Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/17/04 10:57:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Before SSI was established, taxes were lower. Your case would require that

>

> charity, then, was higher, and there was no need for SSI. But Social

> Security was created specifically becaue legions of elderly people were

> starving and dying and desperately needed assistance -- assistance which

> charity was not providing. It's easy to say that in the absence of a

> government program, charity would take up the slack and even do a better

> job, but the fact is that a lot of government programs (and the taxes to

> pay for them) were established specifically because charity _wasn't_

> helping.

Wasn't SSI instituted during the Great Depression? If so, I don't think

that's a reasonable model to work with, since we were living in the middle of

utter economic collapse. And, I would argue, the collapse was mostly the

government's fault. (God am I opening up a can of worms!)

Furthermore, societies progress. Problems do not exist in a society forever

with no response, but people continually try to solve them. Had we not had a

major ideological shift at the time toward solving them with government,

people would have offered market-based solutions. Many social movements have

based

themselves on education and affecting behavior through influence rather than

force, and have had significant success. Many of them cultural, such as trends

in childrearing-- there are too many to list, but I assume you are familiar

with what I mean. Education about how the stock market works, and how to

invest safely for retirement woudl have been one solution.

And in fact, we have a perfect empirical example of this: since SSI is not

sufficient for anyone to retire in remote comfort, the market has responded by

providing private, stock-based retirement programs, which have a much higher

return than SSI, and IMO, are just as safe. So, had SSI never been instituted,

or at least never been made mandatory, people would now just have larger

retirment programs, and the retirement programs would be embraced by a much

larger

portion, perhaps all, of the population.

And that would be truly democratic-- not in the sense of mob control, but in

the sense of a system where everyone truly has a chance to own part of the

wealth. Plus, more money would be invested in capital, so economic productivity

would be higher, increasing not only the current living standards, but the

amount of wealth available for retirement.

> I'm not responding directly to Heidi's contention, but a stateless tribal

> society cannot be used as the model for a modern integrated

> civilization. In a tribe, everyone knows everyone else.

I agree, but I was responding to her, as I interpreted it, characterization

of human nature as fundamentally ungenerous.

>

> >I don't recall the year the NYSE was founded, but it was a long, long time

> >ago. And as far as I can tell, that mode of investment seems to have

> >produced a

> >considerable amount of wealth that has raised living standards

> significantly.

>

> I see the point of confusion. Yes, stock markets have played a part in the

> economy for a long time, but I was talking about the foundation of the

> economy. Our economic foundation used to be production -- manufacturing,

> high tech research and product introduction, etc. Nowadays the vast

> majority of production and a terrifying amount of research have moved

> elsewhere, and our economy is propped up with cardboard and tissue

> paper. It's a house of cards waiting to collapse, and market speculation

> makes up a huge portion of the activity in the economy.

I doubt it is ready to collapse. In any case, we're certainly richer now for

it. Even the folks at the bottom.

>

> >But both of them are somewhat apocalyptic estimates

>

> You think peak oil and gas is an apocalyptic estimate? Here's the opening

> of a CNN story from yesterday:

It *is* apocalyptic. That's not a value judgment. That doesn't mean it's

lunacy. Because if we *are* headed for the apocalypse, then apocalypticism is

perfectly true and rational. I wasn't trying to degrade either of our

articles, yours or mine, I was pointing out that both of them are essentially

predicting doom in comparable ways, but with different content. I was simply

stressing their similarities.

> >That said, taxation *is* theft, so government amounts

> >to a necessary evil.

>

> If taxation is theft, then your very life exists because of stolen

> goods. The problem with the taxation-is-theft argument is that people want

> to keep money that comes into their hands without acknowledging that it

> came into their hands in part because of the investments made by the

> community -- by government.

I disagree-- government might make investments, but overall the effect of

taxation is to decrease the total pool of wealth. Especially with a complicated

tax code involving various sorts of income taxes-- that's an administrative

abomination that wastes enormous amounts of tax money with paper work,

enforcement, interpretation, giving useless jobs to lawyers, to accountants,

etc, that

would all otherwise be put into producing something of value.

Besides, if the gov't weren't taking the taxes, it wouldn't be making the

investments.

I'm not saying all people making that argument

> are hypocritical, but some definitely are. I'm reminded of the case of (if

>

> I can remember the details) Atlanta particularly and Georgia in

> general. They were transformed from economic backwaters to much more

> prosperous areas by the interstate highway system, but now, having reaped

> the benefits of a tax-funded investment, they want no further part of taxes.

But that argument is based on the idea that government is necessary to build

infrastucture, which is clearly untrue seeing how private interests built the

railroad infrastructure.

Since the semi-gov't semi-private turnpikes with user fees are vastly

superior roads to all the others, it seems apparent to me that private industry

would

do even better, because they could fire all of the ticket-giver-outers who

get paid three times what they're worth and get the jobs simply by having

connections.

>

> The reason this sort of intellectual discordance is possible is because

> taxes you pay are measurable precisely in dollars and cents that leave your

> possession, whereas benefits you reap can never be so precisely allocated

> and also never _feel_ like " your " dollars and cents.

The amount of money that comes back is relatively small-- most of it goes to

programs I dont support, and much of it is spent overseas. I don't really

consider using the military to destroy farmer's crops in Columbia a benefit to

me, however it is quantified.

> >That said, if business is as powerful as anti-business folks claim, the

> only

> >place we *can* win is in the market place

>

> That's a really bizarre idea. Imagine if you will saying " That said, if

> [the invading aliens' military] really is as powerful as [humans] claim,

> the only place we *can* win is [on the battlefield] " .

No, because businesses " own " the government. For example, Atkins has had

more success directly influencing demand in the market than WAPF lobbyists in

Congress. And I think the same would be true if Atkins were lobbying Congress.

Try affecting the FDA appointments like you can affect what people buy with a

book.

> >Then Organic Valley offers security, and the farmer is exchanging a

> portion

> >of his revenue for security, and therefore, gaining a material benefit.

>

> Of course, though the tradeoff probably isn't calculated in most cases, but

> this argument started over whether OV dairy is good or not. It's not. I

> wouldn't drink it.

That's not what I recall. Based on my memory, it was whether or not OV

offers an advantage to their farmers. Someone else had mentioned them being a

good

company. I only use their cultured butter. I've switched to Garelick Farms

as my cream-when-I-can't-get-raw now, because they dont' use carageenan. All

the organic ones I've found use carageenan.

> >Mercola's a media mogul, of the internet anyway, and he sells good

> >products. Though true enough, not as big as Atkins.

>

> Mercola is just reselling other people's products, not selling branded

> items formulated and manufactured for him, and his business is microscopic

> by comparison. It's like comparing a shark to a minnow.

Good point... plus, Mercola has vowed not to take any profit from the sales.

> >I'm just making the point that there's no reason a

> >grassroots campaign to educate people can't succeed.

>

> I never said they couldn't, but in order to spur people to organize on a

> grassroots level, things usually have to get pretty damn bad. Otherwise

> they feel (often with reasonable justification) that they have better

> things to do.

