How low will the Dow Go?

[Billy T]

Huh? You didn't read my post or what? I've posted it again below so you don't have to expend additional energy to scroll down to see it (check out the words at the beginning of my statement ..."I think....":
I think that it's abundantly clear that the feds (a centrally controlled system) could provide food, housing, clothing, entertainment, transportation, fuel, electricity, manufacturing, police services, roads and streets, sewer systems, water systems, ..., in short, everything that it's citizens needed to survive, ....far cheaper than can be done by private enterprises.

So from your statement above, I can only conclude that you favor the fed gov taking over every aspect of the citizens' lives.
Now, .....I ask you again; Why are you so adamantly anxious to put everything under the control of the US fed gov? Baron Max

Now, Billy, wanna' respond to the above post or not? Baron Max

I did respond in post 299. Here it is again, bold this time:

That is not my statement or POV. Who are you quoting or just making it up?

I think your are putting words in my mouth I never said. (If I did I must have been very drunk at the time as that is definitely not my POV)

Please indicate where (cite post) these words come from or admit that you are just making them up.

 

[joepistole]

If you guys on the right or left really think that government has departed from the Consitution, you need to file some law suits and fund them. Because as you know if you have read the Consitution, it is the responsiblity of the Supreme Court to interpret the Consitution. To Date the Supremes have not ruled any of these alledged transgressions as illegal and unconsitutional. If fact they have done just the opposite.

 

[Baron Max]

I did respond in post 299. Here it is again, bold this time:

I think your are putting words in my mouth I never said. (If I did I must have been very drunk at the time as that is definitely not my POV)

Please indicate where (cite post) these words come from or admit that you are just making them up.

Billy, I never ever, not one single time, said that those were your words!!! I said, "I think....", that has nothing to do with anything that you said. It was, however, a little twist on your own statement: "SUMMARY: I only favor federal programs when the evidence is clear that they are cheaper and better."

I was stating that "I think that it's abundantly clear that....." Billy, the gov can provide lots of things for the people much cheaper than private enterprises. Thus, YOUR statement means that you'd be for any and all of those cheaper services that I mentioned.

Well, .....are you for those services to be provide by the gov?

Baron Max

 

[Billy T]

Billy, I never ever, not one single time, said that those were your words!!! I said, "I think....", that has nothing to do with anything that you said. It was, however, a little twist on your own statement: "SUMMARY: I only favor federal programs when the evidence is clear that they are cheaper and better."

I was stating that "I think that it's abundantly clear that....." Billy, the gov can provide lots of things for the people much cheaper than private enterprises. Thus, YOUR statement means that you'd be for any and all of those cheaper services that I mentioned.

Well, .....are you for those services to be provide by the gov?

Baron Max

You said: "So from your statement above, I can only conclude ..." and the immediately above statement was that silly statement in italics claiming the government could do everything better and cheaper. I now understand that you meant NOT the immediately above statement, but the SUMMARY statement of mine you quoted at the start of the post. So we can drop this and move on to discuss what you conclude from my SUMMARY.

You claim: "... the gov can provide lots of things for the people much cheaper than private enterprises. ..."

I disagree. I think some things, like heath care, this is true of but most things private industry can do cheaper and better. Can you list even 12 things the Federal government can do better and cheaper than private industry? Put heath care at top of your list if we agree on that, then number two is national defense (We have seen in Iraq, where there are more private employees than soldiers, that a huge waste of tax payer’s dollars has occurred. - Even two plane loads full of cash just disappeared! But that was sort of the plan - to make Halliburton, Blackwater, and other big contributors to GWB's campains richer with no-bid contracts etc.)

To answer your direct question ("are you for those services to be provide by the gov.?") Yes. I want the government to do all things needed (as determined by Congress willing to fund) that it can do both cheaper and better than private industry (or even by contracting to Canada, etc.) I will accept FDA & CDC as #3 and FAA & Weather forceasts as # 4 so that leave only 8 more for you to list. Note that when things are really closely related they are one task (i.e. FAA & weather forecasts are one item, not two in the list. Likewise Coast Guard and port security are part of national defense, not separate items, etc.)

"Economic efficiency" is my golden rule! (but the true cost to society in all forms must be considered when evaluating the cost.)

