Posts by DogGone

23

Newly released New World Translation still full of numerous errors and abuses

by yadda yadda 2 in

thought i'd start a thread discussing all the scriptures where the watchtower translation committee has taken liberties and abused verses they've translated in the nwt.. worst of all are the numerous places in the christian greek scriptures where 'jehovah' has been inserted where the tetragrammaton or any equivalent of it does not occur in any extant mss and where the context could just as easily mean, or even more likely mean, the identity being spoken of is jesus christ rather than the father.

although in many places out of the 237 in the nt where they have done this the identity is clearly or most probably the father (jehovah) as distinct from the son (jesus), there are dozens of occurrences where this is not the case.. here are a whole lot more scriptures abused by the translators of the nwt, copied from the freeminds website (article written j bowman, scholar):.

adding words.

DogGone

It's just my opinion, but I think it is very irresponsible to start this thread before examining the new translation.

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

No one is arguing that the USA is not a Republic.

Some think that means it is not a democracy. As some learned writings point out, the USA is not a Democracy as in the system of government is not a Classical Democracy like Athens. It is still democratic, of course. It is still a democracy through a number of opportunities for the citizenry to participate equally in the selection of thier representatives. The selection of those in power is a public matter, aka a "res publica", aka a Republic.

Some, it seems, equivocate between the techincal definition of a Classical Democracy and a democracy. Understandable for a layperson, I suppose. Amazing the myth is so widespread. Ironic when those making this error accuse others of being idiotic, unschooled, etc.

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

MeanMrMustard,

Thank-you for your congratulations… I’m not looking forward to the sleep deprivation…

Thank-you, also, for your excellent post. It is certainly working my faculties.

Ha, I think you caught yourself there. I don’t think I pointed that out, and if I did, it was by accident. What I was going for in reference to your comment: “Food DOES normally conform to law of demand.” It left me thinking what you thought “normally” meant? And why “normally” doesn’t apply to healthcare?

That is why I mentioned that I had equivocated between a specific item and the category. I’m going to clarify that statement to get at what I mean. Food items normally do conform to the law of demand. Many healthcare items and many healthcare services do not. What do I mean by normally? Normally means absence a general famine. When there is not a famine the substitution effect takes over and reduces quantity. Tomatoes are too expensive so I buy apples. In many, but not all, cases the substitution effect is largely absent from healthcare items and services. If a bone marrow transplant is needed I cannot choose a hip replacement instead.

Why is the price of healthcare so high? Is it really the case that it is a special market, or does it just look that way if you ignore the government’s involvement?

It really is a special market. Many items and many services have highly inflexible demand and are not subject to the substitution effect. I’m not going to try to argue all the factors of why it is so high… I’m nowhere near knowledgeable enough to engage that debate. I’m arguing, though, that it is a special market. Government involvement can have favorable or unfavorable effects on the allocation of services, on pricing, and on quality of delivery. However, government involvement does not change the fundamentals I’m referring to. It can be a countervailing force, however.

The only situation I can think of where demand is highly inelastic (not even perfectly, just highly) is where there is a monopoly on a good or service. Like my previous illustration: the well owner has the monopoly.

Upon reading and rereading your post, I think that after giving an excellent explanation of inelastic demand you then fail to use it correctly. When economists routinely write about inelastic demand they are referring, as you noted, to “where the demand doesn’t change so much in relation to price.” Inelasticity of demand has an effect on market fundamentals and it doesn’t have to approach perfect inelasticity for this effect to be dramatic.

I agree that a monopoly distorts the market effect, of course, as you note in your illustration of the desert town. (A strange town legislature that would grant a monopoly to an essential service but fail to regulate it). It is convenient to your argument that the desert town suffered a monopoly due to government interference. However, it does not have to be so. Let’s take this same town with no government interfering in the control and distribution of the water supply. An individual puts the capital into digging the well. He then creates the distribution network to deliver the water. He has a natural monopoly due to being first to market and to the high barrier to entry for any competitor. It is not perfectly inelastic at any price point as people would, at extreme prices, take tankers to other towns, walk miles to get water, etc. Nevertheless, the market forces are distorted because there are no easy substitutes, the demand is highly inelastic. After all, in the free market this entrepreneur should and will charge what he or she can.

