizzeria and hire more delivery people and buy some advertising. Shocker.. The business became significantly more successful. This is how things work in the real world.

[Deleted]

Much of Keynes' theories has been proven correct by repeated testing over the decades. This is also true for many concepts proposed by Austrians. However, you treat these things like ideologies, as opposed to blocks of theories, and it ends up warping the way you approach the topic. The idea that government borrowing can stimulate the economy is as much an economic fact as the evolution is a biological fact.

Lol. I guess if you classify reducing the government burden on economy as stimulus then yes (less regulation, less taxes, less govt spending). You sound like a MMT follower. Also, I don't know even nearly enough about Austrian economics to say that I agree with all that it teaches. Our professors where I study are proponents of various schools.

1.The problem exists just as much in states with large amounts of competition as states with little competition. California is one of the largest economies on the planet, and the problem is still prevalent there.

2.The lack of doctors has more to do with skyrocketing tuitions and the fact that high school prepares people very very poorly for technical education. It's not an elaborate conspiracy. Occams razor, your worst enemy

3.I've spent a lot of time in hospitals in my life, in numerous countries. I've spent significantly less time with doctors here. Nurses do Almost everything here. It's ridiculous. I've had six hour emergency room visits that included less than ten minutes with a doctor.

4.Yet Medicare and Medicaid show better costs per person than private insurance. Wile the problem you cite is certainly real, it cut ally goes to show how dramatically warped private insurance is, because even with this problem, they are still obscenely expensive.

5.What this prevents is from competing hospitals from racing to the bottom and creating a situation where there are no good options in an area. It's easy to ignore this issue in a small country, but it isn't in the united states.

1.Less competition increases the price. My last point about mandating what insurance must include also increases the price. Alleged uniformity isn't very relevant here.

2.And you do not think tuitions rise because the amount of places where doctors can be educated is artificially limited? Surely it would be a great way to make money if you started teaching medicine right now, seeing how much people seek to become doctors.

3. Nurses are supposed to do almost everything, but the fact is still that alot of these regulations exists. They vary from state to state though. Also personal anecdote is meaningless.

4. Medicare and Medicaid contribute to the cost of private insurance.

5. Race to the bottom? LOL, what are you talking about? Without competition the private healthcare market can never reduce prices. You whine about healthcare costs but yet defend something that drives them up? Jesus...

Bad responses to acknowledged causes of why the Private Healthcare market in the US is expensive.

When it comes to governments, this is even easier. You are arguing against something that has a proven track record of success in dozens and dozens of examples over the last seventy years.

You mean like Japan lol? Massive Keynesian stimulus and too big to fail bailouts and multiple decades lost - and still on the brink of economic collapse.

The biggest thing is that a government isn't a business. It doesn't work that way. The government takes wealth and spends it, it's not given to it by voluntarily consumers like in a business. It doesn't try to make profitable investments, and that's fine - it is a government. The only thing that works is Austerity or default.

Would you argue that Greece could sort itself out if it could just get a little more credit from the rest of the world?

I hate to say this, but you really often come off like a sixteen year old kid who has lived in a country with a tight social safety net, coming from a wealthy family, and really has no idea how the world actually works.

Very typical to resort to personal insults. For your info, I'm not from a wealthy family. I study economics in the best or second best (depends who you ask) business school in Finland. I've worked my share of bottom feeder jobs when I was younger.

[NineSpine]

Lol. I guess if you classify reducing the government burden on economy as stimulus then yes (less regulation, less taxes, less govt spending). You sound like a MMT follower. Also, I don't know even nearly enough about Austrian economics to say that I agree with all that it teaches. Our professors where I study are proponents of various schools.

1.Less competition increases the price. My last point about mandating what insurance must include also increases the price. Alleged uniformity isn't very relevant here.

2.And you do not think tuitions rise because the amount of places where doctors can be educated is artificially limited? Surely it would be a great way to make money if you started teaching medicine right now, seeing how much people seek to become doctors.

3. Nurses are supposed to do almost everything, but the fact is still that alot of these regulations exists. They vary from state to state though. Also personal anecdote is meaningless.

4. Medicare and Medicaid contribute to the cost of private insurance.

5. Race to the bottom? LOL, what are you talking about? Without competition the private healthcare market can never reduce prices. You whine about healthcare costs but yet defend something that drives them up? Jesus...

Bad responses to acknowledged causes of why the Private Healthcare market in the US is expensive.

You mean like Japan lol? Massive Keynesian stimulus and too big to fail bailouts and multiple decades lost - and still on the brink of economic collapse.

The biggest thing is that a government isn't a business. It doesn't work that way. The government takes wealth and spends it, it's not given to it by voluntarily consumers like in a business. It doesn't try to make profitable investments, and that's fine - it is a government. The only thing that works is Austerity or default.

Would you argue that Greece could sort itself out if it could just get a little more credit from the rest of the world?

Very typical to resort to personal insults. For your info, I'm not from a wealthy family. I study economics in the best or second best (depends who you ask) business school in Finland. I've worked my share of bottom feeder jobs when I was younger.