PS if you put "deliver the mail" in your list we will argue about that. I think the US post office should be closed. Fed Ex, DHW, skype, etc can do the job faster and cheaper - for example they could and would provide 1 hour urban delivery for less via internet of scannned letters (and re-printed at destination for next day delivery of the paper copy ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD if that was what you desired).

 

[2inquisitive]

Billy T,

PS if you put "deliver the mail" in your list we will argue about that. I think the US post office should be closed. Fed Ex, DHW, skype, etc can do the job faster and cheaper - for example they could and would provide 1 hour urban delivery for less via internet of scannned letters (and re-printed at destination for next day delivery of the paper copy ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD if that was what you desired).

I'll take you up on that, Billy T. Again you are talking out of your ass about something you know nothing about.

First of all, very few people send "letters" to other individuals, especially around the world. An email and a printer on the other end does the same thing as you propose, essentially free except for paper and ink.

Second "deliver the mail" only covers half of service the US Postal Service provides. They also PICK UP the mail on a daily basis for those that need to send in payments for bills, even for the customers that live many miles from your urban areas.

Third, the US has the lowest postal rates of any industralized nation that does not subsidize their stamp rates.

 

[Billy T]

...They also PICK UP the mail on a daily basis for those that need to send in payments for bills, even for the customers that live many miles from your urban areas.
Third, the US has the lowest postal rates of any industralized nation that does not subsidize their stamp rates.

Two good points. Perhaps, however, if private industry were doing the job every household would have a "keyboard cell phone" and remote rural homes (without cell phone connections) a radio telephone with keyboard and all bills would be paid electronically. (I bet most are already by Paymate, etc. and automatic debit from bank accounts of VISA, MC etc.)

I tend to think paper checks are obsolete technology and real significant economies would result if no human had to read them and do data entry plus photo graph etc. Once they were even returned to you - but that inefficiency has gone with the buggy whip.
------
In post 297 I suggest we consider return to more local currencies (states issue them, perhaps) and use the dollar only as a convenient conversion index, much as it has been used in international trade for decades. Not as much now as it once was - For example for about a year Brazil and Argentina have ceased to use dollars in their trade contracts but use their own currencies. There is strong consideration of doing this with some newly created Asian currency index. (It was to be initially a basket of Japan, China and S. Korean's currencies last I read about it a year ago. The current crisis probably has the idea on hold.)

If dollar were only an index to facilitate state currency exchanges then checks, if they were to continue to exist, could be written in the payment of the seller currency and cleared to deduct from your currency by VISA etc. For example if resident of Georgia did send check to Texas it might say 100TX$ and when it cleared thru your VISA account, there might be a debit of 98GA$ if the GA dollar were stronger than the TX$ on the day it cleared.

There is a lot to be said, I think, for the automatic tendency of floating currencies balance exports and imports of each producing region. This tends to encourage local production and consumption, which admittedly may add to the overall cost. (I.e. the Georgia airplane company is not a good idea as economies of production scale are strong - I do believe trade benefits all with lower cost, but shipping heavy good or food from California to NYC does have an environmental cost not captured by current economics. (CO2 release, mainly) However, the economy is ever more one of services and that can often be better done by competing local groups as production scale economies are not large in service industry.

SUMMARY: There is something (I do not know how much) to be said for more regional self sufficiency instead of one global house of cards that will drag everyone down at the same time when it collapses. I am glad Brazil exports mainly things that people will still be buying even in a global depression (food stocks, energy, and minerals mainly) and has only 14% of it GDP associated with exports. (No recession for Brazil, thank you, especially not with basic interest rate still 11.25% to cut for monetary stimulus, if needed, creditor nation status with 200 billion dollars in the reserves and a sound profitable banking system.)

 

[Billy T]

It's all about confidence:

From:http://www.changewave.com/alliance/.../reports/2009/consumer_spending_20090316.html with text there discussing

 

[Baron Max]

You claim: "... the gov can provide lots of things for the people much cheaper than private enterprises. ..."

I disagree. I think some things, like heath care, this is true of but most things private industry can do cheaper and better.

So, ....you think the gov can manage the largest single enterprise in the USA, healthcare, with millions of people involved, with drug manufacturers and distributors, with medical equipment design and construction, and including the multi-billion dollar facilities, large and small, spread all across the nation ....but you think the gov couldn't handle something like building cars? Or managing a few banks? Or managing a few farms?

