News America's aversion to socialism ?

[WhoWee]

BP is engaged in solar - but don't expect them to stop pumping any time soon.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/59/59267.html

 

[DoggerDan]

What was he trying to say; that the whole idea of taking care of everybody is BAD, or is it GOOD?

Bad.

Is the Tea Party platform that we DON'T want to take care of everybody?

It's that we cannot afford to take care of everybody. Trying is foolish. Responsible people take care of themselves. Irresponsible people shouldn't be left to die, but don't expect the same level of care as someone paying $10,000 a year for health insurance.

Exactly who is it that they don't want to take care of?

Those who refuse to take care of themselves, particularly those who do so under the guise of "can't."

Tie your shoes, Johnny.

But I CAN'T, Dad!

You're seventeen, Johnny, now tie your shoes!

 

[skippy1729]

A "safety net" and a "socialist welfare state" are two distinct entities. As Dennis Miller likes to say "Help the helpless, not the clueless".

Skippy

 

[mege]

If non-participation is in and of itself a risk factor and the system still pays for non-participants who require some of the costliest levels of benefits, then mandating is efficient. That's exactly the situation the American health care system finds itself in.

Emergency, Critical, Intensive, and End of Life Care are some of the most expensive services in any health care system. In America it's criminal and IMO sub-human to deny them to anyone who both needs and requests such care if you can provide it. Even in cases where such care is in short supply and must be rationed, medical ethics, and the law stand behind rationing on the basis of need as opposed to ability to pay.

Preventive care lowers the risk of people requiring the more extreme "all or nothing medicine mentioned" above. Yet preventative medicine can be denied on a financial basis.

Fair or not we are never going to get a system that makes access to "all or nothing medicine" less universal. So the only way to make the system more efficient is increasing access to preventative care.

Personally I favor the idea of a health insurance voucher system. Give everyone a minimum level of health insurance mandated by the government and paid for with earmarked taxes but purchased from private companies by individuals. If people think vouchers will work for education why not health insurance.

That still doesn't have anything to do with efficiency. You're putting a moral imperative on the situation to try and gloss over the efficiency part. There are 300 million individuals in this country, not 300 million identical Americans with the same needs.

I also hear the phrase "Ability to pay" thrown around a lot. Why have health care costs gone up over the past ~45 years? I don't believe the market has failed except inso far as it's turned into a poorly skewed market because of the regulated demand that medicare/aid has put on the system. In addition - the litigation in the medical industry is rediculous. I wish there was an easy way to reduce the amount of lawyers in this country (maybe simpler, less intrusive and complicated laws?).

Also, you've cherry picked one phrase from my posts - but haven't addressed the risk-spreading vs sharing concern. The net risk taken by individuals will go up - they're no longer responsible for the proper proportion of their risk. Any 'incentives' to change their personal risk are going to be artifical and tenuous (which also adds to the inefficiency).

 

[ThomasT]

Why have health care costs gone up over the past ~45 years?

I would have guessed that the main reasons are an increase in the elderly population, and the practices of the drug and insurance industries. But, here's an editorial from 2007 in the New York Times that seems to disagree with that:
The High Cost of Health Care

I haven't really thought about it much since I'm covered by the VA.

In addition - the litigation in the medical industry is ridiculous.

I don't think that the general level of litigation is unusually high, considering that doctors and hospitals make lots of mistakes. I'm guessing that the genuinely frivolous stuff gets weeded out fairly early in the process.

Anyway, as I think about it, maybe the Times article makes a good point. During my lifetime (I'm 64) America has possessed abundant wealth, but we've worked real hard at squandering it. Since this seems likely to continue I don't expect the America of the 21st century to be nearly as nice a place for the younger generations as it has been for those of us born in the 1940's.

Wrt the OP, I would guess that the portion of the population for which the word "socialism" has a negative connotation is the portion which has benefited most from America's vast wealth. But things are getting worse, not better, in the US. And insofar as this trend can be expected to continue, then it would seem that if aversion to social programs is the general attitude, then that general attitude is likely to change as proportionately less and less of the population is needed in the work force.

 

[russ_watters]

I would have guessed that the main reasons are an increase in the elderly population, and the practices of the drug and insurance industries.

Have you considered the vast differences in technology and available care? For example, cancer care is expensive, right? Well chemotherapy was invented in 1965. Before that, there wasn't much in the way of treatment.

The use of technology make things expensive: MRI, CT scan, etc. Drugs themselves become more sophisticated and expensive to discover/invent.

Healthcare costs rise in large part because healthcare itself advances.

 

[JDoolin]

I don't think we are using this word pandering properly. I took it to mean some kind of obsequious submission to whatever the electorate wanted. (and from context, it sounds like you mean the same thing.)

The actual definition is more as follows:

1. Pandering: ntr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders. 1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer. 2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires ...

Legal dictionary
1) v. to solicit customers for a prostitute. 2) n. a pimp, who procures customers for a prostitute or lures a woman into prostitution, all for his own profit. 3) v. catering to special interests without any principles, such as a politician who says to whatever group he/she is addressing just what they want to hear to win their support, contributions, or favors.

So given that definition, I don't want to be pandered to by the government.

What I meant to say was that I would like a sort of an obsequious, meek, submission from the government towards the genuine needs of the electorate.

Because all that pandering gives way to protectionist laws for corporations, special interest groups, and in the end money is taken from everyone to benefit the few.

Pandering is just (yuck, bleah) not what I meant at all. But even if the government is really working for the electorate, it's still possible for the corporations and special interest groups to trick them (or the electorate, for that matter) into thinking that a certain law would be more in the interests of the people, when it is actually just a front to create a prison slave system, for instance.

That's why I focus so much on transparency. The public needs good data on what our government is doing; and where the money is needed, where the money is going; what the conditions are in the places where the money is going? I'm not saying "trust your government." I'm saying "trust but verify."

What we need to see in public office are patient and long-suffering servants of the public good, who don't mind a little bit of extra scrutiny to keep them from being manipulated by corporations and special interest groups.

I don't know if you've heard the phrase "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." I'm of the strong opinion that we should give it to them. But keep an eye on them to make sure they stay meek.

 

[fleem]

I think those dictionary definitions for "pander" are somewhat dated. They don't include the modern usage in political context. I see the word frequently used in the blogosphere following this wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering_(politics)

So I think its appropriate in this context.

 

[czelaya]

Pandering is just (yuck, bleah) not what I meant at all. But even if the government is really working for the electorate, it's still possible for the corporations and special interest groups to trick them (or the electorate, for that matter) into thinking that a certain law would be more in the interests of the people, when it is actually just a front to create a prison slave system, for instance.

That's why I focus so much on transparency. The public needs good data on what our government is doing; and where the money is needed, where the money is going; what the conditions are in the places where the money is going? I'm not saying "trust your government." I'm saying "trust but verify."

What we need to see in public office are patient and long-suffering servants of the public good, who don't mind a little bit of extra scrutiny to keep them from being manipulated by corporations and special interest groups.

I don't know if you've heard the phrase "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." I'm of the strong opinion that we should give it to them. But keep an eye on them to make sure they stay meek.

Sure transparency is good but I doubt that governments, in general, are ever going to be as transparent as you say. I don't trust governments just as much as I don't trust corporations. Politicians don't walk into office poor and walk out millionaires because they're angels.