If you were right about the costs, then a few things would be true. First of all, the costs would be higher in states with more regulation. That isn't true. Second of all, Medicare and Medicaid would cost more per person than private insurance. That isn't true. Third of all, the costs would be higher in countries with single payer systems. That isn't true.

In short: none of your assertions mesh with the facts. They are just assertions. This is the fundamental problem with almost all of your arguments. You don't like evidence. It's not surprising that you are so attracted to austrian economics, because it is based on the same disdain for facts. Thats the reason austrian economics moved out of the mainstream a half a century ago and has become pretty much a joke at this point. You start at the position that government is the problem. You then look for reasons to back up that position.

Your comment about Japan is a great example. There never was a Lost decade or decades. Japan has been a powerhouse steamroller through the last decades, including a five fold increase in their surplus and the most prominent rise in currency strength in the world. As far the actual citizenry is concerned, Japan has done wonderfully. Only by focusing on a hilariously narrow set of numbers can you conclude there was a lost decade.

"the only thing that works is austerity or default." sure... Except that the united states has never had to default and hasn't reacted to a single recession with austerity since WWII... And has recovered pretty quickly from all of them until this one, the first one we didn't respond to with adequate stimulation. Your assertions simply do not match reality.

Greece has no control over their currency. The euro was always a stupid idea. Bringing that up is ridiculous.

The idea that the government doesn't try to make profitable investments is insane and divorced from all logic and reality, and relies on an excessively, ignorantly demonic and caricatured view of what a government does. The government investment into the economy can facilitate business and make the economy better. Examples are post offices and roads, police departments and fire departments, etc. etc. etc.. Even education helps the economy.

You need to stop molding reality around your opinion, and start doing the opposite.

[Rexter2k5]

Just to preface my feelings on the matter. I'm 17, I don't like to pick sides between Democrat or Republican, and Liberal or Conservative. I've just learned to read an issue, and take a stand on the scale of grey. I'm pulling up most of my information from the documentary "Why We Fight" by the way, which has a very pronounced disdain for the government machinations (which transcends petty political philosophies). To explain to people who like quick explanations, I'd say I'm a Social Liberal and a Fiscal Conservative in the European sense of the words (because we're so ass-backwards on how to describe things). Basically yes to gays, and yes to welfare, also: Occupy.

As for the cuts to the military, yes they are necessary, and yes I am glad they happened. Let's take most of that money out of the system and the rest can be spent on education and helping college students pay loans because I am about to become a college student. I've looked at the rough estimates without and scholarship help. By age 22 I'd be 80k in debt, so what's the point of buying my house without getting my house? I get tired of people criticizing the plan to help college students pay off their loans because of this "tax dollars" bullshit. Seriously, why wouldn't you want your tax money to help kids get an education instead of arming them and sending them off to a war zone in country smaller and more vulnerable then ours? Where the hell is the logic in that? It hurts me to see an armed paramilitary police force using pepper spray on kids my age who protest peacefully, so much so that I've given up on this country like almost half of the Americans who can vote. Most of the times I wonder if I'm in an Orwellian police state or if I'm an experiment of Huxley and Bradbury.

I'm not saying that I hate soldiers or policemen, I just hate brutality and the contractors of such. I hate subjects worthy of hate, like terror and destruction (death falls into neither category), not policemen who have to clean up protesters or risk losing their jobs, policemen don't fight for this mythical "1%" willingly, they do it because they're the government's hand, and the government's body was bought and paid for by 1980. So they do it because it's their job and their job has become de facto guardianship of the "1%", they don't pick and choose their fights, they can't. The ANZACs didn't get to pick Gallipoli as the fighting point, their superiors did.

To show contrast though, here's what I like:

I like though when my government attempts to fix a bridge through contractors, I like it when my government lets me ride an efficient train to work (like in France or Japan) instead of causing congestion, I like it when my government helps fund businesses and people with smart ideas or gives tax cuts for hiring Americans (although that could be avoided altogether by implementing a global minimum wage, with violators facing severe economic sanctions). I like it when my government tries to help its people instead of killing others. In fact not even "its" people, just people in general. I'll put it to you this way: I like smart government (oxymoron, I know) and from all the complaints of actual people (not corporations) I think most Americans would like one too.

The problem most Americans have is defining "smart government", most say it means cuts, I say it's cutting stupid sinkholes like the War on Drugs or a Military and CIA budget that damn near exceeds 25% of the budget. To give you a point of reference, the USSR spent 33% of its budget on the military during the 1980's and I ask you, how well did that work out for them? I'll keep social security and welfare thank you very much. I also find it ironic that Republican elites want to cut social security and get actual working class people to agree with that. It's also funny considering their big fuss during the health care bill included "death panels". By cutting social security, guess who they've just judged worthy for death; who's on the death panel now, mate?

But back to the real issue: Military spending. Cut the stupid, pay for the troops, some improvements on hardware, but stop with these stupid damn deals of billions and billions on stupid shit that will never work. Spend it on helping small businesses and entrepreneurs, tax the rich who attempt to block the process, and tax the corporations that do too or if they really resist, go Teddy Roosevelt on those motherfuckers. Give that money to actual business that see people, not fucking profit.

