Allister
01-15-08, 05:32 PM
You're very cynical and unappreciative of how the real world works.
And you're naive.
And you're naive.
View Full Version : Urban planning and pro motoring or not
Pages :
1
[2]
buzzman
01-15-08, 07:52 PM
Note that I change some of bmike's words around, and "breadwinner" is his. Also, all prices are open to negotiation, and not set by anyone, just as in the real market: All exchanges are voluntary. If no one will buy dinner for $5, the "breadwinner" will have to lower his price. I even specified that everyone is to bid services - they "set" the prices for that, using your parlance.
You're very cynical and unappreciative of how the real world works.
:roflmao:
You're very cynical and unappreciative of how the real world works.
:roflmao:
Helmet Head
01-16-08, 01:45 PM
Fine. I'll play.
The "breadwinner" and their most immediate family members occupy the nicest rooms of the house.
Their rooms are well appointed they get the lion's share of the food and resources.
Well, if it's the breadwinners earnings, why only the lion's share? Why does anyone else get any of it? Through the goodness of the heart of the breadwinner? Okay...
They even operate on roughly the principles set out in your "freemarket" experiment. These rooms are well heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. Other family members live in the basement or the attic, some even live outside- exposed to the environment, it's more crowded in those places, sometimes a little too cold or a little too hot- but they've always lived there- it's fine.
Does the breadwinner charge rent from these moochers, or does he just let them stay there for free?
They come up or in once in a while to do the cooking or the cleaning because no one in the immediate family wants to do those jobs and the breadwinner gets to set the wages.
Apparently, the breadwinner offers them a better deal than anyone else in the area, if not the world (otherwise they would presumably take the better offer). Do you consider this to be a bad thing?
If the "breadwinner's" immediate family starts to run low on anything the stocks or resources of the other family members are looted or bought for as little as possible.
Well, if they loot, that's stealing, and is illegal in every civilized society, and would be in any society with a free market regulated by even the most minimal libertarian government that protects the rights of individuals against rights-violating behavior, like murder, robbery, burglary, fraud, and theft, including looting.
If they buy "for as little as possible", and the moochers agree to sell at that price, what's the problem? That means they offering more for the food and supplies than they are valued by the moochers ( or they wouldn't agree to sell). So what's the problem?
In fact it's best to keep the numbers of extended family fairly high and their needs fairly desperate because they are then most easily exploited.
And how do they "keep" the numbers high or low or at any desired value, if not by meeting the needs and requirements of those they entice to live there better than anyone else? What's wrong with that?
And not a bad idea to jettison any immediate family unable to pull their own weight- if they get too old to continue to contribute to the pot, if they get physically or better yet mentally disabled, drop them from the immediate family and put them outside or in the basement.
Certainly they are free to do that, as long as no rights are violated, but it's not typical human behavior. If not for the reason that how you treat your elders is probably how your children are going to treat you once you are elderly.
It's best to keep this precarious balance well tended to or the other family members will ultimately rebel but if they are managed properly by subduing them with occasional rewards and constant threats of punishment this system can function effectively for centuries.
What would the moochers rebel against when the reason they are there in the first place is because they can't find a better deal? Why would the moochers rebel when you can just leave to a better place? And, again, if there is not better place, then this is the best place, so what are they complaining/rebelling about?
And all the while the "breadwinner's" immediate family is convinced of their entitlements and moral and ethical superiority to those less well endowed.
In a free society, where everyone's right to work and innovate for anyone who will hire them is valued and protected, what you own is yours and nobody elses. As far as being convinced of moral and ethical superiority, I don't see how or why, or even the relevance. Do you believe the Edwards and the Clintons are morally and/or ethically superior to the Obamas because they have much more wealth?
They live under the illusion that their life is "free" that their possessions are the result of "market forces" and that they are not connected in anyway to a larger interconnect of the rest of the world and that by simply continuing to operate on the status quo of a "freemarket" that all is right with the world.:rolleyes:
What they "believe" is irrelevant. If, in fact, their wealth is the product of "market forces" (as it is, I assume until proven otherwise, for Oprah, Gates, Trump, Edwards, Romney, the Kennedys, Michael Jordan, etc., etc.), then their possessions are in fact the result of "market forces" (not to mention innovation and wealth creation, and not obtained forcibly (and thus unjustly) from others. So what's the problem?
The "breadwinner" and their most immediate family members occupy the nicest rooms of the house.
Their rooms are well appointed they get the lion's share of the food and resources.
Well, if it's the breadwinners earnings, why only the lion's share? Why does anyone else get any of it? Through the goodness of the heart of the breadwinner? Okay...
They even operate on roughly the principles set out in your "freemarket" experiment. These rooms are well heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. Other family members live in the basement or the attic, some even live outside- exposed to the environment, it's more crowded in those places, sometimes a little too cold or a little too hot- but they've always lived there- it's fine.
Does the breadwinner charge rent from these moochers, or does he just let them stay there for free?
They come up or in once in a while to do the cooking or the cleaning because no one in the immediate family wants to do those jobs and the breadwinner gets to set the wages.
Apparently, the breadwinner offers them a better deal than anyone else in the area, if not the world (otherwise they would presumably take the better offer). Do you consider this to be a bad thing?
If the "breadwinner's" immediate family starts to run low on anything the stocks or resources of the other family members are looted or bought for as little as possible.
