polifrog
Much of Keynesian economic theory relies on statistics, but statistical representations of reality are not empirical facts as they rely on the subjective inference of the confluence of two or more measured occurrences. Being that subjective inference is not measurable, thus not verifiable, it can not rise to the level of empirical fact, thus "theory" rooted in statistically based inference is highly subjective and, as such, does not rise to the level of theory or even hypothesis and should not be used to drive economic policy.
It is, however, in this nether world of inference that Krugman thrives.
out
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sunday, October 31, 2010
David Price (NC-4) Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow David Price and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Bob Etheridge to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow David Price and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way through the use of situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Bob Etheridge to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Rep Bob Etheridge (NC-2) Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way in situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way in situation 4.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.
out
GK Butterfield - Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow GK Butterfield and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
GK Butterfield does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. GK Butterfield's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet GK Butterfield finds a way.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for GK Butterfield to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
GK Butterfield, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow GK Butterfield and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
GK Butterfield does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. GK Butterfield's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet GK Butterfield finds a way.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for GK Butterfield to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
GK Butterfield, a grade school economist.
out
Brad Miller NC-13 Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
According to Rep. Brad Miller
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Brad Miller, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
According to Rep. Brad Miller
It is inexcusable that in a country as prosperous as the United States, so many of our citizens are not able to afford health care...Brad Miller does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Brad Miller's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Brad Miller, a grade school economist.
out
Brad Miller NC-13 -- Grade School Economist Accusation Confirmed
polifrog
Polifrog has referred to Brad Miller as a grade school economist here, here, here, here, here, and most importantly here.
Today Polifrog's assessment of Brad Miller as a man who would be unable to pass Econ 101 (thus a grade school economist) has been confirmed.
In today's Wall Street Journal by Daniel Klein a survey by Zogby International was published. The survey's primary question was:
How many of the eight questions above would receive an unenlightened response from Brad Miller without the application of contorted logic?
The answer is obvious.
Brad Miller's psychology of quick fixes blinds him from the reality that is the science of economics and limits him to grade school economic thinking. Brad Miller is an embarrassment.
out
Polifrog has referred to Brad Miller as a grade school economist here, here, here, here, here, and most importantly here.
Today Polifrog's assessment of Brad Miller as a man who would be unable to pass Econ 101 (thus a grade school economist) has been confirmed.
In today's Wall Street Journal by Daniel Klein a survey by Zogby International was published. The survey's primary question was:
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians?To get to the answer they asked 4835 American adults to what degree dothey agree with eight basic statements concerning economics.
1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree).The results were unsurprising:
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
[8) Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable. (unenlightened answer: disagree)]
Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.
Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.
How many of the eight questions above would receive an unenlightened response from Brad Miller without the application of contorted logic?
The answer is obvious.
Brad Miller's psychology of quick fixes blinds him from the reality that is the science of economics and limits him to grade school economic thinking. Brad Miller is an embarrassment.
out
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Rep Bob Etheridge (NC-2) --- Demonstrating a Lack of Mad Econ Skills...
polifrog
Obama and Bob Etheridge argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Thank you, Bob Etheridge, may we have another?
Thank you, Bob Etheridge, may we have another?
Thank you Bob Etheridge, may we have another?
Bob Etheridge is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
Let Bob Etheridge know that hurting America and NC-2 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Obama and Bob Etheridge argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Edison International said Friday that its first-quarter net income fell as it recorded a charge to reflect the recently enacted federal healthcare overhaul.
Thank you, Bob Etheridge, may we have another?
In a stunning revelation Wednesday, several top U.S. corporations are seriously considering dropping employee health insurance coverage in light of what they see as the inevitable consequence of ObamaCare--skyrocketing costs.
...the companies maintain that ObamaCare will result in a dramatic increase in expenses for providing employee coverage, with added costs skyrocketing to multi-billions of dollars.
Thank you, Bob Etheridge, may we have another?
Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs - and jobs - after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.