However, again, no corporation, special interest group, or anyone or any entity should be given special privileges in the form of tax breaks, tariffs, and so forth. This is how you minimize manipulation and coercion in markets. We punish those who are responsible and those who are stagnant in markets get subsidized by the tax payers (GM, domestic farmers, Solyndra, and so forth).

Decoupling the hands that bind governments and private industries(not capitalism but corporatism) is what ultimately leads to mismanagement on both sides.

I'm not sure what you mean by giving it to them. I've always been a firm believer of earning everything you acquire.

 

[JDoolin]

Have you considered the vast differences in technology and available care? For example, cancer care is expensive, right? Well chemotherapy was invented in 1965. Before that, there wasn't much in the way of treatment.

The use of technology make things expensive: MRI, CT scan, etc. Drugs themselves become more sophisticated and expensive to discover/invent.

Healthcare costs rise in large part because healthcare itself advances.

True. There's also somewhat of a hard question regarding this.

Aren't expensive scans a particularly hard call? One doesn't really know for sure whether they need to do the scan until after they've done it. Sometimes they might estimate only a 1% chance of anything that might be detected by the scan, but they don't want to take chance so they order the scan.

If the patient is insured, then there's no real question; order the scan and get paid! If the person is really poor, maybe they order the scan, and report the cost as charity. If the person is uninsured, they tell the patient, there's only a 1% chance of this scan picking up anything; and ask if he wants to pay an extra $5000 to get the scan done?

Or if they're worried about malpractice, they order that scan for everybody, regardless of the cost, because the cost of malpractice lawsuits from that 1% of the people that actually do have the problem that could have been detected by the scan is just too great.

In any case, the hospital may make a cost-benefit analysis of whether to do the scan, or they may have a policy of "We're Going To Do Everything We Can For Anybody That Comes In" which means, YES, they're going to do that scan, and YES, they're going to get that $5000, at least 10% of the time. (Maybe it would have only cost $500 if they got it all the time.)

I don't know if there is really any right-or-wrong answer to the question of end-of-life care. There are some people who will just say, "Just let me die. I've had a good life." And others that will say "Do everything you can to keep me alive." And some people that are not rational enough to make such decisions. (That's what living wills are for).

The medical bills from the last couple of years of a persons life can be the highest cost bills of all their life. Are there really tough decisions to be made here? Depending on the way you look at it, yes or no. "Yes," we need to consider the quality of life, and whether it is worth the money to live for a few more days or weeks. Or "No." No cost is too great, we must do everything we can to keep the person alive.

But I think the main difference between the Republicans and Democrats is whether we handle it on the demand-side or the supply-side.

The Democrats are appalled at the current system, where people who can't afford health care simply go without. They can come to the emergency room if they have a major problem, but as far as preventative care, and regular check-ups, they do not have access to this. They are interested in creating an environment where a certain minimal level of health care is available to everyone, regardless of economic status.

The Republicans appear to be appalled by the idea that some government "Death Panel" will be rationing the health-care, making the choices of under what circumstances procedures are allowed and disallowed, and will somehow prevent them from having the best health-care that money can buy.

I should also say how the Democrats "appear to be" because the two last paragraphs are not quite parallel. The Democrats "appear to be" wanting the most expensive possible health-care for everyone regardless of economic status. I don't think that's really what they want. They just want to have access to a Doctor (or a nurse, or a clinic) without it having to be an emergency life-or-death situation. And, emergency or not, we'd like to be able to walk into the doctor (or be wheeled in on a stretcher) without the fear that we will financially ruined when we come out.

 

[mheslep]

...

The idea that friends, neighbors and churches have the resources to provide healthcare to all Americans [...] is quite preposterous.

Absent the current interference from the federal government I disagree.

The federal government has a revenue of $2+ trillion yet still over spends that by $1.6 trillion, incurring maybe a hundred billion in annual fraud from the current health entitlements alone. The idea that a federal government far removed from its 300 million people can "provide" healthcare is easily the more unlikely of the two approaches.

 

[mheslep]

... Seriously, who would you rather have them pander to? Whoever is paying you the most?

Nobody. pander: someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others

 

[JDoolin]

Sure transparency is good

Yes, yes, yes. If we could focus on that for a moment, and just let that sink in. Let's not focus on what we can easily have, but rather on what we should have, and what we MUST have.

but I doubt that governments, in general, are ever going to be as transparent as you say.

I differ in opinion on this. You are giving up too easily. For a government by the people, and for the people, there is no greater imperative than transparency. The people must KNOW what their government is doing in detail so that we may make the appropriate choices when election time is coming around.

This is not an issue we can afford to be cynical about.

I don't trust governments just as much as I don't trust corporations. Politicians don't walk into office poor and walk out millionaires because they're angels.

Precisely.

However, again, no corporation, special interest group, or anyone or any entity should be given special privileges in the form of tax breaks, tariffs, and so forth. This is how you minimize manipulation and coercion in markets. We punish those who are responsible and those who are stagnant in markets get subsidized by the tax payers (GM, domestic farmers, Solyndra, and so forth).

Transparency is important, because we must know WHY these companies are stagnant. We must know why their competitors are not stagnant. Do you think America is the only country in the world who subsidizes their industries? We have a level of transparency in this country that informs us of how much the companies are getting, and how it's being used. That is a good thing. We should also be aware of how much their competitors are being subsidized.

I am happy to see GM getting subsidized because it means more American jobs but that was in the BILLIONS of dollars. Solyndra got subsidized for a half a billion dollars, and from what I've heard, by the time they got their factories up, somehow the market was already mysteriously flooded with the patented product they intended to sell, and they could not match the price.

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but this is an area where transparency would be a good thing to have. Sure it would be nice to see those "responsible" punished, but without transparency, there is little hope of actually discovering who is responsible.

Decoupling the hands that bind governments and private industries(not capitalism but corporatism) is what ultimately leads to mismanagement on both sides.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean there.

I'm not sure what you mean by giving it to them. I've always been a firm believer of earning everything you acquire.

What I would look for is the sort of person who has earned much for their community but acquired very little for themselves. My concept of a meek person may differ from yours. Meek people don't acquire things. They're quite happy with what they already have. Meek people do not seek power. They're happy being in service to others.

(meekness) the feeling of patient, submissive humbleness
(meekness) a disposition to be patient and long suffering

 

[JDoolin]

Nobody. pander: someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others

Yeah. Thanks.

Check post 407. I really thought pandering meant something else.

 

[mheslep]

There are several factors that impact health care costs including new medical technology, an aging population, high demand for the very good medical treatments and many others. To my mind these are all secondary to the primary cause which is a lack of a market system in healthcare: there is little to no price information provided to the actual consumer. I can look up the price of launching my 1000kg payload into orbit, online, but it is impossible for me as layman to bypass my insurer to call around to hospitals and get the going rate on a procedure, nor can I get a price on insurance out of state. The resulting thinking on health care is evident everywhere, when people just assume some procedure "costs" $100K as if it were written in stone. Nobody says a flight to Florida "costs" $2K (it once did), or a computer with 500K RAM "costs" $2K (it once did) because of course there's a highly competitive market at work ruthlessly constraining the prices of these things. This state of affairs is largely due to government interference on what should be a health market: the employer health tax break since WWII, Medicare and Medicaid insurance - all creations of the federal government.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7298"

 

[JDoolin]

There are several factors that impact health care costs including new medical technology, an aging population and many others. To my mind these are all secondary to the primary cause which is a lack of a market system in healthcare: there is little to no price information provided to the actual consumer of healthcare. I can look up the price of launching my 1000kg payload into orbit, online, but it is impossible for me as laymen to bypass my insurer to call around to hospitals and get the going rate on a procedure, nor can I get a price on insurance out of state. This state of affairs is largely due to the employer provided health tax break, Medicare and Medicaid insurance - all creations of the federal government.

