Quote:
No doubt the kind-hearted (Yoxa!)
Tim Ladson wrote:
I just read that new data released by the pentagon put the daily expenditures for war at $250 million per day for the last 16 years.
Why do we argue over the leftovers like there isn't any money to take care of the people's needs ?
Tim.
davefairtex wrote:
Ultimately, even in a world of substantially less, we can still afford (as a society) a basic national healthcare plan. If Thailand can do it, so can we. Their per capita energy budget is about 1/4 of ours. And if we keep it basic, we'll have a much broader coalition that supports it.
Grover, Thanks for sharing the information concerning Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad. So few people seem to be aware of how we were lied into the prolonged conflict in the Middle East. A Libertarian government would not likely have gotten us into such conflicts but I don’t believe we would be better off without a well regulated business/manufacturing/financial industry. However, the personal activities of consenting adults should be off limits to the government. turtle
Grover,
You are absolutely right about the figure for war that I stated being unimpressive compared to the cost of healthcare in the US currently. I didn’t do the math but it sounded like a big number to me at the time. The latest figure I’ve seen thrown about for total spending for the military / industrial / security complex is around $800 billion per year so my guess is that my $250 million per day statement is way short of what we are actually spending to maintain the empire.
Because total healthcare costs are split between the public and private sectors, the figure I found claims approximately 50% is paid by government , that makes for a government cost of 1.75 trillion for healthcare by your figures. Wikipedia lists government healthcare outlays of $1.06 trillion for P/Y 2016. I can’t account for the discrepancy, not disputing, just asking.
The other number that bears on this is that the total US budget for 2016 was a little less than $4 trillion, so the $1.06 trillion figure is probably closer to reality, IMHO.
I don’t disagree with most of the rest of your post, however I think the numbers for government spending on healthcare vs. defense are a lot closer than your post suggests.
My point is that we are spending way more on war than is sensible, especially when we are borrowing to keep ourselves afloat.
Thanks for making me do some fact checking.
Tim.
Grover-
I think this is where we differ. You see a fairly binary transition, between “business as usual” and “cities as self-cleaning ovens” with the current winners able to remain in power from now until then.
I don’t see it that way.
I have a lot of experience at living in a lower energy culture. It isn’t some Mad Max apocalyptic situation. People do just fine. If the US had to survive on half the oil it currently uses, there will be gnashing of teeth, but - believe it or not, the world won’t end.
Given my experience, I don’t see the same binary outcome you do.
There will come a moment when “they” lose power and credibility. I’m not sure when that will occur, but I have confidence that such a moment will arrive, and it will arrive far short of the Self Cleaning Ovens phase.
Its at that point we’ll be able to make changes.
I’m preparing for that moment by trying to envision what I’d like to see. Namely, I want a healthcare system that functions well in a world of less. It isn’t our old model of “everyone-gets-everything.” It must continue to serve us as we move into the transition. As my model, I’m using a system that is already functioning in a world of less. That’s why I picked it.
And in the meantime, I want to be open to surprises that happen along the way. Just maybe, we will actually be able to transition without having to go through the Self-Cleaning Oven phase. Who can say? Wouldn’t you feel foolish if a solution was there, but you were so focused on expecting Self Cleaning Ovens that you didn’t see it? [Remember, if you don’t expect to find your keys in the kitchen, you won’t find them, even if they are sitting right there on the counter.]
Expect your opponent to make a mistake. That way, when he does, you are ready. If you expect him to be utterly invincible, you have defeated yourself before you start. Shoot yourself now, and avoid all the pain.
There was a moment during 2008 when we could have cleaned up the banks. They were on the ropes. They wriggled off the hook this time, but perhaps next time, they won’t be able to. I’m waiting for that moment. I’m much clearer about what I want this time. I think a lot of people are. Same thing with healthcare. Going through all this crap gives us the chance to formulate in our minds what it is we would like.
We tend to create the future we expect - both good, and bad. Even if you believe the world is strictly mechanistic, which I don’t, we still place limitations on ourselves through thought. Just saying “I can do just one more exercise” really does work. But I believe in more than that - world-as-simulation, world’s rules are different than we were told, however you want to say it - we create our future through thought, intent, and expectation.