The tax - imposed to help pay for the massive health-care industry overhaul and expansion - is “of the greatest concern” to a majority of its members, the survey found.
About 70 percent of the survey respondents said future innovation will be hurt by a new federal “physician sunshine bill.” The bill will require medical-device firms to report their marketing expenditures on physicians, and a recently passed gift-ban law in Massachusetts.
Thank you Bob Etheridge, may we have another?
Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.
That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.
Bob Etheridge is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
Let Bob Etheridge know that hurting America and NC-2 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Rep Brad Miller (NC-13) --- Demonstrating a Lack of Mad Econ Skills...
polifrog
Obama and Brad Miller argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Thank you, Brad Miller, may we have another?
Thank you, Brad Miller, may we have another?
Thank you Brad Miller, may we have another?
Brad Miller is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
Let Brad Miller know that hurting America and NC-13 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Obama and Brad Miller argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Edison International said Friday that its first-quarter net income fell as it recorded a charge to reflect the recently enacted federal healthcare overhaul.
Thank you, Brad Miller, may we have another?
In a stunning revelation Wednesday, several top U.S. corporations are seriously considering dropping employee health insurance coverage in light of what they see as the inevitable consequence of ObamaCare--skyrocketing costs.
...the companies maintain that ObamaCare will result in a dramatic increase in expenses for providing employee coverage, with added costs skyrocketing to multi-billions of dollars.
Thank you, Brad Miller, may we have another?
Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs - and jobs - after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.
The tax - imposed to help pay for the massive health-care industry overhaul and expansion - is “of the greatest concern” to a majority of its members, the survey found.
About 70 percent of the survey respondents said future innovation will be hurt by a new federal “physician sunshine bill.” The bill will require medical-device firms to report their marketing expenditures on physicians, and a recently passed gift-ban law in Massachusetts.
Thank you Brad Miller, may we have another?
Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.
That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.
Brad Miller is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
Let Brad Miller know that hurting America and NC-13 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Rep David Price (NC-4) --- Demonstrating a Lack of Mad Econ Skills...
polifrog
Obama and David Price argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Thank you, David Price, may we have another?
Thank you, David Price, may we have another?
Thank you David Price, may we have another?
David Price is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
LetDavid Price know that hurting America and NC-4 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Obama and David Price argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Edison International said Friday that its first-quarter net income fell as it recorded a charge to reflect the recently enacted federal healthcare overhaul.
Thank you, David Price, may we have another?
In a stunning revelation Wednesday, several top U.S. corporations are seriously considering dropping employee health insurance coverage in light of what they see as the inevitable consequence of ObamaCare--skyrocketing costs.
...the companies maintain that ObamaCare will result in a dramatic increase in expenses for providing employee coverage, with added costs skyrocketing to multi-billions of dollars.
Thank you, David Price, may we have another?
Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs - and jobs - after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.
The tax - imposed to help pay for the massive health-care industry overhaul and expansion - is “of the greatest concern” to a majority of its members, the survey found.
About 70 percent of the survey respondents said future innovation will be hurt by a new federal “physician sunshine bill.” The bill will require medical-device firms to report their marketing expenditures on physicians, and a recently passed gift-ban law in Massachusetts.
Thank you David Price, may we have another?
Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.
That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.
David Price is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
LetDavid Price know that hurting America and NC-4 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Rep GK Butterfield (NC-1) --- Demonstrating a Lack of Mad Econ Skills...
polifrog
Obama and GK Butterfield argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Thank you, GK Butterfield, may we have another?
Thank you, GK Butterfield, may we have another?
Thank you GK Butterfield, may we have another?
GK Butterfield is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
Let GK Butterfield know that hurting America and NC-1 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Obama and GK Butterfield argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Edison International said Friday that its first-quarter net income fell as it recorded a charge to reflect the recently enacted federal healthcare overhaul.
Thank you, GK Butterfield, may we have another?
