Lung Cancer: A Keynesian View

In Japan, unlike in other countries, the cigarette companies have elaborate displays for smoking. I see Marlboro has some sort of Dark Ice menthol out.

So, this got me to thinking. Why would counties want to cut back on smoking? I mean, if Paul Krugman thought Fukushima was good for Japan, he must LOVE LUNG CANCER! Forget Alien Invasions. Here we have a nearly endless supply of ready made work.

All we need is people to smoke more!


Yeah, I figure drug dependency must be Keynesian utopia. Just imagine all the stimulus! Billions of smokers needing medical treatment. AND hey, The Federal Reserve is a money faucet. There's no need to adequately distribute resources - they're endless! Bailout anything and everything. There can be no clearing of malinvestment. All we need is inflation and work and a lot of both (see: Faked Alien Invasions).

Yeah, these are the psychopaths running the economy into the ground. For them things have only gotten oh that much better since the 1960s when one person worked and easily raised a family of 4 with most middle class amenities. Now you need a University degree (preferably a PhD) to get work at Walmart as a greeter (well, you'll probably need an additional qualification / "Certificate for "Greeting" and a few years volunteer experience on top of that PhD).

If we're going to live as Cattle on the Ranch.
As Piss-On Peasants.
Let us Pray that our Masters at the Federal Reserve and in the bowels of Washington's Bureaucratic Cesspool - that our "Leaders" jump on the Drug Wagon and not the War Wagon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hesitate to extend your thread, but the economic effects of smoking are interesting:

All must die and generally speaking, the terminal years are large part of the total lifetime medical expenses. Thus, some causes of death are more desirable economically than others for society.

Lung cancer, I think, is one of the better* "natural" causes from economic POV - not much medical cost in early phases as little can be done, and later phases don´t drag out for years.

Certainly lung cancer hurts society economically if it strikes in ones productive years, but I suspect the cost of Social Security could be significantly reduced if cigarettes were free to all when they retire.

The cost of making cigarettes is very low. - What you pay is mostly tax, and probably the revenue collected is less than the potential saving to society that relatively quick lung cancer deaths would make.

* Of course it is far inferior economically (and from pain POV too) to a quick bullet thur the heart or lethal injections. No one should be forced to smoke, or to take one of these more economical exit paths but some do so choose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only economics that we have seen play out is that of the companies who knew they were peddling death but kept it secret as long as they could. The rest has been a huge economic burden. If you mean that medical people secretly hoped that cigarette smoking would keep sending them cancer patients, that's pretty absurd. It says that cancer doctors are ruling the world, not all the other doctors the patient would be paying if he lived a normal life and ran the normal course of illness and mishaps.

As for how or why Japanese policy and public opinion differ from the US I would say there are plenty - but I don't see how Keynes even applies to Japan.

You mean the brokers who bundled toxic mortgages?

Better since the crash you mean. Haven't they?

Is that the life you knew? You don't remember all the strife over poverty in the 60s?

I was in Walmart recently and I saw no evidence of any college education among the workers. But it does stand to reason that during the awakening of the 60s, poverty was understood to be tied to inadequate education, and after that a lot of work was done to stress upon children the importance of getting the best education they could, in order to escape poverty and/or to maintain a foothold in the middle class.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Michael your statement here is a huge and profound mistatement of Keynesian thought. Keynes advocated more government spending in periods of economic recession or depression and less government spending in periods of economic prosperity. It has nothing to do with pushing drugs or cancer. Keynesian economics theory is analogous to fixing a hole in the road rather than plunging a vehicle into the hole.

Additionally, the Krugman piece you referenced does not support your OP claims.

 

In this interview we can see that Keynes was already unhappy with the direction his students were taking while he was still alive in the 1940s...so you can imagine what he would have thought of clown prince Krugman, calling himself a Keynesian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqhe4K1Jz-8

 

Any exclusively middle class society would soon fall into desperate poverty and starvation.

Middle and higher classes can only exist with the support of the manual labourers who put a roof over their head, and food in the stores.

Education is a worthwhile investment ONLY when applied to a minority of civilization...those who can absorb it.

 

In recent times - within my memory - many of those who put roofs over heads and food in stores were middle class. In the US and similar countries, anyway.

