And yet another free-market theory failure

191012141517

Comments

  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,190member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    We can debate those things...the causes and effects...whether government involvement in these areas is necessary and such.



    Exactly. No way I buy that we have "the 7th best healthcare" either. Our problem is with insurance and lifestyle choices, including poor diet, lack of exercise, smoking, etc. Our facilities and doctors are excellent on the whole. In an hour's drive, I can go to probably 20 top notch hospitals in my area.



    I just had surgery in one on Thursday, as a matter of fact (back operation #2) near Newark, DE. I got there at 8:30 a.m. Wheeled into surgery a little before 11. They had monitors in the waiting room with patient codes so family could see where you were (pre-op, OR, recovery, etc). The place was bright and spotless. The staff was excellent. After a microdiscectomy, I was able to leave by 7:00 that night...I was even in a private room without asking. I had the choice of whether or not to stay, but wanted to go home. Clearly, the surgeon did an amazing job. I was able to go the park today with my family and have very little pain.



    The point? Yes, I have good health insurance. But good health insurance doesn't matter if the doc and hospital aren't great.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Yes, honestly, Brazil fits your economic ideas perfecty. It's a very good representation of what the US would soon look like if your ideas were put into place.



    I think if we follow what we're doing now, our inflation rate might get to where Brazil's was not long ago.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Actually, it doesn't.







    Actually, it's not.



    But at the rate things are deteriorating here, it might soon be a more welcoming environment in which to live.



    Oh please! This this is just like when Bush won a second term some would say : " Maybe there won't be a democrat elected again ever ". We all know that wouldn't happen anymore than this situation will go on forever. The real question is what can we do to avoid it lasting longer. I'm sure we have different takes on that one.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Exactly. No way I buy that we have "the 7th best healthcare" either. Our problem is with insurance and lifestyle choices, including poor diet, lack of exercise, smoking, etc. Our facilities and doctors are excellent on the whole. In an hour's drive, I can go to probably 20 top notch hospitals in my area.



    I just had surgery in one on Thursday, as a matter of fact (back operation #2) near Newark, DE. I got there at 8:30 a.m. Wheeled into surgery a little before 11. They had monitors in the waiting room with patient codes so family could see where you were (pre-op, OR, recovery, etc). The place was bright and spotless. The staff was excellent. After a microdiscectomy, I was able to leave by 7:00 that night...I was even in a private room without asking. I had the choice of whether or not to stay, but wanted to go home. Clearly, the surgeon did an amazing job. I was able to go the park today with my family and have very little pain.



    The point? Yes, I have good health insurance. But good health insurance doesn't matter if the doc and hospital aren't great.







    I think if we follow what we're doing now, our inflation rate might get to where Brazil's was not long ago.



    You might want to look at this : http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/I...tInflation.asp
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Oh please! This this is just like when Bush won a second term some would say : " Maybe there won't be a democrat elected again ever ". We all know that wouldn't happen anymore than this situation will go on forever. The real question is what can we do to avoid it lasting longer. I'm sure we have different takes on that one.



    You always seem to want to make things about Bush. It's like history doesn't exist before the year 2000 in your mind. Some of us see what's happening, with both Bush and Obama, as a culmination and even acceleration of bad choices that have been made in this country for a long, long time. In my view it goes back almost a hundred years. Then Hoover and FDR (the Bush and Obama of the 20's and 30's) put their feet on the accelerator. We've slowed down at times and taken some steps backwards. There have been times when things haven't been quite so bad. The 1970's were a mess of course...the 80's and90's were great by comparison...but then another bubble was created and crashed. Obama then put his foot on the accelerator.



    This is not all about what's happened in the fast few years though that certainly hasn't helped.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    You might want to look at this : http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/I...tInflation.asp



    Why? Why might he want to look at that? What is that telling us? How does it inform us?



    Or is this just another one of you drive-by link-slaps with a URL you took 15 seconds to find on Google that says something you think it says without having considered the question or the issue?
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Why? Why might he want to look at that? What is that telling us? How does it inform us?



    Or is this just another one of you drive-by link-slaps with a URL you took 15 seconds to find on Google that says something you think it says without having considered the question or the issue?



    Brazils is around 6.16 while ours is around 3.57 not even at the rate of where it was earlier 3.99 in 2006. I'm sure you'll have a way to spin this somehow but why are you answering for SDW?



    I'm sorry but the way they were talking it sounded just like more " There's a Democrat in the Whitehouse we're doomed! ".



    Please! What's next " Road Warrior "?



    By the way I knew SWD would leave without answering my question. Or even trying to answer.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Brazils is around 6.16 while ours is around 3.57 not even at the rate of where it was earlier 3.99 in 2006. I'm sure you'll have a way to spin this somehow but why are you answering for SDW?