C'mon, Billy, if the gov can handle healthcare, and do it better and cheaper, then the gov can do almost anything else better and cheaper!! Where's your logic, Billy? I don't understand your thinking in this respect.

Baron Max

 

[joepistole]

So, ....you think the gov can manage the largest single enterprise in the USA, healthcare, with millions of people involved, with drug manufacturers and distributors, with medical equipment design and construction, and including the multi-billion dollar facilities, large and small, spread all across the nation ....but you think the gov couldn't handle something like building cars? Or managing a few banks? Or managing a few farms?

C'mon, Billy, if the gov can handle healthcare, and do it better and cheaper, then the gov can do almost anything else better and cheaper!! Where's your logic, Billy? I don't understand your thinking in this respect.

Baron Max

Baron as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the US government already handles healthcare and does quite well with it. Let me give you some examples:
- US Military Healthcare Services for all active duty, retired and dependents
- Veterans hospitals
- Medicare
- Medicaid

The government runs these medical systems very efficiently...with one exception which is soon to be corrected (Medicare Prescription Drug plan with no bid contracts, a Republican perk for their friends in big pharma).

And has also been pointed out, the Dems want not to build new healtcare structures so much as to use existing structures more efficiently and effectively.

 

[Billy T]

So, ....you think the gov can manage the largest single enterprise in the USA, healthcare, with millions of people involved, with drug manufacturers and distributors, with medical equipment design and construction, and including the multi-billion dollar facilities, large and small, spread all across the nation ....

No - I was not saying government could or should do all that.

I want it to do something like is done in Scandinavia, Canada, Germany & England (or even Brazil). - In not one of them does the government manufacture medical machines or drugs, AFAIK.

I mainly want ALL US residents to receive preventive medicine, not just those who can afford to pay a private doctor as that is where billions can be saved.
(Poor to get medical help before they are so sick they that they go to hospital emergency rooms.
That is why YOUR hospital bills are so high - you pay for that avoidable care.)
I do not like to ride on a train, subway, etc. or wait in store check-out line, etc. with someone quite sick right next to me as he/she cannot afford medical care.
Do you? Let’s avoid the spread of diseases by preventively treating ALL - it is so much cheaper in the final analysis.

I am not a "bleeding heart liberal." I want government supported health care for ALL as it is cheaper and gives a longer, heathier life expectancy FOR ME.* Also I am not so STUBBORN or STUPID as to let ideology injure me when there is a better way, tested by more than 100 years of use.

Other aspect I want is the government to have central records for early detection of new diseases and research purposes. (Facilitate learning what behaviors etc. contribute to diseases so the public can better be warned.) England does this especially well as they collect behavior data periodically, at least from public employees - that is how they learned that drinking tea with milk lowered the chance of throat cancer and 1000s of other medically useful facts. I would not object if 1% of all tax payers had to complete a form telling about their typical meals, daily activities, etc., especially if there was a 1% reduction in the tax due (after economical computer made "honesty check" procedures were passed. - A well designed questionnaire can test for internal consistency to eliminate most who just quickly answer at random to try to get the 1% reduction, which has say $100 max limit.)
------------
*Because I live in Brazil, where Bolsa Familia's conditional grants to the poor insures that almost all kids 18 or under stay in school have been vaccinated and get other preventive FREE health care and glasses if needed for better learning, etc. I am mainly concerned for my US grandchildren, who may be forced to sit next to some snotty- nosed sick kid for hours in school. Bolsa Family pays for itself in only the avoided medical cost as well as providing a better educated labor force and higher tax income for the government.

These marginal families now have more spend so it is a cheap and effective economic stimulation of the economy. There is a large multiplier effect at work here too as with Bolsa Familia, they are now buying their first non-wood cooking stove, a refrigerator, possible a motor cycle will replace their horse to go to town with in a few years, etc. Their better educated kids will later earn more and pay more taxes.

Brazil's government does not suffer with the same STUPIDITY as the US does when it comes to health care. Even though Brazil has the largest Catholic population in the world, the government gives out free condums around Carnival time (more than 20 million typically) There are agents handing them out on the streets! I think you can get them for free in the local clinics if you ask year round, but the objective is reduction in the spread of AIDs.

 

[2inquisitive]

joepistole,

...with one exception which is soon to be corrected (Medicare Prescription Drug plan with no bid contracts, a Republican perk for their friends in big pharma).

