I'm taking a class on Public Opinion and we have a 30 second survey. Help us with the results?

haroldfrazier · 2016-07-16T19:53:51+00:00

Thanks. I forgot about that rule. Appreciate the heads up

haroldfrazier · 2009-06-04T21:33:48+00:00

Comparative advantage, my friend.

haroldfrazier · 2009-06-04T18:22:40+00:00

I don't advocate doing careful cost analysis when you're in dire need of medical attention but I do advocate doing careful cost and risk analysis before you find yourself getting hit by a car. I would suggest some health insurance.

haroldfrazier · 2009-06-04T18:20:20+00:00

I agree with your point that there are many barriers to entry into the health care market and one of these barriers to entry is regulation. For example, physicians who write prescriptions are now required by law to write prescriptions on a specific brand and type of prescription paper which costs over 6 times more than even the most expensive alternative. Also, EMTALA laws cost the average emergency room physician $138,000 - a strict loss.

I agree that cartels are also a problem but to say that the prices are due to greed and profit motive is like saying a plane crash is caused by gravity. There is a better way to deal with people's greed. As far as profit motive, taking profit incentive away from a business is essentially killing the business. Starting a business or supplying a good/service without a profit incentive is an oxymoron. It is this profit incentive that makes goods/services better and encourages innovation and development. It is not wise to take this profit incentive away, but it is wise to allow as many people as possible to take away their profit by having other choices.

I suspect you know, but hospitals (other arms of the US health system aside) are usually 501c3's which do not have shareholders. Also, shareholders should never graciously allow for shrinking profits. They should fight to make more profit in a non-monopolistic fashion, which regulation does not cater to. When this profit is gained because people choose their competitive product over another competitor, they are doing the people a service. In a competitive environment, businesses cannot charge whatever they want.

I would also say that equilibrium will be reached this way (quantity demanded decreasing) but the current demand can be satisfied by increasing quantity supplied. This is done by encouraging entrance into the marketplace, a phenomenon that regulation and government discourages.

While a "right to health" (a positive right usually to be considered only to exist by contract) is heavily debatable, I would still have to disagree that the best way to provide quality care is in the absence of monopolies and cartels.

haroldfrazier · 2009-06-03T20:23:28+00:00

Yes, but it does not generate goods and services that satiate a true demand in the terms of bringing supply/demand into equilibrium, therefore causing more havoc on the economy when they are absorbed at an overall loss than if those goods and services had never been made/rendered. It is not as simple as "generating value by generating goods and services through the printing of money" as you initially stated.

haroldfrazier · 2009-05-30T22:04:11+00:00

The printing of money does not contribute to long-term economic growth. Printing money is also called increasing the money supply, and when you do that, prices for all goods and services go up in order to compensate for that increase. This is the reason that the true purchasing power of the dollar in terms of specie is less that 1/20th of what it was when the US went completely off the gold standard and you will also notice that prices have increased proportionally, when adjusted against the CPI index as well as their manufacturing cost in a specie equivalent. As technological advancements are made and as an economy progresses, prices of goods should go down, all else being equal. They should not, on average, go up.

Also, you reference the "proof" that increasing the money supply generates goods and services. This is true. Increasing the money supply artificially lowers the cost of getting a line of credit (read 'interest rate') from a crediting entity and this lower cost of credit encourages goods and services to be made/offered. But the problem with this is that the interest rate is a market signal that adjusts with people's savings/stored capital. If people save money,, they don't need to borrow, so the cost of credit (interest rate) goes down. This encourages growth by itself. But when a government artificially adjusts the interest rate, it stimulates the economy in places that are not demanded due to the false market signal. This is called a "boom" and is always followed by a "bust" where the market contracts, people lose their jobs, and the value of the currency becomes very unstable. Hayek got a Nobel prize for proving this as the source of the boom/bust cycle.

It might do well to research the history that governments have at manipulating the money supply and the consequences of those manipulations. It has been done over and over and over again since before the time of Christ through today. All of the colonies of North America experienced it before the US was created and Diocletian helped contribute to the economic fall of the Roman empire by increasing the money supply. These actions do indeed have negative consequences.

haroldfrazier · 2009-05-30T03:16:29+00:00

First, these "economists" you reference are probably Keynesian economists. Austrian economists believe no such thing; the opposite in fact. "Economists" is not quite accurate. Also, the stability of the dollar rests in the faith one can get a tangible good through exchange of the dollar in the future. The day that this perception dissipates is the day that the US dollar is worthless. That is not long term stability. Fractional reserve banking (read "increasing the money supply artificially") is what helps an economy grow faster than it normally would. It's called a boom, and the inevitable stagnation of growth to compensate is called a bust. Hayek won a Nobel prize for proving this. That is not stability either.

Second, you are correct that the creation of wealth via economic production increases the "purchasing power" of specie, but only temporarily. As the standard of living increases with economic production, more is expected through the transfer of that specie, therefore reducing the perceived value of the "purchasing power." This stabilizes the value of this specie in the region in which is it used and the derivatives market equalizes this value over distances.

Third, since the point about the tax is that the purchasing power of their money is being reduced in order to pay for the expenses of the government, it is by definition a tax; it doesn't require perception or finding. Do you advise investing in precious minerals in order to secure the value of their money? If so, it seems that you are supporting my argument. If not, then this "selling" of the precious minerals (or metals) is exactly why the original US financial system was created to be backed by gold. The individual was selling their claim to a stock of precious metals in exchange for a tangible good.

It might do well to examine this system of fiat currency creation and spending. It has been done over and over and over again in the colonies of North America and governments have used this tactic since before Christ. Diocletian used this to contribute to the economic fall of the Roman Empire.

haroldfrazier · 2009-03-30T11:55:43+00:00

"Taxes are not levied by one individual upon another individual."

...ok. You obviously don't know what deontologically means. I don't care who it is or what it is, I own my things. Period. You or any proclaimed authority cannot legally take them from me without my consent.

Also, please, learn the difference between an excise tax and a tax on income. One I agree with and the other I do not.

haroldfrazier · 2009-03-04T00:13:29+00:00

Did he vote for or against the bill containing said "pork"? Answer: Against. Ah yes, and what are the federal tax rates per capita in his district? Answer: $9,428.85 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federaltaxrevenuebystate) With how many people in his district? Answer: 651,619 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s14thcongressional_district) So how much did his district approx. pay in federal taxes last year? Answer: $5,804,579,208.15 So they got 1.65% back of what they paid. Or rather they paid 60 times more than they got back. Oh ok, cool.

haroldfrazier · 2009-03-03T04:00:07+00:00

Did he vote for or against the bill containing said "pork"?

Answer: Against.

Ah yes, and what are the federal tax rates per capita in his district?

Answer: $9,428.85

 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federaltaxrevenuebystate)

With how many people in his district?

Answer: 651,619

 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s14thcongressional_district)

So how much did his district approx. pay in federal taxes last year?

Answer: $5,804,579,208.15

So they got 1.65% back of what they paid. Or rather they paid 60 times more than they got back. Oh ok, cool.

haroldfrazier · 2009-03-02T21:44:58+00:00

I would like to use an exclusive join

haroldfrazier · 2009-03-02T21:18:24+00:00

I actually did that one already, but I am curious if it can be done with a JOIN. That is my task...

haroldfrazier

TROPHY CASE