Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 23 Nov 2006 19:00 In article <ba10e$4565827a$4fe7682$23596(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> The money spent on paying people to push needless paper around is the best >> sort of example. > >In every universal employment scheme this became an artform. >Sometimes the choice is whether to have them show up for >work and shuffle papers all day and pay them, or pay them >to sit at home because they are unemployed. You have ignored one of my favorite options on this. Continuous retraining is another way to keep them busy. By chance they may actually learn something that is useful. This is far better than the other two options. You don't have to cut down as many trees to keep them busy. [....] >So he terminated them en masse. The burden shifted, at least >for a while, from the private sector to the public sector >as those 200 collected unemployment. It woud be intereresting >to know how many in that class ever did find employment again. While they had the jobs, the odds of them finding useful work was near zero so a very low bar is set. Besides, there are other costs in providing worthless jobs. I have bumped into a "useless paper pusher" or two who were also "blockers". "Until form 1729-B is filled out requesting that we give you a form 1965-C, the shipment can't be inspected and packed for shipment....." It only takes a few of this sort to kill an operation if someone doesn't "kill" them first. >> The person gets a days pay but produces nothing as a >> result. That person will consume things from the economy but not add any >> goods or services to it. So in effect that person has destroyed a bit of >> wealth. > >They consumed, but the money, representing wealth, has passed >through. No, we now have the same amount of money in the system chasing a reduced amount of goods and services. The money still exists but something got consumed and nothing got created to replace it. > The goods and services they purchased with the money >they earned adds value back into the economy. No, the money only goes back into the economy. The little bit of wealth has been consumed. >All well designed (or evolved) economic systems are able >to absorb inefficiencies which are always impossible to >completely eliminate. They are in general evolved not designed. Small bit of them get designed but this is sort of like designing a sadle for a horse. It, perhaps, makes the horse easier for someone to ride, but the horse is stillthe result of evolution. > If a government works hard to >eliminate inefficiencies, then what value are the people >supervising that effort adding to the economy? It becomes >a snake consuming itself. Once you have a DC-DC converter running at 99% efficiency, there is little to gain by going after that last 1%. The same sort of decreasing returns happens in orginizations trying to improve efficiency. Up to a point it is profitable because the inefficiencies were costing more than the effort to remove them did. Beyond that point, there is a loss in continuing because it now cost more to remove the losses than the losses are losing. In the case we have been beating to death (healthcare), we have one bad system and one very-very bad system to compare. Unfortuately much of the argument has revolved around the problems (real or imagined) of each. When riding a bike if you don't want to end up in a pot hole, you look at the place you do want to end up and point the bike in that direction. Lucky for us, usenet is neither directing the bike or healthcare because we'd end up in the pot hole for sure. [....] >> I used golf in my example because it is a truly useless > > activity. > >Lots of room for disagreement there. This is the usenet, so I have to say "only by silly people", it is the law you know. > I know men for >whom it is the best exercise possible. I don't golf >myself, I'm generally a lot more active. But seriously I used it because nothing of value is produced. If I go to Scotland for vacation, I would take my camera. I would end up with some nice pictures. These would be added to the total wealth. If I knocked a little ball in a hole, I'd reach in an pick it out and nothing would be created. [....] >I can't imagine a group of go-getter executives passing >up the opoportunity to talk shop while enjoying themselves >in the company of their peers. I think you understood my point. > >The US will be a little poorer as a result. > >"Wealth" transfers to Scotland. Scotland doesn't burn >it, but spends it, either at home or abroad. In the >meantime people in Scotland are working, adding value. The food the CEOs eat [1] does not come back into existance. The money is in Scotland but barring the business deal, nothing is created to match up with the dollars. We now have the same dollars chasing less goods and services. [1] I almost said and the booze they drink but then I though of beer and edited it out. >>>While the costs for administration of Medicare are repeatedly >>>reported to be ~3% this doesn't include many expense factors >>>which private industry must report. It is another of the many >>>lying by statistics gambits used in such cases. > >> Please provide a list of these costs or a cite so I can look them up. > Ooooops nearly turkey time got to go. >You do know I won't do this, it is far too much work. If >you've been involved in business you recognize cost >elements that are universally common. As BAH mentioned, >collections is a big expense. If you were to take the amount >of money spent by Medicare each year, and on that basis >allocate the % expenses incurred by IRS collection mechanism >that lands in the medicare pocket, you'd have a handle on >what that part actually costs but remains unreported as a >medicare expense. Then there's auditing by the GAO, also >unreported as a medicare expense, and the cost of mailings >for which postage is absorbed by the USPS. > >There are lots of similar line items. Either you accept the >point, or you don't. I have neither the time nor the >energy required to flesh this out beyond the obvious >logical sorts of expenses I've mentioned above. > >>>>... and I'm saying you are wrong on this, but even assuming that you are >>>>right that a US single payer system will look like medicare, this would be >>>>better than the current situation. > >>>Then why are retirees who had private insurance paid for by >>>their former employers complaining so bitterly when those >>>programs are terminated? > >> Huh???? I don't see how you got from one place to the other. Some >> retirees getting cheated is an unrelated issue. > >Here's the point. If US insurance is so bad, and government run >healthcare is better then why are the retirees complaining? > >BTW, they're not being screwed now. Their screwing happened >when their employer talked them into lower pay based on >promises of future redundant healthcare schemes. > >> Note that the "look like" was not meant as "exactly like". I would also >> not suggest one that is exactly like the VA system as it is today. > >It seems to me the VA system more closely resembles NHS than >medicare does. > >>>Why do people like me buy supplemental insurance? Because I >>>am insuring against the possibility that a severe illness >>>not well covered by Medicare can bankrupt my estate. > >> You want more coverage. That is fine with me. > >The point is, insurance isn't "a bad thing" as so many >in this discussion want to make it. > >> [....] > >>>>Fiat money and irrigated agriculture lead to the downfall of all >>>>civilizations. The record is full of such examples. We are doomed, >>>>doomed I tell you. > >>>Every system fails eventually unless it evolves. Private >>>enterprise does a much better job of evolving than massive >>>governments because you can have partial failures of private >>>enterprise, but when a government topples, an impromptu >>>praetorian guard notwithstanding, it all falls apart. > >> Private enterprise evolves very well indeed. So do viruses. > >I wouldn't call that evolution. > >> Merely >> having the propery of evolving is not enough. The direction of evolution >> needs to be a direction that favors us. In healthcare funding, it appears >> that private enterprise is evolving to consume all the wealth. > >I don't think so. I would like to find a study that compares >median healthcare costs to a family as a % of median income >today compared to 1950, which is before the leading edge of >the growth of health insurance hit, if I recall things correctly. > >Somehow we'd have to factor in all the new very expensive >equipment and procedures that weren't available in 1950 >but are commonly used today. > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 23 Nov 2006 21:19 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Thu, 23 Nov 06 15:09:03 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > > >>Don't forget to look at Oregon, which has a medicaid waiver and > >>provides an Oregon Health Plan that is a means-tested medical and > >>dental plan for anyone who can meet the criteria. I expect to see it > >>expanded under the new Democratic leadership here. > > > >Have they the brass balls to invoke a penalty on your income tax > >form if you don't "volunteer" and sign up for those programs? > > Hmm? I don't understand the question. She seems to think that funding a health system from taxation is a bit like stealing from you and you should have to 'volunteer' to pay these taxes. I guess the taxes that pay for other things must be compulsory in her mind and don't need this volunteering. > >I have yet to hear anybody help about this step to a dicatorship; > >it is very worrisome. > > You must be an idealist Libertarian or something. As I've mentioned > here earlier, I grew up working the fields as a child to make the > money I needed to eat, lived in a home without walls, begged for food > at grocery stores, and I did NOT have medical care. There is NO > possible excuse for a society such as ours with children growing up as > I did, after my father died. It's inexcusable. Period. > > It has nothing to do with dictatorship. It has everything to do with > being compassionate. Something, perhaps, you lack? I have a feeling that BAH reckons ppl in such circumstances 'brought it one themselves' in some perverse way which ( in her mind ) therefore makes it alright. She'll probably say you should have planned more ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 23 Nov 2006 21:23 unsettled wrote: > Jamie wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > >> unsettled wrote: > >> > >>> Our post offices are also open till 5PM in most places. > >> > >> Is that supposed to be some kind of special US achievement ? Ours stay > >> open later than that ! > >> > >> Graham > >> > > Is there anything over there that is below standard or > > at least, your standard? > > > > You live in such a dream world, maybe you should > > step out side and smell the air, cause I think it stinks > > at times like it does anywhere else in the world. > > I was in the UK in 2000. The post offices closed at noon. The post offices here have never closed at noon. They keep normal shop hours. Why do you feel this need to tell lies ? Where was this closing at noon post office anyway ? There's one near me that doesn't close til 7 pm ! > Residential delivery arrived at about 6:45 AM. There was > officially a second daily residential delivery but I > never saw it actually happen. It's certainly happened to me. Just because *you* didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Graham
From: Eeyore on 23 Nov 2006 21:27 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't > >delved into why that is. > > It's possible that medical technology is too good. In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? Graham
From: unsettled on 23 Nov 2006 21:28