Good point. And again, that falls under the heading of transparency. That's another thing we should insist on being made public information.

 

[WhoWee]

In order to understand it better, I want to discuss this entire (new - quasi) socialism discussion - as it might apply to me. Apparently, there will be 2 groups - taxpayer and beneficiary?

I would prefer to be a member of the taxpayer group. Accordingly, I might be willing to create 8 new jobs this year if the Government is willing to subsidize my business ($250,000 per employee would be adequate = $2 Million cash up front) and provide me a comprehensive green energy package for my home and business - to include, solar, vertical wind turbines, and geothermal.

Now, in return, if they are willing to do this, I might also be willing to pay a 40% income tax rate. Further, I could help the employees enroll in the Government mandated health insurance plan - and either pay the premium or pay the penalty after a cost analysis. I would intend to provide training and pay a fair wage in the $10 to $25 per hour range based upon production, quality, and consistency of work.

Does this sound fair?

 

[mheslep]

Yeah. Thanks.

Check post 407. I really thought pandering meant something else.

So given that definition, I don't want to be pandered to by the government.

Heh. Nor do I. Feel that way none the less come tax day. ;-)

 

[ThomasT]

Have you considered the vast differences in technology and available care? For example, cancer care is expensive, right? Well chemotherapy was invented in 1965. Before that, there wasn't much in the way of treatment.

The use of technology make things expensive: MRI, CT scan, etc. Drugs themselves become more sophisticated and expensive to discover/invent.

Healthcare costs rise in large part because healthcare itself advances.

I of course agree that increased healthcare costs have something (maybe a lot, maybe mostly) to do with the costs associated with technological advances. It isn't clear to me exactly how much this contributes to the increase.

The argument that a less regulated, market driven healthcare system would stabalize at generally lower rates of increasing costs might be correct (and I think it probably is correct). But even if it is, I would guess that there's still going to be about 10% of the population that can't even afford the relatively less expensive preventative care, much less the very much more expensive treatment for serious conditions. So, how might we deal with that?

Wrt the OP, I don't see any way around some sort of large governmental participation. The argument that it can be handled by friends, family, churches, and secular philanthropic groups made sense half a century ago. But it's difficult for me to see it as a solution to the problem in today's America.

There's really only one way to find out. Unfortunately we seem to be too entangled with the status quo to do that (ie., to allow healthcare to be genuinely market driven). But my guess is that a primarily free(er) market driven healthcare system, while resulting in generally lower costs and decreases in the rates of increase of those costs, would nonetheless leave 30 to 40 million Americans without proper health care.

 

[JDoolin]

Regarding the mystery of costs of medical procedures, I've heard recently that even the doctors themselves may have no idea how much the drug companies are charging the insurance companies. All they know is that one drug is slightly better than the other, and its the same price (or perhaps less with the coupon) for the patient. They have no idea that it costs 10 times as much to the insurance company.

If you're going to be a friend, then your attitude should be "I'm going to help out my friends." If you're going to be a an active member of the community, you should say "I'm going to help my community" Likewise, a church member is quite likely to want to help out his or her church.

But if you're running for national political office, you should be aware of all those people that want to be helpful, but that does not release you from doing whatever you can to help as well.

The idea that friends, neighbors and churches have the resources to provide healthcare to all Americans (or protect their water, food, air quality, etc.) is quite preposterous.

Absent the current interference from the federal government I disagree.

The federal government has a revenue of $2+ trillion yet still over spends that by $1.6 trillion, incurring maybe a hundred billion in annual fraud from the current health entitlements alone. The idea that a federal government far removed from its 300 million people can "provide" healthcare is easily the more unlikely of the two approaches.

The question is, in the current system, where the current corruption is already in place, whether it is the time to say; Okay, government; hands off the healthcare system!

It's not a question of can they. It's a question of are they? And the answer is, no they aren't. Certainly not in the massive, organized fashion that would be necessary to compete with multi-billion dollar industries. If you're claiming the U.S. government has no hope to compete with special interests, how can you think that individual churches and governments would have any hope?

When the churches and communities all stand up and demand their health care rights are returned to them; when the hospitals, nurses, unemployed nurses, and neigborhood doctors decide that enough is enough, and they'll return to the good-old-days of 1950's medicine, and they have the organization to make their own rule...

You know, actually I would like to see that. Or, actually, I'd like to see more of that, since that's kind of the way my own doctor is. But if I don't see a revolution across the country of hospitals throwing off the reigns of unfair, inefficient, and costly rules I think it is better if the government changes those rules.

The government already has rules in place which are inefficient, costly, and end up making the wrong people rich. If you're saying that the churches, and communities should get together and just do something different, you are quite likely to be asking them to break the law. It would be much better to change the laws, to change them to something just.

As a presidential candidate, to say that he has no responsibility as a government official to improve the healthcare system, because that should be in the hands of the churches and friends and communities. At this point, when the government already has its hands in the health care system, Ron Paul should have to come up with a fairly robust plan for HOW to transfer the control of the health care system to communities, churches, and friends.

In any case, asking communities to handle their own healthcare systems, when there are already numerous laws and regulations in place, preventing them from doing things as efficiently as they would probably like, he's asking people to break the law, and I think the result would be pretty chaotic.

But that might be what he wants. Is that far from the libertarian ideal? What exactly is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

 

[czelaya]

I differ in opinion on this. You are giving up too easily. For a government by the people, and for the people, there is no greater imperative than transparency. The people must KNOW what their government is doing in detail so that we may make the appropriate choices when election time is coming around.

By eliminating lobbying and protectionist laws you eliminate special privileges to any groups. I agree completely on transparency for the government on its actions. However, when it comes to markets, government shouldn't dictate how private entities should do business. Let consumers decide that.

Transparency is important, because we must know WHY these companies are stagnant. We must know why their competitors are not stagnant. Do you think America is the only country in the world who subsidizes their industries? We have a level of transparency in this country that informs us of how much the companies are getting, and how it's being used. That is a good thing. We should also be aware of how much their competitors are being subsidized.

This is where we differ. Governments and the general public shouldn't know why companies become stagnant. That's for markets to decide. Companies, for the most part, become stagnant because they don't evolve with consumer’s needs(think of GM engineering gas guzzling automobiles or Sega developing a game console that is difficult for game developers to code). Businesses become stagnant because consumer decides it's not in their best interest to purchase what they are selling. We shouldn't be subsidizing private industries. This gives an unfair advantage to those subsidized industries and further leads to moral hazard (which GM has already clearly shown). If a company can't compete than it deserves to go out of business. Tax payers money going to a select few subsidized industries is a vote we are all forced to pay into for the carelessness of the few.