Well, if they loot, that's stealing, and is illegal in every civilized society, and would be in any society with a free market regulated by even the most minimal libertarian government that protects the rights of individuals against rights-violating behavior, like murder, robbery, burglary, fraud, and theft, including looting.
If they buy "for as little as possible", and the moochers agree to sell at that price, what's the problem? That means they offering more for the food and supplies than they are valued by the moochers ( or they wouldn't agree to sell). So what's the problem?
In fact it's best to keep the numbers of extended family fairly high and their needs fairly desperate because they are then most easily exploited.
And how do they "keep" the numbers high or low or at any desired value, if not by meeting the needs and requirements of those they entice to live there better than anyone else? What's wrong with that?
And not a bad idea to jettison any immediate family unable to pull their own weight- if they get too old to continue to contribute to the pot, if they get physically or better yet mentally disabled, drop them from the immediate family and put them outside or in the basement.
Certainly they are free to do that, as long as no rights are violated, but it's not typical human behavior. If not for the reason that how you treat your elders is probably how your children are going to treat you once you are elderly.
It's best to keep this precarious balance well tended to or the other family members will ultimately rebel but if they are managed properly by subduing them with occasional rewards and constant threats of punishment this system can function effectively for centuries.
What would the moochers rebel against when the reason they are there in the first place is because they can't find a better deal? Why would the moochers rebel when you can just leave to a better place? And, again, if there is not better place, then this is the best place, so what are they complaining/rebelling about?
And all the while the "breadwinner's" immediate family is convinced of their entitlements and moral and ethical superiority to those less well endowed.
In a free society, where everyone's right to work and innovate for anyone who will hire them is valued and protected, what you own is yours and nobody elses. As far as being convinced of moral and ethical superiority, I don't see how or why, or even the relevance. Do you believe the Edwards and the Clintons are morally and/or ethically superior to the Obamas because they have much more wealth?
They live under the illusion that their life is "free" that their possessions are the result of "market forces" and that they are not connected in anyway to a larger interconnect of the rest of the world and that by simply continuing to operate on the status quo of a "freemarket" that all is right with the world.:rolleyes:
What they "believe" is irrelevant. If, in fact, their wealth is the product of "market forces" (as it is, I assume until proven otherwise, for Oprah, Gates, Trump, Edwards, Romney, the Kennedys, Michael Jordan, etc., etc.), then their possessions are in fact the result of "market forces" (not to mention innovation and wealth creation, and not obtained forcibly (and thus unjustly) from others. So what's the problem?
buzzman
01-16-08, 03:03 PM
Fine. I'll play...
Yes, but I won't.
#1 It's Bike Forums and we're going way off topic.
#2 You win. You're so right. I've been so deluded by my cynicism. Thank you for setting me right. I don't know why I didn't see it. Our current economic system works like a charm. People never die of starvation in America, lack basic health care, freeze to death in the winter or get inadequate education or other public services unless they deserve it. Anyone in America can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and all poverty in this country is the result of a lack of motivation on the part of the poor. The poor are, as you so rightly title them, "moochers".
And the US never takes advantage of other nations. We never strip resources, do environmental damage or pay less than a livable wage to their workers. And history is on your side- there is absolutely no historical evidence to support greed as a motivation for any human endeavor.
I really don't know what I was thinking.:rolleyes:
Yes, but I won't.
#1 It's Bike Forums and we're going way off topic.
#2 You win. You're so right. I've been so deluded by my cynicism. Thank you for setting me right. I don't know why I didn't see it. Our current economic system works like a charm. People never die of starvation in America, lack basic health care, freeze to death in the winter or get inadequate education or other public services unless they deserve it. Anyone in America can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and all poverty in this country is the result of a lack of motivation on the part of the poor. The poor are, as you so rightly title them, "moochers".
And the US never takes advantage of other nations. We never strip resources, do environmental damage or pay less than a livable wage to their workers. And history is on your side- there is absolutely no historical evidence to support greed as a motivation for any human endeavor.
I really don't know what I was thinking.:rolleyes:
Helmet Head
01-16-08, 05:58 PM
Yes, but I won't.
#1 It's Bike Forums and we're going way off topic.
#2 You win. You're so right. I've been so deluded by my cynicism. Thank you for setting me right. I don't know why I didn't see it. Our current economic system works like a charm. People never die of starvation in America, lack basic health care, freeze to death in the winter or get inadequate education or other public services unless they deserve it. Anyone in America can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and all poverty in this country is the result of a lack of motivation on the part of the poor. The poor are, as you so rightly title them, "moochers".
And the US never takes advantage of other nations. We never strip resources, do environmental damage or pay less than a livable wage to their workers. And history is on your side- there is absolutely no historical evidence to support greed as a motivation for any human endeavor.
I really don't know what I was thinking.:rolleyes:
To set the record straight:
you're welcome to move this to P&R.
The poor are not moochers unless they take advantage of someone giving them housing, goods or services that they did not earn, which appears to be the case with the "extended family" in your "game".
Our current economic system does not work like a charm and I never said or implied that it did (nor would I ever expect it or any other economic system to work like a charm).
I don't know of people dying of starvation in America who sought help and did not get it. But even if that is the case, that is not necessarily an indictment of our economic system.
