[mike777]

I do wonder if we can have an innovative health care system based on being virtuous rather than one based on greed.

Perhaps we can have a banking system based on being virtuous.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Dec 14 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

So I think that it is very fair to ask whether the planned programs are doing something to bring some of these costs under control. If indeed the projection is to bring the costs down from an expected 4.67 trillion to 4.49 trillion, I think it is fair to call it a savings (rather than "savings") but I would hope we could do better.

Okay, fine, many more people will have health insurance and at a bit less less cost than projected for fewer people under the current system. And some of the most unacceptable insurance practices will be forbidden. So long as every insurance company must comply, no company will be put at a disadvantage thereby.

But, as Ken says, we damned well need to address all the waste to get these medical costs under control. It's pitiful that the US congress can't get this done too, even though the party in power has huge majorities.

[cherdanno]

Ok. So say congress stops an earmark worth half a million dollars for the Wasilia ice hockey arena. My estimate would be that this reduces the 2010 deficit by half a million, from 1,171,000 millions to 1,170,999.5 millions.
Next year it turns out the actual deficit was 1,243,723 millions. By the logic of the posters here, my prediction was foolish.

[Lobowolf]

I think your example is a bit less speculative than than some of the other ones.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Dec 15 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

I do wonder if we can have an innovative health care system based on being virtuous rather than one based on greed.

Perhaps we can have a banking system based on being virtuous.

I'd like a banking system based on everyone else being virtuous and me screwing them.

Good example, Arend, btw.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Dec 15 2009, 04:58 AM, said:

mike777, on Dec 15 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

I do wonder if we can have an innovative health care system based on being virtuous rather than one based on greed.

Perhaps we can have a banking system based on being virtuous.

I'd like a banking system based on everyone else being virtuous and me screwing them.

EXCELLENT

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 15 2009, 04:14 AM, said:

I do wonder if we can have an innovative health care system based on being virtuous rather than one based on greed.

There are no guarantees in life, however, I'd gladly trade the US health care system for the one used in any number of other countries.

Admittedly, I don't think that the European / Asian systems are based on being "virtuous" per see; rather they are designed to provide service to residents.

[mike777]

Please.......is this a system based on greed or based on being virtuous...you guys avoid the question......

If the banking system is based on virtuous...ok
If the health care system is based on virtuous ..ok....

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Dec 15 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

Please.......is this a system based on greed or based on being virtuous...you guys avoid the question......

If the banking system is based on virtuous...ok
If the health care system is based on virtuous ..ok....

Mike, perhaps the reason that people are avoiding the question is that the question itself is stupid.

Here's a question for you: Would you prefer a health care system that is based on scrambled eggs or aardvarks?

[hrothgar]

Not sure if this is amusing or sad...

http://www.businessinsider.com/health-insu...rm-bill-2009-12

[mike777]

Bullshit....



I fail to see anyone addressing the issue, for the simple reason successful economic systems are based on greed not bullshit or being virtuous.


The best way we know to help millions of poor to have a better life is:


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

[hrothgar]

How old are you Mike?

Any chance that you're ever going to outgrow your ever-so-simplistic Manichean world view? One would have hoped that you might have learned something from the experience of the last couple years. In particular,

Greed is not necessarily good and
Regulation serves a vital purpose in the economy.

Don't get me wrong: I'm an economist by training. Almost by definition, this means that I like markets as a mechanism to allocate goods and services, I approve of the profit motive, and I think that a (regulated) captialist economy is probably the best option for organizing most economic activity.

However, I also have a brain which means that I'm able to understand that simplistic lens like "greed" versus "virtue" do far more harm than good. These kinds of frameworks are great if you're trying to gin up a crowd - especially if you can weave expressions like "Tyranny" into the mix. However, they're useless for any kind of nuanced policy discussion, especially ones that require compromise between competing solutions.

As I've said before, you often act as if you trying to lead some kind of Socratic dialogue by posing "deep" philosophic questions. Sadly, in order to work well, the Socratic dialogue requires a Socrates (or at least a Plato) rather than a random internet crank who, all too often, seems to be off his meds.

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell" - Edward Abbey

[kenrexford]

We like to talk a lot about models. Those who trust them call them trustworthy.

Two models come to mind quickly.

One is the model that tells us what the weather will be like this week. With all olf the available online weather sites, I find that none of them agree with each other, or with themselves from day to day, and yet another inconsistent option is what actually comes to pass.

The other model I liked was the model that suggested a good course of action in dealing with mortgages over the past few years. Upon which trillions rided.

When you take these types of models as examples...