*shrug* We're having success around here encouraging farmers to convert to

raw. And, well, the state of dairy farming is " pretty damn bad " around here

too I think.

> >In general, people

> >maximize what is their self-interest. For example, I had a friend who

> gained

> >pleasure from drinking milk. When he did so, he would keel over and lie

> >on the

> >floor in pain, but he never stopped. You could say he's irrational, but

> he's

> >making a choice, which is that the value of the taste and feel of milk in

> his

> >mouth is more valuable to him than lack of pain.

>

> If you're equating this choice with all others, then you're basically

> saying the word has no meaning. It sounds to me like he was (is?)

> physiologically addicted to milk.

I doubt it. It's possible, but, having known him, there's no reason to think

it. Believe me.

This isn't especially surprising or

> implausible -- a lot of the gluten theory of bowel disease holds that

> gluten (and casein) can actually be addictive. So what you're saying is

> equivalent to saying that the " choice " of a heroin addict to use some more

> heroin is equivalent to the choice someone else makes to buy a morning

> paper or to go to one movie instead of another. There are different

> degrees of volition in different choices.

No, you don't understand this kid. He places no value on his health. Also,

he's the kind of guy who would do something like Buddy from in Charge

in that episode where he kept giving himself ice cream headaches over and over

again by eating tons of ice cold ice cream real fast. It's just that he has

really, really, wierd priorities, and he makes his choices based on his own

values. They're still choices.

> >When my grandfather goes shopping, he looks for stuff on sale, and tries

> to

> >minimize the money he spends. That is rationality at work, working on a

> >certain value as a premise.

>

> OK, put it this way, then. Rational analysis can lead to terrible

> decisions with results that virtually anyone would consider irrational to

> choose because it can only work with its input values, so it's mistaken to

> automatically assume that a decision arrived at by rational analysis is a

> good decision.

I don't. But it's a rational decision, and it's that person's decision, who

may choose her or his own values.

> >Now, factory farming has probably done more harm than good to Americans,

> but

> >in somewhere like India, it's the hope of preventing starvation.

>

> Factory farming is definitely not the answer for India.

There are a lot of elements of it they could probably do without, but the

Green Revolution technologies are simply preventing an overpopulated country

from

starving. It might bring curses too, but to someone who's starving, it's

more of a blessing.

> I'm curious to hear how you justify this believe. To whom, for example,

> are humans morally responsible to maximize their productive value -- and

> their productive value to whom? That sounds suspiciously communist to me. <

> g>

To themselves. If you believe in God, God.

> >>This is simply incorrect. No countries which honor patents, including

> >>Canada, create generics before patents run out, and once patents run out,

> >>the generic market is open to everyone.

> >

> >It doesn't apply to Canada,

>

> But you made the statement in response to the Canada issue, not something

> else.

Heidi mentioned Canada and the life-saving drugs being witheld in the same

email,and I responded in the same email. I may have jumbled up my response in

the midst of replying to the numerous people who responded to parts of that

email. If so, I apologize, and conceed they aren't related.

> >the beef industry and make up shoddy anti-soy science and the

> >soy industry can make up shoddy anti-beef science, and both can wage

> >advertising

> >campaigns.

>

> And which industry do you think will be more successful, at least in the

> short and medium terms, since (a) the soy industry is vastly more

> profitable since it's far cheaper to produce and yet its raw material can

> be turned into expensive high-margin products, and ( the beef industry is

> partially dependent on the soy industry?

I don't think either would be taken seriously. I think the beef industry

might succeed if we were to rewind history and let them duke it out themselves,

because people were already eating beef, not soy. And because beef tastes

good, while soy sucks.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:03:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Come on, while that's technically not a personal attack, it's still

> personal. Play nice.

I don't think it was personal-- he was describing his own inexposure to

humane people who support capitalism, and I'm suggesting that there's plenty out

there for him to meet if he would just talk to people, most of whom aren't

socialists.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:18:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

writes:

> so who pays for this government if not by taxes?

Taxes. But not income taxes-- this country's government survived for nearly

a century and a half with no income taxes. The taxes needed would be minimal,

since its purpose would be only to protect property and to enforce contracts.

And presumably the court system could be largely supported by user fees--

you lose, you pay.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:27:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Understanding when something is a joke would help, though, wouldn't it? How

> could you possibly construe that as a serious request?

I didn't-- I knew it was a joke. It's difficult for me to believe you were

joking when you called me pathological, immature, arrogant, know-it-all,

inhumane, etc.

But, if it was your intention to reverse the tension by initiating some

humor, I should have went along with it, and I apologize for not doing so, since

I'm ready whenever you are to be friendly.

cChris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:12:13 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> In a message dated 1/16/04 12:41:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> In some ways, all of civilization up until now can be viewed as somewhat of

>> a disaster...capitalism can be viewed as a disaster. I live in San

>> Francisco, and when I see all of the people living on the street, more and

>> more each day, and the way the world is going (with the U.S. in a leadership

>> position) in general, I can conclude (quite reasonably) I think, that

>> capitalism is a disaster.

>

> But those problems, I would argue, are primarily caused by interferences in

> the market. Excessive and unpredictable business codes, rent control, etc,

> can

> contribute to housing shortage. While MA has a decent min wage and isn't one

> of the highest unemployment rates, in general, the states with the highest

> min wages have the worst unemployment rates, like Washington.

Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help myself,

I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market " that

exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was not a

big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something?

You are also claiming that rent control, e.g. attempts to keep some units

below market rate so that people can afford them, helps CAUSE homelessness?!

I suppose you'll argue that rent control causes units to be taken off the

market, and therefore causes more homelessness, but I just don't think that

this is factually true - it certainly defies logic, since people who can't

afford a place to live generally will be more likely to be able to rent a

place that is below market rate. I suppose you'll say that astronomically

high rents here in San Francisco contribute more to homelessness than if the

rents were lower, since, logically, is someone is making close to minimum

wage he/she is more likely to afford an expensive apartment.

As for states with the highest minimum wages having the worst unemployment

rates - gee, could you possibly be confusing cause and effect? Just

wondering. Why, in general, are there movements to increase minimum wages?

It is because people can't survive on minimum wage because of the cost of

living, of which rental costs play a significant role, or am I confused?

>

> But probably the absolute worst, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy is

> designed to limit growth to a " stable " rate, and to keep a minimum level of

> unemployment. It's fundamentally anti-worker-- if you watch the Greenspan

> hearings

> on C-SPAN, they talk about " wage costs, " as if a wage is a cost, not a

> benefit. To whom? The employer; obviously to the worker the wage isn't a

> cost.

> The effect of the policy is to undermine the bargaining power of workers by

> keeping enough unemployment to maintain a turnover. If the Fed would butt

> out,

> all able workers could actually work, growth would be much higher, and the

> bargaining power of workers under full employment would increase a *lot*.

>

I have to struggle very hard to obey 's commandments, but I am trying.

