Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM in reply to: Off Topic Here is a test that tests your “political compass” #380633April 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM in reply to: Off Topic Here is a test that tests your “political compass” #380821
patientrenter
ParticipantMein gott, I am an economic left-winger!
Economics: -0.62
Authority: -1.95I always thought I was on the extreme right on economics. So there are people out there who would actually like the 19th century way of sharing the economic spoils. I could handle that, but I am really surprised that there are many other people who would really want that. Almost everyone I know who sounds “right-wing” on economics turns out, on closer inspection, to want government subsidies and support for their activities. So I’ve always thought the real free marketeers were a tiny number. I’m still a little suspicious, and think I am unusually right-wing (libertarian) on the economics.
Good test. More objective tests of this style could civilize our political discourse.
April 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM in reply to: Off Topic Here is a test that tests your “political compass” #380869ParticipantMein gott, I am an economic left-winger!
Economics: -0.62
Authority: -1.95I always thought I was on the extreme right on economics. So there are people out there who would actually like the 19th century way of sharing the economic spoils. I could handle that, but I am really surprised that there are many other people who would really want that. Almost everyone I know who sounds “right-wing” on economics turns out, on closer inspection, to want government subsidies and support for their activities. So I’ve always thought the real free marketeers were a tiny number. I’m still a little suspicious, and think I am unusually right-wing (libertarian) on the economics.
Good test. More objective tests of this style could civilize our political discourse.
April 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM in reply to: Off Topic Here is a test that tests your “political compass” #380996ParticipantMein gott, I am an economic left-winger!
Economics: -0.62
Authority: -1.95I always thought I was on the extreme right on economics. So there are people out there who would actually like the 19th century way of sharing the economic spoils. I could handle that, but I am really surprised that there are many other people who would really want that. Almost everyone I know who sounds “right-wing” on economics turns out, on closer inspection, to want government subsidies and support for their activities. So I’ve always thought the real free marketeers were a tiny number. I’m still a little suspicious, and think I am unusually right-wing (libertarian) on the economics.
Good test. More objective tests of this style could civilize our political discourse.
April 12, 2009 at 8:04 PM in reply to: OT: How badly are doctors/hospitals getting squeezed by insurance co? #379757Participant[quote=paramount]patientrenter: My statements are not in conflict because I did not define what those limitations might be.
Medical care could be provided that was not a matter of life or death. I’m sure it happens everyday at any given emergency room.[/quote]
paramount, I may have misunderstood you. I thought you said that (a) no one should be denied lifesaving medical care, and (b) that there should be limitations on health spending.
Since (as others pointed out) a very high proportion of all medical costs are incurred to extend life by weeks or months, most efforts to limit medical expenses (not all) would have to involve allowing people who would live until tomorrow with expensive care to instead die today with less expensive care. So lifesaving care would be denied when the saving is for a very short time only. (We all die, so all lifesaving care just postpones our death. The key questions are how long the postponement is for, and what quality of life we enjoy in the meanwhile.)
April 12, 2009 at 8:04 PM in reply to: OT: How badly are doctors/hospitals getting squeezed by insurance co? #380031Participant[quote=paramount]patientrenter: My statements are not in conflict because I did not define what those limitations might be.
Medical care could be provided that was not a matter of life or death. I’m sure it happens everyday at any given emergency room.[/quote]
paramount, I may have misunderstood you. I thought you said that (a) no one should be denied lifesaving medical care, and (b) that there should be limitations on health spending.
Since (as others pointed out) a very high proportion of all medical costs are incurred to extend life by weeks or months, most efforts to limit medical expenses (not all) would have to involve allowing people who would live until tomorrow with expensive care to instead die today with less expensive care. So lifesaving care would be denied when the saving is for a very short time only. (We all die, so all lifesaving care just postpones our death. The key questions are how long the postponement is for, and what quality of life we enjoy in the meanwhile.)
April 12, 2009 at 8:04 PM in reply to: OT: How badly are doctors/hospitals getting squeezed by insurance co? #380215Participant[quote=paramount]patientrenter: My statements are not in conflict because I did not define what those limitations might be.
Medical care could be provided that was not a matter of life or death. I’m sure it happens everyday at any given emergency room.[/quote]
paramount, I may have misunderstood you. I thought you said that (a) no one should be denied lifesaving medical care, and (b) that there should be limitations on health spending.
Since (as others pointed out) a very high proportion of all medical costs are incurred to extend life by weeks or months, most efforts to limit medical expenses (not all) would have to involve allowing people who would live until tomorrow with expensive care to instead die today with less expensive care. So lifesaving care would be denied when the saving is for a very short time only. (We all die, so all lifesaving care just postpones our death. The key questions are how long the postponement is for, and what quality of life we enjoy in the meanwhile.)
April 12, 2009 at 8:04 PM in reply to: OT: How badly are doctors/hospitals getting squeezed by insurance co? #380262Participant[quote=paramount]patientrenter: My statements are not in conflict because I did not define what those limitations might be.
Medical care could be provided that was not a matter of life or death. I’m sure it happens everyday at any given emergency room.[/quote]
paramount, I may have misunderstood you. I thought you said that (a) no one should be denied lifesaving medical care, and (b) that there should be limitations on health spending.