I am happy to see GM getting subsidized because it means more American jobs but that was in the BILLIONS of dollars. Solyndra got subsidized for a half a billion dollars, and from what I've heard, by the time they got their factories up, somehow the market was already mysteriously flooded with the patented product they intended to sell, and they could not match the price.

That's an astonishing statement. This isn't the first time GM has been bailed out, and they have been bailed out previously for the same reasons-mismanagement of assets. They created automobiles that were substandard compared to competitors and they deliberately did so. They didn't invest into newer engine technologies (DOCH, SOHC, variable valve timing, and so forth) that a large segment of the automobile industry was already adapting. Honda and Toyota literally had 4 cylinders, at one time, that were producing as much horsepower as GM V8's. GM created automobiles that were cheaply made and didn't have the reliability that many of their competitors had. Clearly they deserved to go out of business. Why did they act so recklessly? Because they could be bailed by the tax payers. That's not capitalism. That's pure corporatism. The GM bailouts is advocating reckless behavior and punishing responsibility.

My first automobile was Chevrolet Berretta which was an awful automobile with horrific gas mileage and had an interior that was falling apart after 2 years of use. In the case for GM, I made a vote never to purchase a car by such a careless corporation. I wasn't the only one and a majority of Americans did as well. They lost money because they produced an inferior product. If they go out of business who losses? A minority of Americans who have invested interest in GM. However, because of their lobbying efforts, WE ALL WERE FORCED TO HELP A CARELESS COMPANY.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean there.

Sorry. What I meant is that currently we have corporatism. A union with government and a select few companies that creates an unfair advantage in industry. Eliminate it.

 

[mheslep]

...A minority of Americans who have invested interest in GM. However, because of their lobbying efforts, ...

Yes GM lobbied, but most the effective White House lobbying came from the auto unions here.

 

[czelaya]

Yes GM lobbied, but most the effective White House lobbying came from the auto unions here.

Do you have any links that provide more information on the matter.

 

[mheslep]

Do you have any links that provide more information on the matter.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/06/10/uaw-backs-obama-for-president/

The UAW, which has more than 1 million members, announced today the union is endorsing Obama after a unanimous vote of its International Executive Board.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said Obama was an inspiring leader who would fight for working families.
From the streets of Chicago to the state Legislature in Springfield, Ill., to the halls of the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has been a voice for dignity and justice for working people. He has a strong program for a safe and secure America, which will protect our citizens and help our country prosper in a new century.

On every issue that counts, we can count on Barack Obama to stand with our members, our families and our communities.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/31/for-obama-some-unions-are-more-equal-than-others/

The Service Employees International Union takes the top prize as President Obama’s favorite labor union. President Andy Stern and Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger have visited the White House nearly 60 times, including 11 meetings with Obama and another with Vice President Biden.
[...]
Big Labor spent an estimated $450 million on the 2008 election,

I count Ron Gettelfinger,UAW President, visiting the http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records" in 2009-2010. I'm guessing the visits were even more frequent prior to the bailout. Note that while GM CEO Rick Waggoner was fired by the government, Ron Gettelfinger was not.

 

[Zarqon]

sorry, took me a while to get back to the thread.

Where can I find those definitions of freedom and equality?

There are two ways of answering.

1) I presented an argument myself, about the fact that people born into poverty have less opportunities than those born into rich families, and that I though this was a type of inequality that can be reduced. This argument is independent from where I got it, and you can answer it on it's own merits. Do you think poor children should have less opportunities than rich? I don't, hence I support attempts at fixing the situation by making sure the publicly available instances, like health care and schools are working well enough.

2) The ideas of distinguishing between negative liberty (the absence of constraints, a.k.a. the common US definition) and positive liberty (the possibility of acting) can be found on on wikipedia but also more in depth e.g. at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/"

 

[russ_watters]

1) I presented an argument myself, about the fact that people born into poverty have less opportunities than those born into rich families, and that I though this was a type of inequality that can be reduced.

The definition of "equality" isn't in question: it was just about the definition of "opportunity". You essentially argued that opportunity=outcome. I don't think you did a good job of proving that basically because they are pretty much opposites of each other. In any case, it is fine to argue what sounds good to you, but politics is more practical than that: we're discussing, for the most part, how America works and the US was not founded on the idea that opportunity=outcome. This is why quota-based affirmative action consistently fails Supreme Court muster. What you suggest just isn't how it works here. To put a finer point on it:

This argument is independent from where I got it, and you can answer it on it's own merits. Do you think poor children should have less opportunities than rich?

No, poor children should not have less opportunities than the rich. But I think you are misusing the word "opportunity". You are not using it the way it was intended by the founders of the US. Should they? Irrelevant question: no one in here suggested they shouldn't and I think most are aware that that is one of the core functions of government and one of the great triumphs/ innovations of the US.

The real question is: Do they?Based on the founding principles and definitions in the constitution, yes.

2) The ideas of distinguishing between negative liberty (the absence of constraints, a.k.a. the common US definition) and positive liberty (the possibility of acting) can be found on on wikipedia but also more in depth e.g. at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/"

Well...at least you acknowledge that the US has a preferred definition...

And I do like the link: it has an entire section discussing the logical flaws in the concept of "positive liberty". My biggest complaint about Marx is that while his ideas often sound good to people, as a practical matter they just don't work. This is an example of that.

 

[JDoolin]

By eliminating lobbying and protectionist laws you eliminate special privileges to any groups. I agree completely on transparency for the government on its actions. However, when it comes to markets, government shouldn't dictate how private entities should do business. Let consumers decide that.

Ideally, the consumers ARE the government. Or at least, the electorate puts officials in government who will act on their behalf as consumers, and in this way, the consumers, through the government will dictate how private entities should do business.

Also, consumers, as consumers, have only one ability. They can either choose to buy or not buy. When GM started making an electric car (Ev1) years ago, they didn't even give the consumers that option. They leased the cars out to people, but then they didn't renew the leases, pulled the cars back in, and demolished them.

When it comes down to a choice of "buy" or "don't buy" that's not a sufficient choice. That doesn't give me the chance to say "Hey! Stop sitting on your patents and produce this stuff!" It doesn't give me the chance to say "Hey! Stop poisoning our water and air." It doesn't give me the chance to say "Hey, don't close that factory; these people are my friends."

This is where we differ. Governments and the general public shouldn't know why companies become stagnant. That's for markets to decide. Companies, for the most part, become stagnant because they don't evolve with consumer’s needs(think of GM engineering gas guzzling automobiles or Sega developing a game console that is difficult for game developers to code). Businesses become stagnant because consumer decides it's not in their best interest to purchase what they are selling. We shouldn't be subsidizing private industries. This gives an unfair advantage to those subsidized industries and further leads to moral hazard (which GM has already clearly shown). If a company can't compete than it deserves to go out of business. Tax payers money going to a select few subsidized industries is a vote we are all forced to pay into for the carelessness of the few.