> So, it could be said, capitalism is the solution, not the problem.

>

> Chris

Yes, it could be said that, but it is false, and I have never met anyone who

believed what you believed for whom compassion for the rest of the human

race wasn't a carefully constructed plausible rationalization for a

heartless and ruthless world view. Oops.

[Guest guest]

- I appreciate your patience, and I stress that I was joking in both

cases...perhaps too subtly in my 'insult' towards and (I thought more

obviously, but I guess not) in my comment about your attire. Whether or not

I agree with the list policy, I understand the motivation for running it

this way, and I realize that your job is difficult.

Perhaps we can work out some kind of deal, where I would be allowed to

insult say, once a month? That way you would need to reprimand me

only if I exceeded this threshold.

Gene

From: Idol <Idol@...>

Reply-

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:35:46 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: money and health

Gene-

>Well, the use of the conditional was meant to make it sound warm and fuzzy,

>Maybe if I had one of those hats I wouldn't get quite as frustrated...

" Herbert may be a piece of #@( " is no less a personal attack than " Herbert

is a piece of #@( " . I don't mean to equate that kind of statement with

yours, just to demonstrate that it was still a personal attack and thus

against the rules of the list.

As to the hats... suffice it to say that while I'm very pleased to have

assumed ownership of the list, and I've been a sysop on various discussion

boards over the years, the job brings more frustration than pleasure. You

have to reprimand people you don't want to reprimand, and you have to be

extra-careful in monitoring your own rhetoric and behavior. The kind of

people who vent via their managerial powers shouldn't have those powers --

and I don't mean to imply you would, just that having those powers doesn't

relieve frustration the way you might think they would.

-

[Guest guest]

>. The

>alternative is to believe they are no worse than a society that does not have

>cannibalism, human sacrifice, or does not burn alive women for premarital

>sex.

Actually the problem is that the people who burn women alive

for premarital sex are doing it *because* they want a moral

society. The Nazis killed Jews because in the name of morality

also. The pro-life and pro-choice factions both believe

they are fighting for morality.

So,

Mmm ... that isn't really my position. My position is more that you can't

argue from an idealistic viewpoint. Mainly because no one can agree

on what is " better " or " moral " .

From MY point of view, mistreating women is not a good thing.

But, to the cultures that burn them alive for premarital sex,

they are acting morally, to protect the moral good of their society.

From a lot of people's point of view today, killing murderers

is a good thing. Other people think capital punishment is a bad thing.

Ditto for killing animals. Words like " humane " and " moral " and all

those are just shorthand for one group's point of view, and they

don't mean much, therefore, in a debate, except " Society should

work how I think it should work " . Unless you and I and everyone

else on the list agree in advance on the definiton of " moral " and

" rights " etc, and I don't think we do.

As far as, is a society justified for cruel treatment of individuals

if it survives ... it's a good question. One question is, COULD it

have survived otherwise? We have unprecedented luxury in our

society, to put up with wayward and crippled individuals ... but the

fact the Inuit seemed (at least in some tribes) willing to abandon

the weak, or kick the evildoers out of the igloo (as per Fast

Runner) is a sign of a society living " on the edge " in harsh,

life or death conditions. Here in my warm house with plenty of

food socked away, I'm in no position to call such a society " good "

or " bad " .

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> ? You said that interference from the market exacerbated the homeless

> situation. I gave a counterexample, and you cited another issue.

The reason I responded with it was because it seemed apparent to me that

market dynamics do not apply when there is no market. So, you made the initial

irrelevant comment. The implication of that is that the USSR was a good

alternative to markets because it solved the homelessness problem, thus, famine

becomes relevant. If you didn't mean it that way, I really don't see why it

isn't

apparent that market dynamics do not exist in a non-market system.

> >Furthermore, you are decreasing the level of detail to vague generalities

> in

> >order to obscure the point.

>

> I doing this deliberately?

Probably not, but that is the effect. I don't mean to accuse you of

anything, I'm just saying that reducing it to such vague generalities as

" interfering

with the market " and " not interfering with the market " really obscures the

issue, especially when your example of interference with the market is a country

that doesn't even use markets as a means of allocating resources at all.

>

> >There are lots of causes of homelessness-- one is

> >mental illness.

>

> I never denied that there are multiple causes of homelessness. Regardless, a

> society should take care of people who can't take care of themselves...but

> granted, that isn't the immediate issue. This is rather irrelevant, because

> the inability to afford causing is still a significant cause of

> homelessness.

And part of the reason is mental illness. For example, in my area, most of

the homeless folks are Vietnam vets who can't work full-time because of

psychological issues, but do work. Other folks I suspect are unemployed. I

doubt a

signifiant portion of the homeless population is working full-time and still

not able to afford housing.

Even still, I pointed out why wages are lower with gov't intervention than

without before-- the Fed delieberately maintains a range of unemployment for

" stability, " which depresses real wages, or, rather, prevents them from rising.

>

> >There are specific causes of housing shortages-- primarily

> >upper limits on rent and housing costs. Obviously, that would not be an

> issue

> >in a non-market system like the USSR, because the builders would be

> *forced*

> >to build. Some would question the value of the tradeoff, when the result

> is

> >the death of 30 million people and the sacrifice of all religious freedom.

>

> ??? You said that interference with the market helped exacerbate

> homelessness. I gave an obvious counterexample. More governmental control

> over housing costs doesn't conceptually entail less religious freedom.

You didn't give a counterexample at all. You have an example of a society

that does not use markets to allocate resources. You can't " interfere " in a

market that does not exist.

If your point were to have any remote validity, it would be by supporting the

idea that we should replace markets entirely (which is what occurred in the

USSR), and, in that case, all of the destructive side-elements are relevant,

because I don't think you can eliminate markets without eliminating freedom.

> Ok - I really don't care what thinks at this point. You are really not

> a very nice person - either in your political theories, which are heartless

> and cruel, and in your passion to sacrifice logic for your newfound passion

> for your libertarianism. And, by the way, I doubt that you have had more

> math than I have had in my life, and I really doubt that you are better at

> it than I am. And what, in the name of god, this has to do with this

> discussion is utterly beyond me.

What I'm suggesting is that if you are unfamiliar with how supply and demand

curves relate to price caps and floors, you could learn it in an introductory

economics course, and could also learn it in an applied calculus course. I

wasn't implying at all that you were bad at math. The subject doesn't really

require math, it's primarily conceptual.

You seemed to be unfamiliar with it. Perhaps you are familiar and dispute

it?

I really don't understand why you hold me up to a standard of decency so

vastly higher than you hold yourself to. At most my comments ambiguously

implied

you were lacking in knowledge and understanding. They didn't in any way

imply, nevermind explicitly state, that you were stupid, or bad at math. On the

other hand, you don't even bother to make implications about me, but

continually, in nearly if not every single post you've ever addressed to me,

explicitly

attack my personality, my capacity for compassion, etc.