What do you want to create? What are you creating?
Dave,
I see a stair step crashcade. We took our first step down with 9/11. The Neocons orchestrated that event after a patsy was discovered. Cheney, who was CEO of Halliburton knew how precious oil was to the US future and worked to secure our access to it. (Oil is fungible. It doesn’t matter that Iraq’s oil went elsewhere. It was more important that it continued to flow and was denominated in dollars.) He did it by strengthening the fear in us that others wanted to destroy us. As a result, we allowed the government to increase our “defense” spending. We also tolerate unconstitutional spying on all Americans. Once we raised the bar, all first world countries had to emulate us as best they could.
The second step was the 2008 financial crisis. As you noted, the bankers got off scot free. That crisis was created by our government encouraging us to defeat al Qaida by borrowing and spending. Coincidentally, the federal reserve lowered interest rates so people could harvest the equity in their houses and spend it as they saw fit. Why save for a future that always looks so bright? The average Joe saw wealth in housing and bid up prices in order to secure the American Dream. Ironically, as Greenspan’s fed gradually raised interest rates, people saw the prize disappearing and hastened their purchases faster. Eventually, housing prices got to the point that were no longer sustainable and the bottom fell out.
We’re still stumbling from the 2008 event. Of course, the fed’s response was to lower interest rates and give money to the banks. All that money went to the stock market, the bond market, and finally to the housing market. They have created bubbles in all of them. Now, they are attempting to normalize interest rates again. How long before the bubbles burst? I’m not sure of when, but I have no doubt that they will burst eventually. That’s what bubbles do.
The vibrant economy that resulted from the fed’s shenanigans skipped the flyover States. Look at a political map of the 2016 election. Those red counties that Trump carried were/are mostly feeling left out. Look at the Rust Belt, the Midwest, the farming communities that feed us. Get out of the hallowed Bay Area and you’ll see why they were/are so dissatisfied with the status quo of impeding government regulations and ever increasing taxes to support our idiotic national ventures.
Ironically, the blue States pay much higher net taxes to the federal government than they receive back in benefits. By and large, the red States receive more than they pay. That is only on paper. The paper that really matters is the onerous regulations that big businesses buy with lobbying efforts. Why? It stifles competition. As an example, in order to be profitable in our low cost commodities based system, farmers have to get huge to make a profit. Small farmers can only make it by catering to special clientele. Another example is we can’t know if an animal has been fed GMO corn or soybeans because Monsanto bought the legislation to keep those facts hidden. Coincidentally, glyphosate is considered nontoxic to humans at 175 PPM in your food. That means that farmers can legally spray non-GMO food (like oats) to facilitate desiccation for timely harvesting. As long as it’s legal, you can’t really complain. Hmmmm. Our government regulations in action. There’s so much glyphosate being sprayed that it drifts onto organic food as well - no safe harbor there.
I’m sure you feel that we’re on the wrong path - just like me. Your suggestion for a reasonable health care alternative would work for me. I won’t support it because it places power in the wrong place - the federal government. They’ll screw it up. It will morph into a similar system that we now bitch about. Why? Because power corrupts. It is the power that acts like a light for the mothy politicians. It is the power to change laws in their favor that attracts corporations to inundate our elected officials. It is the expensive campaigns that require politicians to find money to get reelected. That money comes with stinky strings attached. Politicians have to sell out - a little now - in order to do the more good later. Unfortunately, the “free beer tomorrow” signs come to mind. At least, that’s how I envision their decision making process. It certainly fits with the results of their actions.
Going forward, the bubbles will eventually burst. I have no doubt that our government and the federal reserve will do whatever they can to heal the apparent damage. That’s what they did in 2008. It kind of worked. That’s better than an abject failure, right? They’ll keep doing it until it doesn’t work. Meanwhile, the house of cards keeps growing higher. Our country’s financial future relies on ever continuing growth. We need growth to pay for past promises - promises that were made and paid for via payroll taxes. Then, there are all the unspoken liabilities like crumbling infrastructure. Do you think the pipes that carry your fresh water to your abode and your waste from your abode will last forever? Look at Oroville Dam for another example. Did anyone get fired for not repairing the problem in a timely manner? The cost is currently in the $600 million range with another year and a half of construction to go. Fortunately for the DWR water users, FEMA will pay for 75% of the repair. Really??? Do you really expect any substantial changes in the system when accountability ceases? We’re outgunned here.