No one lacks basic health care. What some lack is the ability to pay for it, or get it through charity, family help, loans or a federal government handout. This can and should be addressed in ways that avoid the federal government handout approach, especially in heterogeneous country of 300 million people. The federal government handout approach is not scalable; the larger the population, the less long it is sustainable.
the undisputed fact that people sometimes tragically freeze to death in the winter is not an indictment of our economic system. In any case, this is an issue that is local to where the freezing happens; not a federal issue (just as the New Orleans flooding after Katrina was not a federal issue, nor should have been the original building of the dikes, or all the crazy rerouting of the Mississippi that ultimately lead to the filling in of the wetlands there.. thank you Washington D.C. :rolleyes:).
the undisputed fact that some people get inadequate education is an indictment of our education system, and our culture in general, not the economic system.
I never said or implied that all poverty in this country is the result of a lack of motivation on the part of the poor. My points are 1), that poverty is not the responsibility of the federal government to address, much less solve (that it is is a fairly new idea in this America, circa LBJ's War on Poverty in 1965) and 2) trying to solve poverty through the federal government ultimately does not work and is not sustainable.
I never said or implied that US never takes advantage of other nations. That's something we need to change, and only one presidential candidate is even talking about this; the others talk about ways to take more advantage of other countries.
We do strip resources, mostly on federal (not private) land.
We do environmental damage (again, mostly on resources that are the responsibility of government, not private owners).
I don't know what a "livable wage" is, but the only thing that should determine appropriate wage is supply and demand.
Of course greed is a motivation for human endeavor. If it wasn't for greed, no one would come to clean out your plugged up sewer drain. But as long as no one's rights are violated as a result of the greed-fueled endeavor, and all significant externalities are accounted for, that's a good thing.
#1 It's Bike Forums and we're going way off topic.
#2 You win. You're so right. I've been so deluded by my cynicism. Thank you for setting me right. I don't know why I didn't see it. Our current economic system works like a charm. People never die of starvation in America, lack basic health care, freeze to death in the winter or get inadequate education or other public services unless they deserve it. Anyone in America can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and all poverty in this country is the result of a lack of motivation on the part of the poor. The poor are, as you so rightly title them, "moochers".
And the US never takes advantage of other nations. We never strip resources, do environmental damage or pay less than a livable wage to their workers. And history is on your side- there is absolutely no historical evidence to support greed as a motivation for any human endeavor.
I really don't know what I was thinking.:rolleyes:
To set the record straight:
you're welcome to move this to P&R.
The poor are not moochers unless they take advantage of someone giving them housing, goods or services that they did not earn, which appears to be the case with the "extended family" in your "game".
Our current economic system does not work like a charm and I never said or implied that it did (nor would I ever expect it or any other economic system to work like a charm).
I don't know of people dying of starvation in America who sought help and did not get it. But even if that is the case, that is not necessarily an indictment of our economic system.
No one lacks basic health care. What some lack is the ability to pay for it, or get it through charity, family help, loans or a federal government handout. This can and should be addressed in ways that avoid the federal government handout approach, especially in heterogeneous country of 300 million people. The federal government handout approach is not scalable; the larger the population, the less long it is sustainable.
the undisputed fact that people sometimes tragically freeze to death in the winter is not an indictment of our economic system. In any case, this is an issue that is local to where the freezing happens; not a federal issue (just as the New Orleans flooding after Katrina was not a federal issue, nor should have been the original building of the dikes, or all the crazy rerouting of the Mississippi that ultimately lead to the filling in of the wetlands there.. thank you Washington D.C. :rolleyes:).
the undisputed fact that some people get inadequate education is an indictment of our education system, and our culture in general, not the economic system.
I never said or implied that all poverty in this country is the result of a lack of motivation on the part of the poor. My points are 1), that poverty is not the responsibility of the federal government to address, much less solve (that it is is a fairly new idea in this America, circa LBJ's War on Poverty in 1965) and 2) trying to solve poverty through the federal government ultimately does not work and is not sustainable.
I never said or implied that US never takes advantage of other nations. That's something we need to change, and only one presidential candidate is even talking about this; the others talk about ways to take more advantage of other countries.
We do strip resources, mostly on federal (not private) land.
We do environmental damage (again, mostly on resources that are the responsibility of government, not private owners).
I don't know what a "livable wage" is, but the only thing that should determine appropriate wage is supply and demand.
Of course greed is a motivation for human endeavor. If it wasn't for greed, no one would come to clean out your plugged up sewer drain. But as long as no one's rights are violated as a result of the greed-fueled endeavor, and all significant externalities are accounted for, that's a good thing.
RobertHurst
01-16-08, 07:19 PM
To set the record straight:
...
We do strip resources, mostly on federal (not private) land.
We do environmental damage (again, mostly on resources that are the responsibility of government, not private owners).
...
I get the feeling HH twists himself into libertarian pretzels that are nearly as severe as the cycling-related pretzels he twists himself into.
...
We do strip resources, mostly on federal (not private) land.
We do environmental damage (again, mostly on resources that are the responsibility of government, not private owners).
...
I get the feeling HH twists himself into libertarian pretzels that are nearly as severe as the cycling-related pretzels he twists himself into.
bmike
01-16-08, 07:41 PM
To set the record straight:
...snip...
The most enlightening post into HH's thinking and mindset I've seen yet.
...snip...
The most enlightening post into HH's thinking and mindset I've seen yet.
Helmet Head
01-16-08, 09:02 PM
I get the feeling HH twists himself into libertarian pretzels that are nearly as severe as the cycling-related pretzels he twists himself into.