Suggesting you are lacking in knowledge that is a pre-requisite to this

discussion is not a personal attack in my eyes. For example, considers me

unable to have a discussion about human nature in any depth until I've read

_Blank_Slate_ and considers me unable to have a significant discussion of

propaganda and influence and power until I read _Trust Us We're Experts_. What

did I

do? Rather than berating him for attacking my intelligence and calling him

heartless and cruel, I went to the library and took out the two books and

started

reading one.

But when I get the impression that you haven't had an introductory economics

course-- which you gave me reason to believe, by stating you were confused how

price caps would result in shortages-- and I suggest that if you want to

understand how those dynamics work, you can take the two courses in which you'd

deal with them, you attack my compassion and niceness. Why?

If I'd said something in a discussion about foreign policy like, " Well, I

think the bombing of Kosovo was justified because of the mass ethnic cleansing, "

demonstrating I was unaware of some of the fundamentals of the history, and

you said, " I don't think we can properly discuss this until you read Chomsky's

_The_New_Military_Humanism_ " would that be heartless and cruel? Of course not.

You, like I was, would simply be suggesting that in order to have a

discussion you'd need basic common ground of knowledge.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:46:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> That's either utterly disingenuous, or you simply haven't read what I've

> written. What you have said goes way beyond simple capitalism.

I advocate simple captialism-- laissez faire capitalim. Nothing beyond that.

I've never expressed unconcern for those less fortunate, so I don't know how

you can call my views uncompassionate. I happen to believe that a true market

system would be beneficial to those less fortuante.

I am friends> with people who are not socialists. And to to say that I was

> " describing my inexposure to human people who support capitalism " - where in

> the world do

> you get this stuff?

To humane, people, not human. You said: " I have never met anyone who

>> believed what you believed for whom compassion for the rest of the human

>> race wasn't a carefully constructed plausible rationalization for a

>> heartless and ruthless world view "

All I was trying to say was that this is a function of your own exposure to

viewpoints such as mine. The fact is that many of us who hold such views are

just as compassionate and caring as you are. So, while I should have used more

tact, I was essentially saying that your impression is not due to the lack of

compassion on the part of folks who believe as I do, but is due to either a

lack of exposure to our views, or a misunderstanding of our views, on your

part.

That said, I regret saying it with sarcasm, and wish I had said it without

the sarcasm. I don't see how it could have offended you, given what you said

about me, but I nevertheless would rather have not said it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

****. The

alternative is to believe they are no worse than a society that does not have

cannibalism, human sacrifice, or does not burn alive women for premarital

sex. ***

Chris:

Actually what I said was that you need an OBJECTIVE measure

of what was a " better " society. I suggested heath, happiness,

and individual freedom as the indexes to be maximized: the

societies that maximize those indexes can then be

considered " better " . There might be other, more accurate, indexes,

but I'd bet that a society full of happy, healthy people who

feel they have lots of choices would also be a good place

to live. And a society that oppresses half its people or

works them to death would have a low index. On the happiness

index, BTW, the US doesn't rank very high, even though our

standard of living is high.

But the problem with " moral " is that EVERYONE believes

that what they do is moral. The folks that burn women

alive do so out of a sense of morality. The Nazis killed

the Jews because that seemed like the moral thing to do.

The pro-life and pro-choice factions both claim moral high

ground. Ditto for the pro and anti gay marriage camps.

Al Queda is very concerned with " moral " , and so

is Bush. So when you say you want a " moral " society,

whose version are you using?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:35:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> You were clearly implying Gene's naive. And regardless of whether you

> agree you were making that implication, you were personally characterizing

> Gene. Please keep discussions topical -- even when the subject under

> discussion isn't, strictly speaking, topical on the list.

I agree that I shouldn't have said what I said, and wish that I hadn't, at

least not with the sarcasm with which I said it. But it was a defensive and not

an offensive point. I was suggesting he doesn't understand my views, and

needs greater exposure to them before he can conclude or even suggest that I'm

ruthless, heartless, and cruel.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> Do they do the rescuing for profit?

>

>This isn't a serious question, just a cheap shot,

>so I'm not going to answer it.

>

>

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a cheap shot. Someone brought

up the fact that the fire departments were, at one point,

for profit organizations. And that they would fight

over " whose fire " a given fire was, while the building

burned down. Similar situations have arisen with garbage

collectors. In both cases, the gov't stepped in and took

control. Part of my property taxes pay for the fire dep't,

which is right down the street, and they will come if

my house catches fire or my kid gets stuck in a tree or

an earthquake makes a building fall down, whether or

not said person is up to date on their house payments

or taxes.

But if it wasn't governmental, and my house caught fire, I'd assume

it would be up to me to pay the fire department? Or

I'd have to take out " fire dep't insurance " ? What if

I couldn't afford it? And would the fire department

do damage control after an earthquake, or would that

belong to another private company? If I am FORCED

to pay for fire dept insurance, how is that different

from a tax? Anyway, private orgs like that must run

for profit in the scenario that the libertarian group

here keeps describing.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

A compound response of my own to help reduce list congestion (though

digest-readers are probably still pounding their keyboards in rage at us <g>):

>which you have failed to answer, recent history has shown

>empirically that when taxes go down, charity goes up.

Before SSI was established, taxes were lower. Your case would require that

charity, then, was higher, and there was no need for SSI. But Social

Security was created specifically becaue legions of elderly people were

starving and dying and desperately needed assistance -- assistance which

charity was not providing. It's easy to say that in the absence of a

government program, charity would take up the slack and even do a better

job, but the fact is that a lot of government programs (and the taxes to

pay for them) were established specifically because charity _wasn't_ helping.

>Funny how it's [Heidi] who again and again points out the kind of

>collectivity

>and mutual support that occurs in stateless societies, and then then next

>minute

>claims that if government weren't doing the shabby job its doing displacing

>this mutual support, no one would do it.

I'm not responding directly to Heidi's contention, but a stateless tribal

society cannot be used as the model for a modern integrated

civilization. In a tribe, everyone knows everyone else.

>I don't recall the year the NYSE was founded, but it was a long, long time

>ago. And as far as I can tell, that mode of investment seems to have

>produced a

>considerable amount of wealth that has raised living standards significantly.

I see the point of confusion. Yes, stock markets have played a part in the

economy for a long time, but I was talking about the foundation of the

economy. Our economic foundation used to be production -- manufacturing,

high tech research and product introduction, etc. Nowadays the vast

majority of production and a terrifying amount of research have moved

elsewhere, and our economy is propped up with cardboard and tissue

paper. It's a house of cards waiting to collapse, and market speculation

makes up a huge portion of the activity in the economy.

>But both of them are somewhat apocalyptic estimates

You think peak oil and gas is an apocalyptic estimate? Here's the opening

of a CNN story from yesterday:

BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- The northeastern United States faced

more bitter cold and high winds Thursday, with forecasters warning of

" extremely dangerous " wind chills as low as 45 degrees below zero in

eastern Massachusetts.