There may be another step (or more) in the crashcade sequence before the house of cards collapses under its own weight. Regardless of how many more “saves” our “leaders” can manufacture, the last step will be devastating. Without a functioning financial system, there won’t be payments available to suppliers. Who will truck the food into your stores? Who will trust the truckers with their commodities? Who will run the electrical grid or the water systems or the stores? Who will enforce the laws? There is only about 3 days of food available in the grocery stores. Can enough food be grown in sterile city environments to feed all the inhabitants? If you have a garden, you’ll be overwhelmed with desperate people trying to fill their (and their kids’) nagging empty bellies. The final crisis won’t be solved quickly. That is why I call these places “self cleaning ovens.”
I bought a place on the outskirts of an urban area. I worked with neighbors to form a community that would stand a better chance once the status quo failed. Many of those neighbors have moved away for various reasons. The people who bought the houses aren’t interested in being involved with any neighbors. I saw it happening a few years ago and concluded that I needed to find another location. I finally found a small agricultural based community that I like and am looking for property to buy there. Once there, I will use the skills I developed here to build my stature in that community. Trust only comes over time but can be shattered in an instant. I’m on the fringe of being too old to supply everything for myself. I see my future role being more of a facilitator than a doer - more so as time goes on. The farmers currently rely on mechanical equipment to an exceedingly large extent. If diesel disappears, they’ll need labor to fill that role. With plenty of food available for the local populace, opportunity exists for cooperation. Without access to the basic necessities of life, only conflict can exist.
Frankly, I can’t understand why there is such a large contingency on this site - who know the 3 "E"s - still favor large government programs. Can’t you see that government has become what it was destined to become? The destiny is solely due to the concentrated power and money that government commands. Cut the power and money … and corruption disappears. Why? Because there isn’t any profit in paying for undue influence.
Grover
Tim,
I used your numbers and the percentage cited by Dave. I agree that “defense” spending is much higher than would be sensible if it were purely for “defense”. I really don’t know the amount spent on our non-declared wars in the sand box. I know that lots of patriotic kids went over there ostensibly to fight for our freedom. It saddens me to see them come back without all their functioning limbs. The ones with mental anguish are in worse shape. Have you noticed that the soldiers are not from the ruling class? As soon as a politician thinks a war is so necessary that they’re willing to enlist their own progeny in the infantry, I’ll pay attention.
We can’t stop this madness as long as the status quo exists. The cure is to starve government so they can’t prosecute these idiotic skirmishes.
Grover
turtle,
Ironically, the regulations that you think help you are bastardized by the moneyed interests who gain favors by “donating” to politicians. Regulations keep small players small and big players big enough to just keep within the law (that they helped construct.) I’m not naive enough to think that a Libertarian system would be perfect. It keeps enough competition in the system to keep the bigger fish honest.
Here’s a thought experiment. If I were trying to promote my product over a big polluter, couldn’t I use images of their polluting in my advertising? All it takes is a small change in their customer base to get them to address the issue. Remember that the last customer is mostly profit. Now, they legally pollute to the full extent of the law. Do regulations that are written by the big boyz really work as well as you think?
Grover
Grover-
While of course your take on regulations is accurate (regulations are eventually weaponized by business to provide a cartel-like control over their arena), your alternative appears equally problematic.
According to Dave’s Law, the logical end point of capitalism is that one single entity will end up dominating each business segment, having outperformed, out-muscled, out-financed, or out-thought its competition. Once this occurs, the newly-formed cartel will make certain that no competition can appear, enabling it to charge cartel prices for its segment. (I have a whole bunch of existence proofs of this)
No business actually wants to compete. Every business want to be a cartel. That’s just how they are structured. Maximize return for shareholders is the guiding principle, and - no surprise - that’s what they’ll do. A cartel is the ne plus ultra for an enterprise. It is the optimal entity for maximizing shareholder value.
So - either via regulation, or simply as an emergent property of competition and capitalism, we are fated to end up with cartels. Of course, until the people get fed up, and address the problem somehow. Usually through regulation.