What 'Prescription Drug plan with no bid contracts'? The plan that Bush promoted and congress passed (The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) was a complicated jumble of legislation in which many senior citizens were often unable to determine which plan was least costly for their specific needs. It narrowly passed the house by one vote, only after three conservative Republicans changed their vote from nea to yea under party pressure. After passage, it was determined that the White House had purposefully underestimated the cost of the program by well over $100 billion to get fiscal conservative Republican's votes.

 

[joepistole]

Republians in the Senate sucessfully thwarted an attempt by Democrats in the House to overturn the no bid provisions in 2005 by keeping the bill in Committee.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the US government already handles healthcare and does quite well with it. Let me give you some examples:

- US Military Healthcare Services for all active duty, retired and dependents

Which are deplorable conditions that have been reported on several news agencies in the recent months ...and you like those conditions???

- Veterans hospitals

Again, deplorable conditions that have been reported on several news agencies ..and you like thos conditions?

- Medicare

Medicare is essentially bankrupt and grossly inefficent. That also has been in the news recently citing numerous deplorable conditions for the elderly ...and you like thos conditions and inefficencies?

- Medicaid

Ditto as with Medicare!

The government runs these medical systems very efficiently...

You, sir, are grossly out of touch with reality. Check news agencies about that efficiency and you'll come away with a new outlook.

And has also been pointed out, the Dems want not to build new healtcare structures so much as to use existing structures more efficiently and effectively.

The government can't stick it's finger in it's own ass and you just have to know that .....and yet here you are asking that same government to take over the largest single industry in the nation?

Baron Max

 

[joepistole]

- US Military Healthcare Services for all active duty, retired and dependents

Which are deplorable conditions that have been reported on several news agencies in the recent months ...and you like those conditions???

- Veterans hospitals

Again, deplorable conditions that have been reported on several news agencies ..and you like thos conditions?

- Medicare

Medicare is essentially bankrupt and grossly inefficent. That also has been in the news recently citing numerous deplorable conditions for the elderly ...and you like thos conditions and inefficencies?

- Medicaid

Ditto as with Medicare!



You, sir, are grossly out of touch with reality. Check news agencies about that efficiency and you'll come away with a new outlook.



The government can't stick it's finger in it's own ass and you just have to know that .....and yet here you are asking that same government to take over the largest single industry in the nation?

Baron Max

You sir don't have a clue about what you are talking about. I was a part of the naval healthcare system....and it was and is first rate all the way. Additionally, I have a son and nephew in the military on active duty (Naval service). They have had nothing but the best of healthcare. So take that and put it where the sun don't shine. And they are very happy with the care.

The incident in which you refer was about Army military housing, not the quality of healthcare...a minor detail I know. But you limbaughites dont do well with the details when they interfer with your preconceived ideas.

Additionally, studies have shown that Medicare is much more cost efficient at healthcare delivery than private insurance. So you need to get your facts straight before shooting off at the finger. You will be suprised to know that much of the Republican mantra you repeat is false.

http://www.routethree.com/solving/Medicare_admin_costs.pdf

 

[Baron Max]

No - I was not saying government could or should do all that.
I mainly want ALL US residents to receive preventive medicine,....

But, Billy, isn't adequate food and shelter as important as medical care?
And how about dental care?
And don't people need adequate clothing?
And why not spending money for entertainment? We all know that adequate entertainment is important to the well-being of people/families, right?
And what about transportation to work and back? Shouldn't the gov provide whatever is necessary for a person to get back and forth to work? (and don't forget that most people live out in the suburbs where there's no extensive subways or other public transportation)
And what about feel-good drugs like MJ and cocaine? Isn't it important that people feel good? So the gov should provide feel-good drugs, too.

If the gov should provide healthcare for the reasons you've given, how can you deny providing the other services as well?

Let's give everyone everything that they need or want ...solves all that messy arguing about entitlements, doesn't it?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

You sir don't have a clue about what you are talking about. I was a part of the naval healthcare system....and it was and is first rate all the way.

Check on the veteran's hospitals and you'll see a whole different system than that in place at active-duty stations.

I agree with you that active military hospitals and care facilities are probably some of the best in the world. But that's not true of veteran's hospitals. Do some checking and you'll see things a bit differently.