I'll admit that I don't for sure that most of our stripped resources and environmental damage is mostly on federal land, and so I should not have said that so unequivocally, but I would not be surprised if it were true. At any rate, I don't deny that people damage the environment through economic activity, and regulating environmental damage, especially of public land and unowned resources (like air) is in the scope of what the government should be doing.
It should be noted that the free market has no monopoly on environmental damage and stripping - look at what government of the Soviet Union did.
I'll admit that I don't for sure that most of our stripped resources and environmental damage is mostly on federal land, and so I should not have said that so unequivocally, but I would not be surprised if it were true. At any rate, I don't deny that people damage the environment through economic activity, and regulating environmental damage, especially of public land and unowned resources (like air) is in the scope of what the government should be doing.
It should be noted that the free market has no monopoly on environmental damage and stripping - look at what government of the Soviet Union did.
buzzman
01-16-08, 09:24 PM
To set the record straight:
No one lacks basic health care.
New Study: 56 Million Americans Lack Access to Basic Medical Care
Lack of Access to Preventive Care Experienced Across Income, Race, Geography and Insurance Status
Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States.
I don't know of people dying of starvation in America who sought help and did not get it. But even if that is the case, that is not necessarily an indictment of our economic system.
On average, 23 percent of the requests for emergency food assistance are estimated to have gone unmet during the last year. For families alone, 18 percent of the requests for assistance are estimated to have gone unmet. In 26 percent of the cities, emergency food assistance facilities may have to turn away people in need due to lack of resources.
You're very cynical and unappreciative of how the real world works.
yeah, I am so out of touch.
It should be noted that the free market has no monopoly on environmental damage and stripping - look at what government of the Soviet Union did.
Ah, yes and when in doubt pull out the old 2 wrongs make a right argument. Smooth.:rolleyes:
No one lacks basic health care.
New Study: 56 Million Americans Lack Access to Basic Medical Care
Lack of Access to Preventive Care Experienced Across Income, Race, Geography and Insurance Status
Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States.
I don't know of people dying of starvation in America who sought help and did not get it. But even if that is the case, that is not necessarily an indictment of our economic system.
On average, 23 percent of the requests for emergency food assistance are estimated to have gone unmet during the last year. For families alone, 18 percent of the requests for assistance are estimated to have gone unmet. In 26 percent of the cities, emergency food assistance facilities may have to turn away people in need due to lack of resources.
You're very cynical and unappreciative of how the real world works.
yeah, I am so out of touch.
It should be noted that the free market has no monopoly on environmental damage and stripping - look at what government of the Soviet Union did.
Ah, yes and when in doubt pull out the old 2 wrongs make a right argument. Smooth.:rolleyes:
Helmet Head
01-16-08, 10:04 PM
Well if you equate "lacks basic health care" to mean "lacks insurance for health care", then of course millions "lack basic health care". So what? Since when does everyone have to have health insurance? Oh right. Since the "great society". :rolleyes:
Anyway, you wrote "lacks basic health care" in your diatribe against our free market system, and I think that that is a gross misrepresentation.
Let's just say that people did not make that claim about our system before socialized medicine (medicare/medicaid) was introduced in the 1960s. That's because even poor were able to obtain basic health care back then, one way or another, before socialistic bureaucracy shot the rates through the roof.
Anyway, you wrote "lacks basic health care" in your diatribe against our free market system, and I think that that is a gross misrepresentation.
Let's just say that people did not make that claim about our system before socialized medicine (medicare/medicaid) was introduced in the 1960s. That's because even poor were able to obtain basic health care back then, one way or another, before socialistic bureaucracy shot the rates through the roof.
Helmet Head
01-16-08, 10:05 PM
Ah, yes and when in doubt pull out the old 2 wrongs make a right argument. Smooth.:rolleyes:
I was not arguing 2 wrongs make a right.
Damaging the environment is not right no matter who does it. My point is that this is not inherent or exclusive to free markets. The fact that environment damage happens in a free market economic system is not an indictment of free markets.
I was not arguing 2 wrongs make a right.
Damaging the environment is not right no matter who does it. My point is that this is not inherent or exclusive to free markets. The fact that environment damage happens in a free market economic system is not an indictment of free markets.
buzzman
01-16-08, 10:59 PM
Well if you equate "lacks basic health care" to mean "lacks insurance for health care", then of course millions "lack basic health care". So what? Since when does everyone have to have health insurance? Oh right. Since the "great society". :rolleyes:
actually I don't equate them nor did the quote I posted. Read it again: the first quote from the Graham Policy study says, "56 Million Americans Lack Access to Basic Medical Care " regardless of economic backgrounds, geography, race and health insurance status.
And I stand by my indictment of a system that leaves 56 million citizens without "basic medical (health) care". I don't see how that's a gross misrepresentation of anything.
the second quote simply points out that lack of health insurance results in 18,000 deaths per year. But as you say, "So what? Since when does everyone have to have health insurance?" i guess so long as you, or someone that matters to you, is not one of the 18,000 then, "So what?"
In any case, back to the topic at hand, which is (or was) urban planning and motoring. I think what is revealed by your posts is a reluctance to simply recognize or admit to problems within social infrastructures. How can we even debate the solutions if we can't even agree what the problems are or that the problems even exist. I see this same dilemma in attempting to dialogue with you about cycling.
For example to borrow from another thread (The Battle for Britain's Roads). The OP suggests readers watch the video, which highlights the road rage phenomenon in Britain's cities between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.