Is this issue somehow addressed - without regulations (or “laws”, if you prefer) in the Libertarian Paradise? 
Dave,
I agree that businesses love monopolies. Without competition, they can charge whatever they want. Consumers are left with a “take it or leave it” choice. The more the monopoly abuses their position, the more potential profit a competitor sees available by developing a product and competing in the market place.
The Libertarian philosophy boils down to “you are free to do what you want until it impacts others.” Where there are fewer people, there are fewer potential impacts. Dense population centers require more rules. If your nearest neighbor is a mile away, you can blast your stereo at 2 AM to hear your favorite song. It doesn’t impact anyone else. If you are in an apartment building with neighbors on all sides, you have a responsibility to consider the impact to them. Would you like it if your neighbors did that?
From this simple example, you can see that the Libertarian way isn’t devoid of laws. The laws need to be context sensitive. One size doesn’t fit all. In our current system, the letter of the law is more important than the intent of the law. Yet, we don’t write laws just to string a bunch of words together. They are written to address an intent. Unless and until our judicial system focuses on intent (rather than the placement of commas,) we’re stuck with the same system we have now. It is the lawyer full employment enterprise.
Should a corporation be punished for outperforming, out-financing, or out-thinking their competition? I don’t think so. By out-muscling, I’m assuming you mean that they threaten their competition with physical violence. That falls under “impacts others” (literally.) Monopolies have a well worn bag of tricks to keep competition out. Should a corporation be allowed to engage in predatory pricing? Predatory pricing is where a corporation drops the prices below their cost in order to bankrupt the competition. Once the competition is gone and the monopoly status returned, prices zoom back up. The intent of the corporation that acts this way is to drive out the competition by taking a short term loss. In the long run, everyone but the monopoly gets hurt. Should that be tolerated? [Clue: Look at the intent.]
We’ve seen the results of the current system. It’s gotten us to this point today. Healthcare has morphed into sick maintenance. Regulations stymie innovation. As long as an entity meets the letter of the law, who cares about meeting the intent? Corruption runs rampant in our political/regulatory system. We’re involved in wars (or “police actions,” if you prefer) around the globe. Only the upper ~10% are getting ahead. The rest are running as fast as possible to just stay in place. Most are losing ground. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more examples to cite.
Hopefully, I haven’t generally mischaracterized our situation. What makes you think that more of the same is going to get us out of this self-generated hellish condition?
Grover
For the great discussion. It’s hard to find this quality of conversation anywhere else.
Paul
Grover-
I agree with your description of where we are. I have said many times that with the current batch of miscreants in office, nothing will change. More of the same won’t do any good. Regs written by cartels will only serve to keep them in power, exactly as you say.
However I don’t feel that Libertarianism is the answer. Your description of “how market forces defeat monopolies” defies both history and common sense. A startup that comes into the marketplace to hose a cartel is easy to thwart - unless the cartel is monumentally stupid. You either drop prices to just barely above break-even, or you acquire the upstart. Or you do both - drop prices until the upstart gets starved of cash, then you buy them out just before they go BK. The only thing that really defeats a monopoly in Libertarian Paradise (and here in Cartel Hell too) is a paradigm change.
How can you say the price-dropping wasn’t simply due to competition, rather than a desire to put the other company out of business? Unless Libertarians are mind-readers…they won’t be any better at this than we are. Determining intent requires evidence, and if the cartel is clever, there will be no such evidence.
The riddle with Libertarian Paradise is this. Its (theoretically) a paradise because competition makes it that way. However, companies, at their core, are structurally designed to both hate and eliminate competition in all its forms, and experience shows that they will work tirelessly to remove all traces of competition from their marketplace, simply because that strategy has the highest ROI.
Stated slightly differently: ROI is what creates Libertarian Paradise, and ROI is also what will drive companies to corrupt the system, and ROI is also what will drive the individuals to succumb to that corruption, ending Libertarian Paradise.
My prediction: companies will win this struggle. They will warp whatever system you put in place, over time, so that competition is eliminated.
