Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 29 Oct 2008, at 05:04, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 28 Oct 2008 at 23:30, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: ... For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of attention. The core of it is this: It's a system of obligatory private health insurance. The insurance companies (and over a dozen compete) can't refuse to offer you the basic package, for a flat price. Additional cover is offered at the insurance company's digression, at any price they chose to set. You can chose to have an excess to reduce the premium, but are not forced to have one. Andrew-- Thanks for the explanation, but I can't quite figure out the last sentence. Do you mean to say ...choose to have an exam to reduce the premium,? No, excess, as in you pay the first x of the costs before the insurance kicks in. Called a deductible in the USA. One language Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 12:04 AM Wednesday 10/29/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 28 Oct 2008 at 23:30, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: ... For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of attention. The core of it is this: It's a system of obligatory private health insurance. The insurance companies (and over a dozen compete) can't refuse to offer you the basic package, for a flat price. Additional cover is offered at the insurance company's digression, at any price they chose to set. You can chose to have an excess to reduce the premium, but are not forced to have one. Andrew-- Thanks for the explanation, but I can't quite figure out the last sentence. Do you mean to say ...choose to have an exam to reduce the premium,? No, excess, as in you pay the first x of the costs before the insurance kicks in. That sounds like what in the US is called the deductible . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 5:54, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 27 Oct 2008 at 20:23, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch? Nicely put. Not really. This election is a flock of sheep guided by jackals squabbling over electing a carrion bird and a mule or a jackass and a pig. And at that it's better than most democratic elections. To make this clearer: Take the UK. I can vote for Labour. I can vote for the Conservatives. I'm going to get basically the same thing. This is not unusual for democracies. At least in America this time there's an actual difference in the candidates platforms. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] More important to me than ideology is leadership; the ability to inspire people, the ability to pick qualified subordinates and delegate authority, coolness under pressure, decisiveness and so on. If only he were likely to lead us somewhere worth going, rather than into a future of wasting as much money as he can, which, given the feeling that he has a mandate by adulation such as this, would be a lot. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whose money is McCain going to use to pay all those bad mortgages he promised to take care of? I'm not following your thought here. Government spending uses taxpayer dollars. That is why government spending should be kept to the bare minimum. Alas, few candidates campaign on such a platform. Easier to get elected if you promise special interests a bunch of disguised spending, and don't point out where the money comes from. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:55 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: If only he were likely to lead us somewhere worth going, rather than into a future of wasting as much money as he can, One of the ways in which Obama leads is that he resists the temptation to question the motives of those with whom he disagrees. I see that you are not thus encumbered. I try to practice it myself, with varying degrees of success. The ultimate moment for me came four years ago, in the hours after our niece called to tell us her husband was killed in action in Iraq. I sure wanted to blame, question motivations, agree with the people who label our current administration evil and so forth. However, around 2 a.m., I decided I would not go there, to the best of my ability. Obama's appeal to me is largely due to his history of getting people who disagree to come together for positive purposes. That sort of leadership is impossible when one demonizes one's opponents. Obama doesn't characterize conservatives as evil, he just disagrees with them. That's why he shuts his supporters down when they boo McCain; he tells them we don't need that, we just need to vote. For me, that's a breath of fresh political air, truly a sign of hope when people get behind it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:30 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I'm not following your thought here. Government spending uses taxpayer dollars. That is why government spending should be kept to the bare minimum. So then how would we justify *any* government investments in roads, schools, health care, defense and so forth? Do you oppose such investments? Without them, how can we be competitive as a nation? I would think that a government that fails to make such investments is a failure. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] One of the ways in which Obama leads is that he resists the temptation to question the motives of those with whom he disagrees. I see that you are not thus encumbered. LOL! Have you considered a career in comedy? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] So then how would we justify *any* government investments in roads, schools, health care, defense and so forth? Very carefully. Do you oppose such investments? Depends. Without them, how can we be competitive as a nation? I don't see any reason to be competitive as a nation. Competitive with whom? Do you feel an obligation to have some weird patriotic competition with Canada or something? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 7:30 AM, John Williams wrote: Government spending uses taxpayer dollars. That is why government spending should be kept to the bare minimum. You (and countless others) have put forward this claim again and again. It all depends on how you define bare minimum, which is usefully (for those making this unsupported claim) vague. I happen to think that a safety net that prevents people who are unlucky enough (e.g. through illness or accident) to have expenses that are massively out of scale with their income from becoming destitute. Others' definition of bare minimum might not include such a redistribution of wealth. I understand the need personally, having had a child who died from brain cancer, the medical costs of which would have wiped out most or all of our wealth. Were it not for a generous manager at Hewlett- Packard, who suggested that my wife go on a leave of absence (rather then letting her resign her position), thus continuing our company- sponsored medical insurance, we would have been left with no home and no savings. I was self-employed at the time. If that hadn't wiped us out, then my own brain cancer, eight years later, probably would have. This time, it was COBRA -- an act the United States government that uses the power of tax incentives to ensure that companies' insurance plans include provisions so that employees can continue their benefits after a qualifying event -- that stood between us and financial ruin. Having been laid off by Sun Microsystems (largely because of cognitive effects of the cancer), I was able to continue to buy the same insurance that I had when I was employed (the top-of-the-line package: my experience with Kevin made certain of that), which was a Damn Good Thing™, considering that I was taking about $9,000/month in chemo and other drugs after. For the many who were never employed by Hewlett-Packard or Sun, I believe that a government-run safety net is a social good to which I am happy to contribute. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote: I don't mind paying taxes Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law? Was going to reply to this earlier but was interrupted by some technical difficulties .. I probably would, actually, if I had more margin between my income and expenses (currently couldn't afford to even if I wanted to), and if (much bigger if) it were possible to designate which programs I was contributing to. I don't really see the point in adding a tiny trickle to the flood of money that's being poured into military action in Iraq/Afghanistan at the moment, and even if I were able to contribute over and above what I'm legally obligated to, it would basically just be wasted at the moment. But if I had it to give, and could be certain that it would go to domestic social programs or anything else that went to helping out people who genuinely needed it, yes, I most likely would. The system doesn't work that way, so for now at least, I contribute what's required and leave it at that, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking the daily operations of the government of a country this large don't come with a price tag, and until I sit down and do the math for myself, I'm not inclined to argue too much with the system as it is. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [rationalizations deleted] and even if I were able to contribute over and above what I'm legally obligated to, it would basically just be wasted at the moment. The system doesn't work that way, so for now at least, I contribute what's required and leave it at that, But you don't mind paying taxes that are wasted? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:12 PM, John Williams wrote: *huge* if that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez- faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality. Do we really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of irresponsibly risky behavior? LOL. You're hilarious today. The government can save us! Despite all evidence to the contrary, it will be different this time! Worship the government! Government is God! Actually, there is one point I do need to make here, so I'll respond to at least that extent, ignoring the hyperbole. One thing that should be obvious is that within any financial system, the institutions that trade in that system (particularly the larger ones, whose activities have direct and immediate impact on the behavior of the market as a whole, as their share of the feedback effects is proportionally larger) endanger the stability of the system as a whole if they don't maintain reserves sufficient to cover the worst case scenario of the risks they take. If they have cash reserves enough to cover their losses, they still lose money, but they don't go bankrupt, and they don't threaten the stability of other institutions. In most forms of financial markets where investment involves risk, the institutions (brokerage houses, mostly) are required to maintain those reserves by federal law, and file reports regularly with the government to provide data with which the overall health of the market can be determined to at least some degree by analysis. What primarily caused this most recent crisis was a combination of a completely unregulated side market in a derivative so indirectly linked to actual financial transactions it was essentially gambling on securities, with little to nothing in the way of reserves to cover losses, which was covered up by accounting so haphazard that the reinsurers like AIG who were theoretically covering the risk were all reinsuring each other, and no one was actually holding the ball, and *no one knew* until it was too late. My point is that that sort of playing fast and loose with the system is what we inevitably get when there isn't *some* degree of regulation involved. Are you seriously suggesting that we should deregulate the entire financial system to that extent? Or would you agree that mandating at least enough reserves in the system to where we don't get this domino effect when the inevitable escalation of risk reaches the point where the system can't withstand it anymore might actually be a good idea, interference though it may be? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] I believe that a government-run safety net is a social good to which I am happy to contribute. So you don't believe government spending should be kept to a minimum, and you are happy to contribute. I'm curious, how much more than the minimum required taxes do you contribute to the government? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote: Andrew Crystall said the following on 10/27/2008 8:40 PM: On 27 Oct 2008 at 18:52, Lance A. Brown wrote: William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM: Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. You mean like Blackwater? Try the local Mafia. As if I'd like to turn over our national defense to either group. This conversation reminds me of the situation in Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash. It reminds *me* of a certain Monty Python sketch .. How many tanks you got, Colonel? Wouldn't want anything to *happen* to them, would we? :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:33 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: So you don't believe government spending should be kept to a minimum, and you are happy to contribute. I'm curious, how much more than the minimum required taxes do you contribute to the government? Why would it be fair to contribute more? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Dave Land wrote: Perhaps I didn't call Congress because I am just so sick and tired of a system that couldn't possibly care less about what I think that it's just not worth the effort. For what it's worth, I live in an area represented by two very pro- corporate Republican Senators who are only too happy to support such interests regardless of what I have to say, as well as an even more pro-corporate Republican House member who is on *record* as having voted for the bailout. I know full well that all three of them would be happier if they never heard from me again, but I do at least email them regularly on issues that are important to me, even if I only get form letters in response telling me basically to stop bothering them because they're going to vote however they please. Sometimes it helps for them to know what your position is, not because you might have any effect on how they vote, but because it's important not to let them interpret your silence as agreement. I've been quieter lately, but only because I kind of want them to be complacent enough to be voted out of office. (The House member in question is actually a lot closer to going home than he seems to think, as the local challenger is making a surprisingly good showing. :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you seriously suggesting that we should deregulate the entire financial system to that extent? There shouldn't be any arbitrary regulations imposed by the government, which obviously has little clue of what regulations make for an efficient system. I am not suggesting that there should be no insurance, and the insurer(s) certainly should be making rules that make it possible for them to estimate the risks of providing the insurance. If the government is an insurer, then it is not unreasonable for the goverment to regulate. Unfortunately, the government has made the mistake of trying to insure far too much, and charging far too little, and not doing a good job of estimating the risks that it is insuring. The government should get out of the insurance business as much as possible. Or would you agree that mandating at least enough reserves in the system to where we don't get this domino effect when the inevitable escalation of risk reaches the point where the system can't withstand it anymore might actually be a good idea, interference though it may be? Don't agree. I think a rational insurer would charge dramatically higher premiums for larger risks. The large, risky financial institutions you mention should have been charged extremely high premiums. But they were not, since the government is a poor insurer. If the premiums had been commensurate with the risks, I suspect the system would have been less dominated by a few large players and more diverse with many smaller players. I guess that would be a lot more stabile. But instead we have the situation of a small number of too-large-to-fail institutions that the government bails out, and will likely continue to bail out when the next crisis comes along. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why would it be fair to contribute more? Why would it be fair to force others to pay for what you want? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was able to continue to buy the same insurance that I had when I was employed Of course, if the government weren't providing perverse incentives to the health care market, you wouldn't be locked into buying health care from an employer. I think catastrophic health insurance is a good idea. Unfortunately, the self-employed and unemployed are at a disadvantage in getting inexpensive health insurance since the government subsidizes employer-provided health care. Even worse, there are a bunch of absurd rules that make it difficult for health insurance providers to compete on a national level, and so people who are unfortunate enough to live in certain states and not work for an employer must pay ridiculously high rates for health care. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:50 AM, John Williams wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why would it be fair to contribute more? Why would it be fair to force others to pay for what you want? It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It is about what WE want, as expressed in the government that we elect and the laws that they pass on our behalf. If you don't like being forced to pay for what *I* want (to the extent that my one vote is ever expressed in government and laws), you are encouraged to vote for what *you* want. If you want something different, vote differently, or run for office, or write letters to your representatives or senators or mayor or dog catcher to change it. There are certainly things that are done with my money that I don't like, but I don't complain about being forced to pay for them, I vote. I write to people who can do something about it (not just Brin-L). I try to keep a civil tongue in my head when I do so. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:50 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why would it be fair to contribute more? Why would it be fair to force others to pay for what you want? Must you keep putting up the same straw man? How about if we talk about democracy, instead of your imaginary United States where people are powerless? There is unfairness in democracy, but it is far more fair than your imaginary country. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It is about what WE want, You may want it to be about what we want it to be about, but that's not what I want it to be about. I want what I want. If you don't like being forced to pay for what *I* want (to the extent that my one vote is ever expressed in government and laws), you are encouraged to vote for what *you* want. If you think I should pay for what you want, then you should contribute more of your own money for what you want. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:03 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Even worse, there are a bunch of absurd rules that make it difficult for health insurance providers to compete on a national level, and so people who are unfortunate enough to live in certain states and not work for an employer must pay ridiculously high rates for health care Let's not forget people like my daughter, who cannot get health insurance at any price, due to a pre-existing condition. How would a free, unregulated market ever solve that problem? Health insurers have a strong financial interest in excluding the chronically ill. McCain's proposal, for example, does absolutely nothing for people in that situation. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Must you keep putting up the same straw man? As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell other people that their wants and opinions are subordinate to yours, you will keep tilting at straw men. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's not forget people like my daughter, who cannot get health insurance at any price, due to a pre-existing condition. Right. No doubt you are living in poverty in order to take care of your daughter, since her health care is so expensive. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Must you keep putting up the same straw man? As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell other people that their wants and opinions are subordinate to yours, you will keep tilting at straw men. Ooo, a straw man to defend the use of a straw man! A meta-straw man! If you wish to talk about this stuff in the context of real-world democracy, please begin. Otherwise, I'm getting off the merry-go-round. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Right. No doubt you are living in poverty in order to take care of your daughter, since her health care is so expensive. I guess I opened the door for that, since I offered a personal example. What, exactly, is your point? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ooo, a straw man to defend the use of a straw man! A meta-straw man! Quite a salve to the conscience to convince oneself that one's own opinions are so important that other's can be dismissed out of hand, I imagine. Otherwise, I'm getting off the merry-go-round. But rather tiring, too, I suppose. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] What, exactly, is your point? Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though you could contribute much more? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:11 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] What, exactly, is your point? Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though you could contribute much more? I see that you're still sending messages uncontaminated by logic. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:53 PM, John Williams wrote: As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell other people that their wants and opinions are subordinate to yours, I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that? Seeing a pattern here (you've said this of me in the past, among other things), and I'm curious as to what makes you think people are telling you your wants and opinions are *subordinate* to theirs. I've seen disagreement to opinions you've expressed, but nothing I would interpret as what you seem to be seeing. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:11 AM, John Williams wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] What, exactly, is your point? Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though you could contribute much more? This is *precisely* how private insurance works: everyone pays a little bit so that anyone who has enormous expenses can be taken care of. Government is one way that groups of people organize themselves to achieve similar aims. Private industry is another. The first, at least theoretically, has the greatest good of the greatest number as its goal. The latter, by law, has the greatest good for the very few stockholders as its goal. I'll take my chances with the one that -- at least theoretically -- has public good as a goal. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see that you're still sending messages uncontaminated by logic. Ah, I see you have a new rationalization technique. Instead of calling anything that disagrees with you a straw man, now you simply define your opinion as logical, and by extension, disagreement with you is illogical. I wonder how far that horse will take you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is *precisely* how private insurance works: everyone pays a little bit so that anyone who has enormous expenses can be taken care of. Except that a person can choose whether to buy insurance. Not so with paying taxes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that? When I wrote that I think I have a right not to have my wealth forcibly taken from me to pay for what other people want, or anything similar, he has responded with straw man. Or complicated rationalizations on why it is okay to take it from me, or why it is not really mine (depending on the poster). I've seen disagreement to opinions you've expressed, but nothing I would interpret as what you seem to be seeing. I would consider disagreement to be an forthright statement that, no, I do have the moral right to take from you. That is not what I have been reading. The closest I have seen is vague statements about democracy. But when I tried to pin that one down (as Julia quoted, two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch), there was rapid backpedaling. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 2:26 PM, John Williams wrote: I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that? When I wrote that I think I have a right not to have my wealth forcibly taken from me to pay for what other people want, or anything similar, he has responded with straw man. Or complicated rationalizations on why it is okay to take it from me, or why it is not really mine (depending on the poster). I've seen disagreement to opinions you've expressed, but nothing I would interpret as what you seem to be seeing. I would consider disagreement to be an forthright statement that, no, I do have the moral right to take from you. That is not what I have been reading. The closest I have seen is vague statements about democracy. But when I tried to pin that one down (as Julia quoted, two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch), there was rapid backpedaling. That also was not what I perceived, at least not exactly. But that leads to a more general perception I have, which is that the other pattern I see in your posting is one of binary logic and representing other's arguments as reduced to one extreme or the other, and a tendency to miss nuances, and your responses to my comments as well as others seems to be very consistent with that tendency, which was why I asked about your claim that other people are telling you your opinions are subordinate to theirs. Several people have tried to explain the more subtle implications of taxation as an aspect of collective responsibilities vs. individual rights, and every time you've responded, you've gone right back to the assertion that taxation is essentially theft of your wealth with no social benefits whatsoever (if I'm reading your posts correctly, I'm summarizing several you've made), which to me is not a defensible position. You do have a right to that opinion, and I want to make it clear that I do not intend to cross a boundary with you in terms of trying to state what you are required to believe or not believe -- having had my own such boundary crossed many times in my life, I'm particularly conscious of it and try to respect it at all times -- but I *am* free to remain unconvinced by your arguments simply because I feel you haven't backed up that argument to the point where I feel it's supported, because I feel you are also bound by the obligation to respect that boundary, and to be totally honest, I don't get the sense that you do from most of what you've posted here. If you agree that your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa, and that both of us are *equally* entitled to an opinion and *equally* entitled to examine each other's arguments on their own merits, then we don't have a problem. If you don't agree with that, then we have a very serious problem indeed, and one of much more immediate importance than the more superficial discussion of taxation and collective vs. individual rights. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and every time you've responded, you've gone right back to the assertion that taxation is essentially theft of your wealth Taxation is forcibly taking people's money. Literally, my choice is to pay taxes or have my wages and bank accounts confiscated or go to jail. People can try to rationalize that in all sorts of ways, but the fact remains. with no social benefits whatsoever Which I did not write, and I do not believe. In fact, I wrote that some types of government spending are less bad than the alternatives. In other words, that means that, in some cases, I think there is a benefit to the government spending compared to not spending the money. But each such case needs to be approached with extreme care, and we should never forget that in those cases we are encroaching on liberty because the ends justify the means, so we better make damn sure we are right and that the means we choose are the best we possibly can. If you agree that your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa, and that both of us are *equally* entitled to an opinion and *equally* entitled to examine each other's arguments on their own merits, then we don't have a problem. Of course I agree we are equally entitled to an opinion. I think you are entitled to anything and everything that you want, as long as you don't try to force others. Assuming you don't have some expansive definition of opinion that includes force. What would make you think that I don't believe you are entitled to an opinion? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:13 PM, John Williams wrote: What would make you think that I don't believe you are entitled to an opinion? Principle of reciprocity, since you've asserted the same about others. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:26 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that? When I wrote that I think I have a right not to have my wealth forcibly taken from me to pay for what other people want, or anything similar, he has responded with straw man. Nobody has argued that taking other peoples' wealth by force is acceptable. That's what makes it a straw man. Putting words in others' mouths. Etc. Call it what you like, but it isn't rational discussion or argument. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Call it what you like, but it isn't rational discussion or argument. Don't be so hard on yourself. You can occasional be rational. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Principle of reciprocity, since you've asserted the same about others. I'm not sure I followed that. Does that mean that because I implied that other people seemed to believe that I was not entitled to an opinion, that you assumed that I believed that you are not entitled to an opinion? My head hurts. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:51 AM, John Williams wrote: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It is about what WE want, You may want it to be about what we want it to be about, but that's not what I want it to be about. I want what I want. If you don't like being forced to pay for what *I* want (to the extent that my one vote is ever expressed in government and laws), you are encouraged to vote for what *you* want. If you think I should pay for what you want, then you should contribute more of your own money for what you want. No, I shouldn't. Please stop pretending that I (personally) am trying to force you (personally) to pay for what I (personally) want. I am not. You know it, though I suspect that you will claim otherwise. WE (individually) pay for what WE (collectively) want, understanding that none of us (individually) has a perfect knowledge of what we (collectively) SHOULD be doing. It's called a representative democracy. You could look it up. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
- Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:31 AM Subject: Re: Redistribute the wealth Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [rationalizations deleted] and even if I were able to contribute over and above what I'm legally obligated to, it would basically just be wasted at the moment. The system doesn't work that way, so for now at least, I contribute what's required and leave it at that, But you don't mind paying taxes that are wasted? Considering income tax to be your money just causes a lot of unnecessary angst. It is money that you never have. It is your nett income that determines what you can afford to buy and your lifestyle. Same deal with sales tax, consider it to be part of the cost of the item (which it is) and all your worries about the evil government spending YOUR money evaporate. By all means vote for the party that you think will spend their money (because it is their money once they're in possession of it) in a way that benefits you or the people you love the most, but stop stressing about them spending YOUR money. Is the money in your pocket your money or your employers money? Is the money in your pocket your money or your employers money? Is the money in your pocket your money or your employers money? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:31 PM, John Williams wrote: Principle of reciprocity, since you've asserted the same about others. I'm not sure I followed that. Does that mean that because I implied that other people seemed to believe that I was not entitled to an opinion, that you assumed that I believed that you are not entitled to an opinion? It entered my mind as a possibility, because people do sometimes hold the beliefs they accuse others of holding, and the strategies you've followed in the past suggest that you might genuinely believe that the right to hold an opinion or belief was mutually exclusive in exactly that way. (I focused on that because it's a fairly common fallacy of perception I've encountered in others, and has certain cultural connections that are rather intriguing for sociological reasons, mostly completely unrelated to this discussion.) If you don't in fact believe that, then while we still disagree, at least we can agree to disagree. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] it is what you do, as i have pointed out ad nausem... Keep up the good work! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] did it ever occur to you that you are paying for the enormous profits of health care providers and pharmaceutical companies? why does that not offend you? For the same reason that you refusing to give me your land doesn't offend me. Not that I wouldn't accept if you did! Sounds like you have some choice land that could be better used by me and some of my friends. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] what we need is a single payer health system, so people can afford heath care and medications... And so that the quality goes down and no good new drugs and procedures are developed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 10:59, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Must you keep putting up the same straw man? As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell other people that their wants and opinions are subordinate to yours, you will keep tilting at straw men. Ooo, a straw man to defend the use of a straw man! A meta-straw man! If you wish to talk about this stuff in the context of real-world democracy, please begin. Otherwise, I'm getting off the merry-go-round. The phrasing being used strongly suggests he's using a bot to reply, incidentally. It's the repetitive, slightly-nonsensical repitition of the same point of view regardless of the content being replied to. AndrewC (Not that I've written IRC bots to do that before or anything). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 9:48, John Williams wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you seriously suggesting that we should deregulate the entire financial system to that extent? There shouldn't be any arbitrary regulations imposed by the government, which obviously has little clue of what regulations make for an efficient system. So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection? AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 14:57, John Williams wrote: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection? So you don't in fact understand many of the alternatives to the American system, right. Not sure what you are talking about. But the Dutch seem to be doing the bailout thing, too. Straw man. Health insurance is not banking. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So you don't in fact understand many of the alternatives to the American system, right. Not sure what you are talking about. But the Dutch seem to be doing the bailout thing, too. Straw man. Health insurance is not banking. I guess you did not notice you were replying to a post that was discussing financial regulation. I have no problem with changing the topic to health care, but it is rather odd to do so without mentioning it and then blaming me for talking about the original subject matter. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 04:48 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 28 Oct 2008 at 9:48, John Williams wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you seriously suggesting that we should deregulate the entire financial system to that extent? There shouldn't be any arbitrary regulations imposed by the government, which obviously has little clue of what regulations make for an efficient system. So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection? Can you point us to a for dummies explanation? Also, is there anything about that system which might prevent it from scaling up to a diverse population of 300 million+? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 10:43 PM Monday 10/27/2008, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not original to me. Maybe Benjamin Franklin? Or at least I think I've seen him credited with it, whether or not he actually said it. Good memory. It sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it. The source seems to be somewhat obscure, but you remembered the most common attribution: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=389308 The most common wording seems to be: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. And in general one party seems more interested than the other in keeping the sheep disarmed. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 01:03 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote: At least in America this time there's an actual difference in the candidates platforms. The question is not whether there is a difference between the platforms of the two candidates and their parties but whether there will be any significant difference in what they can actually do when they get into office, or if indeed many of the things which affect people most are out of the control of whoever happens to be in office. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 11:13 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Dave Land wrote: I understand the need personally, having had a child who died from brain cancer, the medical costs of which would have wiped out most or all of our wealth. Were it not for a generous manager at Hewlett- Packard, who suggested that my wife go on a leave of absence (rather then letting her resign her position), thus continuing our company- sponsored medical insurance, we would have been left with no home and no savings. I was self-employed at the time. If that hadn't wiped us out, then my own brain cancer, eight years later, probably would have. This time, it was COBRA -- an act the United States government that uses the power of tax incentives to ensure that companies' insurance plans include provisions so that employees can continue their benefits after a qualifying event -- that stood between us and financial ruin. Having been laid off by Sun Microsystems (largely because of cognitive effects of the cancer), I was able to continue to buy the same insurance that I had when I was employed (the top-of-the-line package: my experience with Kevin made certain of that), which was a Damn Good Thing, considering that I was taking about $9,000/month in chemo and other drugs after. I'm glad it worked out for you (and I'm sorry you needed it.) My experience with COBRA was that the monthly premium was pretty much the same as the total of unemployment insurance payments for the month, making it out of reach unless you had been working long enough to have saved up enough to live on for the duration of your unemployment. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 11:22 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote: I don't mind paying taxes Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law? Was going to reply to this earlier but was interrupted by some technical difficulties .. I probably would, actually, if I had more margin between my income and expenses (currently couldn't afford to even if I wanted to), That is the situation in which many of the complainers find themselves, and after years of trying unsuccessfully to find a way to increase that margin by getting income to increase faster than expenses quite reasonably object when government shrinks the margin by increasing their expenses, just as they object when others do the same by jacking up prices on things they need. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 01:11 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, John Williams wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] What, exactly, is your point? Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though you could contribute much more? How much should he contribute? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 03:47 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote: - Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:31 AM Subject: Re: Redistribute the wealth Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [rationalizations deleted] and even if I were able to contribute over and above what I'm legally obligated to, it would basically just be wasted at the moment. The system doesn't work that way, so for now at least, I contribute what's required and leave it at that, But you don't mind paying taxes that are wasted? Considering income tax to be your money just causes a lot of unnecessary angst. It is money that you never have. It is your nett income that determines what you can afford to buy and your lifestyle. That is one way of looking at it. Other people I have heard suggest that the government is simply making it more convenient for you to pay some of your bills rather than you having to figure out how much to send each month individually to the department of transportation to build and maintain your roads, the police and fire departments for protecting you, the armed forces for protecting you from foreign invasions, etc. . . . (There are probably good points and bad points to both ways of looking at it, and the truth may be some combination of the two . . . ) . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 04:04 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: there are a bunch of absurd rules that make it difficult for health insurance providers to compete on a national level, and so people who are unfortunate enough to live in certain states and not work for an employer must pay ridiculously high rates for health care. what we need is a single payer health system, so people can afford heath care and medications... How do we prevent such a system from fairly quickly degenerating to providing the lowest quality of service it possibly can get away with, frex conditions such as have been documented in some accounts at the VA or at emergency rooms in many cities? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 04:08 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It is about what WE want, You may want it to be about what we want it to be about, but that's not what I want it to be about. I want what I want. If you don't like being forced to pay for what *I* want (to the extent that my one vote is ever expressed in government and laws), you are encouraged to vote for what *you* want. If you think I should pay for what you want, then you should contribute more of your own money for what you want. there you go again, john... did it ever occur to you that you are paying for the enormous profits of health care providers and pharmaceutical companies? why does that not offend you? There is also the fact that to bring a new drug to market, with all of the drugs that fail at some point during the development and testing process, often costs the company on the order of $1 billion before they sell one pill or treatment, much less start making a profit. Do you have any suggestions as how to reduce the cost to you and me for the enormous profits you mention without impacting RD for new medicines? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 11:22 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote: I don't mind paying taxes Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law? Was going to reply to this earlier but was interrupted by some technical difficulties .. I probably would, actually, if I had more margin between my income and expenses (currently couldn't afford to even if I wanted to), That is the situation in which many of the complainers find themselves, and after years of trying unsuccessfully to find a way to increase that margin by getting income to increase faster than expenses quite reasonably object when government shrinks the margin by increasing their expenses, just as they object when others do the same by jacking up prices on things they need. Or when still others take irresponsible risks with key components of the financial system that, when it works, tends to keep those prices stable, and when it breaks down, tends to make those prices much more difficult to forecast as well as makes the employment on which the income depends somewhat uncertain. I'd add that. :) It is definitely a losing battle most days getting the income to increase faster than is required for basic survival, financially. Puts a sort of cruel sting in the advice of people from the wealthy side of things to just save more money .. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:47 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote: - Original Message - From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:31 AM Subject: Re: Redistribute the wealth Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [rationalizations deleted] and even if I were able to contribute over and above what I'm legally obligated to, it would basically just be wasted at the moment. The system doesn't work that way, so for now at least, I contribute what's required and leave it at that, But you don't mind paying taxes that are wasted? Considering income tax to be your money just causes a lot of unnecessary angst. It is money that you never have. It is your nett income that determines what you can afford to buy and your lifestyle. That is one way of looking at it. Other people I have heard suggest that the government is simply making it more convenient for you to pay some of your bills rather than you having to figure out how much to send each month individually to the department of transportation to build and maintain your roads, the police and fire departments for protecting you, the armed forces for protecting you from foreign invasions, etc. . . . (There are probably good points and bad points to both ways of looking at it, and the truth may be some combination of the two . . . ) . . . ronn! :) Yet another perspective is that *you are the government*, at least theoretically, and the taxes you pay individually go to support the activities of the government of which you are a (however tiny) collective contributing part. I tend to see it that way, at least. I could do with a bit more cooperative representation on the part of my Senate/House representation, in terms of making that aspect of my citizenship a little more real and a little less theoretical, but at least in a technical sense, I'm still part of the government as much as I am a citizen. It often feels like I'm a subject at the mercy of the government's whims, but that, taken to too much of an extreme, is sort of a self-correcting problem, isn't it? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams wrote: I'm not following your thought here. Government spending uses taxpayer dollars. That is why government spending should be kept to the bare minimum. Alas, few candidates campaign on such a platform. Easier to get elected if you promise special interests a bunch of disguised spending, and don't point out where the money comes from. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -- Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 18:09, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 01:03 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote: At least in America this time there's an actual difference in the candidates platforms. The question is not whether there is a difference between the platforms of the two candidates and their parties but whether there will be any significant difference in what they can actually do when they get into office, or if indeed many of the things which affect people most are out of the control of whoever happens to be in office. Well yes, but at least they're not struggling to find differences in their platforms as Labour and the Tories often do here... AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 17:57, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection? Can you point us to a for dummies explanation? Also, is there anything about that system which might prevent it from scaling up to a diverse population of 300 million+? For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of attention. The core of it is this: It's a system of obligatory private health insurance. The insurance companies (and over a dozen compete) can't refuse to offer you the basic package, for a flat price. Additional cover is offered at the insurance company's digression, at any price they chose to set. You can chose to have an excess to reduce the premium, but are not forced to have one. A few percentage points of income go into a risk pool, which pays out to the insurance companies based on how risky their clients are: more risky clients, more cash. This is how it avoids Adverse Selection. There are more details (such as kids being covered free) in the Netherlands, but they're not essential to its function. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 29 Oct 2008, at 00:09, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: There is also the fact that to bring a new drug to market, with all of the drugs that fail at some point during the development and testing process, often costs the company on the order of $1 billion before they sell one pill or treatment, much less start making a profit. Do you have any suggestions as how to reduce the cost to you and me for the enormous profits you mention without impacting RD for new medicines? Perhaps medical research is a public good? Economic superstition Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams wrote: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] what we need is a single payer health system, so people can afford heath care and medications... And so that the quality goes down and no good new drugs and procedures are developed. Unlike our present system, of course. I was just listening to Science Friday discuss the problem that the new infection-fighting drugs we need are not in the pipeline because the for-profit drug companies can't make as much money from them as they can with Viagra, etc. Any starting point for a discussion of health care must of necessity begin with the realization that health care is always, everywhere, and unavoidably *rationed*. There is simply no way to give everyone all of the health care they might want. So the real argument becomes one of how best to do the rationing. Every scheme will create a different pattern of winners and losers, and all of them will do some things better and some things worse. To the best of my knowledge, every system I know about (and I am not an expert on health care) is a mix of public and private providers. The U.S. system is on the side of the distribution that is more private than public, and does some things quite well, and other things quite poorly. There is a reason why on overall measures of health the U.S. ranking has been falling for decades now. We do heroic interventions for a favored few very well, but the simple things that help large numbers of people are where we tend to do poorly. Which may be one of the reasons that increasing numbers of Americans want a change. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. - Thomas Jefferson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann wrote: To bring a new drug to market, with all of the drugs that fail at some point during the development and testing process, often costs the company on theorder of $1 billion before they sell one pill or treatment, much less making a profit. Do you have any suggestions how to reduce the cost for the enormous profits you mention without impacting RD for new medicines? . . . ronn! :) i'm not aware that it costs that much, and if it does, that is way too much. maybe theses pharms should just do their RD on drugs like viagra and let the government subsidize better research on life saving drugs without ill side effects (instead of financing unnecessary wars)... I don't know why it is too much. Ever hear of Thalidomide? The charge given to the FDA is to ensure both the safety and the efficacy of drugs, and that sort of thing costs money. There is an argument that the drug companies cannot be trusted to test their own products, but even if you moved all testing to the government, it would still cost a lot of money. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly. -- G.K. Chesterton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Andrew Crystall wrote: ... For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of attention. The core of it is this: It's a system of obligatory private health insurance. The insurance companies (and over a dozen compete) can't refuse to offer you the basic package, for a flat price. Additional cover is offered at the insurance company's digression, at any price they chose to set. You can chose to have an excess to reduce the premium, but are not forced to have one. Andrew-- Thanks for the explanation, but I can't quite figure out the last sentence. Do you mean to say ...choose to have an exam to reduce the premium,? ---David An interesting idea, although I wouldn't be particularly happy to be told I had to purchase health insurance, either. John takes it too far, but I can feel the emotional attraction of his position. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 09:50 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: what it comes down to is choosing the lesser evil... As some have pointed out, the lesser of two evils is still evil. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
At 09:41 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: To bring a new drug to market, with all of the drugs that fail at some point during the development and testing process, often costs the company on theorder of $1 billion before they sell one pill or treatment, much less making a profit. Do you have any suggestions how to reduce the cost for the enormous profits you mention without impacting RD for new medicines? . . . ronn! :) i'm not aware that it costs that much, and if it does, that is way too much. A brief summary, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article586840.ece: $1bn cost to bring a new medicine to the market [ ] For every 10,000 chemical compounds under development, one will be approved for sale to the public. It will take between 10 and 15 years to develop, leaving its owners less than five years before generic drug makers are allowed to produce a cheaper version. In those five years, a drug developer must make enough profit to recover costs and replenish its research budget. Here's a longer one, from 2003: Total Cost to Develop a New Prescription Drug, Including Cost of PostApproval Research, is $897 Million http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/RecentNews.asp?newsid=29 . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 23:30, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: ... For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of attention. The core of it is this: It's a system of obligatory private health insurance. The insurance companies (and over a dozen compete) can't refuse to offer you the basic package, for a flat price. Additional cover is offered at the insurance company's digression, at any price they chose to set. You can chose to have an excess to reduce the premium, but are not forced to have one. Andrew-- Thanks for the explanation, but I can't quite figure out the last sentence. Do you mean to say ...choose to have an exam to reduce the premium,? No, excess, as in you pay the first x of the costs before the insurance kicks in. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:12, John Williams wrote: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So people who believe having an army, navy and air force to defend the country should make up the shortfall in funding when the pacifists decide they'd rather not pay for that? Defending the country is a public good, not redistributing wealth. Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. Economic superstitions Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. Perhaps there could. Still not redistributing wealth. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Rceeberger wrote: Even the Anchorage paper endorses Obama. YeahI'd call that interestingG xponent Social Movement Maru rob Wait until Palin tries to fire the editorial board of the paper. :) (um .. ma'am, they don't exactly work for you .. OK, that's it, *you're* fired!) We're going to shape the future of jurisprudence, the laws that sustain our whole society. Or shove somebody in there to strike down those God-awful excuses for laws the Republicans are passing. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: not so, the public seems to have swallowed the latest redistribution of wealth upwards. More like the politicians stuffed it down our throats. and the sheep accept it, like they accepted the bush/cheny agenda, like they believe that real threat to america was terrorism, and now socialism... I'd like to be able to vomit up chunks of it. Julia p.s. if I need to refrain from using bodily functions in my analogies in the future for someone else's comfort, let me know Given that that's possibly the most vividly picturesque thing I've ever heard from you, no complaints from me. :) Giving kickbacks to the wealthy isn't creating wealth, it's just giving kickbacks to the wealthy. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: Let's just put an end to ALL redistribution of wealth. Let's start with the public schools and hospitals and keep going with the hatchet until nobody gets *anything* that they didn't pay for. Toll booths on every road and park! Go put a dollar in the streetlight, honey, I think the kids will be home soon. Don't bother dialing 911 unless you have your credit card handy. And remember, the military only protects you to the extent that you're paying their bill. Pay no taxes and the terrorists are welcome to have you. I think I might be channeling Heinlein, come to think of it. Nick Then again, an armed society is a polite society .. It should be a fight! We disagree on something important and immediate. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:52 PM, John Williams wrote: Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] We do need need someone to ride in and save us from disaster! God will save us, if we have faith. I can think of a segment of the population who are counting on God saving them, who are very likely going to be unpleasantly surprised when they're still here when the things they were praying for start happening. Nobody ever looks like Joe McCarthy. That's how they get in the door in the first place. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. Economic superstitions Maru Black water is a highly private militia just like Andrew Carnegie’s forces under Alan Pinkerton’s railroad militia which evolved into the secret police of the American Presidency under Abraham Lincoln. Those who served the private robber Barons are the same through out history and their interest are as narrow as their master. Barbitary http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/75/75we14.htm This reality is what we privates of the police state practice and the types of chevrons we wear are only material patched upon our arms. We can recite Voltaire or any scion from the Jacobean era it is just little difference in a crew cut marine and the skint head individual looking out for his own private terror using his own definition. We still come back to some private thesis or the anti-thesis and the beat goes on leading us into some mindless depth of the hell of a barbarian concept. There is no justification for the destruction of the people and denial of their wealth or the taking of the wealth of nations. It can not justify back pack bombs of the martyr or those 5000 lbs bombs dropped on communities of men from B-2 bombers. Use the clean kill scenario on yourself see how that comes out. Such slaughter definitely can not be justified by the idea of private property, boarders and fences, and the taking of labor and denial of trust. I know because been there done that http://kink9570.wordpress.com/author/kink9570/ What is constitution and laws if the people are not willing to defend a rule of law. Can the private party depart from the structured guides and deny each private person from following the same conduct. These invitations to chaos and intrigue remind me of someone like George Washington foot on the bow of the little boat crossing the Potomac with the caption under the painting saying “We are Winter Soldiers” with the subtext Father of a Free Republic. It was something drastically wrong with that picture because he held slaves as private property on his Virginia plantation. http://nvisibleink.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/morris-j-peavey-jr/ Now quote : Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. -- Original message from William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:12, John Williams wrote: William T Goodall So people who believe having an army, navy and air force to defend the country should make up the shortfall in funding when the pacifists decide they'd rather not pay for that? Defending the country is a public good, not redistributing wealth. Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. Economic superstitions Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Bryon Daly wrote: On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Anecdote seen on the internet: Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. The analogy is full of crap: 1) Obama's proposal raises the top two marginal tax rates and capital gains rate by a few percentage points, back to the Clinton-era level. At best, this is not taking the waiter's entire $10 - it'd be more like maybe $.50, and even then, only if the waiter was in the top few percent of the richest people in the country, and that money for the homeless person also went to pay for things like his town's police force, fire dept, hospital and schools. 2) Our current tax system under Bush, which McCain supports, is ALREADY a progressive tax system. The wealthy CURRENTLY pay more in taxes. Redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is already going on and has been going on for probably at least 40-50 years. The argument here is about how much is appropriate, a debate about a few percentage points. And yet the republican reaction is like this: Top marginal tax rate of 35% on the richest 2% of Americans? Hell yeah, all god-loving America supporters stand behind this! Top marginal tax rate of 39.6% on the richest 2% of Americans? It's socialism! The freedom-hating commies are coming to take our livelihoods away! You can make an honest case that these tax higher rates are bad for the economy (though I'd disagree); there's certainly room for discussion and debate there. But these straw-man attacks like your anecdote and those calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible and frankly make it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead. I'm inclined to agree with that. We tried this experiment in the 1980's -- it was better known as Reaganomics, which depended on the trickle down effect, and as experience has taught us, very little that trickles down is fit to consume. (And I could extend the analogy further and allude to certain wealthy party shills p***ing on our heads and trying to convince us that it's raining, but that would be too cheap to do the extraordinary irony of the situation justice.) We've been told by Republicans at least since the beginning of the Reagan administration, if not much earlier, that Taxes Is Bad, been sold that line for so long people who actually have the most to lose from GOP-style economic policy have begun to believe it. The truth is, the Republican mantra of downsizing government and cuttng taxes has historically and consistently led to deficit spending to keep the government operating, which just mortgages the future to live high on the hog in the present. Bush II started his administration with a balanced budget and a revenue surplus, and is going to end it with the most astronomical national debt in this country's entire history, the credit-default swaps that are the main market powering the current economic crisis were legalized by a Republican controlled Congress that was basically reversing laws passed to forbid similar gambling practices 100 years ago. The laws Congress reversed in the late 1990's were the ones passed in the wake of the Panic of 1907, which was partly due to the extensive gambling in off-exchange houses that basically just took bets on stocks, which made the market so unstable that it progressively collapsed under the strain of a failed bid to corner the copper market. (Note: The credit-default swap market is, even now, completely unregulated, completely unaudited, and with so little official oversight that even the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even years into the future.) The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that. the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money. I don't mind paying taxes Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:25 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why assume that government is inevitably the worst way to accomplish anything? Why assume that you or anyone can determine how other people's money should be spent? Same old straw man. Consider me to have written the same answer. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:24 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money. I take it you do not own real estate? I sure seem to have wasted some money involuntarily by trusting the valuations created by incomprehensibly complex financial industry instruments. How is that really different from trusting politicians? It was my choice to buy the house, but believe me, despite negotiating the price down a bit, I had very little choice about how much to pay. Yet somehow, I should assume that more regulation would have been bad??? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sure seem to have wasted some money involuntarily by trusting the valuations created by incomprehensibly complex financial industry instruments. How is that really different from trusting politicians? Force does not equal choice. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Same old straw man. Consider me to have written the same answer. You and that other guy with all your straw-man arguments. Maybe if you got together you could form a support group and make progress towards kicking your straw-man habits? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote: the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even years into the future.) The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that. Sorry, you're right, predict was a poor choice of words. Nobody can predict future market behavior, and on that you're right. They can, however, forecast based on mandatory reporting of transactions in most markets, and make reasonably accurate assessments of the impact of changes in those markets based on that forecasting. Not even that is possible with the credit-default swap market, because there is no oversight, auditing, or reporting at all, so it's not possible to even guess at the long term impact of the collapse of that market or assess how risky the speculation in it was, or its long term effects on the brokerage firms that were trading in it. And I wouldn't be quite as emotional about that if it weren't a clear cut example of precisely how the corporate interests have been telling us all along, since before Reagan, that the market *should* be run -- no oversight, no auditing, no accountability, no reporting, none of that government interference in the market. I agree that if everyone trading in a given market is responsible about the risks they take and the funds they have on hand to back those risks if they turn sour, then oversight and accountability do make the market somewhat less efficient than it can be otherwise .. but that, in turn is a *huge* if that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez- faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality. Do we really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of irresponsibly risky behavior? I don't know what kind of salad it is. I'm eating a salad, okay? I'm doing it. Do I have to know the names? There's no difference between them. It's a bowl of weeds. Some of 'em have cheese. This isn't the kind with cheese. Does that answer your question? -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote: the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money. I'm glad we at least agree that the financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. And I would tend to agree also, to some extent, that the political industry has a fair number of such people in it as well. I'm not convinced that the financial industry can't force me to waste my money, though, because there are ways to get involved in the securities market that aren't exactly obvious to most people, and I *am* involved in the securities market in a few ways that would, pre-crash, have been considered very sound places to put my money. And I'm pretty sure that when I steel myself to look at the statements for those accounts, I'm going to find they pretty much tracked the Dow during its free-fall. But even if I wasn't appreciably long or short in any stock-based securities or complex derivatives or anything along those lines, this mess is still going to have a fairly significant impact on my life. I may not have *wasted* money, but I'm going to *lose* money in the long run until the repercussions of this event are over, if only in terms of day to day living expenses. I'm reasonably certain my employer will be able to keep operating without laying me off, but there are no guarantees there -- and if I fall on the down side of that, I'm going to have a tough several years ahead because it will be next to impossible to get a job that doesn't involve a fairly substantial pay cut and giving up on a career that I have a lot of experience and training invested in. And it may come down to me becoming one of those people who -- OMGZ!!1! -- might need to depend on government assistance for a while to avoid starving to death or living hand to mouth in a homeless camp somewhere. I'd kind of like for those programs to still be in existence if my survival depends on qualifying for them, if this thing turns out to be as bad as the direst assessments. When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening family life, which would include health care, education, and retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and sentence structure. And one on fractions. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] They can, however, forecast based on mandatory reporting of transactions in most markets, and make reasonably accurate assessments of the impact of changes in those markets based on that forecasting. ROTFLMAO ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] *huge* if that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez- faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality. Do we really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of irresponsibly risky behavior? LOL. You're hilarious today. The government can save us! Despite all evidence to the contrary, it will be different this time! Worship the government! Government is God! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] most people, and I *am* involved in the securities market in a few ways that would, pre-crash, have been considered very sound places to put my money. And I'm pretty sure that when I steel myself to look at the statements for those accounts, I'm going to find they pretty much tracked the Dow during its free-fall. Way to blame somebody else for your problems! You should run for office! those people who -- OMGZ!!1! -- might need to depend on government assistance for a while to avoid starving to death or living hand to mouth in a homeless camp somewhere. I'd kind of like for those programs to still be in existence if my survival depends on qualifying for them, That is one of the least evil forms of government spending, I agree. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
I am convinced that if the Fed or the government, despite all evidence to the contrary, actually did have some ability to predict or even make good guesses at what markets are likely to do, then it would have little need of regulation. If the Fed chairman or Treasury secretary would have spoken up a few years ago and stated that it is likely the housing market is overvalued, or that a number of investment banks and insurers (and Fannie and Freddie) are so undercapitalized that they are unlikely to survive a steep market downturnthen investors and speculators would probably pulled their money out sooner, resulting in a less severe downturn since things would not have had as much time to inflate to such instability. Alas, several years ago Bernanke and Paulson were saying that everything was okay, that we weren't in a bubble, all problems were contained, etc. Tough to be saved by non-omniscient gods. Have faith in God almighty instead! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
I think government is best at taking other people's money and spending it less desirably than those who earned it. Most people agree with me, judging by the tiny number of people who voluntarily pay more taxes. But believing you know better than others how to best spend their money is apparently quite seductive to many people. i think the socialist democracies are much better job of providing services to their people, of course they don't spend nearly as much of their revenues on defense agains exaggerated threats... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
So you rank among the very wealthiest people in America? Congratulations! I doubt that,he's justjust another Joe... The anecdote you posted depicts Obama as wanting to take ALL the money from the haves to give to the have-nots - i.e.: that he's a socialist. Wow, there you go again with the straw-man arguments and calling Obama a socialist. I wish he were a socialist! Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
why, am i in danger, from who...? No idea. Since you are down to your last refuge, I was just trying to help redistribute the refuges. are you really that dense, john, I've been told I'm denser than I look. Never measured it, though. how many times do i need to spell it out? Could be a lot, until I finally get it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons. Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams wrote: Anecdote seen on the internet: Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. --Claire Wolfe ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 10/27/2008 9:24:30 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even years into the future.) The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that. But he aint letting us in on the skinny.G the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money. No, but unless you don't understand the financials as well as you seem to, they can make what money you have worthless. It hasn't really been said aloud lately, but that is pretty much one of the basic points of this discussion. Right now, deflation is a very real concern, and money is not the same thing as value. You use the word money quite often, but what I think you are actually concerned about is your affluence. And that is something a bit different. In my case, my affluence and the value of my work (as an index of affluence) are my greatest concerns. xponent Chaotic Functions Maru rob I don't mind paying taxes Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Have you got John Galt in a case? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] they can make what money you have worthless. If they means the financial industry, then no, they cannot. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
