Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Congratulations, Hank, the healthcare plan you buy for your employees no longer has to build in the cost of covering the uninsured!

I don't care what you call it, it makes sense.

catch 22- because the supreme court upheld the law, the senate and White house will be R's so the bill will be reversed, or dropped or whatever that's called.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What would the opposite have achieved? A short term respite from the eventual Big Correction we all know is coming. Any gain in public economic activity would be more than offset with a decrease in private economic activity incurred as a result of increased taxation to pay for the public spending.

Govt spending is inevitably paid for with taxes. This decreases economic activity elsewhere.

Ricardian equivalence is bullshit.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

See the recent decreases in consumer confidence? The consumer - on which 70% of our economy is based - is tapped out. The middle class squeeze (mix of non-core inflation in essentials coupled with wage stagnation) is murdering him. Seeking greater across the board inflation will only result in selective inflation that will decrease disposable income. The areas where inflation is needed - housing and wages - remain stubbornly resistant, and will continue to be so no matter how loose our monetary policy.

You've an odd assumption that monetary policy can create inflation, or deflation, where it is needed, and that it's just a matter of political will, or policy prescription, to do so. This is ludicrous. If we've learned anything from this depression, it's that the Fed, and our govt, have far less ability to guide our economy than thought.

You jumped from "inflation" to "our economy.". The fed controls the former not the latter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Yes. since my president kept saying it wasn't a TAX I figure there is something to the word.

You're a litigator -- you know the Alice in Wonderland thing about words, right?

One of my friends had cancer and health insurance before ACA. He got great care. The biggest legacy of ACA will be that someone in that boat will have far lesser care ten years from now.

Seriously don't understand why you think ACA is going to degrade care. I say that as a lawyer in a family full of health-care professionals.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What would the opposite have achieved? A short term respite from the eventual Big Correction we all know is coming. Any gain in public economic activity would be more than offset with a decrease in private economic activity incurred as a result of increased taxation to pay for the public spending.

Govt spending is inevitably paid for with taxes. This decreases economic activity elsewhere.

I don't understand why you think that only private economic activity "counts." If you run a sandwich shop, you are happy to sell sandwiches to construction workers, regardless of whether they are building a highway or an office building.

What is this Big Correction? We don't have enough demand.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

See the recent decreases in consumer confidence? The consumer - on which 70% of our economy is based - is tapped out. The middle class squeeze (mix of non-core inflation in essentials coupled with wage stagnation) is murdering him. Seeking greater across the board inflation will only result in selective inflation that will decrease disposable income. The areas where inflation is needed - housing and wages - remain stubbornly resistant, and will continue to be so no matter how loose our monetary policy.

You've an odd assumption that monetary policy can create inflation, or deflation, where it is needed, and that it's just a matter of political will, or policy prescription, to do so. This is ludicrous. If we've learned anything from this depression, it's that the Fed, and our govt, have far less ability to guide our economy than thought.

This is nuts. The Fed is making a very conscious choice to avoid any inflation, and accept the unemployment that comes with low interest rates. It's very, very clear.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You missed the entire point. Your inside baseball analysis is interesting, but irrelevant. Except perhaps to underscore how incapable people are of reconsidering the foundations of the utterly imbecilic system we have.

I hate saying, "Think outside the box a little," but here, the cliche fits.

You should write Scalia dissents. Reality not matter much? Go bananas!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

catch 22- because the supreme court upheld the law, the senate and White house will be R's so the bill will be reversed, or dropped or whatever that's called.

Well, you can't say we didn't try to save you that money.

Who knows, maybe the Rs can nominate someone for President who tackled this issue in less of a partisan cesspool and see what he came up with, and use that for a model.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You should write Scalia dissents. Reality not matter much? Go bananas!

If you think the criticisms in that piece beg impossible solutions, and are therefore not worthy of discussion, that's one thing. But to reply to something that argues, "The entire system makes no sense" with explanations of why Obamacare, and insurers, keep costs low in the current system, is wasting ink. You do understand this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't understand why you think that only private economic activity "counts." If you run a sandwich shop, you are happy to sell sandwiches to construction workers, regardless of whether they are building a highway or an office building.

What is this Big Correction? We don't have enough demand.

I don't. And you know that, so don't try to shift the debate. My point was that to spend more govt money necessarily involves a decrease in what's available in the private sector in terms of disposable income. That's undeniable.

The big correction is a 20% decrease in most asset values that've been propped since 2009.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't understand why you think that only private economic activity "counts." If you run a sandwich shop, you are happy to sell sandwiches to construction workers, regardless of whether they are building a highway or an office building.

Because the seller paid the construction worker via her taxes, i.e. she has sold herself a sandwich.

LessinFrankfurt

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is nuts. The Fed is making a very conscious choice to avoid any inflation, and accept the unemployment that comes with low interest rates. It's very, very clear.

If you think the Fed's interest rate policies are anything more than a small fractional cause of our current unemployment, there is no point discussing anything with you any further.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Ricardian equivalence is bullshit.

It is, but that assumes taxpayers with disposable income pulling back on spending voluntarily. In a nation of taxpayers unable to save anything, and with sinking wages (which cannot be fixed via Fed created inflation, as has been demonstrated thus far), the disposable income is not siphoned into savings, but simply never exists. The taxpayer says, "sure, float bonds and we'll pay later." But there is nothing to pay with later.

The middle class squeeze, unlike Ricardian equivalence, is quite real. Tell me a fantasy about how the Fed rescues us from that. If you've an answer beyond, "Let them eat credit," or allowing an Austrian collapse>reset, they need to nominate you for a Nobel in economics.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you think the criticisms in that piece beg impossible solutions, and are therefore not worthy of discussion, that's one thing. But to reply to something that argues, "The entire system makes no sense" with explanations of why Obamacare, and insurers, keep costs low in the current system, is wasting ink. You do understand this.

No, I think the purported analysis given of our current healthcare system is total crap from the outset. They don't understand it. They don't even try.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Congratulations, Hank, the healthcare plan you buy for your employees no longer has to build in the cost of covering the uninsured!

I don't care what you call it, it makes sense.

I haven't been keeping up on this board (I've had limited time which I mostly devoted to looking at TM's Kate Upton pics). I assume Hank has duly apologized to everyone for ridiculing everyone who suggested that the USSC might find HCR constitutional?