There is obviously something seriously wrong with the existing system of ground transportation. But you offer, yet again, the same panacea:
I've seen reports from vehicular cyclists all over the USA who maintain that vehicular cycling is not only possible, but quite effective...
do you really think that alone will solve all the issues outlined in the video? Did you even watch the video in it's entirety before you posted that? It seems so out of touch with the realities so clearly articulated in the video.
actually I don't equate them nor did the quote I posted. Read it again: the first quote from the Graham Policy study says, "56 Million Americans Lack Access to Basic Medical Care " regardless of economic backgrounds, geography, race and health insurance status.
And I stand by my indictment of a system that leaves 56 million citizens without "basic medical (health) care". I don't see how that's a gross misrepresentation of anything.
the second quote simply points out that lack of health insurance results in 18,000 deaths per year. But as you say, "So what? Since when does everyone have to have health insurance?" i guess so long as you, or someone that matters to you, is not one of the 18,000 then, "So what?"
In any case, back to the topic at hand, which is (or was) urban planning and motoring. I think what is revealed by your posts is a reluctance to simply recognize or admit to problems within social infrastructures. How can we even debate the solutions if we can't even agree what the problems are or that the problems even exist. I see this same dilemma in attempting to dialogue with you about cycling.
For example to borrow from another thread (The Battle for Britain's Roads). The OP suggests readers watch the video, which highlights the road rage phenomenon in Britain's cities between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.
There is obviously something seriously wrong with the existing system of ground transportation. But you offer, yet again, the same panacea:
I've seen reports from vehicular cyclists all over the USA who maintain that vehicular cycling is not only possible, but quite effective...
do you really think that alone will solve all the issues outlined in the video? Did you even watch the video in it's entirety before you posted that? It seems so out of touch with the realities so clearly articulated in the video.
bmike
01-17-08, 07:01 AM
I've seen reports from vehicular cyclists all over the USA who maintain that vehicular cycling is not only possible, but quite effective...
Wow. There's a title of a book in there somewhere. Or a movement.
Let me see if I can put it together.
I guess when you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Wow. There's a title of a book in there somewhere. Or a movement.
Let me see if I can put it together.
I guess when you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Helmet Head
01-17-08, 09:32 AM
actually I don't equate them nor did the quote I posted. Read it again: the first quote from the Graham Policy study says, "56 Million Americans Lack Access to Basic Medical Care " regardless of economic backgrounds, geography, race and health insurance status.
And I stand by my indictment of a system that leaves 56 million citizens without "basic medical (health) care". I don't see how that's a gross misrepresentation of anything.
You're right. I just found that study (http://www.graham-center.org/x858.xml). "Most Americans who don’t have access to a primary health care source actually do have health insurance." I didn't realize it had already gotten that bad. But I'm not surprised. After four decades of government tinkering in the health care market, this is quite predictable, and is straight out of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", as is the prediction of the proposed "solution": even more government meddling in the market. Mark my words, if we expand government involvement in health care (i.e., pass something like "universal health care"), then 10 years from now we'll have queues not only for "primary health care", but for serious surgery too. And more people will be dying due to a lack of health care. And the socialists will still be blaming the free market, profits and greed. And remember, unlike the Canadians, we won't have an Uncle Sam to bail us out south of our border.
the second quote simply points out that lack of health insurance results in 18,000 deaths per year. But as you say, "So what? Since when does everyone have to have health insurance?" i guess so long as you, or someone that matters to you, is not one of the 18,000 then, "So what?"
Yes, now that we're at this point, people are dying because they don't have insurance.
But the deeper question is how did our system get to a point where health care costs are so high that insurance is required in order to survive? The simplistic answer is "high profits" and "greed". But in a free market, not only high profits, but the mere anticipation of high profits attract competition and more supply, which drives down profits, prices and costs. But the health industry is now so corrupted with government subsidies and regulation, that these natural adjustments are not occurring. Doctors are sick of it and retiring early. Locked-in insurance carriers are loving the life of their government-protected monopoly status and associated high profits. The barriers to enter the market for new insurance carriers are too high. Etc. etc. When I was a kid in the 60s, the doctors still made house calls, in their Porsches. And if it was no big deal, or you were too poor, they did their work pro bono. They worked out payment plans, and families got together to help pay in catastrophic situations. And if you wanted insurance, it was reasonably priced. Since the mid 1960s the free aspect of our health care market has been diminished, and the natural free market mechanisms are no longer working, and of course the costs are going up. Way up. And yet everyone is clambering for more regulation and subsidies from Washington. It's insane.
In any case, back to the topic at hand, which is (or was) urban planning and motoring. I think what is revealed by your posts is a reluctance to simply recognize or admit to problems within social infrastructures.
What problems have I been reluctant to recognize or admit?
How can we even debate the solutions if we can't even agree what the problems are or that the problems even exist. I see this same dilemma in attempting to dialogue with you about cycling.
Well, we can certainly agree that identifying and agreeing on what the problems are is the first step.
For example to borrow from another thread (The Battle for Britain's Roads). The OP suggests readers watch the video, which highlights the road rage phenomenon in Britain's cities between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.
There is obviously something seriously wrong with the existing system of ground transportation. But you offer, yet again, the same panacea:
I've seen reports from vehicular cyclists all over the USA who maintain that vehicular cycling is not only possible, but quite effective...
do you really think that alone will solve all the issues outlined in the video? Did you even watch the video in it's entirety before you posted that? It seems so out of touch with the realities so clearly articulated in the video.
