Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

but it also encourages employers to use more contractors and pare hours, keeping many people part time rather than full)

Here's a chart of part time employment over the last 10 years. Do you see an effect of the ACA in there?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are endless cross-subsidizations. That's the point.

No, that was my point. Your point was that a bunch of conservatives you know complain about the way government subsidizes lazy children who are going and getting born without first making enough money to pay for their own healthcare.

To say you "care about" someone who is receiving a benefit given by the govt means you are saying you're okay with someone else losing something. Unlike the economy, govt is a zero sum game (at least it's supposed to be). For every thing given to someone, someone else is taxed.

I edited my post to respond to exactly this point, but you seem to have responded before my edit hit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I imagine the ACA architects probably factored in backlash from people like Hank. Turns out he didn’t care. I’ll bet they didn’t consider the possibility the law would pit the middle class against the truly destitute.

I do care. ACA was a net negative. Can my son stay in a program at 27 because I can COBRA? Yes and that is good for me. But the average me (and my employees )are hurt.

But that isn't the point.

People can argue ACA pro/con and with arguments that aren't vile.

Try that with "all immigrants from muslim countries are banned."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I think so but I think Trump has picked up steam with his despicable ness.

I think Obama would destroy Trump, who has strong appeal to a (sizable) minority of the population but turns off everyone else. Trump creates the impression that it is working because he constantly makes clear that he doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone other than his base things. The midterms showed that it motivates the other voters much more than Hillary did.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I mean, it wasn't as this little riff started with you evaluating how the current president's policies harmed or benefited you personally, but whatever.



It most certainly is not. That's what a multiplier is.

If I take something from you and use it to pay for a benefit for someone else, that’s a zero sum game.

Govt in re taxation is a zero sum game. Can govt fund Econ development? Can it alone provide a multiplier? Yes. But giving a person health care with someone else’s money is a zero sum game. One guy’s out a dollar and sees minimal if any return for the investment (even factoring in GGG’s future cost avoidance, which is a real benefit).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do care. ACA was a net negative. Can my son stay in a program at 27 because I can COBRA? Yes and that is good for me. But the average me (and my employees )are hurt.

But that isn't the point.

People can argue ACA pro/con and with arguments that aren't vile.

Try that with "all immigrants from muslim countries are banned."

How did ACA and Trump’s Muslim ban get mixed together here?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But giving a person health care with someone else’s money is a zero sum game.

"Someone else's money" is a moronic, if common, way of looking at it, but no, it's not if the other person is healthier and thus more productive and/or if the providers, drug and device makers and insurers get new customers.

Government is one place where there's really no such thing as a zero sum game.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How did ACA and Trump’s Muslim ban get mixed together here?

Seriously? Because if I am that obtuse, I just need to go back to Gilligan and Guernica posts.

Edit: is anyone else confused why I was contrasting ACA and Muslim bans?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I take something from you and use it to pay for a benefit for someone else, that’s a zero sum game.

No, not necessarily. If the government taxes people and uses the money to build freeways that spur economic growth, you can expect net benefits to society. If the government taxes people and uses the money to buy explosives which it uses to destroy stuff, you can expect net losses to society, notwithstanding the great jobs created from building the explosives. (Note that the last is like a lot of military spending, except that there we externalize the costs of the blown-up stuff.)

It's like you dropped out of introductory economics after the first two weeks, and missed all the good stuff.

eta: Your predilection for seeing what government does as zero-sum explains why you are so temperamentally sympathetic to conservatives.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, not necessarily. If the government taxes people and uses the money to build freeways that spur economic growth, you can expect net benefits to society. If the government taxes people and uses the money to buy explosives which it uses to destroy stuff, you can expect net losses to society, notwithstanding the great jobs created from building the explosives. (Note that the last is like a lot of military spending, except that there we externalize the costs of the blown-up stuff.)

It's like you dropped out of introductory economics after the first two weeks, and missed all the good stuff.

eta: Your predilection for seeing what government does as zero-sum explains why you are so temperamentally sympathetic to conservatives.

You should have read my reply to Adder before writing this.