I've got a few videos also lined up to show you what I mean:

George Carlin - Nobody Cares About You:
http://youtu.be/Yi6XV8yBFoU

Bill Hicks - All You Need to Know
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTWRYMmnuY

As for tl;dr I say this: ts;dw.

[Deleted]

If you were right about the costs, then a few things would be true. First of all, the costs would be higher in states with more regulation. That isn't true. Second of all, Medicare and Medicaid would cost more per person than private insurance. That isn't true. Third of all, the costs would be higher in countries with single payer systems. That isn't true.

None of the above have to be true. What I'm saying are actually publicly known facts. Infact, so public that we were thaught this in Finnish schools. A big reason for why single-payer systems are often cheaper is because it's easy to cap the costs, altough it creates queues. Another reason is because the quality is often slightly worse, we don't use state of the art equipment or focus too much on patient comfort. I have no idea why you're arguing against something that even liberals agree on (especially across state competition being prohibited causing higher costs). Also I would like proof that the insurance costs are not different at all, which I don't believe.

I have however not presented any proof that a single-payer system is not better than a free-market one. I have only presented the reasons why the current US model is expensive due to government involvement.

In short: none of your assertions mesh with the facts. They are just assertions. This is the fundamental problem with almost all of your arguments. You don't like evidence. It's not surprising that you are so attracted to austrian economics, because it is based on the same disdain for facts. Thats the reason austrian economics moved out of the mainstream a half a century ago and has become pretty much a joke at this point. You start at the position that government is the problem. You then look for reasons to back up that position.

I don't like Evidence? You don't ever provide any. You just write trash and ad hominem attacks and proclaim "you have the facts" without ever presenting any. I'm sorry but you come off as a butthurt Keynesian whose whole economic worldview is collapsing infront of your eyes.

Austrian economies is actually based only on facts, and no speculation. It doesn't rely solely on empirical evidence, which we in economics know is not very trustworthy. You can't do controlled experiments like in chemistry. The fact that Austrian economics only relies on reason and indisputable facts to come to their conclusions does make it a very limited tool, however. I don't think it's a surprise that Austrians saw this bubble coming years before it crashed (back in 2001 when Greenspan lowered interest rates + all the housing programs). But Austrian economics alone is a pretty useless tool, you need to combine it with the thoughts of other free market economists.

Your comment about Japan is a great example. There never was a Lost decade or decades. Japan has been a powerhouse steamroller through the last decades, including a five fold increase in their surplus and the most prominent rise in currency strength in the world. As far the actual citizenry is concerned, Japan has done wonderfully. Only by focusing on a hilariously narrow set of numbers can you conclude there was a lost decade.

You're right that deflation does not mean that there is a lost decade. Surprising for a Keynesian to admit that lol. However, in the 90's their real GDP did stagnate for about 10 years. Japan now has a totally unsustainable debt, where even a small movement in interest rates could cause a default. They spend almost 40% of their revenue to service their debt. Their budget deficit is 30% of expenditures. Their central bankers lose monetary policies have driven their governments debts up and caused massive bubbles (e.g. asset price bubble that burst in '90)

"the only thing that works is austerity or default." sure... Except that the united states has never had to default and hasn't reacted to a single recession with austerity since WWII... And has recovered pretty quickly from all of them until this one, the first one we didn't respond to with adequate stimulation. Your assertions simply do not match reality.

Well the 70's was pretty much a disaster with stagflation. And these recessions weren't fought with stimulus in the sense of massive public works programs either. So I'm not really sure what you're on about. And the stimulus that has been engaged in during this downturn has been massive. Trillions in bank bailouts, toxic asset purchases and bailouts of failing companies like GM. Quantitative easing in the hundreds of billions. Ridiculous cash for clunker shit (altough small in expenditure) that will mark the insanity of the Keynesian cult.

Greece has no control over their currency. The euro was always a stupid idea. Bringing that up is ridiculous.

They don't need control over their currency. They don't need to devalue their currency. Devaluing your currency through printing more money is just the same as increasing taxation and reducing spending.

The idea that the government doesn't try to make profitable investments is insane and divorced from all logic and reality, and relies on an excessively, ignorantly demonic and caricatured view of what a government does. The government investment into the economy can facilitate business and make the economy better. Examples are post offices and roads, police departments and fire departments, etc. etc. etc.. Even education helps the economy.

Post offices, lol. I heard it made about about 6 billion dollars in lossess with a revenue of only 60 billion. Sounds like government profitability to me.

And yes, alot of the spending helps the economy when looked at it in a vacuum. However all this spending comes from taking money from someone who would've spent it much more efficiently. And government isn't concerned with spending it more profitably than the taxpayer - and that's ok. It's not required to do that anyway. But when the government gets too big, it invariably means that the private sector suffers.

You need to stop molding reality around your opinion, and start doing the opposite.

Here we go again. This sort of talk contributes nothing to the discussion. "Im right you're wrong nananannanana".

[Deleted]

Actually the USPS is losing money right now because of the bill passed in 2006 by Bush II, that requires the USPS to fund pensions for all employees in the next 75 years...in a 10-year period.

I don't believe ralph nader but I believe your link. The Net income suddenly jumped down by alot in '07, coinciding too perfectly with the extra costs of that act. So I thank you for informing me about it. Either way, it's projected to be doing billions in losses in the future as well.