You're taking my words out of context. Yes, it was made in the context of that thread with that video referenced in the OP, but I was responding to a specific statement made in a post in the thread by someone who said vehicular cycling does not work in the U.S. - his assertion did not depend on the video at all. Frankly, I haven't watched the video yet, so I can't answer your question. But I'll watch it and then post my thoughts, including an answer to this, in that thread.
And I stand by my indictment of a system that leaves 56 million citizens without "basic medical (health) care". I don't see how that's a gross misrepresentation of anything.
You're right. I just found that study (http://www.graham-center.org/x858.xml). "Most Americans who don’t have access to a primary health care source actually do have health insurance." I didn't realize it had already gotten that bad. But I'm not surprised. After four decades of government tinkering in the health care market, this is quite predictable, and is straight out of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", as is the prediction of the proposed "solution": even more government meddling in the market. Mark my words, if we expand government involvement in health care (i.e., pass something like "universal health care"), then 10 years from now we'll have queues not only for "primary health care", but for serious surgery too. And more people will be dying due to a lack of health care. And the socialists will still be blaming the free market, profits and greed. And remember, unlike the Canadians, we won't have an Uncle Sam to bail us out south of our border.
the second quote simply points out that lack of health insurance results in 18,000 deaths per year. But as you say, "So what? Since when does everyone have to have health insurance?" i guess so long as you, or someone that matters to you, is not one of the 18,000 then, "So what?"
Yes, now that we're at this point, people are dying because they don't have insurance.
But the deeper question is how did our system get to a point where health care costs are so high that insurance is required in order to survive? The simplistic answer is "high profits" and "greed". But in a free market, not only high profits, but the mere anticipation of high profits attract competition and more supply, which drives down profits, prices and costs. But the health industry is now so corrupted with government subsidies and regulation, that these natural adjustments are not occurring. Doctors are sick of it and retiring early. Locked-in insurance carriers are loving the life of their government-protected monopoly status and associated high profits. The barriers to enter the market for new insurance carriers are too high. Etc. etc. When I was a kid in the 60s, the doctors still made house calls, in their Porsches. And if it was no big deal, or you were too poor, they did their work pro bono. They worked out payment plans, and families got together to help pay in catastrophic situations. And if you wanted insurance, it was reasonably priced. Since the mid 1960s the free aspect of our health care market has been diminished, and the natural free market mechanisms are no longer working, and of course the costs are going up. Way up. And yet everyone is clambering for more regulation and subsidies from Washington. It's insane.
In any case, back to the topic at hand, which is (or was) urban planning and motoring. I think what is revealed by your posts is a reluctance to simply recognize or admit to problems within social infrastructures.
What problems have I been reluctant to recognize or admit?
How can we even debate the solutions if we can't even agree what the problems are or that the problems even exist. I see this same dilemma in attempting to dialogue with you about cycling.
Well, we can certainly agree that identifying and agreeing on what the problems are is the first step.
For example to borrow from another thread (The Battle for Britain's Roads). The OP suggests readers watch the video, which highlights the road rage phenomenon in Britain's cities between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.
There is obviously something seriously wrong with the existing system of ground transportation. But you offer, yet again, the same panacea:
I've seen reports from vehicular cyclists all over the USA who maintain that vehicular cycling is not only possible, but quite effective...
do you really think that alone will solve all the issues outlined in the video? Did you even watch the video in it's entirety before you posted that? It seems so out of touch with the realities so clearly articulated in the video.
You're taking my words out of context. Yes, it was made in the context of that thread with that video referenced in the OP, but I was responding to a specific statement made in a post in the thread by someone who said vehicular cycling does not work in the U.S. - his assertion did not depend on the video at all. Frankly, I haven't watched the video yet, so I can't answer your question. But I'll watch it and then post my thoughts, including an answer to this, in that thread.
RobertHurst
01-17-08, 09:40 AM
I was not arguing 2 wrongs make a right.
Damaging the environment is not right no matter who does it. My point is that this is not inherent or exclusive to free markets. The fact that environment damage happens in a free market economic system is not an indictment of free markets.
Our economic system has more in common with the USSR's than with some mythical 'free market' that you keep talking about.
Damaging the environment is not right no matter who does it. My point is that this is not inherent or exclusive to free markets. The fact that environment damage happens in a free market economic system is not an indictment of free markets.
Our economic system has more in common with the USSR's than with some mythical 'free market' that you keep talking about.
Helmet Head
01-17-08, 10:01 AM
Our economic system has more in common with the USSR's than with some mythical 'free market' that you keep talking about.
That's my point, Robert. So when someone criticizes our economic system, they're more likely referring to a problem whose root cause is statism (including overregulation that interferes with natural free market forces that work to balance people's varying preferences and values as efficiently as possible), but what they complain about is lack of regulation and "too high" profits.
That's my point, Robert. So when someone criticizes our economic system, they're more likely referring to a problem whose root cause is statism (including overregulation that interferes with natural free market forces that work to balance people's varying preferences and values as efficiently as possible), but what they complain about is lack of regulation and "too high" profits.
Bekologist
01-17-08, 12:14 PM
oh, brother.