    I could present factual information but I know this will not deter you. One important fact is that those CPI numbers from government do not include fuel and food. That's a big omission.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    You always seem to want to make things about Bush. It's like history doesn't exist before the year 2000 in your mind. Some of us see what's happening, with both Bush and Obama, as a culmination and even acceleration of bad choices that have been made in this country for a long, long time. In my view it goes back almost a hundred years. Then Hoover and FDR (the Bush and Obama of the 20's and 30's) put their feet on the accelerator. We've slowed down at times and taken some steps backwards. There have been times when things haven't been quite so bad. The 1970's were a mess of course...the 80's and90's were great by comparison...but then another bubble was created and crashed. Obama then put his foot on the accelerator.



    This is not all about what's happened in the fast few years though that certainly hasn't helped.



    Ok. Assuming you're commenting on my conversation with SDW in the past when pressed on this subject the fault and the begining of this crisis started with democrats the republicans who served inbetween are apparently blameless. I do think this problem goes farther back than Bush. He's just the one who recently had the most time to do something about it.



    Quote:

    There have been times when things haven't been quite so bad.



    In respect to what? I mean there was the boom in the 60's ( I lived through that and times were really good when I was a kid ) and the boom in the mid to late 90's which saw the longest running Bull market in history ending with a surplus for the next administraion. I'd call that more than " Not so bad ".
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Ok. Assuming you're commenting on my conversation with SDW...



    I'm commenting on your insistence on bring everything back to Bush as if there is nothing other than Bush and Obama.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    I do think this problem goes farther back than Bush. He's just the one who recently had the most time to do something about it.



    Yes it does go back further than Bush. No, maybe he didn't do anything about. He even did some things to make things worse. So has Obama. No one seems to be doing anything to actually fix the problems.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I'm commenting on your insistence on bring everything back to Bush as if there is nothing other than Bush and Obama.









    Yes it does go back further than Bush. No, maybe he didn't do anything about. He even did some things to make things worse. So has Obama. No one seems to be doing anything to actually fix the problems.



    So you see this is what happens when you step into a conversation with someone else. I may not share your full viewpoint on Obama ( trust me I'm not totally pleased with him at all and I'm puzzeled by those who say I think he can do no wrong it's just that for various reasons I prefer him over Bush ) but SDW would give Bush high marks apparently.



    I do believe that anyone ( Democrat, Republican, or whoever ) wouild have a hard row to hoe with what's happened.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    So you see this is what happens when you step into a conversation with someone else.



    I commented on a post made in a public forum.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I commented on a post made in a public forum.



    Well then why do you say I think it's all Bush or you seem to indicate I think Obama can do no wrong. While SDW says he thinks Bush did great?



    I don't mind you commenting on a public forum but please get your facts straight about whom you're addressing.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Well then why do you say I think it's all Bush or you seem to indicate I think Obama can do no wrong.



    I didn't say that. I said you seem to bring everything back to Bush.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    While SDW says he thinks Bush did great?



    I don't agree with that either. But, based on the body of your posts, you seem to blame it all on Bush and don't reserve any criticism about the economy for Obama.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    I don't mind you commenting on a public forum



    Gee, thanks.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    but please get your facts straight about whom you're addressing.



    I know who I'm addressing.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,190member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    You might want to look at this : http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/I...tInflation.asp



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Why? Why might he want to look at that? What is that telling us? How does it inform us?



    Or is this just another one of you drive-by link-slaps with a URL you took 15 seconds to find on Google that says something you think it says without having considered the question or the issue?



    I'm betting the latter.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Brazils is around 6.16 while ours is around 3.57 not even at the rate of where it was earlier 3.99 in 2006. I'm sure you'll have a way to spin this somehow but why are you answering for SDW?



    I'm sorry but the way they were talking it sounded just like more " There's a Democrat in the Whitehouse we're doomed! ".



    Please! What's next " Road Warrior "?



    By the way I knew SWD would leave without answering my question. Or even trying to answer.



    Yes, I was absent from the board from more than an hour. How dare I? By the way, if you think our real inflation rate is only 3.57 percent, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Well here's something else that you'll love. Who do you hold responsible for this debacle? And who and how could it have been avoided.



    Let me guess the fault falls squarly on the shoulders of a Democrat.



    The rest of your post was the usual smoke and mirrors.







    Why?







    I have asked you several quesions in the past that you haven' answered either. Sometimes you ignore, sometimes it's an evasion, and sometimes I get " I just don't understand " or " look it up for me ". So what's the difference. Sometimes it went on for weeks where I would just ask the question everytime you posted on the subject. So why is this different?







    I tried to give an answer. You just won't accept it because it's not in your play book. So do you have one? How could we have avoided this? And if we couldn't why attack Obama from day one?



    I have to confess sometyimes when I've seen you answer something like this you seemed to be suggesting that leting things run on their own was the answer which given if things are already fucked up how is that an answer?



    jimmac, you did not give an answer. You offered a platitude. You claimed that "he should have been more involved in things" or whatever the word choice was. That doesn't mean anything. It's rhetorical.



    As for whom to hold responsible, we've been through that [I]ad nauseam.[i] It's not a single person, nor entity, nor is it all a Democrat's fault, jimmac.