In Vermont , Gov. appeared live on the state's largest

television network to urge New England residents to conserve energy

and help prevent rolling blackouts, which may be needed in an extreme

circumstance.

said ISO New England, the company responsible for maintaining

the region's power grid, is preparing to shut off power to some

customers on Friday, if necessary, in order to keep the grid working.

The weather has created high demand for electricity and as a result

some power generating plants ran out of natural gas Thursday and

increased the burden on other plants, according to ISO New England.

I haven't looked into this, but I doubt those plants ran out just because

of poor low-level management.

>That said, taxation *is* theft, so government amounts

>to a necessary evil.

If taxation is theft, then your very life exists because of stolen

goods. The problem with the taxation-is-theft argument is that people want

to keep money that comes into their hands without acknowledging that it

came into their hands in part because of the investments made by the

community -- by government. I'm not saying all people making that argument

are hypocritical, but some definitely are. I'm reminded of the case of (if

I can remember the details) Atlanta particularly and Georgia in

general. They were transformed from economic backwaters to much more

prosperous areas by the interstate highway system, but now, having reaped

the benefits of a tax-funded investment, they want no further part of taxes.

The reason this sort of intellectual discordance is possible is because

taxes you pay are measurable precisely in dollars and cents that leave your

possession, whereas benefits you reap can never be so precisely allocated

and also never _feel_ like " your " dollars and cents.

>That said, if business is as powerful as anti-business folks claim, the only

>place we *can* win is in the market place

That's a really bizarre idea. Imagine if you will saying " That said, if

[the invading aliens' military] really is as powerful as [humans] claim,

the only place we *can* win is [on the battlefield] " .

>What kind of non-market approaches do you favor?

A ban on PHO. I suppose it would have to be phased in, but I'd want the

term to be as short as possible -- maybe three years max. Even that would

be hard to defend.

I'd want to basically abolish the FDA and create a completely new agency

from the ground up with a bunch of different design objectives.

One problem we currently have (with a number of regulatory agencies) is

revolving-door corruption. (Or maybe that's not the correct term; I'm

blanking on it. Anyway, I mean people from industry being given regulatory

jobs without any kind of vetting of their candidacies, and regulators

auditioning for industry jobs by compromising their regulatory work.) I'm

not sure how absolute measures to curb or eliminate could be, but one idea

would be to pass a law preventing people from moving directly between

industries and their corresponding regulatory bodies. IOW, no Big Pharma

bigwigs becoming FDA commissioners and vice versa. That would help, but

the price in abridging freedom might be too great. It's something I'd have

to think about, but regardless of the specific measure, the goal would be

the same.

Another problem is that the FDA's budget is largely directly dependent on

the industry it's supposed to oversee. Big Pharma actually pays FDA

employees' salaries. Not smart to have the people being regulated paying

the people regulating them.

Another problem is research. I'd require industry to turn over _all_

studies and _all_ data to the government, which would in turn make it

public to the degree possible without infringing on patents and IP. As

things stand, businesses can conduct 50 experiments, all the while refining

conditions and jiggering numbers, but they only have to turn in two actual

sets of results, and I'm not sure they're even required to turn in every

bit of data associated with the trials either. This is a recipe for bad

science and therefore bad policy.

I'd also try to move as much research as possible back to universities (and

possibly to other disinterested locations) AND whenever research was

conducted with public funds, I'd make the results available to the

public. No more of this guff with medical journals charging the public an

arm and a leg -- and a kidney and a liver and a heart and a brain -- for

access to the work it funded. That's abominable. This wouldn't prevent

doctors, researchers and companies from making money from their products

and discoveries, it would just restore a little fairness, and it would

enable a lot more people to actually check the research that's always cited

as " proof " of this or that contention.

I'd also do something about surrogate endpoints. The huge majority of

current nutritional wisdom is actually just a house of cards resting on a

bunch of highly questionable or outright incorrect assumptions. Just about

everything -- including drugs -- which are supposed to " help " or " treat " or

" cure " or " reduce " this disease or that condition haven't been proven to do

anything of the kind, they've merely been shown to affect various " risk

factors " . Besides everything else, it's fraudulent to claim that some drug

" reduces the death rate from heart disease " when in fact mortality data

hasn't been collected or examined and the drug only affects a supposed

" risk factor " . False claims and advertising would be easy to address, but

I'd also make it government policy to only act on actual endpoints, not

syllogistic surrogates. Properly executed, syllogistic logic can be a very

valuable and effective tool, but it's far too vulnerable to misuse for

people to be given carte blanche to use it to form policy.

I'd also invest more in disinterested research, and I'd use the power of

modern information technology to make the maximum possible information

available to the public via easy-to-use-and-understand interfaces. The

USDA online database is a joke compared to what I'd like to see.

Those are a few ideas for starters.

>Then Organic Valley offers security, and the farmer is exchanging a portion

>of his revenue for security, and therefore, gaining a material benefit.

Of course, though the tradeoff probably isn't calculated in most cases, but

this argument started over whether OV dairy is good or not. It's not. I

wouldn't drink it.

>The theoretical best choice would be to live in heaven; I was speaking of the

>choices that actually exist.

There are a number of WAPF-style farmers making out like bandits. Though

there's not an unlimited market for that kind of expensive dairy, the

market is growing, and at any given time could support a lot more

WAPF-style dairy farmers than there are, so at any given time, a number of

OV farmers could be making more money with a different strategy. That's a

choice that actually exists.

>True enough, although, to be fair he seemed to openly advocate avoiding

>replacing real food with them, though he probably never should have sold them

>anyway.

Some of his books recommended strict avoidance of sugar alcohols and fake

foods, but then some of his newest books (ones he probably didn't even

write himself, but which were nonetheless published under his name) were

full of recipes using his fake foods as ingredients.

>Mercola's a media mogul, of the internet anyway, and he sells good

>products. Though true enough, not as big as Atkins.

Mercola is just reselling other people's products, not selling branded

items formulated and manufactured for him, and his business is microscopic

by comparison. It's like comparing a shark to a minnow.

>I'm just making the point that there's no reason a

>grassroots campaign to educate people can't succeed.

I never said they couldn't, but in order to spur people to organize on a

grassroots level, things usually have to get pretty damn bad. Otherwise

they feel (often with reasonable justification) that they have better

things to do.

>In general, people

>maximize what is their self-interest. For example, I had a friend who gained

>pleasure from drinking milk. When he did so, he would keel over and lie

>on the

>floor in pain, but he never stopped. You could say he's irrational, but he's

>making a choice, which is that the value of the taste and feel of milk in his

>mouth is more valuable to him than lack of pain.

If you're equating this choice with all others, then you're basically

saying the word has no meaning. It sounds to me like he was (is?)

physiologically addicted to milk. This isn't especially surprising or

implausible -- a lot of the gluten theory of bowel disease holds that

gluten (and casein) can actually be addictive. So what you're saying is

equivalent to saying that the " choice " of a heroin addict to use some more

heroin is equivalent to the choice someone else makes to buy a morning

paper or to go to one movie instead of another. There are different

degrees of volition in different choices.

