My God, you are an idiot.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I refuse to accept this "presidents get a secret book when they take office that convinces them to change their lifelong beliefs in right, wrong, criminal justice, constitutional law, etc. If i am wrong, every premise of our country, society, and culture is a fraud. Jeremy Bentham won.

Have you noticed how we never hear about some terrorist leader being caught since Obama took over? They always seem to get killed. Curious, isn't it?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Sorry, I trust McKinsey over the OMB and other less reputable studies.

There is an organization less rotatable than McKinsey? Really? I take it you've never worked with them? Or is there some reason to think this isn't their usual short-sighted, back of the envelope, musings by a group of 23 year olds?

There are limits on the OMB process, and in particular where they have to accept outside inputs, but there really shouldn't be any question about whether they are reputable.

I don't think they have bad intentions. I think it is foolish to think government or any man made body can engineer well something as large and complicated as an industry making up 1/7 of our economy. That is one of the main reasons those like me are so strongly against it.

This is a truly strange thing to say about 1/7 of the economy that was already highly engineered (half or whatever already directly paid for by the government and the rest subject to significant distortion through tax incentives).

I do think some Ds were in favor to give the government a bigger role/increase its power.

It's one of the stranger phenomena that "conservatives" think liberals are their mirror image. While a conservative may well reason from silly abstract notions like "the government should be smaller" to rationalize a given policy, it's pretty silly to suggest that any democrat's true motivation is a government power grab. I'm amazed that you think otherwise.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I refuse to accept this "presidents get a secret book when they take office that convinces them to change their lifelong beliefs in right, wrong, criminal justice, constitutional law, etc. If i am wrong, every premise of our country, society, and culture is a fraud. Jeremy Bentham won.

2. And if that's what really happened, Obama's people would be telling us that these people are too dangerous and that Gitmo is a necessary evil.

Instead, just yesterday the (intentionally) leaked (and politically motivated) story was the Obama is again insisting on finding a way to close it before the election.

It's still there because getting rid of it is hard and Congress has made it even harder, not because Obama now has secrets that make him think it's peachy.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is a truly strange thing to say about 1/7 of the economy that was already highly engineered (half or whatever already directly paid for by the government and the rest subject to significant distortion through tax incentives).

Really? Because the government's attempts to regulate healthcare were working so well pre-HCR? If that is the case, why was HCR needed?

It's one of the stranger phenomena that "conservatives" think liberals are their mirror image. While a conservative may well reason from silly abstract notions like "the government should be smaller" to rationalize a given policy, it's pretty silly to suggest that any democrat's true motivation is a government power grab. I'm amazed that you think otherwise.

You are really, really naive. It's cute.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Really? Because the government's attempts to regulate healthcare were working so well pre-HCR?

Right. That was the point. It's already regulated, and in an inefficient way.

You are really, really naive. It's cute.

You are really, really delusional. But it's not cute.

ETA: Seriously, who among the Dems do you think secretly says to himself, "I don't give a fuck about covering more people or bending the cost curve, as long as we get more government!" The difference is that Dems think the government can help, and a certain brand of conservative thinks government is always the problem.

[Adder]

Is this treason?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

You are really, really delusional. But it's not cute.

ETA: Seriously, who among the Dems do you think secretly says to himself, "I don't give a fuck about covering more people or bending the cost curve, as long as we get more government!" The difference is that Dems think the government can help, and a certain brand of conservative thinks government is always the problem.

Yes, many think they can help. But some see it as a way to gain and maintain power by making the electorate more dependent on government. Hey, electorate, vote for me and I'll give you some free shit. No, that never happens.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Is this treason?

No, but I don't agree with it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Dude, i'm at a bar. Can i get a summary of that?

Economists predict that money arises out of barter.
Anthropologists point out there is no support for this in reality.
Economist doubles down.
Anthropologist has some fun at economist's expense.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yes, many think they can help. But some see it as a way to gain and maintain power by making the electorate more dependent on government. Hey, electorate, vote for me and I'll give you some free shit. No, that never happens.

Of course that happens, but that's not favoring a policy "to give the government a bigger role/increase its power."

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Of course that happens, but that's not favoring a policy "to give the government a bigger role/increase its power."

Of course it is.

Hank, troll ruling please.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Of course it is.

Hank, troll ruling please.

Adder is very dim, and naive, but not a troll. Never a troll.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

So you're off the Cowen Great Stagnation hypothesis then? 'cause that is basically the opposite position.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Why? And if it's profitable to do so, why wouldn't the whole be doing everything to do so?

See previous replies.

Also, banking and retail have high barriers to entry? Really?

Yes.

But it's profitable to cut costs, that's why Wal Mart (and everyone else) does it. Why won't someone else do the same thing after you kill Wal Mart?

It's only profitable to do so when you have Wal Mart's buying power in the wholesale market. 10X the sales of your few and far in between competitors = You can live make up on volume what you lose in unit sale profit.

But Wal Mart is already competing against Target and Costco. And KMart and Sears (weak though they are). And against many other for parts of their business (including discounters like Aldi).

There you have a big flaw in my argument. We might have to break up a lot more than Wal Mart to create the job bump I'm seeking. That's unworkable.

Well, that's back to our fundamental disconnect. I don't see higher prices for stuff as being good for anyone, and I'm not keen to create leverage for manufacturers at the expense of consumers.

See my previous reply asking where stagflation or deflation has ever brought an economy out of a tailspin. We need broader inflation that creeps into housing and wages.

I'm not opposed to a little inflation, but you're proposed method isn't that, it's a transfer payment from consumers to manufacturers.

Transfer payment from current consumers to new workers, who become new consumers.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Of course it is.

Hank, troll ruling please.

Trying to get reelected by giving away free shit is not the same as favoring big government for its own sake. Most obviously, the latter might help get the other guy elected.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Of course that happens, but that's not favoring a policy "to give the government a bigger role/increase its power."

It necessarily is exactly that. You're talking motive, Club's talking result. You're right, the Dems' motive is not a mere power grab by the govt. Club's right, however, in noting motive is immaterial - that even if done for the most altruistic intentions, the Dems' HCR vision cannot be effected without conceding more control to the govt.