    As for how to have avoided it: I have no idea, do you? As MJ stated, it goes back such a long time. The roots of it are at least in the 1970s if not during FDR's time and maybe before. Every administration was involved, from loose money policy, to pushing banks to make loans they knew weren't good, to the greed of many on Wall Street.



    So, I've answered my part. Now tell me...what policies should the Bush Administration have pursued? What actions should have been taken? And what do you have to say about Frank and Waters ignoring that Bush Administration's warnings on Fannie and Freddie's exposure--warnings that started in 2003?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Oh please! This this is just like when Bush won a second term some would say : " Maybe there won't be a democrat elected again ever ". We all know that wouldn't happen anymore than this situation will go on forever. The real question is what can we do to avoid it lasting longer. I'm sure we have different takes on that one.



  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I'm betting the latter.









    Yes, I was absent from the board from more than an hour. How dare I? By the way, if you think our real inflation rate is only 3.57 percent, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.







    jimmac, you did not give an answer. You offered a platitude. You claimed that "he should have been more involved in things" or whatever the word choice was. That doesn't mean anything. It's rhetorical.



    As for whom to hold responsible, we've been through that [I]ad nauseam.[i] It's not a single person, nor entity, nor is it all a Democrat's fault, jimmac.



    As for how to have avoided it: I have no idea, do you? As MJ stated, it goes back such a long time. The roots of it are at least in the 1970s if not during FDR's time and maybe before. Every administration was involved, from loose money policy, to pushing banks to make loans they knew weren't good, to the greed of many on Wall Street.



    So, I've answered my part. Now tell me...what policies should the Bush Administration have pursued? What actions should have been taken? And what do you have to say about Frank and Waters ignoring that Bush Administration's warnings on Fannie and Freddie's exposure--warnings that started in 2003?



    Ok let's take just one item because that's all I have time for ( yes I leave here as well ) did you go to the link I provided about inflation? Are those facts in error in some way?



    Thanks for answering I think much the same but that isn't what you've indicated in the past. Thanks for the clarification and admitting both sides were involved. Now about your views on inflation. Was that link in error because I can't see us anywhere near Brazil?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,190member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Ok let's take just one item because that's all I have time for ( yes I leave here as well ) did you go to the link I provided about inflation? Are those facts in error in some way?



    Thanks for answering I think much the same but that isn't what you've indicated in the past. Thanks for the clarification and admitting both sides were involved. Now about your views on inflation. Was that link in error because I can't see us anywhere near Brazil?



    1. If you leave from time to time, then stop attacking me for doing so. For your info, I am recovering from back surgery.



    2. I've always maintained exactly what I posted above re: the financial crisis. I've never blamed only Democrats. I've even stated that the Bush Administration was eager to tout home ownership numbers, as others have done as well.



    3. It's not that your link is incorrect, it's that it's not using the right inflation data. Most inflation stats strip out the volatile parts (the parts that actually matter to consumers) like food and energy. It's really a change in how the government calculates inflation. It makes us all feel better, I suppose. Here's a chart showing the differences:



    http://dshort.com/inflation/inflatio...n-1872-present



    And here is CNBC reporting that inflation is actually about 10%.



    http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Interesting.



    Sweden starts moving away from socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing better.



    Canada starts moving away from socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing better.



    The US moves toward socialism/fascism and the economy starts doing worse.



    I see a pattern here.



    The base tax rate in Sweden is nearly 50%.



    America, clearly, should move towards Swedish socialism as quickly as they can if they want to emulate Swedish economic success, right? Right?



    Taxes up to Swedish level should clearly do the trick, right? Right?



    Christ, do you actually do any thinking at all before your stupid, illogical automatic pot-shots?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    The base tax rate in Sweden is nearly 50%.



    America, clearly, should move towards Swedish socialism as quickly as they can if they want to emulate Swedish economic success, right? Right?



    Taxes up to Swedish level should clearly do the trick, right? Right?







    It is because Sweden (and Canada) have started stepping back (however slightly) from their socialist policies that growth has happened and returned. It is because the US has move more toward these types of a policies that its economy has sputtered.



    It is not an absolute point on the scale it is the move and the direction.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Christ, do you actually do any thinking at all before your stupid, illogical automatic pot-shots?



    I could ask you the same thing.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post






    It is because Sweden (and Canada) have started stepping back (however slightly) from their socialist policies that growth has happened and returned. It is because the US has move more toward these types of a policies that its economy has sputtered.



    It is not an absolute point on the scale it is the move and the direction.



    :.



    Use your logical faculties. For once. Instead of the Randian autopilot.



    The direction of the change means nothing if the end point is still ?socialism.?



    RE-READ THAT SENTENCE.



    Sweden is a success. Its economic policy is impossible in American terms, because people like you would piss their pants that it was ?fascism? or ?socialism? or ?Marxism.?



    It is STILL MILES TO THE LEFT OF AMERICA.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Use your logical faculties. For once. Instead of the Randian autopilot.



    The direction of the change means nothing if the end point is still “socialism.”



    RE-READ THAT SENTENCE.



    Sweden is a success. Its economic policy is impossible in American terms



Sign In or Register to comment.