Now, I’m not creating a straw man here, I know you weren’t arguing that monopolies are only caused by governments. I merely wanted to illustrate where government interference is required in a market distorted by highly inelastic demand. (Note: we should not confuse inelastic demand and inelastic need. It does not have to be a need, as in our discussion, to distort the market)

Your monopoly illustration is analogous, as you suggest, to drug companies with patents on life saving medicine. (Side point: monopolies cause price distortions which cost the consumer more. However a monopsony can reduce prices as is widely seen in state run healthcare.)

But, all of this is beside the point. The inelasticity of the demand (quantity) presents a strong resistance to natural free market forces. It does not require a monopoly and does not require a lack of supplier choice for a given service or item. What is requires is a poor elasticity in the QUANTITY demanded despite any given price for a specific service or item. This is where I believe you err: “I would say you are right only because government subsidies necessarily discourage people from the activities that would make it elastic.” I agree that government subsidies discourage people from making sensible market driven decisions about healthcare which further compound the problem. Your story about your wife’s need is illustrative of the value of deductibles and copays in helping shape efficient consumer behavior. We are not as far apart as you might think.

However, although you made a smart price decision your wife’s demand was highly inelastic. At the end of the day, the demand was still 1. You had a choice of suppliers and a choice of prices. That did not mean you had elastic demand. Of course, given an inelastic demand you will still make a smart price choice. But, the quantity was not affected. You were not able to say, well, at that price I will just get a drug instead (see, I’ve learned about the restrictions on drugs for pregnant ladies!). I believe you are mistaking consumer choice in a given buying situation among prices and suppliers with the demand itself.

The central question is not whether we can ensure that there are market forces at play to ensure consumers make better price decisions (I believe the ACA encourages copays and deductibles???) but whether the market is special because, as I claim, it is subject to highly inelastic demand.

Inelastic demand is an effect even when there are choices of suppliers and prices. If you did not find a less pricy chiropractic service, in fact, if you found that all the others were 10% HIGHER you would go back to that practice and get the procedure. The sticker shock would be the same. Your power to negotiate a better price for the product would not be.

Market prices also drive the input costs. At the macro level, I believe the demand elasticity has a particularly strong effect on highly specialized inputs. I can’t pay my employees too much or the market will not bear the cost of our services. However, if the market was less elastic I could. I need my specialized team and so do my competitors. Wage costs could go up until this class of specialized folks were paid the most the market can bear. That occurs in efficient market dynamics too, but in a market distorted by inelastic demand for a highly specialized service (skill) or product that ceiling is much higher. It illustrates why the free market is not enough to produce efficient pricing when the forces are out of balance.

In fact, the more socialized you get, the more the price from the providers will rise - UNLESS you price fix by law and ration care.

I disagree. You might want to say “unless you price fix by law OR ration care”.… Even still, those nations with the most socialized healthcare frequently provide better outcomes for less cost per patient (or by GDP) than the US. Monopsonies are highly effective against natural monopolies and are also a counter weight to inelastic demand (IMHO).

My question is why? You can see the cause and effect, and you can see it will cause a glut in services and an increase in price. The last thing we want then is price fixing, which will mean shortages. When that occurs, as I stated in the first post, everyone will be covered, but not cared for. Where is the moral thrust in that?

I think you made a mistake there. A glut of services will cause a decrease in price. I think you meant that price fixing causes a decrease in services. We have seen this in Canada where some specialists move to the US where they can make more money and operate with greater freedom. Your point is valid. It is a good argument against a single “invisible” payer. I take your point. However, I counter that the argument that prices will naturally fall in a free market is incorrect due to the forces discussed above. In multi-decade live examples in country after country central price negotiations and fee schedules have NOT lead to poor outcomes.