If you find that these types of models need tweaking, motivated by bias, and re-explanation after the fact, when they seem to have failed, this adds to the fun.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Dec 15 2009, 04:45 PM, said:

One is the model that tells us what the weather will be like this week. With all olf the available online weather sites, I find that none of them agree with each other, or with themselves from day to day, and yet another inconsistent option is what actually comes to pass.

The distinction between weather and climate modeling is one of the most basic in these discussions. In general, if people can't get something this basic correct, its a pretty good indicator that they haven't done even rudimentary leg work.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Dec 15 2009, 04:45 PM, said:

The other model I liked was the model that suggested a good course of action in dealing with mortgages over the past few years.  Upon which trillions rided.

What makes you think that those models were designed to suggest a "good course of action"?

From what I can tell, the mortgage models worked as intended. They allowed the banks to wrack up massive amounts of profits in a short period over time. The banks were later able to socialize all of the losses when thigns blew up.

If I were in banking, it sounds like a pretty darn good deal to me...

Please note: There were also a lot of models that predicted that things were going to blow up. Some people (like Paulson) made ridiculous amounts of money - $15 billion or so - betting that the market was going to implode.

In general, few people had the cojones to make those bets because its very difficult to bet against a bubble. (You generally need to take short positions, which means that your losses aren't bounded. You can be dead on regarding the trend, however, if you're timing is slightly off you can get completely destroyed by a margin call. The best investment advice that I ever got was that I should never risk my own money in a short position, but always look for a countervailing long...)

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, on Dec 15 2009, 03:19 AM, said:

I think your example is a bit less speculative than than some of the other ones.

But it's the same principle.

[Codo]

There are many problems with all these modells. Much too many to adress in this forum.

Just to name a few:

1. Modells are modells, they are never reality. Reality is too complex for any modell. So anybody must life with the knowledge that a modell may not work. Of course they are still much better then most things we had in the past, but they cannot be 100 % accurate.

2. Modells are made by men so they are not errorfree.

3. Many modells are designed to reach a goal. If you ever worked for an insurance company, you will know what I mean. So the variables are fixed in a possible way which will produce the right result.

4. If you work for a company, you are not allowed to make descission because your stomach told you so. You need to back up your descissions. The problem is: You cannot look into the future so you need to back up your descission by something. Maybe an outside authority or a fitting modell.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Dec 15 2009, 08:10 AM, said:

Greed is not necessarily good and
Regulation serves a vital purpose in the economy.

Don't get me wrong: I'm an economist by training. Almost by definition, this means that I like markets as a mechanism to allocate goods and services, I approve of the profit motive, and I think that a (regulated) captialist economy is probably the best option for organizing most economic activity.

However, I also have a brain which means that I'm able to understand that simplistic lens like "greed" versus "virtue" do far more harm than good. These kinds of frameworks are great if you're trying to gin up a crowd - especially if you can weave expressions like "Tyranny" into the mix. However, they're useless for any kind of nuanced policy discussion, especially ones that require compromise between competing solutions.

I think this is right on the mark. In fact, it's hard to see how people can look at history -- including very recent history -- and think otherwise. I'm not an economist (majored in math, but did take three semesters of economics), so I look at this from the point of view of someone who has been starting and running businesses for many years, starting with rental properties as a young man.

As you can have good laws and bad laws, you can have good business regulations and bad business regulations. But you do need regulations to set up the framework within which all business competition occurs, just as you need laws to protect society from predatory people.

The simplistic idea that greed is necessarily good is patent nonsense. If I make a fortune by tricking the unwary out of money, I'm of no greater benefit to society than is a very accomplished thief.

When regulations change, businesses adapt. If they can't adapt, they fail -- but that means they were run by piss poor business people to start with. And if a business operates against the interests of the society in which it exists, I daresay it deserves to fail.

[kenrexford]

Codo, on Dec 15 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

There are many problems with all these modells. Much too many to adress in this forum.

Just to name a few:

1. Modells are modells, they are never reality. Reality is too complex for any modell. So anybody must life with the knowledge that a modell may not work. Of course they are still much better then most things we had in the past, but they cannot be 100 % accurate.

2. Modells are made by men so they are not errorfree.

3. Many modells are designed to reach a goal. If you ever worked for an insurance company, you will know what I mean. So the variables are fixed in a possible way which will produce the right result.

4. If you work for a company, you are not allowed to make descission because your stomach told you so. You need to back up your descissions. The problem is: You cannot look into the future so you need to back up your descission by something. Maybe an outside authority or a fitting modell.

Having lived in Cleveland, I tend to hate Modells.

[PassedOut]

kenrexford, on Dec 15 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

Having lived in Cleveland, I tend to hate Modells.