RobertHurst
01-17-08, 12:38 PM
That's my point, Robert. So when someone criticizes our economic system, they're more likely referring to a problem whose root cause is statism (including overregulation that interferes with natural free market forces that work to balance people's varying preferences and values as efficiently as possible), but what they complain about is lack of regulation and "too high" profits.
So where are these 'natural free market forces' that you talk about? If there is no system that is 'natural free market' and none has ever existed, how do you know how these forces will work or what they will achieve as if by magic?
So where are these 'natural free market forces' that you talk about? If there is no system that is 'natural free market' and none has ever existed, how do you know how these forces will work or what they will achieve as if by magic?
Helmet Head
01-17-08, 12:46 PM
So where are these 'natural free market forces' that you talk about? If there is no system that is 'natural free market' and none has ever existed, how do you know how these forces will work or what they will achieve as if by magic?
The natural forces are similar to gravity and to the "invisible hand" of natural selection in evolution. You can't see it or feel it, but the evidence of its presence, as if by magic, is overwhelming.
By "natural free market" all I mean is people freely engaging in consensual exchange of goods and services. That this is regulated to some extent (primarily to inhibit behavior that violates the rights of others, and to address externalities, like air pollution) does not eliminate the fact of its existence any more than regulation of dog breeding eliminates the fact that dogs naturally evolve.
The natural forces are similar to gravity and to the "invisible hand" of natural selection in evolution. You can't see it or feel it, but the evidence of its presence, as if by magic, is overwhelming.
By "natural free market" all I mean is people freely engaging in consensual exchange of goods and services. That this is regulated to some extent (primarily to inhibit behavior that violates the rights of others, and to address externalities, like air pollution) does not eliminate the fact of its existence any more than regulation of dog breeding eliminates the fact that dogs naturally evolve.
Roody
01-17-08, 01:38 PM
I was not arguing 2 wrongs make a right.
Damaging the environment is not right no matter who does it. My point is that this is not inherent or exclusive to free markets. The fact that environment damage happens in a free market economic system is not an indictment of free markets.
The total inability of a free market system to control pollution clearly is an indictment of free markets. Putting a price on external costs will never be accomplished by free markets. That's what governments are for.
Damaging the environment is not right no matter who does it. My point is that this is not inherent or exclusive to free markets. The fact that environment damage happens in a free market economic system is not an indictment of free markets.
The total inability of a free market system to control pollution clearly is an indictment of free markets. Putting a price on external costs will never be accomplished by free markets. That's what governments are for.
invisiblehand
01-17-08, 01:39 PM
So where are these 'natural free market forces' that you talk about? If there is no system that is 'natural free market' and none has ever existed, how do you know how these forces will work or what they will achieve as if by magic?
Following the vein of questions, how do you know if anything works without a completely pure example of what your talking about? For instance, there is a lot of discussion regarding a the effect of bike lanes, WOLs, people taking the lane, bicycle parking, and so on without really controlling for differences in geography, people, lifestyle patterns, and so on. However, we all discuss our strategies and suggestions for cycling and cycling advocacy by extrapolating our own experiences or interpretation of empirical observations from one location to another such as the experiences in Copenhagen to the US. We are effectively using such observations to model behavior. If our model is a good one, then our prediction or generalization will be effective.
Similarly, when we discuss economic and social policies there is a similar process going on. What is it about a particular society or market that makes it similar/dissimilar to the theoretical laisez faire society? If we observe markets that vary in the set characteristics that define a perfect market -- perfect information, zero transaction costs, sellers and buyer with no individual market power, and so on -- then we make inferences regarding their marginal effects on the topic of interest. Clearly no such market exists. However, when we look at these characteristics on the continuous scale, there are markets where the conditions closely resemble them and we can compare outcomes to make more general inferences about how people behave/markets work.
Anyway, I agree that placing a lot of certainty on theoretical outcomes is somewhat silly ... unless the outcomes themselves are quite broad. There are a lot of conditions for a free market that can vary independently of each other. Hence we can look at the USA and USSR and conclude that the USA has more of a free market since chances are we share some set of values. But that there is an implicit projection of something multidimensional to a single dimension when we make that comparison.
Ohhhhhhh blah blah blah ... it is hard to believe how far we have gone. Then again, we are talking about urban planning under which there is often a trade off between individual and group rights.
Following the vein of questions, how do you know if anything works without a completely pure example of what your talking about? For instance, there is a lot of discussion regarding a the effect of bike lanes, WOLs, people taking the lane, bicycle parking, and so on without really controlling for differences in geography, people, lifestyle patterns, and so on. However, we all discuss our strategies and suggestions for cycling and cycling advocacy by extrapolating our own experiences or interpretation of empirical observations from one location to another such as the experiences in Copenhagen to the US. We are effectively using such observations to model behavior. If our model is a good one, then our prediction or generalization will be effective.
Similarly, when we discuss economic and social policies there is a similar process going on. What is it about a particular society or market that makes it similar/dissimilar to the theoretical laisez faire society? If we observe markets that vary in the set characteristics that define a perfect market -- perfect information, zero transaction costs, sellers and buyer with no individual market power, and so on -- then we make inferences regarding their marginal effects on the topic of interest. Clearly no such market exists. However, when we look at these characteristics on the continuous scale, there are markets where the conditions closely resemble them and we can compare outcomes to make more general inferences about how people behave/markets work.
