Posts by DogGone

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

Housing is a different kettle. Housing prices are driven, by and large, by competitive consumption. New houses (or housing) can be built, of course, and frequently are. The demand is not inelastic unless, for a reason I cannot think of, development is frozen when people are forced to move. In other places perfectly good houses are being torn down due to population movements. Workforces are mobile and I'm a big big fan of encouraging mobility. Don't pay people to live in impoverished areas when they can move to North Dakoda and work in the oil patch. I'm sorry you grew up in Detroit. Get over it and move. Your ancestories didn't stay where they were. That is how Detroit came into existence.

Property ownership is an absolute essential component of a free liberal society (classical liberalism, I know how that word has been hijacked).

Now, we do provide homes for the "homeless". We do this as charitable/compassionate activity for a select few (as with food and clothing). But, let us not confuse helping the poor with structures for delivering the essentials of life to the entire citizenry.

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

Food demand is not inelastic as there are several competing sources of nourishment. Food DOES normally conform to law of demand. When there were fewer tomatoes one year due to a shortage the prices went up and the demand for tomatoes went down (fast food removed them from burgers, for example). However, when the entire food supply fails to match demand we call that a famine and then we DO expect the government to come in and ration. We do expect a socialized response. In a famine situation demand is inelastic. In a famine, what do you think the government should do? Nothing? Let those who have the money pay for it and get it? In answering this question I'd appreciate knowing how this differs from healthcare.

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

To add to Sir82's excellent point and in response to this question:

MeanMrMustard: What exactly is it about the healthcare market that makes it a unique market?

Something called "inelastic demand" puts it in a class of markets that are unique and are not subject to standard supply demand forces. What the law of demand states is that as the cost increases the demand (in quantity) decreases. For inelastic demands, like say, water and healthcare, the demand does not decrease no matter what the quantity or price. I'm dying of thirst, what would I pay for a glass of water to keep me alive? Answer, everything I have.

There is no countervailing force to keep prices low because demand is inflexible to price. I need cancer treatment, what would I pay to keep alive? Answer, everything I have. Demand will not drop as prices rise.

(Not exactly everything I have. I wouldn't leave my family in a bad state. I would rather die. Still, you get the point, I'm sure.)

So, for things like water, utilities, and healthcare we tend to rely on heavy government control. Insurance is, of course, a form of collectivism. If health insurance is only provided to those who have no preexisting conditions and come from low risk groups then, yes, those people will pay relatively little. However, if you must insure the population as a whole, you have to smooth out the peaks and valleys. Normally, additional charges are on those who make poor lifestyle choices (eg.. smoking). But, the price is blindly fixed for the group. The idea is what coverage should a theoretical child have for life not knowing what conditions, social group, education, employment, race, or locale he or she will be born into.

I don't argue with anyone's criticism of the ACA. After following this thread, I'm not informed enough to say it is the answer for my American cousins. However, although I'm free enterprise in many ways, I'll argue till I'm blue for universal healthcare (single payer, private delivery, public delivery, insurance exchanges, and single insurer... whatever gets it done).

45

You Can't Ignore Fiscal Responsibilities!!!

by minimus in

there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..

DogGone

Agree on civil law. Utilities, you are probably right. The sort of arms length public companies like BC Hydro and Enmax are good examples of splitting the difference.

Could expand the list by things like housing, banking, etc... but it is more illustrative than exhaustive

45

You Can't Ignore Fiscal Responsibilities!!!

by minimus in

there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..

DogGone

Glander, on your last point.... isn't that government? These "communities who know their fellows and have common needs" and who create positive examples of "collective effort", would they not have some form of governance? Say, like the municipal government in my home town of 3000. Or the Board I sit on for a service club?