And to be honest, in todays day and age I don't really see a need for nationalized post offices. I understand their purpose before the electronic age though - altough in general they have been pretty poorly run. In Finland we're cutting the amount of post offices as well.

I feel for your sister in law, as well as the employees in our local post office - but the money saved there will hopefully go back to the private market which will create another job there.

[Sunseeker]

I don't believe ralph nader but I believe your link. The Net income suddenly jumped down by alot in '07, coinciding too perfectly with the extra costs of that act. So I thank you for informing me about it. Either way, it's projected to be doing billions in losses in the future as well.

And to be honest, in todays day and age I don't really see a need for nationalized post offices. I understand their purpose before the electronic age though - altough in general they have been pretty poorly run. In Finland we're cutting the amount of post offices as well.

I feel for your sister in law, as well as the employees in our local post office - but the money saved there will hopefully go back to the private market which will create another job there.

Unfortunately in the interim between the demolition of the public system and the establishment of a private system there will likely be a great deal of problems with sending and receiving mail and packages. Which in an age that is not fully digital(only half my bills have "online only" options) can cause a lot of problems. Even if a private solution is developed, I find it unlikely that it will be anywhere close to as effective as the USPS, likely cutting a lot of small towns and particularly those with sparse populations out of the mail-loop. Or charging them an arm and a leg for not being a major metropolitan area where everyone is stacked on top of each other.

[Deleted]

Unfortunately in the interim between the demolition of the public system and the establishment of a private system there will likely be a great deal of problems with sending and receiving mail and packages. Which in an age that is not fully digital(only half my bills have "online only" options) can cause a lot of problems.

That's true. That's why cutting the USPS for example completely in an instant is bad. The private companies that rely on it cannot adapt and the private delivery companies cannot react fast enough.

This is one reason why alot of people are saying that cuts need to be made now - while they still can be made with control and through phasing out. Because if there is a default, then it all ends in an instant.

Even if a private solution is developed, I find it unlikely that it will be anywhere close to as effective as the USPS, likely cutting a lot of small towns and particularly those with sparse populations out of the mail-loop. Or charging them an arm and a leg for not being a major metropolitan area where everyone is stacked on top of each other.

If it costs less to deliver to a certain place, then their price should be lower. If the cost of delivery is higher for another place, then the price charged should be higher. This is called efficiency, and ensures the most economic use of resources. It's totally irresponsible to advocate "equality" in prices for two completely different services.

[NineSpine]

None of the above have to be true. What I'm saying are actually publicly known fact. Infact, so public that we were thaught this in Finnish schools.

No, they are not facts; they are assertions that contradict the evidence.

A big reason for why single-payer systems are often cheaper is because it's easy to cap the costs, altough it creates queues. Another reason is because the quality is often slightly worse, we don't use state of the art equipment or focus too much on patient comfort. I have no idea why you're arguing against something that even liberals agree on (especially across state competition being prohibited causing higher costs). Also I would like proof that the insurance costs are not different at all, which I don't believe.

If all of that was true, then countries with single payer systems should have worse healthcare outcomes than the United States. They do not. Here are the examples that I expect you to proceed to ignore:

The U.S. ranks worse than almost every first world country in infant mortality:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html

The U.S. ranks worse than almost every first world country in life expectancy:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

Those are the two main indicators of your healthcare system, and the U.S. sucks on both counts. If you look at common illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, the United States either has high mortality rates or comes out middle of the pack, despite a system that costs SIGNIFICANTLY more than those of other countries.

I have however not presented any proof that a single-payer system is not better than a free-market one. I have only presented the reasons why the current US model is expensive due to government involvement.

You have presented assertions that disagree wildly with the facts, and that's it.

I don't like Evidence? You don't ever provide any. You just write trash and ad hominem attacks and proclaim "you have the facts" without ever presenting any. I'm sorry but you come off as a butthurt Keynesian whose whole economic worldview is collapsing infront of your eyes.

I don't see how thirty years of lowering taxes and deregulation resulting in complete disaster is MY worldview falling apart, so whatever.

Austrian economies is actually based only on facts, and no speculation. It doesn't rely solely on empirical evidence, which we in economics know is not very trustworthy. You can't do controlled experiments like in chemistry. The fact that Austrian economics only relies on reason and indisputable facts to come to their conclusions does make it a very limited tool, however. I don't think it's a surprise that Austrians saw this bubble coming years before it crashed (back in 2001 when Greenspan lowered interest rates + all the housing programs). But Austrian economics alone is a pretty useless tool, you need to combine it with the thoughts of other free market economists.

Austrian economics is LITERALLY based on the idea that you cannot use math or econometrics to study economics. Austrian economics is just a bunch of unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific nonsense. It is the creationism of economics. Instead of arguing why their theories are correct, they assume that the theories are correct and then argue that since you cannot ever achieve absolute certainty with other economic schools, then Austrians must be right. The problem is that nobody is claiming absolute certainty. We are looking at evidence, such as obvious repeating patterns, and drawing logical conclusions by applying scientific rigor to the theories meant to explain them. Austrians reject this notion entirely.