That's an astonishing statement. This isn't the first time GM has been bailed out, and they have been bailed out previously for the same reasons-mismanagement of assets. They created automobiles that were substandard compared to competitors and they deliberately did so. They didn't invest into newer engine technologies (DOCH, SOHC, variable valve timing, and so forth) that a large segment of the automobile industry was already adapting. Honda and Toyota literally had 4 cylinders, at one time, that were producing as much horsepower as GM V8's. GM created automobiles that were cheaply made and didn't have the reliability that many of their competitors had. Clearly they deserved to go out of business. Why did they act so recklessly? Because they could be bailed by the tax payers. That's not capitalism. That's pure corporatism. The GM bailouts is advocating reckless behavior and punishing responsibility.

My first automobile was Chevrolet Berretta which was an awful automobile with horrific gas mileage and had an interior that was falling apart after 2 years of use. In the case for GM, I made a vote never to purchase a car by such a careless corporation. I wasn't the only one and a majority of Americans did as well. They lost money because they produced an inferior product. If they go out of business who losses? A minority of Americans who have invested interest in GM. However, because of their lobbying efforts, WE ALL WERE FORCED TO HELP A CARELESS COMPANY.



Sorry. What I meant is that currently we have corporatism. A union with government and a select few companies that creates an unfair advantage in industry. Eliminate it.

You may have the right idea, but my concern is not about the upper management of these places, but about the workers and infrastructure. My understanding of the GM bailout (and it might be wrong) was that the funding was tied to a change in management. I was under the impression that the incompetent people at the top got replaced; or at least that they would be subject to much greater government oversight.

If a company IS bailed out by the government, I think things should be taken on a case-by-case basis. In some situations you really want to throw the management out. In other cases, it may be an act of God, or a recession, or companies in another country undercutting you. (Okay, acknowledged, that's probably what some of our subsidies are doing to everyone else.)

My point is, yes, punish the management, as much as you are able to do so, but we don't want to see those factories shut down. We don't want to have hundreds or thousands of unemployed. We want to find some way to utilize those resources, hopefully by putting in good management, and producing a good product.

I had believed that the incompetent former management of GM were thrown out, when the company was bailed out, last time, but you seem to believe otherwise.

 

[WhoWee]

I had believed that the incompetent former management of GM were thrown out, when the company was bailed out, last time, but you seem to believe otherwise.

How did you arrive at the conclusion they were incompetent? Aside from union negotiations - can you cite any of their decisions or components of their business plan that support your statement?

 

[JDoolin]

How did you arrive at the conclusion they were incompetent? Aside from union negotiations - can you cite any of their decisions or components of their business plan that support your statement?

What's already been cited:

This isn't the first time GM has been bailed out, and they have been bailed out previously for the same reasons-mismanagement of assets. They created automobiles that were substandard compared to competitors and they deliberately did so. They didn't invest into newer engine technologies (DOCH, SOHC, variable valve timing, and so forth) that a large segment of the automobile industry was already adapting. Honda and Toyota literally had 4 cylinders, at one time, that were producing as much horsepower as GM V8's. GM created automobiles that were cheaply made and didn't have the reliability that many of their competitors had. Clearly they deserved to go out of business. Why did they act so recklessly? Because they could be bailed by the tax payers. That's not capitalism. That's pure corporatism. The GM bailouts is advocating reckless behavior and punishing responsibility.

When GM started making an electric car (Ev1) years ago, they didn't even give the consumers that option. They leased the cars out to people, but then they didn't renew the leases, pulled the cars back in, and demolished them.

I'm pretty appalled by the mismanagement of GM. And I don't think union negotiations are the problem. Czalya's got the problem right, the product they were producing was not made to last, and they just weren't competitive with foreign made products.

I just don't think that closing all of their factories down and firing all the workers is the solution. Instead, try to save the factories and run them right.

 

[fleem]

I'm pretty appalled by the mismanagement of GM. I just don't think that closing all of their factories down and firing all the workers is the solution. Instead, try to save the factories and run them right.

The federal government is taking my money away from me (that I would have paid only to companies that are most productive) so that these companies will be rewarded for being unproductive. Ergo, either the politicians are mind-bogglingly stupid when it comes to economics, or they are buying votes from the unions. Viva government over the free market!

 

[WhoWee]

What's already been cited:

I'm pretty appalled by the mismanagement of GM. And I don't think union negotiations are the problem. Czalya's got the problem right, the product they were producing was not made to last, and they just weren't competitive with foreign made products.

I just don't think that closing all of their factories down and firing all the workers is the solution. Instead, try to save the factories and run them right.

Perhaps we should ask Czalya to support his conclusions - that you've now cited as correct?

 

[JDoolin]

The federal government is taking my money away from me (that I would have paid only to companies that are most productive) so that these companies will be rewarded for being unproductive. Ergo, either the politicians are mind-bogglingly stupid when it comes to economics, or they are buying votes from the unions. Viva government over the free market!

Is the whole "Buy American" idea just mind-bogglingly stupid? Should we just go buy whoever makes it the cheapest, fastest, and highest quality. In a lot of situations, I suppose we can't really compete, because our wages are higher; we insist on good lighting, ventilation, safety, emission control, overtime pay, disability insurance.

Is the American model then, to blame? Is the problem with worker's rights? Should we push down our worker's expectations so that we can compete with countries that don't have the same level of human rights?

 

[JDoolin]

Perhaps we should ask Czalya to support his conclusions - that you've now cited as correct?

Sure. If it's not true, it wouldn't be the first time that I've been fed bad information, and believed it.

 

[fleem]

Is the whole "Buy American" idea just mind-bogglingly stupid? Should we just go buy whoever makes it the cheapest, fastest, and highest quality. In a lot of situations, I suppose we can't really compete, because our wages are higher; we insist on good lighting, ventilation, safety, emission control, overtime pay, disability insurance.

Is the American model then, to blame? Is the problem with worker's rights? Should we push down our worker's expectations so that we can compete with countries that don't have the same level of human rights?

Yes to everything you ask, except your implication that embracing the free market is synonymous with tyranny.

EDIT: I should say, except your implication that tyranny increases a country's standard of living.

 

[czelaya]

Ideally, the consumers ARE the government. Or at least, the electorate puts officials in government who will act on their behalf as consumers, and in this way, the consumers, through the government will dictate how private entities should do business.

The consumers ARE not the government. Yes, you may have government officials who are consumers themselves but they don't represent everyone individually(markets however do). When a politician votes for a political measure that motivates factors in the market, he/she isn't representing everyone individually. His/her vote is either his/her own... or a percentage of his/her voters... or lobbyist that persuaded him/her to do so. Thus, the politicians' vote is only a voice of a segment of society.

Also, consumers, as consumers, have only one ability. They can either choose to buy or not buy.

Only having the ability to/not to buy is not a weak choice. I couldn't think of a stronger choice in the ability to voice whether I support or don't support a particular company. Someone choosing to buy or not to buy a particular product causes a company to either prosper or face bankruptcy.

When it comes down to a choice of "buy" or "don't buy" that's not a sufficient choice. That doesn't give me the chance to say "Hey! Stop sitting on your patents and produce this stuff!" It doesn't give me the chance to say "Hey! Stop poisoning our water and air." It doesn't give me the chance to say "Hey, don't close that factory; these people are my friends."

If a company spends money on research and creates a new novel technology or service and acquires a patent-why should it produce it? It's the company's property. It's not entitled to create a product for consumers. Look at the Honda Corp. on how they introduced patent US4535733 (vvt). While Honda does employ this technology in many of their automobiles its chosen to license it's technology to other companies.