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <ba10e$4565827a$4fe7682$23596(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: > > [....] > >>>The money spent on paying people to push needless paper around is the best >>>sort of example. >> >>In every universal employment scheme this became an artform. >>Sometimes the choice is whether to have them show up for >>work and shuffle papers all day and pay them, or pay them >>to sit at home because they are unemployed. > > > You have ignored one of my favorite options on this. Continuous > retraining is another way to keep them busy. By chance they may actually > learn something that is useful. This is far better than the other two > options. You don't have to cut down as many trees to keep them busy. Built into this are significant failures, hence waste. Besides, how do you "retrain" AMOCO oil corporate management personnel who already have an MBA? Do you now send them to school to teach them to pump gas? > [....] > >>So he terminated them en masse. The burden shifted, at least >>for a while, from the private sector to the public sector >>as those 200 collected unemployment. It woud be intereresting >>to know how many in that class ever did find employment again. > > > While they had the jobs, the odds of them finding useful work was near > zero so a very low bar is set. Besides, there are other costs in > providing worthless jobs. I have bumped into a "useless paper pusher" or > two who were also "blockers". "Until form 1729-B is filled out requesting > that we give you a form 1965-C, the shipment can't be inspected and packed > for shipment....." It only takes a few of this sort to kill an operation > if someone doesn't "kill" them first. Doesn't answer the problem posed above. >>>The person gets a days pay but produces nothing as a >>>result. That person will consume things from the economy but not add any >>>goods or services to it. So in effect that person has destroyed a bit of >>>wealth. >>They consumed, but the money, representing wealth, has passed >>through. > No, we now have the same amount of money in the system chasing a reduced > amount of goods and services. The money still exists but something got > consumed and nothing got created to replace it. Inefficiency is inherent in every system involving people. >>The goods and services they purchased with the money >>they earned adds value back into the economy. > No, the money only goes back into the economy. The little bit of wealth > has been consumed. Economic systems recognize this and function perfectly well while allowing for it. >>All well designed (or evolved) economic systems are able >>to absorb inefficiencies which are always impossible to >>completely eliminate. > They are in general evolved not designed. Small bit of them get designed > but this is sort of like designing a sadle for a horse. It, perhaps, > makes the horse easier for someone to ride, but the horse is stillthe > result of evolution. Cute, but what does that have to do with the issue(s) at hand? >>If a government works hard to >>eliminate inefficiencies, then what value are the people >>supervising that effort adding to the economy? It becomes >>a snake consuming itself. > Once you have a DC-DC converter running at 99% efficiency, there is little > to gain by going after that last 1%. The same sort of decreasing returns > happens in orginizations trying to improve efficiency. Up to a point it > is profitable because the inefficiencies were costing more than the effort > to remove them did. Beyond that point, there is a loss in continuing > because it now cost more to remove the losses than the losses are losing. And executives golfing in Scotland falls into this class. > In the case we have been beating to death (healthcare), we have one bad > system and one very-very bad system to compare. I don't accept that the US healthcare system is such a disaster as several claim it is. > Unfortuately much of the > argument has revolved around the problems (real or imagined) of each. > When riding a bike if you don't want to end up in a pot hole, you look at > the place you do want to end up and point the bike in that direction. > Lucky for us, usenet is neither directing the bike or healthcare because > we'd end up in the pot hole for sure. It is a discussion, not an action, group. > [....] > >>>I used golf in my example because it is a truly useless >>>activity. >> >>Lots of room for disagreement there. > This is the usenet, so I have to say "only by silly people", it is the law > you know. The maggot brain emerges once again. >>I know men for >>whom it is the best exercise possible. I don't golf >>myself, I'm generally a lot more active. > But seriously I used it because nothing of value is produced. That all depends. You're setting a scenario that plays into your game plan that's not only artificial but is also unrealistic. You also fail to allow for human beings to relax and vacation for its own sake. You left out the entire story of my friend the salesman making deals while golfing with customer executives. > If I go to > Scotland for vacation, I would take my camera. I would end up with some > nice pictures. These would be added to the total wealth. If I knocked a > little ball in a hole, I'd reach in an pick it out and nothing would be > created. Big deal. > [....] > >>I can't imagine a group of go-getter executives passing >>up the opoportunity to talk shop while enjoying themselves >>in the company of their peers. > I think you understood my point. I understood your exagerated and mistaken point. >>The US will be a little poorer as a result. >>"Wealth" transfers to Scotland. Scotland doesn't burn >>it, but spends it, either at home or abroad. In the >>meantime people in Scotland are working, adding value. > The food the CEOs eat [1] does not come back into existance. The money is > in Scotland but barring the business deal, nothing is created to match up > with the dollars. We now have the same dollars chasing less goods and > services. > [1] I almost said and the booze they drink but then I though of beer and > edited it out. You assume that the trip neither created economic value which isn't critical, but what's worse is that you're tryig to make the dcision that the executive golfing in Scotland didn't persoanlly value the experience. Perhaps you'd prefer to outlaw all tourism and tourist activities not meeting with your approval? snip |