In short: Austrian theories are unfalsifiable and intentionally unquantifiable. That is the DEFINITION of pseudo-science.

The real problem here is that Austrians did have a point a century ago, when modern economics was in it's infancy. However, that time has long passed, because modern technology has given us the ability to quantify the previously unquantifiable, and to create data sets FAR larger than were even dreamed of back then. It's essentially the same as people who argued that we will never know what the Moon is made out of, because they couldn't imagine we would ever go there. However, we have gone there, and we now have samples. To keep making that same argument now would be insane.

You're right that deflation does not mean that there is a lost decade. Surprising for a Keynesian to admit that lol. However, in the 90's their real GDP did stagnate for about 10 years. Japan now has a totally unsustainable debt, where even a small movement in interest rates could cause a default. They spend almost 40% of their revenue to service their debt. Their budget deficit is 30% of expenditures. Their central bankers lose monetary policies have driven their governments debts up and caused massive bubbles (e.g. asset price bubble that burst in '90)

I'm not a Keynesian, and your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you MUST be a Keynesian shows how INCREDIBLY shallow your understanding of economics is. You think economics is a battle of competing ideologies built on moral frameworks, because you have intentionally blinded yourself to the scientific rigor of real economic work. This is absolutely no different than the people who deny evolution because they can't get passed the mindset that evolution and creationism are both moral frameworks which are battling for control.

Japan definitely has a problem with their debt, but you are (as usual) trying to oversimplify a significantly more complex situation. As far as the life of the average Japanese person goes, things have been on the upswing for the last twenty years.

Well the 70's was pretty much a disaster with stagflation. And these recessions weren't fought with stimulus in the sense of massive public works programs either. So I'm not really sure what you're on about. And the stimulus that has been engaged in during this downturn has been massive. Trillions in bank bailouts, toxic asset purchases and bailouts of failing companies like GM. Quantitative easing in the hundreds of billions. Ridiculous cash for clunker shit (altough small in expenditure) that will mark the insanity of the Keynesian cult.

The recession in the 70s was not terribly long, not nearly as bad as people make it out to be today, and was simply a product of a perfect storm of problems. You had an oil crisis, a steel crisis, and a drawdown from a major military action. However, the government DID respond with increased social spending, and the recession sorted out relatively quickly. However, it's hard to gauge what ended the problem, because of the external factors of that recession. That said... it really wasn't that bad.

They don't need control over their currency. They don't need to devalue their currency. Devaluing your currency through printing more money is just the same as increasing taxation and reducing spending.

My only point was that Greece warrants a conversation in and of itself, and making it a blurb in this separate conversation is a waste of time. But if you want to keep talking to yourself about it, go right ahead.

Post offices, lol. I heard it made about about 6 billion dollars in lossess with a revenue of only 60 billion. Sounds like government profitability to me.

This was answered by someone else, so I'll elaborate on your other comments:

The post office provides service to all Americans, and it's a necessity. That's why the Founding Fathers felt it necessary to include it in the Constitution. If you make it private, there WILL be a sizable portion of the U.S. population for which providing that service is not worth setting up an office for. It will be too expensive. Your argument is like saying you can set up a store anywhere and be successful as long as you price your goods correctly for that market. That isn't true. Sometimes, the market is so tiny that there is no hope for profits. In the case of the post office, this problem is exacerbated by the fact that you are also putting costs EXTERNAL to the community. For example, someone has to pay extra to mail ME something if I live in one of these problem areas, meaning I am likely to be excluded entirely from doing business with certain people because it isn't worth them paying for the shipping.

The post office is inexpensive and only unprofitable because Republicans intentionally rigged it to fail with the pension scam. Period. It facilitates business and greases the wheels of commerce. There is no downside. When you argue against it on *principle*, you are showing that your concern is not with what works, but with what fits your model of how the world should be. When things which are win/win situations that hurt nobody are bad in your world view, then your world view is inherently warped and destructive. That's the kind of thinking that leads to rigging successful programs, like the post office, to fail.

And yes, alot of the spending helps the economy when looked at it in a vacuum. However all this spending comes from taking money from someone who would've spent it much more efficiently. And government isn't concerned with spending it more profitably than the taxpayer - and that's ok. It's not required to do that anyway. But when the government gets too big, it invariably means that the private sector suffers.

Here we go again. This sort of talk contributes nothing to the discussion. "Im right you're wrong nananannanana".

You assume that the person in question would have spent it more efficiently. This is a GREAT example of how Austrians use unfalsifiable, pseudo-scientific, moralistic declarations. There is NO evidence that private market actors always spend more efficiently than a government would. NONE. It is an unfalsifiable assumption you make that is not backed up by any evidence. In fact, it is contradicted by numerous strains of evidence, including the fact that countries with powerful social safety nets are almost UNIVERSALLY in better shape than those without, economically.

[grimsanta]

As someone who just received a masters in economics, this thread makes me lol. Both the liberals and conservatives on this thread are trying to expand on ideas that they know nothing about, and it's just sad. You all act like your way is 100% right and the other person is wrong wrong wrong.

I wish people would actually read more than wikipedia before going onto the internet.