If you don't think consumers have any say on how companies engineer their services or goods then look no further than Acura. The Acura TL has been one of Acura's best selling automobiles. It was modestly priced and known for it's sleek, sporty, and elegant styling even thou it was a front wheel drive luxury automobile(oxymoron). It didn't have the rear wheel drive, or high output V8's usually seen from competitors but it was known most importantly for its reliability and conservative styling. Acura in 2008-2009 introduced a new version of the TL that had impeccable quality but conveyed a new styling scheme that consumers didn't want. Sales plummeted for the TL. Acura replied ferociously in making the car more attractive to consumers to retain its market share. Consumer's actions of not purchasing the car caused Acura not to pursue a styling endeavor that it heavily invested into and has caused Acura to lose market share. I'm sure Acura will not make this mistake again but if it does it may cost the company to go out of business.

If a company IS bailed out by the government, I think things should be taken on a case-by-case basis. In some situations you really want to throw the management out. In other cases, it may be an act of God, or a recession, or companies in another country undercutting you. (Okay, acknowledged, that's probably what some of our subsidies are doing to everyone else.)

My point is, yes, punish the management, as much as you are able to do so, but we don't want to see those factories shut down. We don't want to have hundreds or thousands of unemployed. We want to find some way to utilize those resources, hopefully by putting in good management, and producing a good product.

A company going out of business doesn't necessarily mean factories will close. That's the purpose of chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Markets are very dynamical systems. They're always evolving. Markets are efficient because of the competition inherent in capitalism. This is what drives cost down and makes for better and cheaper goods and services(in most cases). Companies are always closing but new companies and markets are always emerging. You have to let consumers decide on what stays and what goes.

 

[apeiron]

The real question is: Do they?Based on the founding principles and definitions in the constitution, yes.

Empirical evidence of actual equality of opportunity in a country would be its social mobility stats. And what do we find?

Intergenerational earning, wage and educational mobility vary widely across OECD countries. Mobility in earnings, wages and education across generations is relatively low in France, southern European countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. By contrast, such mobility tends to be higher in Australia, Canada and the Nordic countries.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

So, for example, near 50% of the economic advantage that high-earning fathers in the US have over low-earning fathers is passed to their sons, compared to sub-20% in Australia, Canada, Norway.

Access to education is of course the key opportunity that needs to be equal in practice the OECD report suggests. This is the positive liberty that would need to be in place.

 

[BobG]

Have you considered the vast differences in technology and available care? For example, cancer care is expensive, right? Well chemotherapy was invented in 1965. Before that, there wasn't much in the way of treatment.

The use of technology make things expensive: MRI, CT scan, etc. Drugs themselves become more sophisticated and expensive to discover/invent.

Healthcare costs rise in large part because healthcare itself advances.

There are several factors that impact health care costs including new medical technology, an aging population, high demand for the very good medical treatments and many others. To my mind these are all secondary to the primary cause which is a lack of a market system in healthcare: there is little to no price information provided to the actual consumer. I can look up the price of launching my 1000kg payload into orbit, online, but it is impossible for me as layman to bypass my insurer to call around to hospitals and get the going rate on a procedure, nor can I get a price on insurance out of state. The resulting thinking on health care is evident everywhere, when people just assume some procedure "costs" $100K as if it were written in stone. Nobody says a flight to Florida "costs" $2K (it once did), or a computer with 500K RAM "costs" $2K (it once did) because of course there's a highly competitive market at work ruthlessly constraining the prices of these things. This state of affairs is largely due to government interference on what should be a health market: the employer health tax break since WWII, Medicare and Medicaid insurance - all creations of the federal government.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7298"

Improved technology that becomes cheaper with increased demand. And an increased demand that should mean an increase in supply that counteracts the rise in demand. And yet medical costs don't seem to be affected by the same principles that affect other markets. Improved technologies become more expensive with increased demand and we never reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. (Maybe partly because the increased supply occurs for specialist fields that can charge higher prices instead of an increase in general practitioners that provide most of the preventative care.)

I do think the separation between the patient and the cost is a pretty big contribution. Paired with the fact that the doctor is the only one in the transaction that really understands what's being talked about, patients can easily spend much more than is really necessary. When it comes to your own health, better safe than sorry - especially when the insurance company is paying for it.

One change, even if not earth-shattering, should be that doctors can't profit from the diagnostic tests they request. A similar law already is in place for drugs. A doctor can't sell you the drugs he prescribes. You have to buy your medicine somewhere else because trusting the opinion of a doctor that stands to profit from the advice he gives you just invites fraud.

 

[MarcoD]

Empirical evidence of actual equality of opportunity in a country would be its social mobility stats. And what do we find?

So, for example, near 50% of the economic advantage that high-earning fathers in the US have over low-earning fathers is passed to their sons, compared to sub-20% in Australia, Canada, Norway.

Access to education is of course the key opportunity that needs to be equal in practice the OECD report suggests. This is the positive liberty that would need to be in place.

These statistics are right, but also downplay a bit the role of culture. Yeah, the Northern European countries, and I am delighted the Dutch, do well in social mobility, but that's also because the stiff upper lip British just hold on somewhat more to a society divided among class lines than the somewhat nihilistic and extreme egalitarian Dutch.

 

[mheslep]

Improved technology that becomes cheaper with increased demand. And an increased demand that should mean an increase in supply that counteracts the rise in demand.

Supply and demand pertain to cost only in markets. We don't have much a provider-patient market with human medical care in the US.

And yet medical costs don't seem to be affected by the same principles that affect other markets. Improved technologies become more expensive with increased demand and we never reach an equilibrium between supply and demand.

There are examples where medical markets exist and costs are contained. See post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3528221&postcount=369"to be treated in a private hospital equipped with modern technology and staffed in part by American educated and certified doctors for ~10% of the US cost.

...
I do think the separation between the patient and the cost is a pretty big contribution.

Agreed.

Paired with the fact that the doctor is the only one in the transaction that really understands what's being talked about, patients can easily spend much more than is really necessary.

I think there must be any number of industries where people rely on expert advice and for critically important matters.

 

[apeiron]

These statistics are right, but also downplay a bit the role of culture. Yeah, the Northern European countries, and I am delighted the Dutch, do well in social mobility, but that's also because the stiff upper lip British just hold on somewhat more to a society divided among class lines than the somewhat nihilistic and extreme egalitarian Dutch.

I agree. But then the culture of the US is precisely about being "the land of opportunity", whereas the UK is historically hidebound, despite recently coming to espouse meritocracy.

The truth of course (IMO as we have to now say here) is that the US does have instutionalised inequality. The free market favours the few. The game is rigged. Power has the machinery to perpetuate its existence.

The answer you hear is that's all right because in the US, everyone is still freer, happier, wealthier, healthier, more educated that other comparison nations. The good stuff still trickles down. Being at the bottom of the US pile is still better than...blah, blah, blah.

I don't really care. I see all political systems as experiments and I am interested in both the evidence of their success, and more particularly their definitions of success - because unless you are measuring the right things, you can't construct the right theories.

But that's a more abstract conversation.