Unless you believe destitute people and freeways have the same multiplier.

I’m not temperamentally sympathetic to conservatives. But somebody has to take the other side of the argument. I’m fine with the ACA. What I’m telling you is why others are not fine with the ACA. This gets to the heart of what I think is the Trump voter — a perception, with some basis, that people in the struggling but working classes are being skipped over in favor of subsidies for the upper middle class to affluent and the destitute.

It’s a variant of the “get your hands off my Medicare” argument. And it explains why so many people who aren’t crazy bigots and would do better under Ds voted for Trump. Icky touched on it the other day when he said there’s loads of people who detest legal and illegal immigrants. But I think he’s wrong on the reason. I think if you look at the angriest arguments against ACA for the past ten years, you see that immigrants are partly, but significantly, a stand in for “people I have power over who are getting shit I should be getting.”

These people also hate people above them. They just don’t have anyway to get money out of those people, because the only way to do that is to vote D. And if they vote D, they support the people below them. The Trump fans make a decision to try to improve their situation by removing benefits from those below them rather than extracting dollars from those above them. It’s really bizarre thinking.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I take something from you and use it to pay for a benefit for someone else, that’s a zero sum game.

Govt in re taxation is a zero sum game. Can govt fund Econ development? Can it alone provide a multiplier? Yes. But giving a person health care with someone else’s money is a zero sum game. One guy’s out a dollar and sees minimal if any return for the investment (even factoring in GGG’s future cost avoidance, which is a real benefit).

Nothing is a zero sum game. Though it can go both ways from zero - you can have investments with returns sufficient to make the investment itself seem insignificant, and you can have expenses so disastrous that they just result in more and unforseen or uncalculated costs for all. Wars often fit into the second category, social and healthcare investments often fit into the first.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You should have read my reply to Adder before writing this.

Unless you believe destitute people and freeways have the same multiplier.

Dude, I responded to what you said, which is moronic. That doesn't mean I think "destitute people and freeways have the same multiplier" -- I don't feel obliged to think moronic things to give you company.

I’m not temperamentally sympathetic to conservatives.

You are if you think government is zero-sum.

But somebody has to take the other side of the argument.

Not actually always true! Sometimes one side is right. Like, if I say "Money For Nothing" is Dire Straits' worst work, you don't have to disagree. You can just agree.

I’m fine with the ACA. What I’m telling you is why others are not fine with the ACA. This gets to the heart of what I think is the Trump voter — a perception, with some basis, that people in the struggling but working classes are being skipped over in favor of subsidies for the upper middle class to affluent and the destitute.

It’s a variant of the “get your hands off my Medicare” argument. And it explains why so many people who aren’t crazy bigots and would do better under Ds voted for Trump. Icky touched on it the other day when he said there’s loads of people who detest legal and illegal immigrants. But I think he’s wrong on the reason. I think if you look at the angriest arguments against ACA for the past ten years, you see that immigrants are partly, but significantly, a stand in for “people I have power over who are getting shit I should be getting.”

These people also hate people above them. They just don’t have anyway to get money out of those people, because the only way to do that is to vote D. And if they vote D, they support the people below them. The Trump fans make a decision to try to improve their situation by removing benefits from those below them rather than extracting dollars from those above them. It’s really bizarre thinking.

I think you are describing a fundamental selfishness that is integral to current conservatism, but insofar as you think it stems from some intellectual problem with cross-subsidies, you are barking up the wrong tree. But I also don't think you really think that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Nothing is a zero sum game.

You misunderstood Sebby. When he says it's a zero-sum game, he doesn't mean it's a zero-sum game, which would be moronic. He means, that other thing you aren't thinking is moronic. You know the one -- that one. It's wrong, which means that he is right.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Back to the discussion of race for a minute. Powerful and, I think, insightful piece from Kyle Korver in the Player's Tribune: https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en...-utah-jazz-nba

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

Back to the discussion of race for a minute. Powerful and, I think, insightful piece from Kyle Korver in the Player's Tribune: https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en...-utah-jazz-nba

A lot of talk about related stuff in English football lately. Here's a story from today.