I've studied economics for 6.5 years, and I realize that while I'm much more on the left in my opinions, there's somebody out there on the far right who has studied these things for 40 more years than I have. And they might be right or wrong.

[Dacien]

As someone who just received a masters in economics, this thread makes me lol. Both the liberals and conservatives on this thread are trying to expand on ideas that they know nothing about, and it's just sad. You all act like your way is 100% right and the other person is wrong wrong wrong.

I wish people would actually read more than wikipedia before going onto the internet.

I've studied economics for 6.5 years, and I realize that while I'm much more on the left in my opinions, there's somebody out there on the far right who has studied these things for 40 more years than I have. And they might be right or wrong.

Well if you've got something to contribute, I think we'd all be better for hearing it.

[grimsanta]

Well if you've got something to contribute, I think we'd all be better for hearing it.

Eh, it's pointless really. Discussions when it comes to something as complicated as economics are pointless. People here seem to have their opinions and aren't really listening to what the other person says, but are just out to prove the other person wrong.

But here's my tidbit as far as the economic discussion is concerned:

Keynes was mostly right about domestic spending and growth. In fact, the 1940s basically showed that more than anything else. He was once even quoted to say that his ideas weren't politically feasable, except in war time. Only during WW2 were his ideas ever realized. All the semi-socialistic practices of the 1960s and 1970s weren't really Keynesian at all.

The problem with Keynesian economics is the spread of globalization. You see, under Keynesian theory, the government had oversight and could "inject" capital into weak sectors that should be upheld. You can't do this with a globalized economy. There is no way to effectivly regulate other countries, and therefore the government has little power. We used to, but that was only because our economy was HUGE compared to others, and a lot of nations did not want to trade with the USSR. Now it's a whole different animal.

The effect has been this: Government capital injection into private industry does not have the effect that it used to have. Back in the 1940s, when a dollar was spent here in the US by the government, it would circulate through industries again and again and again, and it would stay in this country. With globalization and the way that money basically travels through finance companies (who often leverage a dollar seven different ways overseas), and our lack of true exports, government spending does not have near the effect that it used to.

I could go on and on about Milton Friedman as well, but he's seen as some right-winger when that's really not the case. He had some VERY socialistic ideas that were mixed in to a free market system. I personally think his sytem would work fairly well if followed as he said, but the right wing only wants to take the free-market part, and not the not the minimum income guarenteed by his ideas.

But whatever, economists aren't actually listened to. They just peel the ideas off of us that match their pre-determined mindset.

[NineSpine]

Eh, it's pointless really. Discussions when it comes to something as complicated as economics are pointless. People here seem to have their opinions and aren't really listening to what the other person says, but are just out to prove the other person wrong.

But here's my tidbit as far as the economic discussion is concerned:

Keynes was mostly right about domestic spending and growth. In fact, the 1940s basically showed that more than anything else. He was once even quoted to say that his ideas weren't politically feasable, except in war time. Only during WW2 were his ideas ever realized. All the semi-socialistic practices of the 1960s and 1970s weren't really Keynesian at all.

The problem with Keynesian economics is the spread of globalization. You see, under Keynesian theory, the government had oversight and could "inject" capital into weak sectors that should be upheld. You can't do this with a globalized economy. There is no way to effectivly regulate other countries, and therefore the government has little power. We used to, but that was only because our economy was HUGE compared to others, and a lot of nations did not want to trade with the USSR. Now it's a whole different animal.

The effect has been this: Government capital injection into private industry does not have the effect that it used to have. Back in the 1940s, when a dollar was spent here in the US by the government, it would circulate through industries again and again and again, and it would stay in this country. With globalization and the way that money basically travels through finance companies (who often leverage a dollar seven different ways overseas), and our lack of true exports, government spending does not have near the effect that it used to.

I could go on and on about Milton Friedman as well, but he's seen as some right-winger when that's really not the case. He had some VERY socialistic ideas that were mixed in to a free market system. I personally think his sytem would work fairly well if followed as he said, but the right wing only wants to take the free-market part, and not the not the minimum income guaranteed by his ideas.

But whatever, economists aren't actually listened to. They just peel the ideas off of us that match their pre-determined mindset.

That's a good point about Friedman. I've always agreed with him on the negative income tax idea, although for him it was a step towards eradication of that type of government intervention. That said, most of our old great thinkers and leaders end up being turned into something they weren't by people who want to attach them to their own ideas. I can't tell you how many times I've heard FDR called a Keynesian because of the New Deal, which is completely divorced from reality.

I think that your point about government spending not being what it used to is certainly correct, but I think that is a sign that we need to seriously look at capital injection AND some measures of protectionism to keep those dollars here. It's a tight rope to walk though.

What is your opinion on Austrian economics?

[grimsanta]

What do I think about Austrian economics? Meh, I think it's a bunch of crap that's been debunked a thousand different ways by people on both the right and the left and the only people who actually believe it are Ron Paul fanatics and old men who refuse to accept that their logic is flawed.

Case in point, currency, which is probably the biggest part of their theory, and it's just plain wrong. We'll never ever go back to a non-fiat currency because it would take our nations ability away to manipulate our own currency! That's a HUGE point. If we are stuck on say, gold, then our entire economy is at the whim of every other country's use of gold. AND they get to manipulate their currency at the same time. It puts any country who would use the gold standard at a competitive disadvantage. So even if it were a good idea for everyone to be on gold, we'll never go back to it. Why would a country give up monetary souvernty on purpose?