Minimus, activities I think are better handled collectively:

- Transportation - roads, bridges, airports, transit

- Healthcare

- Defense (offence when needed)

- Disaster relief

- Insurance (the very idea is collectivism, of course)

- Monetary policy

- Treaty negotiations

- Criminal law

- Basic Education (though, I'm not sold on this one)

- Enforcement

- Intelligence gathering

- Risk mitigation

- Resource rights

Actives I think are deplorable when handled collectivity:

- Media, publishing

- Property

- Child rearing

- Religious/political indoctrination

- Employment

- Higher education

- Business valuation / investment

- Postal service (was once up top)

- Utilities

- Resource extraction... well, any kind of business

- The actual building of anything the collective has decided to fund (eg, private companies bid to build and maintain roads, etc)

45

You Can't Ignore Fiscal Responsibilities!!!

by minimus in

there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..

DogGone

Glander,

I agree with you. Certainly, disincentives to gainful employment are deplorable for a society. Earlier a poster provided a fascinating graph of "wage cliffs" in another thread. I had never heard of this structure that creates such a massive disincentive to reach for higher wages. If true, it is madness.

So, there is a point at which tax and services creates societies where the Government takes care of all and productivity is terrible (Communism). Then there are societies where tax and services creates societies where productivity is high (much of Europe). Then there are societies where taxes are confusing and productivity is still very high (United States).

Your reflection on the tragedy of the Native Americans is apt. People criticize them as a race but they are only living the way most white welfare families I know live. It is a terrible thing to remove a person's impulse to be productive. However, that is, for me anyway, not a corollary for not providing assistance to those unable to be productive. I'm sure you will agree.

I suppose the question is of degrees and grays. With some people these recent changes are going too far.... just as the left felt the Bush tax cuts went too far the other way.

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

Glander,

Very classy. We are all guilty, from time to time, of relaying info we find out later wasn't what it was craked up to be.

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

Simon,

I really don't think it is as bad as all of that. The Speaker has stated that he will not allow the country to default.... what we witnessed in late 2011 was complete madness. I'm relieved that they chose this, increasing the government's funding, instead of the coming debt ceiling to stake thier ground. To me, that actually shows they DO care about the country.

That Congress has to increase the debt ceiling is the most bizarre structure I can think of. The Executive has to raise only the taxes Congress authorizes, has to execute the laws Congress enacts (spend money), and can only borrow what the Congress allows. All the other governments I know of legislate the first two and the third naturally follows. A failure to raise the debt ceiling means the President is put in conflict between the Congressional Taxation Power, Spending Power, and Borrowing Power. A constitutional crisis is inevitable in the face of a default. I have read some opinions that should Congress not raise the debt ceiling the President should ignore the debt ceiling and break the Borrowing Power of Congress. This would be unconstitutional and would likely result in impeachment, but is the better of the three to violate.

http://www.columbialawreview.org/how-to-choose-the-lease-unconstitutional-option/

I am very pleased the Republicans are choosing this current tactic rather than the nuke they have access to. [I don't agree with what they are trying to do, but if they were truly terrorists they'd try to blow the economy up with the debt ceiling. Of course, to your point, there are some (few?) Republicans who argue for doing exactly that.....]

45

You Can't Ignore Fiscal Responsibilities!!!

by minimus in

there's just so much $$$ that people have.. the obama government continues to ignore simple mathematics, and you can't just keep adding taxes and increase fees and simply believe that everyone with a brain will think it's lovely..

DogGone

Minimus,

I agree with you, the American fiscal situation is pretty bad. Healthcare is a big part of that (with or without the ACA). It has been worse in the past, though, and I really think it will turn around. Recently some big steps were made to raise revenues and reduce expenses (thanks to the brinkmanship in 2011/2012). I actually think America will get it together in time.

Now, what is scary for me is where individuals in America have deleveraged themselves over the last 5 years, individuals in Canada have been steadily borrowing more and more.

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

DogGone

Minimus,

You are correct. So let them vote. Even Republican reps who would vote against a clean CR have stated that if a clean CR was voted on (as received from the Senate) it would pass as enough Republicans would vote for it. This is no secret, they have been refreshingly candid about it.

The Speaker will not allow a vote on that matter. IF you really want the House of Reps to, well, REPRESENT why not push the Speaker to allow a vote on a clean CR? Would that not demonstrate the will of the duly elected representatives?

You can't say the House of Reps are doing the peoples bidding when the Speaker will not even allow a vote to demonstrate that. This is nothing more than high stakes politics.