Since (as others pointed out) a very high proportion of all medical costs are incurred to extend life by weeks or months, most efforts to limit medical expenses (not all) would have to involve allowing people who would live until tomorrow with expensive care to instead die today with less expensive care. So lifesaving care would be denied when the saving is for a very short time only. (We all die, so all lifesaving care just postpones our death. The key questions are how long the postponement is for, and what quality of life we enjoy in the meanwhile.)
April 12, 2009 at 8:04 PM in reply to: OT: How badly are doctors/hospitals getting squeezed by insurance co? #380389Participant[quote=paramount]patientrenter: My statements are not in conflict because I did not define what those limitations might be.
Medical care could be provided that was not a matter of life or death. I’m sure it happens everyday at any given emergency room.[/quote]
paramount, I may have misunderstood you. I thought you said that (a) no one should be denied lifesaving medical care, and (b) that there should be limitations on health spending.
Since (as others pointed out) a very high proportion of all medical costs are incurred to extend life by weeks or months, most efforts to limit medical expenses (not all) would have to involve allowing people who would live until tomorrow with expensive care to instead die today with less expensive care. So lifesaving care would be denied when the saving is for a very short time only. (We all die, so all lifesaving care just postpones our death. The key questions are how long the postponement is for, and what quality of life we enjoy in the meanwhile.)
ParticipantSD R has it exactly right. The big boys could see this might be coming, and are now (a) seeing if they can re-inflate, or (b) if they can’t get re-inflation going, draw the downturn out as long as possible, to make it easier to bail out the bankers and others who play ball (play ball with Barney = ask “how much do you want?” when he says “lend!”)
I don’t think all the top people were 100% sure that the market would collapse, SD R. I think they realized it could, but many also believed it could be averted with the “right” actions. They are a little surprised at the speed and extent of the downturn. If they had seen this coming, Ben would have flooded the markets with cheap and easy money earlier.
ParticipantSD R has it exactly right. The big boys could see this might be coming, and are now (a) seeing if they can re-inflate, or (b) if they can’t get re-inflation going, draw the downturn out as long as possible, to make it easier to bail out the bankers and others who play ball (play ball with Barney = ask “how much do you want?” when he says “lend!”)
I don’t think all the top people were 100% sure that the market would collapse, SD R. I think they realized it could, but many also believed it could be averted with the “right” actions. They are a little surprised at the speed and extent of the downturn. If they had seen this coming, Ben would have flooded the markets with cheap and easy money earlier.
ParticipantSD R has it exactly right. The big boys could see this might be coming, and are now (a) seeing if they can re-inflate, or (b) if they can’t get re-inflation going, draw the downturn out as long as possible, to make it easier to bail out the bankers and others who play ball (play ball with Barney = ask “how much do you want?” when he says “lend!”)
I don’t think all the top people were 100% sure that the market would collapse, SD R. I think they realized it could, but many also believed it could be averted with the “right” actions. They are a little surprised at the speed and extent of the downturn. If they had seen this coming, Ben would have flooded the markets with cheap and easy money earlier.
ParticipantSD R has it exactly right. The big boys could see this might be coming, and are now (a) seeing if they can re-inflate, or (b) if they can’t get re-inflation going, draw the downturn out as long as possible, to make it easier to bail out the bankers and others who play ball (play ball with Barney = ask “how much do you want?” when he says “lend!”)
I don’t think all the top people were 100% sure that the market would collapse, SD R. I think they realized it could, but many also believed it could be averted with the “right” actions. They are a little surprised at the speed and extent of the downturn. If they had seen this coming, Ben would have flooded the markets with cheap and easy money earlier.
ParticipantSD R has it exactly right. The big boys could see this might be coming, and are now (a) seeing if they can re-inflate, or (b) if they can’t get re-inflation going, draw the downturn out as long as possible, to make it easier to bail out the bankers and others who play ball (play ball with Barney = ask “how much do you want?” when he says “lend!”)
I don’t think all the top people were 100% sure that the market would collapse, SD R. I think they realized it could, but many also believed it could be averted with the “right” actions. They are a little surprised at the speed and extent of the downturn. If they had seen this coming, Ben would have flooded the markets with cheap and easy money earlier.
Participant[quote=esmith]Of course, no mention of women and children who starve to death because of Americans’ refusal to pay ransom.[/quote]
Provocative.
It’s probably true that paying ransom will save some women and children from death caused by starvation or disease. Some people will consider that a good reason to pay the ransom instead of killing the pirates. I will take a wild guess that most folks in this category generally vote for one of our two big parties, and consider moral hazard considerations optional. Others will bristle at the idea that people would be rewarded for antisocial behavior that breaches the norms. My guess is that these people mostly vote for the other big party, and consider moral hazard considerations nearly mandatory.
In the long run, the moral hazard arguments win. If you don’t make an extra effort to punish those who sap your energy, then you will become weak as more and more people take advantage of you. Sometimes that means being harsher than we want to be, but evolution tends to weed out overly weak behaviors, and that applies to countries and cultures as well as species.
-
AuthorPosts