But non-fiat currencies are bad ideas anyways. Take gold again, for example. When value is created in an economy, and the quantity of a currency stays the same, then that means the value of the currency most go up. So, when an economy becomes more valuable, gold becomes more valueable. The problem here, is that creates a huge incentive to just hang onto your money and not spend it. Because when money deflates, it is essentially an investment of itself!

The other problem here is what happens when a market becomes speculative under gold. When an economic crash happens with gold, then the price of gold falls dramatically. If gold is the currency everyone is using, than everyone in the nation would suddenly have a lot less money. This happens under all types of currencies, but it is very dramatic in non-fiat currencies. The ability to print money without devaluing a currency is incredibly important because it enables a 3rd party (like the fed) to put more money into an expanding economy without driving up inflation rates.

And for some reason, the Austrians think that non-fiat currency would be a good thing. All it does is drive wealth upward and create a disadvantage for people who would otherwise invest. And the only reason you would invest would be becaue you think the economy might shrink, which is a backwards system.

[Deleted]

As someone who just received a masters in economics, this thread makes me lol. Both the liberals and conservatives on this thread are trying to expand on ideas that they know nothing about, and it's just sad. You all act like your way is 100% right and the other person is wrong wrong wrong.

Well I'm not too far away from my master either. And I don't act like I'm 100% right on everything. But stimulus in the form of digging ditches - or QE when there already is inflation - is just not smart. Keynes was a brilliant guy, but he just died too early to be able to complete his theories. Now they're a godsend for politicians who want a reason to spend my money on buying votes or buying special interest favors.

That's why I for example didn't even bother to try and prove that private market healthcare is superior than singlepayer in this thread - I only gave some of the major reasons why the current US healthcare is what it is.

I've studied economics for 6.5 years, and I realize that while I'm much more on the left in my opinions, there's somebody out there on the far right who has studied these things for 40 more years than I have. And they might be right or wrong.

If it's milton friedman, I would agree with him on almost anything.

P.S. If you think WW2 was an economic boost for the US (i.e. Wars create prosperity), I really have to question your Master's degree.

---------- Post added 2011-11-26 at 12:07 AM ----------

I think that your point about government spending not being what it used to is certainly correct, but I think that is a sign that we need to seriously look at capital injection AND some measures of protectionism to keep those dollars here. It's a tight rope to walk though.

Friedman would tell you that protectionism is a failed idea. Friedman also started out as a Keynesian but then became a Laissez-faire economist and a very libertarian person all in all.

But non-fiat currencies are bad ideas anyways. Take gold again, for example. When value is created in an economy, and the quantity of a currency stays the same, then that means the value of the currency most go up. So, when an economy becomes more valuable, gold becomes more valueable. The problem here, is that creates a huge incentive to just hang onto your money and not spend it. Because when money deflates, it is essentially an investment of itself!

Deflation is not bad by default, and inflating a currency to counter deflation caused by increased productivity is just insane. The US had some of the most prosperous times back in late 19th century during significant deflation caused by increased production.

All deflation does is encourage saving, which provides more capital to be lent out for investments. And I'm not saying there should be a gold standard, but governemnts throughout history have shown that they cannot be trusted with a printing press without any true restraints.

Also NineSpine - what's the point in answering your post when you just make absolute claims and provide no evidence? You then mix it with some tinfoil hattery. And I acknowledged like ten posts ago that Austrian economics in itself only provides tools to understand macroeconomics. You need more than that to be an economist. However, the arguments they derive from certain self-evident truths are always a great tool to have. It's like a check system to see if your idea is totally out-of-wack or plausible.

[NineSpine]

Nothing you say is a "self-evident truth". That's a not-so-clever way of dodging having to provide any actual evidence. You aren't God, so you don't get to declare your assertions as above the need for evidence.

I showed you evidence that the United States has some of the worst health statistics amongst first-world nations. Your response? Nothing. Using your logic, the least socialized healthcare system in the first world should have the best results, but it doesn't. The results are downright embarrassing.

The cheapest U.S. state is Utah, which is STILL more expensive than most countries with socialized medicine, as seen from these two charts:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=596&cat=5
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm

Well, this must mean that there is more healthcare competition in the cheaper areas than the more expensive areas, right? Wrong again. New York is one of the largest states by population, and has a massive number of insurers. It also is incredibly deregulated, with huge numbers of hospitals due to it's population density. Despite this, it has some of the highest healthcare spending on the planet. California, on the other hand, is one of the most highly regulated states and has some of the cheapest costs in the country, despite also being a state with extremely high incomes which SHOULD drive up costs but don't seem to.

Flatly: There is no evidence that your assertions are true. All of the evidence runs counter to what you say.

[Deleted]

Nothing you say is a "self-evident truth". That's a not-so-clever way of dodging having to provide any actual evidence. You aren't God, so you don't get to declare your assertions as above the need for evidence.

The austrian arguments are not necessarily self evident truths in themselves, but rather are built upon them. For example: A circle has no corners. From that self-evident truth you can then derive all sorts of other arguments.