>nce values arise volitionally from a human's own consciousness

>(I'm sure you disagree, but nevertheless...) each human determines her own

>values.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, but I do get the feeling

that you're arguing based on the ghost-in-the-machine theory of consciousness.

>When my grandfather goes shopping, he looks for stuff on sale, and tries to

>minimize the money he spends. That is rationality at work, working on a

>certain value as a premise.

OK, put it this way, then. Rational analysis can lead to terrible

decisions with results that virtually anyone would consider irrational to

choose because it can only work with its input values, so it's mistaken to

automatically assume that a decision arrived at by rational analysis is a

good decision.

In fact, your point makes my point: by altering the value landscape,

powerful entities (such as huge concentrations of capital) can exert a

great deal of control on what choices people make.

>Now, factory farming has probably done more harm than good to Americans, but

>in somewhere like India, it's the hope of preventing starvation.

Factory farming is definitely not the answer for India.

>Also, I suspect that the mixed blessings of agro technology could be sorted

>out in such a way to retain some of them while bettering the nutrition.

Well, of course, there are plenty of ways a biodynamic farm can use modern

technology. Soil and nutrient testing, for example, and perhaps some

automation. But factory farming? No thanks.

>There must be an objective, rational basis for morality, for right

>and wrong, for what an entity can or cannot morally do, in order to make any

>such argument.

Yes, but it's not impossible to establish an objective AND rational basis

for morality. Real morality (as opposed to transitory and arbitrary morals

and customs, like taboos against certain forms of dress) is

transactional. The golden rule is a pretty good example, and pretty much

the entire foundation. I don't want to be murdered. You don't want to be

murdered. Heidi doesn't want to be murdered. Just about no people want

someone else to murder them. So because none of us want to be murdered, we

agree that murder is immoral.

Without that transactional analysis, your basic insistence on the

" sacredness " (or whatever -- I'm not making specific references) of the

individual is arbitrary and indefensible. Religionists claim god as their

justification, but that only works for coreligionists.

>that

>humans have a moral responsibility to use reason, rationality, and to

>maximize

>their hapiness, honesty, and productive value.

I'm curious to hear how you justify this believe. To whom, for example,

are humans morally responsible to maximize their productive value -- and

their productive value to whom? That sounds suspiciously communist to me. <g>

> > This is simply incorrect. No countries which honor patents, including

> > Canada, create generics before patents run out, and once patents run out,

> > the generic market is open to everyone.

>

>It doesn't apply to Canada,

But you made the statement in response to the Canada issue, not something else.

>What is your explanation for why American companies aren't taking advantage

>of the generic market?

AFAIK high-priced generics aren't the problem. Once something's generic,

anyone can make it, and competition pretty quickly reduces the price

dramatically. The problem is with drugs still under patent. There is no

generic market for those.

Given how much of a problem that is, I'd be tempted to consider a change in

patent law. Instead of granting someone an exclusive license to produce

something for the duration of the patent, maybe instead let everyone

produce it, but require the inventor be paid some percentage of all

producers' revenues. That way drug prices, for example, would fall very

quickly, but the inventor would still be making huge piles of money. Just

a spitball idea, nothing concrete. It would also slightly reduce the

incentive for companies to trick people into prescribing newer drugs when

older ones are better and cheaper.

>the beef industry and make up shoddy anti-soy science and the

>soy industry can make up shoddy anti-beef science, and both can wage

>advertising

>campaigns.

And which industry do you think will be more successful, at least in the

short and medium terms, since (a) the soy industry is vastly more

profitable since it's far cheaper to produce and yet its raw material can

be turned into expensive high-margin products, and ( the beef industry is

partially dependent on the soy industry?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Come on, while that's technically not a personal attack, it's still

personal. Play nice.

>You simply need to get out more, then.

-

[Guest guest]

so who pays for this government if not by taxes?

Irene

At 08:10 PM 1/17/04, you wrote:

>In a message dated 1/17/04 4:52:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

>writes:

>

> > Yes of course. But say they did not declare bankruptcy. If they still

> > refuse to pay who will make them?

>

>Irene,

>

>The government. Between , , and I, I think we've explained a

>total of thirty or forty times that libertarianism has a government that

>enforces contracts and protects property.

>

> >This is true, but if the person held liable refuses to pay, then what?

> >Especially if they leave the country?

>

>Then it is *enforced* just as contracts are enforced now. Do you understand

>that in libertarianism a government exists?

>

>Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:32:21 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> Gene,

>

>> Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help

>> myself,

>> I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market " that

>> exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was not a

>> big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something?

>

> Your missing a lot of things. Like millions of people dying of famine.

? You said that interference from the market exacerbated the homeless

situation. I gave a counterexample, and you cited another issue.

>

> Furthermore, you are decreasing the level of detail to vague generalities in

> order to obscure the point.

I doing this deliberately?

> There are lots of causes of homelessness-- one is

> mental illness.

I never denied that there are multiple causes of homelessness. Regardless, a

society should take care of people who can't take care of themselves...but

granted, that isn't the immediate issue. This is rather irrelevant, because

the inability to afford causing is still a significant cause of

homelessness.

> There are specific causes of housing shortages-- primarily

> upper limits on rent and housing costs. Obviously, that would not be an issue

> in a non-market system like the USSR, because the builders would be *forced*

> to build. Some would question the value of the tradeoff, when the result is

> the death of 30 million people and the sacrifice of all religious freedom.

??? You said that interference with the market helped exacerbate

homelessness. I gave an obvious counterexample. More governmental control

over housing costs doesn't conceptually entail less religious freedom.

>

> There are specific causes of unemployment-- The Federal Reserve deliberately

> maintains the unemployment rate by adjusting the interest rate to prevent

> " wage-push inflation. "

ok...

>

>

>> You are also claiming that rent control, e.g. attempts to keep some units

>> below market rate so that people can afford them, helps CAUSE homelessness?!

>

> Yes. If that's news to you, you should take either a macroeconomics course,

> or an applied calculus course.

>

Ok - I really don't care what thinks at this point. You are really not

a very nice person - either in your political theories, which are heartless

and cruel, and in your passion to sacrifice logic for your newfound passion

for your libertarianism. And, by the way, I doubt that you have had more

math than I have had in my life, and I really doubt that you are better at

it than I am. And what, in the name of god, this has to do with this

discussion is utterly beyond me.

The hell with you.

>> I suppose you'll argue that rent control causes units to be taken off the

>> market, and therefore causes more homelessness, but I just don't think that

>> this is factually true - it certainly defies logic, since people who can't

>> afford a place to live generally will be more likely to be able to rent a

>> place that is below market rate.

>

> That's pretty absurd, because anyone who can afford to work a full-time job

> can afford to rent. If you visit a homeless shelter or talk to people on the

> street, you'll find that most of them are either unemployed or mentally ill,

> unless there's a housing shortage in the area at the root of it, though the

> former is more common.