Baron Max

 

[joepistole]

Check on the veteran's hospitals and you'll see a whole different system than that in place at active-duty stations.

I agree with you that active military hospitals and care facilities are probably some of the best in the world. But that's not true of veteran's hospitals. Do some checking and you'll see things a bit differently.

Baron Max

Per your request Baron Max

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

 

[joepistole]

Wanna admit you were wrong Baron?

 

[Baron Max]

Wanna admit you were wrong Baron?

Check the veteran's hospital in Dallas.

No, I'm not wrong. What you're doing is trying to gloss over some of the real issues that have been cited in recent investigative reports on veterans' services.

Yes, the good ones are good. But the bad ones are deplorable! Which does NOT bode well for the gov taking over all of the nations' healthcare for all Americans.

Baron Max

 

[Billy T]

But, Billy, isn't adequate food and shelter as important as medical care?
And how about dental care?
And don't people need adequate clothing?
And why not spending money for entertainment? We all know that adequate entertainment is important to the well-being of people/families, right?
And what about transportation to work and back? Shouldn't the gov provide whatever is necessary for a person to get back and forth to work? (and don't forget that most people live out in the suburbs where there's no extensive subways or other public transportation)
And what about feel-good drugs like MJ and cocaine? Isn't it important that people feel good? So the gov should provide feel-good drugs, too.

If the gov should provide healthcare for the reasons you've given, how can you deny providing the other services as well?...
Baron Max

What are you? Some "bleeding heart liberal"?

I told clearly why I want the type of federal health care I described - BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER FOR ME, AND PROVIDES ME WITH A LONGER AND HEALTHER LIFE.

I want the economy of preventive care for all so I do not have big hospital bills to pay (As it is now in USA, those without preventative care eventually end up in the hospital emergency room and cost about 100 times more than if they had been properly treated earlier.) – They cannot pay for that service, so you and I do via higher hospital bills.

I also want a huge central health data base that follows everyone from birth to death so we will learn, like England does, the thousands of minor links between behavior, especially eating habits, exercise, etc. and various diseases. Now that DNA scans are not too costly a large data base and your DNA known (you pay for that) would probably add 5 years to your life, on average, but if records remain with your local doctor for a year or two until discarded, you will not know the links between your known DNA and the low incidence diseases. Don’t be so stupid – support what is cheaper for tax payers and in your own interest!

To hell with the guy who needs false teeth and cannot afford them. -He will not cost me or my grand children anything if he only eats soup etc.

There is a huge difference between not wanting to be idologically stubborn and stupid about how to most economically keep me and my grandchildren healthy (Reduce the number of snotty -nosed, often-sick, kids sitting next to them in school and on school bus etc.) and wanting to do the "bleeding heart liberal" items of you list that do not help me at all.

Again to answer your direct questions:
Yes all those thing are important to the people demanding them, but their getting them free will only cost me in higher taxes and give me no benefit.

Reducing the number poor people going to hospital emergency rooms SAVES me money. Reducing the number of snotty-nosed, constantly-sick kids on the school bus via preventive care keeps MY grandchildren healther. – It is simple selfish looking out for number 1 that makes me support preventive health care for ALL (and centralized birth to death health records).

How many times must I tell you this? I am not supporting this to help anyone but ME and MY family. I am not a "bleeding heart liberal." God! Even Brazil has a much better, smarter system - they are not stupid idealogs, even when the Catholic Church demands they be. Last week two doctors were excommunicated because they legally aborted twins at about 5 months from a 12 year old whose step father had been fucking her for about four years. - He, however, is a Catholic in good standing still. The mother, who authorized the abortion, was also excommunicated, but that caused so much bad press that a higher church official re-instated her yesterday. (So she could go to mass and confess her sins. She acted to save the life of her daughter, he said.)

Only the ideologically stubborn and stupid oppose the well demonstrated in other countries health care systems which provide very large cost reductions AND longer, healthier, life expectancies.

PS As you know, I support federal funding of schools so ALL ARE GIVEN GOOD EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY even if their parents are poor. Year ago not doing that for some made good economic sense as a cheap manual labor supply was desirable. Not true now that US must compete with countries like China and Japan, where all who can benefit from it get a good education, even if their parent are poor. A major part of why the US is going to collapse is this loss of many good brains that turn to crime as there is little or no demand for their manual labor now. Again I am just looking out for number 1 and my grand children.