Worked fine.

Some moderately low paid jobs are unavoidable, and some degree of comparative wealth (a few sort of rich people) probably a net benefit, but nothing like the damaging situation being created in the US. Aristocracies and serfs are neither of them necessary for civilization.

Anyone who takes seriously Michael's view of either Krugman or Keynes is going to want a new handle when they come to their senses. That's a reputation killer.

The net monetary cost analysis of cigarette promotion to a society as a whole is just ordinary economics - albeit difficult in accomplishment and not (AFAIK) accomplished as yet. They don't call it the dismal science for nothing.

 

No Carcano we don't. What we have is you making stuff up again to support your fringe notions. In the video you referenced a Keynes nemisis is making suppositions about his foe. That is not fact. Hayek was a political scientist and lawyer by training. Two the solution to the lack of jobs is not to lay off more people, the Libertarian solution, the anti Keynes solution. And unfortunately for folks like you there are good reasons why every industrial nation in the world uses the principals laid down by Keynes and are not Hayek devotees. We do know that deficit spending can bring an economy out of recession. We have nearly a century of data that supports Keynes over Hayek. If Hayek's notions worked we would be discussing Hayekism rather than Keynesian thought as the dominate economic model.

 

What we had was a person with good health that had a minor cold.

But we were naive and spoilt - like a brat. And so when the Medical Doctor said we're going to need nasty tasting medicine and we're going to feel sick, like any Idiot we didn't like the sound of that. What did sound good was what Dr. Fed was telling us. We didn't need to take any medicine at all. Not only that we could promise even more than we had. All we needed to do was wrap out mouths around this long warm Glass Cock and suck in the Crack vapors.

Ooooo that felt goood!

We felt better. The Medical Doctors/Austrians were wrong! Dr. Fed made us feel so warm and good inside. So the next time the Economy was feeling ill, no need to even talk to a real doctor. They're all quacks anyway! Dr. Fed is the only person we needed to see!

And everyone felt better. And the Economy moved "out of another Recession". No one seemed to notice the top 1% were getting richer, the middle class was not seeing real wage increases. Bet, the economy was still strong enough to putter on and well, ho hum. Oh, sure, like any Money Addict we had to sell some stuff/shift jobs to Asia.... What-EVER!!... did I mention that the Crack the Fed is selling was some good shee-it? Only, I needed a bit more than last time to feel as good. Oh, never mind that.

And on went Economy until "the Trembles" started up again. The Medical Doctors said this was FROM the Crack. But, But, But.... then I'd have to take my medicine (see muslim's thread on marriage for a great example of contemporary America/Britian).

Oooo but the Fed is gonna make Baby Economy feel all better. We gonna need a big-ole hit on the Glass Cock this time around... but then all will be well in the world.

Oh man Oh man that shit feels good. Why's my skin flaking off? Oh, never mind that. I'm out of that Depressed mood I was in and feeling higher than I ever did I tells ya!

This went on and on year after year. Each hit of Crack had to be bigger than the last. Each hit had to come sooner than the last. Like any Money Junkie, Economy just kept coming back to Pimp Daddy Fed. He loved us. AND that LAST hit he sold us. MMMMmmm that was a doozy in 08. Shee-it Man. I NEEDED that one. Mmmm mmmm MMMMMM it felt good. Actually, I had to suck on the Glass Cock three BIG QE puffs but it sure felt goooooooood.

Man, I can't believe I sold just about everything I own to the Fed and have been hawking shit to the Chinese but I'm pretty sure I can steal from my kids and grand kids.

SHIT it's 2012 already!!! I'm getting me a case of the shakes something fierce. Just ONE MORE BIG DRAG ON THAT MOTHER F*CKER..... I ONLY NEEDS ME ONE MORE HIT. JUST ONE. THEN I'M GONNA KICK IT. ALL WILL BE WELL.....


*2020*
Sir we have the corpse of a Prostitute here in the water. Yeah, it's her. Yup, needles running right up and down her arms and legs. Seems she just couldn't help herself and have to move on to the bigger stuff..... yeah, what's the Chairman want us to do with her?