I showed you evidence that the United States has some of the worst health statistics amongst first-world nations. Your response? Nothing. Using your logic, the least socialized healthcare system in the first world should have the best results, but it doesn't. The results are downright embarrassing.

The cheapest U.S. state is Utah, which is STILL more expensive than most countries with socialized medicine, as seen from these two charts:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=596&cat=5

This is just pathetic of you. I have many times said that the US healthcare system is fucked up. And I have numerous times given you examples of how government (both federal and state) regulation and legislation increases the costs. And I'm not letting the big pharma/insurance/healthcare providers off the hook either - most of these price increasing regulations are the result of their lobbying. So I have never claimed that the current US system is good, it was the best 40 years back though. I mean, can you build a more massive strawman than what you just built?

Flatly: There is no evidence that your assertions are true. All of the evidence runs counter to what you say.

I'm afraid this is not the case. You are simply not counting all factors that affect the health care costs in New York for example. What is your explaination for the varying prices per state then? As far as I'm aware, everything is bloody expensive in NY.

But the simply example that Medicaid/Medicare compensates doctors depending on how many procedures they perform instead of problems solved/attemped to solve - is one indisputable factor in raising healthcare costs. It causes doctors to perform more procedures than necessary, which means that the cost of healthcare goes up. This affects both the cost of medicare/medicaid and the private market.

---------- Post added 2011-11-26 at 02:54 PM ----------

I just did a quick search and apparently, as suspected, NY has ridiculous mandated coverages for employer healthcare, such as chiropractic services, psychiatry and other services that you probably want to insure yourself against separately (or take no insurance at all).

Their state Health Department controlled hospitals and nursing homes cost more than in any other state in the nation due to massive overcapacity. I need to note though that I don't know yet to what extent the NY health dept. is in charge of how many hospitals are built or how they are ran - so it's not certain all blame can be placed on their health dept.

[NineSpine]

The austrian arguments are not necessarily self evident truths in themselves, but rather are built upon them. For example: A circle has no corners. From that self-evident truth you can then derive all sorts of other arguments.

This is just pathetic of you. I have many times said that the US healthcare system is fucked up. And I have numerous times given you examples of how government (both federal and state) regulation and legislation increases the costs. And I'm not letting the big pharma/insurance/healthcare providers off the hook either - most of these price increasing regulations are the result of their lobbying. So I have never claimed that the current US system is good, it was the best 40 years back though. I mean, can you build a more massive strawman than what you just built?

I'm afraid this is not the case. You are simply not counting all factors that affect the health care costs in New York for example. What is your explaination for the varying prices per state then? As far as I'm aware, everything is bloody expensive in NY.

But the simply example that Medicaid/Medicare compensates doctors depending on how many procedures they perform instead of problems solved/attemped to solve - is one indisputable factor in raising healthcare costs. It causes doctors to perform more procedures than necessary, which means that the cost of healthcare goes up. This affects both the cost of medicare/medicaid and the private market.

You have not given me a single example of anything. You have given me assertions which I have provided statistics to the contrary of. Your assertions do not match the reality, and you utterly refuse to back your assertions up with evidence.

Everything is bloody expensive in New York... and California... but their healthcare costs vary wildly. New York also has incredible population density though, resulting in an abnormal level of healthcare competition. The prices remain insane. The difference in cost per state is largely due to this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112688705

If you compare that to the chart I posted before, you'll see a rough correlation. States with more uninsured people tend to *surprise surprise* have cheaper costs per capita. If you look at the actual average premiums, you'll find that they do NOT vary much by state, because now you are only counting people on healthcare:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...1&cat=5&sub=67

Medicare's wastefulness when it comes to unnecessary procedures is certainly well documented, but blaming that for the rise in the cost of private health insurance is illogical, and you need to show DATA if you want to blame that for the rise in costs overall. You can't just assert it and be done.

The primary reason for the high costs is the institution of private insurance itself, which causes massive amounts of paperwork and red tape for doctors to go through, and is only based on making as much money as possible. Since health insurance does NOT respond to normal supply/demand curves, the entire system becomes warped as a result. My girlfriend used to be a receptionist in a doctor's office. There were numerous people there who wouldn't have to be if not for sorting through piles and piles and piles of private health insurance forms. It's insane.

http://philebersole.wordpress.com/20...lth-care-cost/

[Deleted]

I edited my post with what is considered some of the biggest reasons for higher costs in NYC.

[NineSpine]

I edited my post with what is considered some of the biggest reasons for higher costs in NYC.

Yes and that's why New York premiums are $2000 more than Utah... but when you are talking about numbers in the 5 figure range, $2000 isn't the problem. It's a joke. The costs are relatively uniform across the country, and insanely expensive in even the cheapest states.

Furthermore, let's look at Medicare. The average cost per enrollee is $7439:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...=6&rgn=6&rgn=1

Now let's look at premium costs for a single person, which is $4940:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...0&cat=5&sub=67

Despite the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of healthcare spending falling in the later years of life, when Medicare is active, the cost of Medicare per person is only 50% higher than the average cost of private health insurance for a single person. Something is deeply, deeply wrong.