America needs healthcare reform. We can provide it without increasing the deficit.
Failing to act will allow costs to pile up due to inefficiencies in the system. Failing to act will allow Americans to continue going bankrupt due to an inability to pay for reform. As the President has said, "The time for bickering is over."
I hope this speech will give healthcare reform the push it needs to get through the door.
It's not capitalism which is using up our resources, it's individuals. People want stuff. They trade stuff they have for stuff they want more. People build machines to extract oil from the ground in order to trade that oil for other stuff they want. This is the natural state of things.
Saying you want to do away with all that is like saying you want to do away with human greed. Sure that might sound nice, but there's no practical way to make that happen. I know you've suggested some kind of educational program or something like that to try and teach people not to be greedy, but I really don't think that would work. If there's an advantage to be gained by behaving selfishly, some people will always take it, even if they know it's immoral. If you disagree, I suggest you spend some more time chatting with the likes of Pyg or JoeCavalry.
So, if we can't get rid of selfishness, we do the next best thing -- we regulate it. Pigovian taxes, antitrust laws, environmental regulations, these are all ways of dealing with the fundamental problem of people pursuing their own short term interests at the expense of society's collective long term interests.
On a side note, I'm far from conviced that elimination of human greed would be a good thing. Greed is a powerful motivator, which capitalism harnesses in order to benefit society. You see, while free trade does promote inequality, it still leaves everyone better off than they would have been without it -- even those at the bottom. In the words of John F. Kennedy, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
I believe that treating the problem more objectively with the use of the scientific method is the best way to find a proper way of organizing scarce resources at the moment
You've just described the field of study known as Economics.
Have you ever talked with a Canadian or a Brit asking them their honest truth about the health care? I have and they hate it.
I think you're lying. Even if you aren't, you're wrong. See this Gallup poll.
Percent "very satisfied" with healthcare:
US: 6%, Britain: 7%, Canada: 16%
Percent "very dissatisfied" with healthcare:
US: 44%, Britain: 25%, Canada: 17%
Have you even taken a look at what taxes would be if Obama got what he wanted? Last estimate I saw was $37,000 for each American. That would be a Marxist economy taking over 70% of every paycheck that is made.
I'm sorry, but you have clearly pulled those numbers from the depths of your rectum. There's no way in hell Obama wants to tax $37,000 from each American. I assume you got that from some dumb YouTube video that didn't account for progressive taxation or something like that.
Obviously we can pay for universal health care, we'd just need to raise taxes or cut other spending to do it. It's just a question of priorities. Are we willing to take a little bit from everybody in order to keep poor people from going bankrupt if they get hit by a bus?
We can and will pay down our national debt. It's getting high but is far from unpayable. Republican strategists know this, but are choosing just to yell and scream apocalyptic nonsense in order to score political points. It's pretty disgusting really. We need to be having a constructive debate about how best to improve the lives of the American people, but all we're seeing is bullshit like this ad which says little more than, "We're all gonna die!!!"
I believe the ad is below (YouTube search does suck, just use Google, then you can click on the video to jump to the YouTube link).
I agree with their refusal to air it. It's just one blatant deception after another designed for the sole purpose of scaring the American people. Shit like this should be illegal.
Well maybe he doesn't have a concrete plan right now, but he's the freakin' head of the Fed. If anyone knows how to put together a program to do what he's talking about it's him. I guarantee you that we'll be seeing concrete plans before long.
I think you may have misunderstood the term "mixed economies"... A mixed economy is an economy that mixes socialism and capitalism. All the first world countries have mixed economies. I wasn't referring to an intermingling of economies.
Also I don't think we can completely eliminate scarcity with our current technology. I was just wondering if we could organize what we do have in a way that made everyone better off.
That said, I think I agree with you that a global government could help things substantially. Although I disagree that socialism is a better way of organizing resources.
Politicians encouraging sub-prime loans was only one of several causes of the housing bubble. And, in turn, the housing bubble was only one of several problems that caused the recession. Even if politicians didn't encourage companies to behave benevolently, the larger systemic problems still would've bitten us eventually. Again, I suggest you watch that interview with Bernanke.
I think government saving companies from themselves is a bad idea. Government should set the rules of the game, but it shouldn't be one of the players.
Not sure what you're saying. You want government to more aggressively regulate large corporations?
I think a better answer is just to create a system that will allow big companies to fail without destroying the economy. This is the solution proposed by Ben Bernanke.
Below is a clip, you can watch the whole interview here.
I think the way things are organized in most first world countries is fairly close to optimal given the state of things. That is, a regulated free-market for most things, and government run programs for those situations where the market doesn't work. I hear intelligent people complain about our current system from time to time, but I've never heard of any reasonable alternative.
Because we were running out of space, I've decided to stick my response to your latest argument up here.
the government was given by others the right to imprison us, kill us
The government is given those rights by the majority of the people. If enough people decided to do away with government, then we could do that.
You have been defending the idea that no, we are totally free
No I haven't. The two positions you offered in this debate create a false dichotomy. I don't think people are human livestock, but that doesn't mean I think we're totally free.
governments will arrange their laws in order to have better productivity, the same way as farmers managing their cattle
Cattle don't have human rights. Cattle don't get to vote.
Governments don’t want to die
A government is not a sentient creature, it doesn't make sense to say it "wants" something.
Sometimes, however, they have to compromise their nation’s well being for the economy, and they have been doing so, if they think that the end justifies the means and that benefits will come on the long run.
Right, but if the end truly justifies the means, then this is a good thing.
to pollute the air they breathe
Government does not pollute. That's corporations. Government prevents excessive pollution.