In a stunning revelation Wednesday, several top U.S. corporations are seriously considering dropping employee health insurance coverage in light of what they see as the inevitable consequence of ObamaCare--skyrocketing costs.
...the companies maintain that ObamaCare will result in a dramatic increase in expenses for providing employee coverage, with added costs skyrocketing to multi-billions of dollars.
Thank you, GK Butterfield, may we have another?
Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs - and jobs - after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.
The tax - imposed to help pay for the massive health-care industry overhaul and expansion - is “of the greatest concern” to a majority of its members, the survey found.
About 70 percent of the survey respondents said future innovation will be hurt by a new federal “physician sunshine bill.” The bill will require medical-device firms to report their marketing expenditures on physicians, and a recently passed gift-ban law in Massachusetts.
Thank you GK Butterfield, may we have another?
Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.
That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.
GK Butterfield is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
Let GK Butterfield know that hurting America and NC-1 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Brad Miller NC-13 -- Grade School Economist Accusation Confirmed
polifrog
Polifrog has referred to Brad Miller as a grade school economist here, here, here, here, here, and most importantly here.
Today Polifrog's assessment of Brad Miller as a man who would be unable to pass Econ 101 (thus a grade school economist) has been confirmed.
In today's Wall Street Journal by Daniel Klein a survey by Zogby International was published. The survey's primary question was:
How many of the eight questions above would receive an unenlightened response from Brad Miller without the application of contorted logic?
The answer is obvious.
Brad Miller's psychology of quick fixes blinds him from the reality that is the science of economics and limits him to grade school economic thinking. Brad Miller is an embarrassment.
out
Polifrog has referred to Brad Miller as a grade school economist here, here, here, here, here, and most importantly here.
Today Polifrog's assessment of Brad Miller as a man who would be unable to pass Econ 101 (thus a grade school economist) has been confirmed.
In today's Wall Street Journal by Daniel Klein a survey by Zogby International was published. The survey's primary question was:
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians?To get to the answer they asked 4835 American adults to what degree dothey agree with eight basic statements concerning economics.
1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree).The results were unsurprising:
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
[8) Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable. (unenlightened answer: disagree)]
Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.
Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.
How many of the eight questions above would receive an unenlightened response from Brad Miller without the application of contorted logic?
The answer is obvious.
Brad Miller's psychology of quick fixes blinds him from the reality that is the science of economics and limits him to grade school economic thinking. Brad Miller is an embarrassment.
out
Friday, June 4, 2010
Brad Miller (NC-13) - Keynesian Fail
polifrog
Brad Miller is a Keynesian at heart and what is more Keynesian than pumping priming the economy with Census workers?
Payrolls across America increased by 431,000 in May, but
It remains to be seen if the Keynesian take on trickle down economics through government will have any positive effect on the economy in the long run.
In all likelihood the drag imparted on the economy by the immense borrowing done by the Fed will more than offset any positive trickle down effects. Government borrowing kills the vaunted multiplier effect.
out
Brad Miller is a Keynesian at heart and what is more Keynesian than pumping priming the economy with Census workers?
Payrolls across America increased by 431,000 in May, but
Virtually all the job creation in May came from the hiring of 411,000 census workers. Such hiring peaked in May and will begin tailing off in June.
By contrast, hiring by private employers, the backbone of the economy, slowed sharply. They added just 41,000 jobs, down from 218,000 in April and the fewest since January.Not even the press pump monkeys can fudge these numbers.
It remains to be seen if the Keynesian take on trickle down economics through government will have any positive effect on the economy in the long run.
In all likelihood the drag imparted on the economy by the immense borrowing done by the Fed will more than offset any positive trickle down effects. Government borrowing kills the vaunted multiplier effect.
out
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Brad Miller NC-13 -- Soaring Costs Force Canada to Reassess Health Model
polifrog
Brad Miller's support and subsequent vote that made ObamaCare the law of the land was in part supported by much pointing to Canada's so-called "successful" health-care system.
Reuters:
One wonders where the cost cuts will originate from. Death Panels?