At the core of the problem is humanity, which is infinitely corruptible. You may go on about “intent” and how it differs so thoroughly from “regulation”, but the same humans that are involved in writing down and interpreting “regulation” will also be involved in writing down “intent”, as well as in interpreting “intent.” If humans are involved, they can - and will - be corrupted, especially when every company is structurally hell-bent on doing so.
And what that means is, your “intent” system is not materially different from regulation. It uses different words to describe what is essentially the same thing. Words, on paper, that defines what can and cannot be done. And a group of men and women that interpret what those words mean for each specific situation encountered.
People corrupted communism, they corrupted capitalism, and they will also corrupt Libertarian Paradise.
What’s the answer?
I don’t think the answer is to be found in structure.
“The people” must be the guardian of whatever structure is put in place - be it Libertarian Paradise or Regulated Capitalism.
It may not be satisfying to system designers (who imagine that perfect structure will prevent these sorts of things from happening - “having a gold standard will fix everything” comes to mind) but that’s the conclusion I come to. The people must themselves awaken and decide where things go next. There is no structural substitute. Regulated Capitalism would work fine if the people care. Perhaps Libertarian Paradise would as well.
The only structure I see that might help is a mechanism for “the people” to effect their will without requiring violence. This way, once they wake up, they can effect change without having to blow up the world.
Dave,
I see your point that only a monumentally stupid monopoly wouldn’t be able to circumvent whatever rules are in place - just like they do in our regulatory hell. There are great rewards for finding the dividing line between guilty and innocent and staying just inside the innocent limit. Lowering prices to just above break-even and only in the locations where the upstart is trying to function could be construed as fair competition or predatory pricing. The same evidence could be used to support both sides of the argument.
davefairtex wrote:
People corrupted communism, they corrupted capitalism, and they will also corrupt Libertarian Paradise.
What's the answer?
I don't think the answer is to be found in structure.
"The people" must be the guardian of whatever structure is put in place - be it Libertarian Paradise or Regulated Capitalism.
It may not be satisfying to system designers (who imagine that perfect structure will prevent these sorts of things from happening - "having a gold standard will fix everything" comes to mind) but that's the conclusion I come to. The people must themselves awaken and decide where things go next. There is no structural substitute. Regulated Capitalism would work fine if the people care. Perhaps Libertarian Paradise would as well.
The only structure I see that might help is a mechanism for "the people" to effect their will without requiring violence. This way, once they wake up, they can effect change without having to blow up the world.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/43b.asp This was the core of Theodore Roosevelt's leadership. He boiled everything down to a case of right versus wrong and good versus bad. If a trust controlled an entire industry but provided good service at reasonable rates, it was a "good" trust to be left alone. Only the "bad" trusts that jacked up rates and exploited consumers would come under attack. Who would decide the difference between right and wrong? The occupant of the White House trusted only himself to make this decision in the interests of the people. The American public cheered Roosevelt's new offensive. The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5 to 4 decision, agreed and dissolved the Northern Securities Company. Roosevelt said confidently that no man, no matter how powerful, was above the law. As he landed blows on other "bad" trusts, his popularity grew and grew.Grover
Just to add my two cents… I recently ended up in the ER as the result of a fall. Diagnosis was a subdural hematoma. Although a cause for concern, I did not go to Urgent Care until after 4 days of a persistent headache. My point here is to describe the tremendous amount of time that is spent on administration. Thus far I have talked with at least 2 different folks at the insurance company, 5 different admin folks at urgent care and the hospital (1 located out of state), 1 person at the second provider (the ER doctors do not work for the hospital). My interface with the emergency staff itself was less than 10 minutes total (much of this time was spent with a person who collected my copay) although I did interface with 10 individuals during the actual visit. The time on the phone with the administration part of it has been hours. It is a constant game of passing the buck and no one knowing just how everything works. I am not out of the post-visit administrative nightmare yet as I have appealed the doctor’s charge of $1400 for a direct exam of less than 3 minutes and a coding that placed me in the most dire emergency category. I was held in the ER because the doctor went somewhere (lunch?) after the paperwork was completed and his signature was required for my release. I roamed around the hall until his return an hour later. A waste of an exam room for an hour when the ER lobby was jam packed.
I have learned far more than I want on just how wacky the system is and this is surely a contributing factor to my premium is going up 56% between 2016 and 2017.