We are all slaves to capitalism
Slaves don't get human rights. Slaves can't vote.
My point of view is that the market and the economy ruthlessly rule us all.
Maybe, but the market and the economy emerge from the inescapable tension between selfishness and cooperation.
yes, I believe it’s totally possible for us to see the advantages in not being selfish
Sure we can see the advantages. But we'll never be able to eliminate selfishness. Certainly not while scarcity remains a problem.
Capitalism’s assumption that, for example, people need incentive to do something productive, ignore the success of initiatives such as Wikipedia and Couch surfing
Yes, this is a good point. People can be altruistic. A few things though:
1) How are these organizations funded? By voluntary donations. People donate resources they have obtained while working within the capitalistic framework. These organizations don't address the fundamental problem of allocating scarce resources.
2) Not everything can be done voluntarily. Who would do the unpleasant jobs if they didn't have to? Yes someday technology will eliminate those jobs, but that day is not yet here.
3) These are both examples of public goods. Couch surfing pulled in $779,538 in donations last year. The Wikimedia Foundation pulled in $7 million in that same year. Compare that to the National Science Foundation which had an operating budget of over $6 billion for the same year. We have here an excellent example of the free rider problem in action. Our power to do good vastly increases when we take a small amount of money from everybody through taxes.
The whole idea that people face tradeoffs, and therefore they must have something to offer, also needs to catch up with technology.
Even with technology we still face tradeoffs. Wikipedia's servers consume a share of the world's resources. Also, time is a finite resource. If you read Wikipedia for an hour, you have given up the possibility of using that hour for something else.
Personally, I believe it’s a matter of time until capitalism collapses.
Maybe. As scarcity is reduced there is less of a need for capitalism.
It’s just not sustainable, simple as that.
Government regulations can make it sustainable.
I think we have to start looking towards sustainable ways of producing goods for everyone, without destroying the planet and, why not, without human intervention so we can be free to do other things.
I agree. And regulated capitalism provides us with a platform atop which we can achieve this.
You say people like me annoy you for just complaining without providing an alternative.
Let me be clear. You don't annoy me at all. I have nothing but love and admiration for you and people like you. Manipulative videos which do nothing but turn people cynical toward their most promising source of salvation are what annoy me.
I know it doesn’t work, you know it doesn’t work
It obviously works quite well. The fact that you and I are able to have this conversation is a testament to that.
We have to start making people aware that we are living in an unsustainable and unfair world
I don't think this will be a big revelation for most people.
---
Here are a few relevant links I would like you to take a look at:
I say economics is the study of how scarcity can be profitable, and of how to create artificial needs (artificial scarcity) on people
I think you do not understand Economics very well. Check out these ten basic principles, which have been established through many years of rigorous study. It's not about right and wrong, it's just about explaining the way things are.
It's true that in some cases corporations create artificial scarcity. In economics this is an example of market failure and the best way to fix it is through government intervention. Despite what the conspiracy-theorists like to claim, government is a friend of the people, not the enemy. It is through government that we can collectively work toward a better future. Take the U.S. National Science Foudation, for example, which carries out scientific research financed by taxpayers.
Can the market be sustainable in a global level?
With proper government regulation, yes.
one of the most evil ideas supported by the market is that of supply and demand
The laws of supply and demand follow logically given the fundamental assumption of economics: rational self-interested actors exchanging goods and services. Yes this is an over-simplification of humanity, but simplifying problems makes them easier to study. It's like solving physics problems without considering friction.
We can forget about regulating marriage, regulating what people consume, what they wear, where they can go
Ok, these all sound mostly reasonable to me. However, none of these are the critical functions of government that I listed in my initial argument.
Why can a bird go wherever it wants without answering to anyone, whereas me, just another animal born in this planet, have to play by rules made up by people who were here before me?
Well, technically you could. You could wander around, living like a hunter-gatherer if you chose to. I think we can agree though that the benefits of society provide us with a more attractive alternative.
I agree that we should try and make the world better. But regulated capitalism is the best way of organizing society. No, it's not perfect, but there's really no point in criticizing our current system without offering a viable alternative. Without exchanging resources in a free market, how are we going to divide them up?
Personally, I think that the idea of government we have today, centralized in other people's hands, does suck.
The modern idea of government does suck, but it sucks less than any of the historical social arrangements.
And I also think market sucks.
The market is good. It has historically proven itself to be the most effective way of organizing scare resources.
A system which requires competitiveness so people can have access to the basic necessities of life
There are no first world countries like this. Basic necessities are provided through various welfare programs.
I read your blog post about evolution and whatnot. I agree that we can and should restrain our primitive impulses. But we will never escape the fundamental truth that behaving selfishly can be very profitable.
I do think regulations could be much less than now,
Which ones would you get rid of?
Like it or not, people left to their own devices will very often make lowsy decisions. I favor the soft paternalistic approach to government advocated by these guys. Guidance without overreach.
Can food, for example, be a public good?
Food is far from a public good. In fact supplies are not keeping up with the growth in population.
Vertical farming looks cool and promising, but it's very pie-in-the-sky at the moment. From the Wikipedia article: "The detailed analytical work needed to establish the feasibility of vertical farming has not yet been done." "the energy needed for artificial lighting and other vertical farming operations might outweigh the benefit"
Economics is based on scarcity, on creating scarcity, on exclusion.
Economics is the study of how people deal with scarcity, not of creating it.
"Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."
- Keynes
Monetary policy is about keeping the economy growing at a stable rate. A growing economy is good for everyone. The intent is not to erode workers' earning power, that's just an unfortunate side effect. We can mitigate that effect by redistributing some of the wealth through progressive taxation.