 

I'll stand by my assessment. These money junkies are destroying our economy. Think about it for one minute. THEY BAILED OUT THE TOP 1%. Are you that dense??? You DO know that Obama's term as POTUS as enriched the top 1% GREATER than that of George Bush Jr?

Here's some additional Economic Facts:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most people are too scared of change which is why it's always ushered in by the next generation. Krugman thinks WAR (even if contrived with Aliens) would turn the economy around. He thinks the stimulus spent on Fukushima has helped the Japanese economy. He lives so far in his anus he couldn't see reality if it slapped him in the face. Which, it's going to do. To us all. We're not Japanese. I can say, things in Japan are changing - more for the worse than the good. I see a LOT more stuff that was never here in the past. Second hand clothing shops didn't exist 5-10 years ago. The taxes are doubling to pay the debt. The young have accepted they'll see NONE of the pension and can not count on having one (although they continue to pay in). We're not Japanese. Americans will go ape shit (or at least the Americans I grew up around) if they're forced to endure the 20 years of economic decline that the Japanese have had to deal with.

 

Austrians = medical doctors? Austrians are comparable to Christian scientists. They don't believe in medicine. Just as a Christian Scientist would not take medicine in response to an illness, an Austrian devotee would not take economic medicine for an economic malady. A Keynesian would readily take medicine to cure and fight disease, using all the knowlege and wisdom accrued over the centuries. A Keynesian would even take the added step of brushing his/her teeth and exercising to prevent disease in the future.

Medicine Michael is more than just pain management. And of course the patient feels better when the disease has been driven out of the body.

Income inequity has nothing to do with the Fed, nor does it have anything to do with Keynesian economic policy. It has everything to do with corruption in the political system (e.g. Medicare Part D).

 

Here is a surprise Michael, your chart it wrong. Further it is not surprising that in times of economic prosperity poverty rates decline and in periods of recession poverty rates increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_poverty

And welfare benefits in the US have been declining since 1980.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And not surprisingly you are misrepresenting Krugman yet again.

 

So? Even if that were somehow accurate, a unique circumstance among your various allegations, what would it mean?

You have no idea what Keynesian economic theory is, what Krugman is saying in his articles, or who "they" are and are not. It's hard to tell, but you seem to think the Japanese were following Keynesian policy as advocated by Krugman? You can't even distinguish government agency from private corporation, governmental power from personal wealth.

Meanwhile, you have swallowed whole the Fox version of the New Deal and every US Federal economic policy since, under a "both sides" rubric that would embarrass a Limbaugh.

You don't have an "assessment" to stand by. Start there.

 

Extremely false Joe. True the “war on poverty” cost has decreased, but others much larger have taken it place. Below is historical data on just one, food stamps, of more than a dozen.

The last total cost column includes the administrative cost, which has steadily increased but dropped as a percentage of the total. For example in 1969 administrative costs were 21.70 million dollars and in 2011 was 3,855.20 million dollars. (Yes nearly 4 billion dollars now just to pay government administrator and inspectors, etc.! – Bigger than the entire War on Poverty program , I think.)

Year . Participation (K People) . Benefits ($/ person / month) . Total Costs (in millions of dollars)
1969 . 2,878 ..................................6.63 ..................................... 250.50
1970 . 4,340 . 10.55 . 576.90 It is too much work to well separate all data – just look at increasing last column.
1971 9,368 13.55 . 1,575.90
1972 11,109 13.48 . 1,866.70
1973 12,166 14.60 . 2,207.40
1974 12,862 17.61 . 2,837.50
1975 17,064 21.40 . 4,618.70
1976 18,549 23.93 . 5,685.50
1977 17,077 24.71 . 5,461.00
1978 16,001 26.77 . 5,519.70
1979 17,653 30.59 . 6,939.80
1980 21,082 34.47 . 9,206.50
1981 22,430 39.49 . 11,225.20
1982 3] 21,717 39 . 10,836.70
1983 21,625 42.98 . 11,847.10
1984 20,854 42.74 . 11,578.80
1985 19,899 44.99 . 11,703.20
1986 19,429 45.49 . 11,638.40
1987 19,113 45.78 . 11,604.20
1988 18,645 49.83 . 12,316.80
1989 18,806 51.71 . 12,901.59
1990 20,049 58.78 . 15,447.26
1991 22,625 63.78 . 18,747.27
1992 25,407 68.57 . 22,462.34
1993 26,987 67.95 . 23,652.97
1994 27,474 69.00 . 24,493.45
1995 26,619 71.27 . 24,620.37
1996 25,543 73.21 . 24,330.99
1997 22,858 71.27 . 21,507.55
1998 19,791 71.12 . 18,988.32
1999 18,183 72.27 . 17,820.92
2000 17,194 72.62 . 17,054.02
2001 17,318 74.81 . 17,789.39
2002 19,096 79.67 . 20,637.02
2003 21,250 83.94 . 23,816.28
2004 23,811 86.16 . 27,099.03
2005 25,628 92.89 . 31,072.13
2006 26,549 94.75 . 32,903.09
2007 26,316 96.18 . 33,190.54 That, before crash of 2008, and is less than a 1% increase in costs annually
2008 28,223 102.19 . 37,639.99
2009 33,490 125.31 . 53,632.92
2010 40,302 133.79 . 68,296.20
2011 44,709 133.85 . 75,668.61 Now we have an 11% annual cost increase (more need with job loses, etc.)!