The moral argument is that when there is scarcity of supply of something critical to live and limb the market is not a suitable moral arbiter for the allocation of products and services. It works for ipods not for heart transplants. I argue that morally, those with more money should not be the first entitled to healthcare. Of course, wealthy baby boomers will get plenty of hip replacements in a market driven system. However, the underprivileged child will not necessarily receive the needed treatment. I believe the moral duty is to remove "not" from that last sentence and it takes collective action to make that possible.

DogGone does not have all the answers. But, would you agree that this is a special market? Maybe, you do not like the options of a single payer, single insurer, individual mandate, etc; However, do you still feel the free market, absent government interference, will lead to reduced prices for items and services across the board in healthcare the way it does in fast food and home electronics?

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

Thanks BOTR. The difference is between a direct democracy and an indirect democracy, as you illustrate. Maybe it is easier for those of us in a constitutional monarchy to understand what a republic is?? That strange yarn that the US is a republic not a democracy is oft repeated. President Bartlett even said it on "The West Wing" once, so it is not just a notion of the Tea Party.

As an aside, the US does practice direct democracy with referendums/propositions on the state level from time to time. Does the US ever hold national referendums? They are very rare in Canada.

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

MeanMrMustard,

Always welcome a respectful discussion! I'm not trained in economics, just an armchair thinker. I'm fully prepared to be embarrassed by anything I write! In fact, I look forward to it.

You are absolutely correct, I erred in comparing one component of "food", the tomatoes, with the entire category of "health care". Excellent catch and appreciate your pointing it out.

You are also correct that it is important to clarify what portion of "health care" we are talking about. For the purposes of this discussion, I suggest we start with "essential medical services" - ER, scheduled surgery, prescriptions, primary physicians, etc. That may be too broad, but do you think it is useful start?

I'll wait for your larger reply to fully comment. To help inform your reply consider that the issue of inelastic demand is related not to the quantity and availability of choices and competitors but to the flexibility of the demand. That is, it is not about the ability to make decisions on price (name brand drug or generic drug) but on the ability to reduce the quantity of the demand (drug, less drug, no drug).

The money spent on healthcare in America, I think, does have a positive supply side effect for profitable elective surgeries. Wouldn't it be interesting to see two hospitals side by side compete for ER patients! Now, that might produce some interesting outcomes!

I'm very interested in having you expand on this: "Why is the cost so high now? If you say it is because of inelastic demand, I would say you are right only because government subsidies necessarily discourage people from the activities that would make it elastic." I think there may be some gread discussion behind that statement because it gets at incentives, i.e. economics, which I love talking about.

(Take all the time you need. My wife is expecting in the spring, so I’ll be in your boat shortly, if everything goes well!)

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

Nonjwspouce,

You are 100% correct. Canadians flock to the US for hip replacements. It is painful stuff to wait for a replacement, as my good friend did for 4 months. Of course, he admits he waited three years too long to ask as he didn't want to admit he was old enough to need one!

It is also much easier to get a penis enlargement, nose job, breast augmentation, liposuction, etc in the US. Why, though? Because the law of supply IS in effect in healthcare. As prices rise, supply increases. These expensive elective surgeries attract talent to them.

If you were to step back and redesign the system.... if you had the power of all the resouces at your fingertips, like say, a nationally run medical system, would you perhaps take a few of those breast surgeons and have them work on breast cancer? Would you be ok that the wait time for breast augmentation went way up? If you had to decide between hip replacements and stints, might you be ok with a longer wait time on one to benefit the other?

I should also state that your example is a good case for private delivery. I'm not sure how it relates to universal insurance, however. It is my understanding the AMA is all about insurance and does not nationalize the delivery. (prepared to be corrected on this)

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