>

> But you seem to be conflating housing shortages with homlessness. If the

> issue is whether or not people can *afford* to live in a house or apartment,

> then

> that's an entirely different possible cause of homelessness than whether or

> not those housing units *exist*. If the price of the housing is below market

> value, the supply will not meet the demand, thus effecting a shortage. If

> there is a housing shortage, it doesn't matter whether you can afford the

> housing

> or not because it won't exist.

>

> The exception to this rule is if the price caps exceed the market price. If

> this is the case, it will have no effect on supply. It will also have no

> effect on the price either, so it would be pointless.

>

> I suppose you'll say that astronomically

>> high rents here in San Francisco contribute more to homelessness than if

>> the

>> rents were lower, since, logically, is someone is making close to minimum

>> wage he/she is more likely to afford an expensive apartment.

>

> This sentence isn't coherent.

>

>>

>> As for states with the highest minimum wages having the worst unemployment

>> rates - gee, could you possibly be confusing cause and effect?

>

> No. Unemployment rates can't affect the minimum wage. As you should know,

> the minimum wage is determined by the state legislature, not market dynamics.

>

> Just

>> wondering. Why, in general, are there movements to increase minimum wages?

>

> There aren't. The only " movements " to increase the minimum wage are the

> " living wage " folks who around here advocate $12/hr minimum wages, although

> not a

> fraction of the populace takes them seriously. The minimum wage is set by the

> legislature, without much of a thought given to it by anyone else.

>

>> It is because people can't survive on minimum wage because of the cost of

>> living, of which rental costs play a significant role, or am I confused?

>

> Were it true, then everyone outside of Washington state where housing costs

> were comparable would be homeless if they were making minimum wage. That's

> clearly not true, meaning that Washington's minimum wage is higher than what

> is

> needed to afford a home. Of course I suspect that the majority of min wage

> earners are teenagers, but I haven't seen statistics.

>

> But I said that minimum wages cause unemployment-- not high housing costs.

> So there is no logical consistency to your argument. High housing costs

> causing minimum wage increases is clearly not the reverse of minimum wages

> causing

> unemployment.

>

> It works pretty simple: if the market value of a given job is $5/hr and the

> minimum wage is $7/hr, then there will be a shortage of $5/hr jobs, thus,

> reducing the available job pool.

>

>>> But probably the absolute worst, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy is

>>> designed to limit growth to a " stable " rate, and to keep a minimum level of

>>> unemployment. It's fundamentally anti-worker-- if you watch the Greenspan

>>> hearings

>>> on C-SPAN, they talk about " wage costs, " as if a wage is a cost, not a

>>> benefit. To whom? The employer; obviously to the worker the wage isn't a

>>> cost.

>>> The effect of the policy is to undermine the bargaining power of workers by

>>> keeping enough unemployment to maintain a turnover. If the Fed would butt

>>> out,

>>> all able workers could actually work, growth would be much higher, and the

>>> bargaining power of workers under full employment would increase a *lot*.

>>>

>>

>> I have to struggle very hard to obey 's commandments, but I am trying.

>

> Emotional stability is a worthy goal.

>

>

>>> So, it could be said, capitalism is the solution, not the problem.

>>

>

> Yes, it could be said that, but it is false, and I have never met anyone who

>> believed what you believed for whom compassion for the rest of the human

>> race wasn't a carefully constructed plausible rationalization for a

>> heartless and ruthless world view. Oops.

>

> You simply need to get out more, then.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Understanding when something is a joke would help, though, wouldn't it? How

could you possibly construe that as a serious request?

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:34:49 EST

Subject: Re: Re: money and health

In a message dated 1/17/04 7:40:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Perhaps we can work out some kind of deal, where I would be allowed to

> insult say, once a month? That way you would need to reprimand me

> only if I exceeded this threshold.

It's very, very, very difficult to offend me. However, a more productive

approach would be to only respond to emails to which you have something to

say.

Since getting emotional and personally attacking people is childish and

offers

nothing of value to the discussion, it amounts to a waste of space in 800

people's email boxes.

Chris

[Guest guest]

That's either utterly disingenuous, or you simply haven't read what I've

written. What you have said goes way beyond simple capitalism. I am friends

with people who are not socialists. And to to say that I was " describing my

inexposure to human people who support capitalism " - where in the world do

you get this stuff?

I really don't care if I'm banned from th is list at this point - you ARE a

total idiot, and you are totally intellectually dishonest. Let's try not

responding to one another from now on.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:40:39 EST

Subject: Re: Re: money and health

In a message dated 1/18/04 12:03:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Come on, while that's technically not a personal attack, it's still

> personal. Play nice.

I don't think it was personal-- he was describing his own inexposure to

humane people who support capitalism, and I'm suggesting that there's plenty

out

there for him to meet if he would just talk to people, most of whom aren't

socialists.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> That's pretty absurd, because anyone who can afford to work a full-time job

can afford to rent. <<

You've clearly never been to San Francisco....

Christie

[Guest guest]

>That's true, but Rockefeller stepped in when people were literally fighting

>over the oil and sabotaging each other by offering a superior product produced

>with superior business skills. Had the government not stepped in, I think

>it's likely you would have seen a sufficient response by the market ala

>Rockefeller.

>

>Chris

There ARE folks like Rockefeller, who actually strikes me as

a rather smart, socially sensitive person. There are also downright

sociopaths who are as rich as he was or is. The problem I mainly

have with business, as I've said many times, is the lack of transparency.

The gov't is, at least in theory, owned by the people, so the people

can demand open books etc. You never HAVE responded to my

complaints about the Enron scandal. Gov't gave them control,

and gov't abnegated (in my view) it's responsibility to regulate

them, in part because there were so many Enron executives (ex)

in the White House. But I don't think they actually *broke* contracts,

they merely played on both sides of the fence and owned all

the players and had no qualms about hurting people.

What was interesting to me, after viewing the (wonderful) film

Fast Runner, was how efficient the Inuit method was for getting

rid of sociopaths. Also how in a small society of 10 or 20 people,

all the same problems we are talking about in a larger group, already

existed. Without any gov't, for better or worse. They seemed to have

a pretty efficient method of homicide too ... if you declared your intention

to kill your enemy, then he was fair game. Or you could play games like

" bop 'em on the head " where, if you were strong enough, you could

kill them while everyone else watched. That shed light on some statistics

I'd read about past societies, where the homicide rate is considered to

be amazingly high.

(I'm making the assumption that the film was fairly well researched --

it jibes with stuff I've read elsewhere). Also, if you want to get into

the willingness of relatives to care for odd folks, you have Stefansons

writings, particularly about a woman who was left to starve when the

tribe abandoned her.

I'm rambling, but the point is ... someone might come to the rescue

in a situation, esp. if they make a profit. Or they might not. I'd

rather trust folks who are HIRED to be good guys, at least in

principle, which the Fire Dept. really epidomizes.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I assumed you allowed for both the

> " short-term thinker " niche and the " long-term thinker " niche, and suggested a

>certain selectivity towards one niche for the role as capitalist.