Note also that in last 10 years number of participants has grown from 19,096,000 to 44,709,000. A few weeks ago, the food stamp program participation went above 50 million Americans mark! (More than 1 in every 7) Also note that the cost of food for each is rising. Monthly cost went from $79.67 to $133.85 per person in last 10 years.

How long do you think the US can afford this rapidly accelerating cost? Chaos and food riots soon to come with massive looting of grocery stores when Congress trims cost, I think, plus Marshal Law in major urban centers.

Data from: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

Again, note this is ONLY the food stamp program – does not include many others, such as under-water mortgage aid, job re-training programs, etc.
.

 

That stuff? Indefinitely. It's peanuts, compared with the rise in health care costs, debt service from the wars, and loss of tax revenue from the tax cuts.

 

I agree, there are other than welfare costs, larger and rising. I was just pointing out to Joe that welfare cost are rapidly rising, not declining as he asserted.

Most if not all of the cost you mention are OK with the rich and politically powerful, but not welfare costs like food stamp cost rapidly rising. The food stamp costs are likely to be cut, resulting in social chaos possibly before dollar collapses. The huge military cost (about as large as rest of world´s total) is corporate welfare - the very rich (nearly all republicans) strongly support that.

Even if these larger costs were reduced to pay for the poor´s welfare, the very rich would not start looting grocery stores. Food stamp costs now growing at more than 10% per year is a social stability problem, unsustainable POLITICALLY, more than an economic problem; however, I still expect a run on the dollar by or before Halloween 2014, mainly for the debt problems, with worst ever depression in US and EU quickly following. Social chaos will just make that more certain and but perhaps sooner if food stamp cost are cut and masses are hungry.

 

You are wrong Billy T. First the war on poverty was more than food stamps. It includes healthcare and housing to name a few. Two, your numbers fail to account for inflation. If you adjust your numbers for inflation, since 1980, your numbers are less than the overall inflation rate. When all the benefits are viewed and adjusted for inflation you get the following view of benefits (per my previous post).

Additionally it is not surprising to see the total number of people receiving assistance increase as the population has also increased over the period. And it is not surprising to see more people added to social support programs during The Great Recession.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As I said, Yes "war on poverty" cost have decreased. That was a specific program stated by Johnson, not including the main welfare costs of today. Your graph shows "average monthly benefits" - NEGLECTS THAT NOW 1 IN 7 IS ON FOOD STAMPS, AND ANNUAL COST IS NOW MORE THAN 78 BILLION DOLLARS
As you can see from data on only food stamps their cost doubling time is now slightly more than three years!

Here is the caption of this graph, you conveniently omitted:

"... Decline in welfare benefits highlights decreased support in government for War on Poverty initiatives (in 2006 dollars). ..."

 

I fail to see how this supports your contention.

 

In 2008 the cost of the food stamp program (which is not the entire welfare program) was $37.64 BILLION. It went to 75,67 BILLION dollars in 2011 – I.e. is doubling in three years – you can hardly call that a decrease in welfare cost!

You plot the average benefit, but that is only one factor, not the bottom line.