It is clear that the only system is one where end users and health-care providers are directly linked through monetary exchange. Decoupling these two players leads to the rising costs we have seen since the end of WW2 in the US and furthering that division will only exacerbate the problem.
Canada and Europe are just further down the road and hint o the failure that is ObamaCare.
Brad Miller, a grade school economist, is blind to the obvious.
out
Brad Miller's support and subsequent vote that made ObamaCare the law of the land was in part supported by much pointing to Canada's so-called "successful" health-care system.
Reuters:
Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's Provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.
...
And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
...
Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets...
One wonders where the cost cuts will originate from. Death Panels?
It is clear that the only system is one where end users and health-care providers are directly linked through monetary exchange. Decoupling these two players leads to the rising costs we have seen since the end of WW2 in the US and furthering that division will only exacerbate the problem.
Canada and Europe are just further down the road and hint o the failure that is ObamaCare.
Brad Miller, a grade school economist, is blind to the obvious.
out
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Social States and Debt -- A reality
polifrog
I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a burger today... If we all do it we can call it free trade and hey, it's politically correct too!
If we aren't headed for a second leg down in the image of the Great Depression, we are at best driving head long into an extended ObamaDebt fueled morass.
out
I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a burger today... If we all do it we can call it free trade and hey, it's politically correct too!
If we aren't headed for a second leg down in the image of the Great Depression, we are at best driving head long into an extended ObamaDebt fueled morass.
out
Friday, May 7, 2010
Brad Miller NC-13 --- Demonstrating a Lack of Mad Econ Skills...
polifrog
Obama and Brad Miller argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Thank you, Brad Miller, may we have another?
Thank you, Brad Miller, may we have another?
Thank you Brad Miller, may we have another?
Brad Miller is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
Let Brad Miller know that hurting America and NC-13 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Obama and Brad Miller argued that through the miracle of government regulation, taxation, resource allocation and general smartyness of government officials, health-care costs would magically fall, you know, if all those health-care dollars were just passed through the government till.
It would reduce the deficit. It would lessen the costs of heath-care for businesses. It would lessen the burden of health-care costs on all our wallets.
They were wrong.
Edison International said Friday that its first-quarter net income fell as it recorded a charge to reflect the recently enacted federal healthcare overhaul.
Thank you, Brad Miller, may we have another?
In a stunning revelation Wednesday, several top U.S. corporations are seriously considering dropping employee health insurance coverage in light of what they see as the inevitable consequence of ObamaCare--skyrocketing costs.
...the companies maintain that ObamaCare will result in a dramatic increase in expenses for providing employee coverage, with added costs skyrocketing to multi-billions of dollars.
Thank you, Brad Miller, may we have another?
Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs - and jobs - after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.
The tax - imposed to help pay for the massive health-care industry overhaul and expansion - is “of the greatest concern” to a majority of its members, the survey found.
About 70 percent of the survey respondents said future innovation will be hurt by a new federal “physician sunshine bill.” The bill will require medical-device firms to report their marketing expenditures on physicians, and a recently passed gift-ban law in Massachusetts.
Thank you Brad Miller, may we have another?
Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.
That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.
Brad Miller is a grade school economist who does not base his support for a bill on the rational, but rather on what feels right at the time. No reading, no understanding. It just, you know, FEELS RIGHT.
Let Brad Miller know that hurting America and NC-13 hurts individuals, the same individuals he professes to help and send him back to school to learn some basic ECON.
out
Monday, April 5, 2010
Brad Miller NC-13 Diving beyond Debt and Morality
polifrog
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
According to Rep. Brad Miller
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Brad Miller, a grade school economist.
out
It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.
This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.
Here is why...
---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.
---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.
---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.
Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.
According to Rep. Brad Miller
It is inexcusable that in a country as prosperous as the United States, so many of our citizens are not able to afford health care...Brad Miller does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Brad Miller's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.
As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....
President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.
---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.
I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.
Brad Miller, a grade school economist.
out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