I see. Your suggestion doesn't really make sense, though. In the short

term, selectivity will be towards those people who reap the greatest

short-term advantage. Longer-term strategies pay off after the burn, so to

speak -- after the short-term fallout.

>Because, most short-term thinkers will

>never bother to accumulate any capital, and will spend their money (i.e. put

>short-term interests above long-term interests),

Weren't the Enron malefactors thinking short-term? And yet they

accumulated loads of capital. The problem with your assumption, which my

Enron example is meant to illustrate, is that there are plenty of

short-term strategies which allow substantial capital gains. You're

assuming that short-term strategists must be spendthrift, or that they must

be so incompetent that they can't often hold onto capital long enough to

build it into lots of capital, but neither assumption is born out by the

real world.

>while accumulating capital at

>all requires you to be at least *leaning* towards the long-term thinking side

>of the spectrum.

No, you just have to be skillful and lucky. A great con man, even a master

of the long con, is discounting the future possibility of jail terms and

confiscation, but he's still able to build up lots of capital. Also, it

doesn't always take years upon years to amass a lot of money, and for a

short-term strategy to be effective in aggregate, its downside only has to

be statistically further off than its upside.

>I agree it's specific, though you haven't offered " evidence. "

I didn't say I did. I figured it was widely enough agreed upon that I

didn't need to bother. If you don't believe that some people will always

try to beat the system, though, there's no point in further discussing any

of this. Evidence, though, would be evolution.

>we make our point with logic, and leave

>out citations for the vast majority of assertions, unless they're challenged.

Fair enough, and I don't want to argue this further.

>I see no reason for their to be specific associations of inspectors for the

>buyer alone. An inspector is an inspector, and would lend his services to

>whoever would pay for them. Although consumer agencies often have vast

>amounts of

>money. Ralph Nader has $4 million dollars in stocks that generate the income

>for his organizations, for example.

You're seriously comparing a few million dollars with billions?

Anyway, back to the main point.

Surely you agree that builders have an incentive to corrupt the inspection

process, right? One way to do this is to create a faux-independent

inspectors company or association. Another is to corrupt an inspectors

company or association. (I'm not trying to enumerate all possible

scenarios, BTW, just a few examples, and it's probably that more than one

scenario would play out simultaneously. Anyway, to the degree that

association-imprimatur would be important, and it's a shorthand that will

inevitably arise even without legal licensure, I think legit associations

would be corrupted and bogus ones created, and dishonest and misled

inspectors would tend to affiliate themselves with each other into trade

associations.) To the degree that this corruption becomes publicly

evident, buyers will have an incentive to seek corruption-free inspectors

from other companies and eventually if not at first from other associations.

Builders also have an incentive to keep buyers using " their " inspectors

from " their " association and inspection companies, but to the degree it

pushes them to keep the inspection process honest, it's a long-term

incentive, so I think there will always be enough builders trying to

corrupt the process to result in the competing-association umbrella scenario.

The problem is that for the inspection system to work, people have to trust

it, but if builders and buyers each have their own pet inspectors and

associations (and in my scenario each association would doubtless serve

each contingency, just to different degrees) nobody's going to believe the

process is objective.

>But building inspection is not an " opinion " . It's a concrete fact how many

>outlets there are in each room and how far apart they are, or any other given

>fact about the place.

That's where you're wrong. I have enough experience with contracting and

construction to know that even obviously concrete facts like the number of

outlets in a room can become uncertainties for several reasons. It's not

always possible to physically test every outlet to make sure it's

connected, for example. It's also not always possible to examine the

wiring inside the walls. Builders can use quality materials in visible

spaces and crap where it can't be found without tearing down structures --

and it's simply not feasible to inspect every last thing as it's

installed. When you get to less-obvious facts, like the quality of sheet

rock used here or there, or the load capacity of a given structure, things

get murkier and murkier and murkier.

The number of outlets per room, per wall, per foot -- that sort of thing

will usually be agreed upon by both inspectors. It's when you get to the

less concrete, less certain things -- especially derived variables, like my

load-bearing example -- that you'd see a lot more disagreement between

inspectors in your parties. You'd also find that buyer inspectors often

have to take things on faith based on builder-supplied paperwork (like the

grade and source of lumber, metal, etc. used in various elements of the

building) and with that, it becomes possible for unscrupulous people to

expand their fraud using forgery and outright deception (like saying

such-and-such a structural member has such-and-such a load-bearing

capacity, and here's the cooked " proof " ).

Yes, a lot of this could come to light eventually, but with codes and

standards, you prevent a lot of that subjectivity and an enormous amount of

damage before it ever happens. Yes, the tradeoff is that codes often lag

technology and don't always allow innovative buildings, but our system is

less responsive than it could be.

>The inspector's job would be to see if the

>house meets the specifications of the contract.

If a builder builds a house and then puts it on the market, he's not

building it to specification. Even if he's hired to build a house, the

odds still are that the buyer hasn't contractually specified every last

detail of the house. After all, the builder is the one with the building

expertise, not (generally) the buyer.

So in your scenario, either sales contracts would have to become massively

labyrinthine in order to (attempt to) specify everything, in which case

they'd need entire legal teams to prepare, or builders could go around

saying " Hey, you can't sue me, I never said the building would [perform in

XYZ manner -- e.g. not fall down when an earthquake put severe shear

stresses on the column support members in the basement] " . With codes,

there's no unique contract for every single building and every single sale

which requires teams of lawyers to create and inspect every single time,

there's a uniform standard (which can be flexible) and a building is either

up to code or not. An enormous burden is taken off both the buyer and the

seller, and because the inspector is disinterested, there's a better chance

of getting faithful results.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

You don't like Chris. OK. We got it. If you can't refrain from attacking

him if you post to him, though, then please don't post to him (or about

him) at all. This is your second warning. I REALLY don't want this to go

any further.

>Ok - I really don't care what thinks at this point.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>If the contract is found to be violated, a court case would ensue,

I forgot to make my one list-topical point! How would this system work

when it comes to food, particularly nutritional value and soil fertility?

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

You were clearly implying Gene's naive. And regardless of whether you

agree you were making that implication, you were personally characterizing

Gene. Please keep discussions topical -- even when the subject under

discussion isn't, strictly speaking, topical on the list.

>I don't think it was personal-- he was describing his own inexposure to

>humane people who support capitalism, and I'm suggesting that there's

>plenty out

>there for him to meet if he would just talk to people, most of whom aren't

>socialists.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>I really don't care if I'm banned from th is list at this point

Well, I do, and because they came at the same time I'll treat both

infractions as one, but I'm serious: this is your last warning. Think what

you will about and his politics, with one exception that I've

observed he has not made this debate personal.

>Let's try not

>responding to one another from now on.

I'm not going to make this an order, obviously, but surely you can do

better than just trying. You two have gotten under each other's skin

repeatedly, and not just in the last couple days either.

-