 

[WhoWee]

Improved technology that becomes cheaper with increased demand. And an increased demand that should mean an increase in supply that counteracts the rise in demand. And yet medical costs don't seem to be affected by the same principles that affect other markets. Improved technologies become more expensive with increased demand and we never reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. (Maybe partly because the increased supply occurs for specialist fields that can charge higher prices instead of an increase in general practitioners that provide most of the preventative care.)

I do think the separation between the patient and the cost is a pretty big contribution. Paired with the fact that the doctor is the only one in the transaction that really understands what's being talked about, patients can easily spend much more than is really necessary. When it comes to your own health, better safe than sorry - especially when the insurance company is paying for it.

One change, even if not earth-shattering, should be that doctors can't profit from the diagnostic tests they request. A similar law already is in place for drugs. A doctor can't sell you the drugs he prescribes. You have to buy your medicine somewhere else because trusting the opinion of a doctor that stands to profit from the advice he gives you just invites fraud.

I had a doctor's appointment yesterday - hadn't been there in a while. I received a robo-call to remind me of the appointment the day before. When I arrived at the appointment, the wait was very pleasant - given plush furniture and a large plasma TV (Fox News). The examination rooms had new furniture and equipment. The old balance beam scale in the hallway was replaced by new digital scales in each room - more private. Each of the examination rooms also have a new wall mounted PC station - very handy for writing orders and sending prescriptions direct to the pharmacy.

The doctor and I always discuss our families and politics. Yesterday we discussed insurance and healthcare reform. I commented on the changes to his practice and he explained the competitive nature of the industry and "recommendations" passed down from the network.

We also discussed the closure of a (recently renovated - 8-10 years prior) hospital last year and the construction of a new $350 Million state of the art facility nearby. It will be nicer and more comfortable than the nearby hotels when finished and equipped with only the latest and best technology.

Personally, I like my doctor (drive about 75 miles to see him) and don't care much about the plasma TV or the digital scales. As for the old hospital - they took good care of me the last time I had some tests done there. Apparently, a great many other consumers demand more from their healthcare providers?

 

[WhoWee]

This might help nudge us back to the topic?
http://internationalbusiness.wikia.com/wiki/Causes_for_the_Underground_Economy_in_Greece

"Causes for the Underground Economy in Greece"

 

[JDoolin]

The consumers ARE not the government. Yes, you may have government officials who are consumers themselves but they don't represent everyone individually(markets however do). When a politician votes for a political measure that motivates factors in the market, he/she isn't representing everyone individually. His/her vote is either his/her own... or a percentage of his/her voters... or lobbyist that persuaded him/her to do so. Thus, the politicians' vote is only a voice of a segment of society.
Only having the ability to/not to buy is not a weak choice. I couldn't think of a stronger choice in the ability to voice whether I support or don't support a particular company. Someone choosing to buy or not to buy a particular product causes a company to either prosper or face bankruptcy.

I suppose if you looked at it from the perspective of somebody that actually has some money, the ability to buy may, after all, be quite a strong choice. Unfortunately, I can't really empathize.

If a company spends money on research and creates a new novel technology or service and acquires a patent-why should it produce it? It's the company's property. It's not entitled to create a product for consumers. Look at the Honda Corp. on how they introduced patent US4535733 (vvt). While Honda does employ this technology in many of their automobiles its chosen to license it's technology to other companies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you didn't have to license out the technology to other companies. You can hold onto the patent just to prevent it from competing with what you are already building.

And I have also heard there are companies who manage to buy patents, just to sue other companies for patent infringement. It was on an episode of "Planet Money" I heard this. They don't have any offices or workers. Just a front door and a mailbox.

If you don't think consumers have any say on how companies engineer their services or goods then look no further than Acura. The Acura TL has been one of Acura's best selling automobiles. It was modestly priced and known for it's sleek, sporty, and elegant styling even thou it was a front wheel drive luxury automobile(oxymoron). It didn't have the rear wheel drive, or high output V8's usually seen from competitors but it was known most importantly for its reliability and conservative styling. Acura in 2008-2009 introduced a new version of the TL that had impeccable quality but conveyed a new styling scheme that consumers didn't want. Sales plummeted for the TL. Acura replied ferociously in making the car more attractive to consumers to retain its market share. Consumer's actions of not purchasing the car caused Acura not to pursue a styling endeavor that it heavily invested into and has caused Acura to lose market share. I'm sure Acura will not make this mistake again but if it does it may cost the company to go out of business.

I can't imagine anything I'm less likely ever to buy than a luxury automobile. But you make a good point. When the consumer has good information (Consumer Reports Magazine, for instance) they can make an educated decision, and the company can adjust to consumer needs.

A company going out of business doesn't necessarily mean factories will close. That's the purpose of chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Markets are very dynamical systems. They're always evolving. Markets are efficient because of the competition inherent in capitalism. This is what drives cost down and makes for better and cheaper goods and services(in most cases). Companies are always closing but new companies and markets are always emerging. You have to let consumers decide on what stays and what goes.

Alright. I'm a little bit confused about the GM bailout right now. Last I had heard about it, (but I forgot, then remembered) was that GM had paid back its bailout money. A little research on the internet shows almost no verification of that, saying in fact, they just shuffled money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), so I think what actually happened was as part of the Bailout, in fact GM was supposed to be subject to government oversight.

Did they somehow free themselves from the government oversight by shifting the debt from the stimulus package to the TARP money?

Another idea I came across while I was looking around; would America be giving special status to certain American car manufacturers because they also make tanks? Or is it just a matter of keeping a healthy middle class, so that we have somebody in this country who might actually be able to afford to buy an Acura?

I fear in the confusion of hearsay and facts, rumors, and fiction, I've lost the thread, which is America's Aversion to Socialism. So I just reiterate some of my basic principles.
(1) we need to get away from the idea that exponential growth is necessary (or even a good thing.)
(2) We need transparency of government.
(3) We need transparency in business; at least enough so people can make informed choices about what to buy.
(4) There are some basic human necessities; goods and services; that are not going to be handled by a profit-motivated business. (or if they are handled by a profit-motivated business, they will be handled very badly.)

 

[John Creighto]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you didn't have to license out the technology to other companies. You can hold onto the patent just to prevent it from competing with what you are already building.

And I have also heard there are companies who manage to buy patents, just to sue other companies for patent infringement. It was on an episode of "Planet Money" I heard this. They don't have any offices or workers. Just a front door and a mailbox.

This video explains it better.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

I would like to say the patient system is outdated but it is up to date as far as patient holders are concerned. Until recently patient offices wouldn't accept software patients because software was considered language. We live in a world with a tremendous cognitive surplus. Ideas are a dime a dozen and the current system only hinders innovation.

In my opinion the only time patients make sense is in areas which require tremendous research like drug testing because of the long period of testing which is required by the FDA. However, their are alternative ways such research could be funded.

The primary purpose of intellectual property laws is to create artificial scarcity in order to extract higher rents for products and services. Despite the fact that it takes considerably less resources today to record an album the length period of copyrights is at a historic high. New laws are mandating the destruction of content (book burning), are weakening: fair use, free speech, political speech and even satire.

For each I-tune song sold apple takes an exorbitantly large share of the profit. Well the top artists are making less in the days of easy access to information. Artists as a whole are making more money.

