Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Literally cheaper to use their money as toilet paper than to buy real toilet paper..... by a lot.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
What’s funny about this is that, while you go for the catnip of the bottom line number, you don’t note that even this Koch-funded study reflects the fact that that pricetag refelects a savings of 2+ Trillion dollars over the current system. So, nearly universal coverage for less money? Sounds like a better deal.
sturg33
I
Are we reading different findings?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
No. Even considering that the Mercatus study might be underestimating administrative savings and overestimating utilization, if you compare federal outlays for health care against private spending, state reimbursements, and current federal spending etc, that cost savings is reflected. Americans would pay a tax equivalent, on average, to less than they’re currently paying for health care, and receive comprehensive coverage. This is why other countries have rightly determined that a single-payer system is more efficient than our cluster**** system of private insurance.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://webfiles.uci.edu/schofer/classes/2010soc2/readings/4%20Krugman%201993%20What%20Do%20Undergrad%20Need%20to%20Know%20About%20Trade.pdf
"Pop internationalism proclaims that everything is different now that the United States is an open economy. Probably the most important single insight that an introductory course can convey about international economics is that it does not change the basics: trade is just another economic activity, subject to the same principles as anything else. James Ingram's (1983) textbook on international trade contains a lovely parable. He imagines that an entrepreneur starts a new business that uses a secret technology to convert U.S. wheat, lumber, and so on into cheap high-quality consumer goods. The entrepreneur is hailed as an industrial hero; although some of his domestic competitors are hurt, everyone accepts that occasional dislocations are the price of a free-market economy. But then an investigative reporter discovers that what he is really doing is shipping the wheat and lumber to Asia and using the proceeds to buy manufactured goods-whereupon he is denounced as a fraud who is destroying American jobs. The point, of course, is that international trade is an economic activity like any other and can indeed usefully be thought of as a kind of production process that transforms exports into import."
-------
"One of the most popular, enduring misconceptions of practical men is that countries are in competition with each other in the same way that companies in the same business are in competition. Ricardo already knew better in 1817. An introductory economics course should drive home to students the point that international trade is not about competition, it is about mutually beneficial exchange. Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants. Exports are not an objective in and of themselves: the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment."
-----------------
Paul Krugman from 1993, making sense on international trade.
"Pop internationalism proclaims that everything is different now that the United States is an open economy. Probably the most important single insight that an introductory course can convey about international economics is that it does not change the basics: trade is just another economic activity, subject to the same principles as anything else. James Ingram's (1983) textbook on international trade contains a lovely parable. He imagines that an entrepreneur starts a new business that uses a secret technology to convert U.S. wheat, lumber, and so on into cheap high-quality consumer goods. The entrepreneur is hailed as an industrial hero; although some of his domestic competitors are hurt, everyone accepts that occasional dislocations are the price of a free-market economy. But then an investigative reporter discovers that what he is really doing is shipping the wheat and lumber to Asia and using the proceeds to buy manufactured goods-whereupon he is denounced as a fraud who is destroying American jobs. The point, of course, is that international trade is an economic activity like any other and can indeed usefully be thought of as a kind of production process that transforms exports into import."
-------
"One of the most popular, enduring misconceptions of practical men is that countries are in competition with each other in the same way that companies in the same business are in competition. Ricardo already knew better in 1817. An introductory economics course should drive home to students the point that international trade is not about competition, it is about mutually beneficial exchange. Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants. Exports are not an objective in and of themselves: the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment."
-----------------
Paul Krugman from 1993, making sense on international trade.
sturg33
I
You said it was in this study... where are you seeing it?
Or did you just make that up?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Can you read a table?
sturg33
I
sturg33
I
Ahh - I thought you meant $2T per year
Regardless, as mentioned earlier, that assumes near perfection execution of the government (ever seen that happen)... If the payout ratios remain the same, as in table 5, the cost is substantially higher
[TW]1024114998111555585[/tw]
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Understood. I’m not qualified to judge the “execution to near perfection” bit, and I tend to think you’re leading with your bias. The last major paper on it had essentially the same number. And, considering current Medicare administrative costs, the 6% number could be high. The funny thing is that you’re arguing that the government is inefficient, while acknowledging the projected cost savings. As for “ever seen that happen”?
Yes. Medicare.
Yes. Medicare.
sturg33
I
Medicare underpays, and hospitals make it back on private insurers (they pay out 144% of costs).
Without that option, would medicare be able to keep underpaying?
And my question was about "ever seen the government execute efficiency to perfection?"
I think the rollout of ACA comes to mind
Without that option, would medicare be able to keep underpaying?
And my question was about "ever seen the government execute efficiency to perfection?"
I think the rollout of ACA comes to mind
sturg33
I
Here is liberal Vox breaking down the math of democratic socialism
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes
I suspect this won't get much response
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes
I suspect this won't get much response
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I agree that mainstream Democrats would balk at most of that agenda. And I also would like to see concrete proposals for how that revenue would be raised. I’m in favor of raising taxes, but I agree that these numbers are fairly eyebrow-raising.
On the nitpicky side, Vox is a liberal publication, but the author of the article is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute (which is a conservative think-tank) and used to work for Bush OMB chief Rob Portman.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
that sounds a lot like France. I dont think most democrats would balk at those ideas. I think the democrat base is far left of their elected officials. Most of these democratic socialists like Ocasiowhatever. First its push for 15 an hour. Then when prices go up they try to legislate price caps. Its a never ending cycle of them trying to make things "fair" after their first attempt turns into a dumpster fire. In France they made it nearly impossible to fire people. The result was companies became really skidish about hiring and young people entering the workforce couldnt find jobs. If we want these type of programs we have to virtually eliminate the military. In fact give me a little time and I bet I can come up with reasonable programs and ways to fund them. Personally I think social programs should be privately funded but if we have to spend like drunken sailors we could atleast put it to good use instead of spending it on killing people.