Some quotes By Kevin A. Carson from:
http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Thermidor-of-the-Progressives.pdf
"Under these conditions, in a rapidly growing number of kinds of production, the primary function of the old corporate framework—the governance of expensive production assets—is becoming obsolete. The only remaining function of the corporate framework in most cases is to use artificial scarcity, artificial overhead, and artificial entry barriers to retain control of human capital and extract rents from it."

"The solution, for those of us who see P2P as the nucleus for a new society, is to flush all of the artificial scarcity and subsidized waste out of the system, so that the costs of rent and health care are much lower, the embedded IP rents on manufactured goods disappear as a component of their price, etc., and the total amount of paid labor required to pay for goods governed by the price system falls precipitously."

"The forces of corporate capitalism, through state-enforced artificial property rights (“intellectual property” in particular), artificial scarcity, and mandated artificially high capital outlays and overhead, are trying to put new wine into old bottles: to coopt the network revolution into a corporate framework and capitalize it as a source of rents."

"What we're seeing is a return to the folk model of making modest incomes
by direct production for one's audience, in place of a model in which the “artist” is the client of some bureaucratic government or corporate patron (with the giant publishing house or record company “keeping” the artist in the same way an Italian grandee kept his pet artist in the Renaissance). Despite Taylor's fears that content creators won't be paid, I think the truth is far closer to Tim O'Reilly's observation that for the little guy, obscurity is a lot bigger danger than “piracy.”86 I suspect a lot of the critics are pretty unimaginative when it comes to thinking of alternative ways for content
creators to monetize their products."

"I'm sure the overall revenue pie is a lot smaller. But that's offset to a significant extent by a reduction in the share of total revenue previously absorbed by recording studios and corporate marketing operations that are now within the means of the artists themselves. This is borne out by figures for the years 2004-2008, which show that while total music revenues in the UK fell from 1.067 million pounds to .782 million pounds, total payments to artists actually rose"

"But from reading Frank—again—you'd never guess that there's a micromanufacturing movement whose aim is, in fact, eliminating rents on artificial scarcity and artificial property rights like patents as a source of concentrated wealth, and achieving widely distributed ownership of the means of production by ordinary people. For these people, “decentralized production” doesn't mean outsourcing to a job-shop in Shenzhen, which produces goods on contract to a Western TNC to be sent by container ship to a Wal-Mart in Peoria; it means a consumer in Peoria selects a toaster or recliner from a range of freely available, open-source product designs, to be produced on demand by a garage factory full of sophisticated (and affordable) CNC machinery in his own neighborhood—free from the entire portion of price constituted by brand-name markup, embedded rents on “intellectual property,” mass-marketing costs, and long-distance shipping in the price of goods at Wal-Mart. These people don't just want to outsource production within a corporate framework. They want to eliminate the corporate headquarters and the shareholders, and democratize control of production itself to a relocalized economy of selfemployed craftspeople who can afford their own production machinery. They seek, in short, “a more
democratic distribution of wealth.”"

"In his obsession with the need for market power to enable pricing above marginal cost and
guarantee payment, Lanier is—as we saw with Keen—Schumpeterian. But he takes it a step further: not only should the artist be able to find some way of monetizing his performances, but he should be guaranteed a reliable source of future revenue without ongoing labor. “...[P]eople need to be secure that they're earning their dignity and don't need to sing for their supper every night.”130 Oddly enough, though, the guy who works on an assembly line has to keep making widgets for his supper every day. And I have to keep emptying bedpans at the hospital where I work to pay my bills. It's only through the magic of copyright"

And another video about how copyright is killing science:
http://motherboard.tv/2011/4/25/lessig-copyright-isn-t-just-hurting-creativity-it-s-killing-science-video--2

 

[John Creighto]

Alright. I'm a little bit confused about the GM bailout right now. Last I had heard about it, (but I forgot, then remembered) was that GM had paid back its bailout money. A little research on the internet shows almost no verification of that, saying in fact, they just shuffled money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), so I think what actually happened was as part of the Bailout, in fact GM was supposed to be subject to government oversight.

Did they somehow free themselves from the government oversight by shifting the debt from the stimulus package to the TARP money?

I'm also suspicious of that claim. I can't see how the companies could have went from bankrupt to solvent in such a short period of time if they were on the same playing field as everyone else. Needless to say some in the mass media are trying to make protests look stupid by trying to find ones who don't "Know" the bailout money was paid back. See:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/

I'll have to research further where the money went and how they were able to come up with repayment so quickly.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm also suspicious of that claim. I can't see how the companies could have went from bankrupt to solvent in such a short period of time if they were on the same playing field as everyone else. Needless to say some in the mass media are trying to make protests look stupid by trying to find ones who don't "Know" the bailout money was paid back. See:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/

I'll have to research further where the money went and how they were able to come up with repayment so quickly.

The questions to ask regarding GM should include 1.) what happened to the dealer network, 2.) how did the unions benefit, and 3.) why didn't the Government trust the Federal Bankruptcy courts (that everyone else has to use) as per unions and bond holders?

If union leaders now show up at the Wall Street protest (to use street slang) - the union "ain't nutin but a lie" - IMO of course.

 

[russ_watters]

Empirical evidence of actual equality of opportunity in a country would be its social mobility stats.

That would be true if equality of opportunity were the only driver of social mobility. But culture can provide an invisible barrier while socialism attempts to artificially drive social mobility using exactly the types of policies you suggest!

 

[MarcoD]

That would be true if equality of opportunity were the only driver of social mobility. But culture can provide an invisible barrier while socialism attempts to artificially drive social mobility using exactly the types of policies you suggest!

Our attitude toward life determines life's attitude towards us. Being socialistic without the attitude, or recognizing it's own drawbacks, is meaningless, as the Greeks have shown us.

If a society doesn't care, there's no point in starting caring.

 

[WhoWee]

Our attitude toward life determines life's attitude towards us. Being socialistic without the attitude, or recognizing it's own drawbacks, is meaningless, as the Greeks have shown us.

If a society doesn't care, there's no point in starting caring.

IMO - the Greeks have a thriving underground economy out of contempt for their Government system.

While specifying this opinion, I generally supported this back in post 442 - linked to a write up about the underground economy in Greece.
"Underground Economy: Can be described as a created response that society establishes as a result of an unwelcomed state intrusion; it’s becoming an overwhelming dilemma many governments are facing in today’s world wide economic system. Trying to gather information about the underground economy is not an easy task because no one connected to it wants to be recognized. "

 

[MarcoD]

IMO - the Greeks have a thriving underground economy out of contempt for their Government system.

The Greeks have a contempt for what they are themselves.

They don't want to pay taxes, nepotism and corruption is rampant throughout the whole government, and socialism was just a manner to hand out jobs and sponsor consumerism. It self-enforces itself, why would you pay taxes for a government which just enriches itself?

It's in their culture, if you order a bottle of first quality wine, you're buying a refilled bottle of methanol with a pretty sticker on it; everybody jokes about manners to cheat the system. I once had a conversation with a Greek about economy. He stated it is about greed, I stated it is about trust. That is a fundamental difference in how your economy is going to work.

Doesn't imply that most of them are not decent people, just implies that socialism will never work in that context. They need to privatize everything and switch over to a minimal government, the rest just won't work.