Anyway, I agree that placing a lot of certainty on theoretical outcomes is somewhat silly ... unless the outcomes themselves are quite broad. There are a lot of conditions for a free market that can vary independently of each other. Hence we can look at the USA and USSR and conclude that the USA has more of a free market since chances are we share some set of values. But that there is an implicit projection of something multidimensional to a single dimension when we make that comparison.
Ohhhhhhh blah blah blah ... it is hard to believe how far we have gone. Then again, we are talking about urban planning under which there is often a trade off between individual and group rights.
Roody
01-17-08, 01:46 PM
The natural forces are similar to gravity and to the "invisible hand" of natural selection in evolution. You can't see it or feel it, but the evidence of its presence, as if by magic, is overwhelming.
By "natural free market" all I mean is people freely engaging in consensual exchange of goods and services. That this is regulated to some extent (primarily to inhibit behavior that violates the rights of others, and to address externalities, like air pollution) does not eliminate the fact of its existence any more than regulation of dog breeding eliminates the fact that dogs naturally evolve.
Your dream of free markets is every bit as utopian as the extreme statism tried by Soviet systems. The fact that free markets, by your own admission, have never existed is proof of their impracticality. That analogy of the breadwinner is totally ignorant of modern biological and psychological views of evolution, which support the notion that humans and other organisms naturally form cooperative associations, both among themselves and with other species. The cutthroat beliefs of libertarianism are naive throwbacks to simpler intellectual times.
By "natural free market" all I mean is people freely engaging in consensual exchange of goods and services. That this is regulated to some extent (primarily to inhibit behavior that violates the rights of others, and to address externalities, like air pollution) does not eliminate the fact of its existence any more than regulation of dog breeding eliminates the fact that dogs naturally evolve.
Your dream of free markets is every bit as utopian as the extreme statism tried by Soviet systems. The fact that free markets, by your own admission, have never existed is proof of their impracticality. That analogy of the breadwinner is totally ignorant of modern biological and psychological views of evolution, which support the notion that humans and other organisms naturally form cooperative associations, both among themselves and with other species. The cutthroat beliefs of libertarianism are naive throwbacks to simpler intellectual times.
Helmet Head
01-17-08, 02:53 PM
Your dream of free markets is every bit as utopian as the extreme statism tried by Soviet systems. The fact that free markets, by your own admission, have never existed is proof of their impracticality. That analogy of the breadwinner is totally ignorant of modern biological and psychological views of evolution, which support the notion that humans and other organisms naturally form cooperative associations, both among themselves and with other species. The cutthroat beliefs of libertarianism are naive throwbacks to simpler intellectual times.
I never said free markets don't exist. They do exist, and are quite practical. An interesting example of a free market is that which the Soviet Union had - the illegal underground black market that used greenbacks in the trade of jeans, cameras, lipstick and other goods from the west. Another example is the underground barter markets in Sweden and Denmark, where people pay to have work done on their homes in exchange for works of art, in order to avoid taxable money payment exchanges.
I disagree with the notion that any or some regulation necessarily makes markets less free. To the contrary, to the extent that the regulation is only there to inhibit behavior that violates the rights of others, it makes the market more free. A market controlled by armed bandits who take what they will at the force of a gun is hardly a free market.
The fact that you are free to apply for a job at countless places, then you are free to buy or sell just about anything you want on Amazon, ebay or craigslist (not to mention all the local brick and mortar options), coupled with a legal justice system that makes murder, theft, and fraud illegal, is what makes our system a free market. Is it perfect? Of course not. There is no utopia in reality.
I agree with what you say about the breadwinner analogy. It was not my example - I just turned it around.
I disagree with your depiction of libertarianism free markets as cutthroat. There is that aspect, to be sure, but by and large cooperation is the hallmark characteristic. This reminds me of our traffic discussions on this forum. While certainly there are the ahole exceptions, for the most part interactions in traffic are cooperative. Same with free markets, and for much the exact same reasons. It's a mistake to discount the value of vehicular traffic principles and rules simply because there is the occasional ahole exception. Similarly, it's a mistake to discount the value of free markets simply because there is the occasional ahole exception.
I never said free markets don't exist. They do exist, and are quite practical. An interesting example of a free market is that which the Soviet Union had - the illegal underground black market that used greenbacks in the trade of jeans, cameras, lipstick and other goods from the west. Another example is the underground barter markets in Sweden and Denmark, where people pay to have work done on their homes in exchange for works of art, in order to avoid taxable money payment exchanges.
I disagree with the notion that any or some regulation necessarily makes markets less free. To the contrary, to the extent that the regulation is only there to inhibit behavior that violates the rights of others, it makes the market more free. A market controlled by armed bandits who take what they will at the force of a gun is hardly a free market.
The fact that you are free to apply for a job at countless places, then you are free to buy or sell just about anything you want on Amazon, ebay or craigslist (not to mention all the local brick and mortar options), coupled with a legal justice system that makes murder, theft, and fraud illegal, is what makes our system a free market. Is it perfect? Of course not. There is no utopia in reality.
I agree with what you say about the breadwinner analogy. It was not my example - I just turned it around.
I disagree with your depiction of libertarianism free markets as cutthroat. There is that aspect, to be sure, but by and large cooperation is the hallmark characteristic. This reminds me of our traffic discussions on this forum. While certainly there are the ahole exceptions, for the most part interactions in traffic are cooperative. Same with free markets, and for much the exact same reasons. It's a mistake to discount the value of vehicular traffic principles and rules simply because there is the occasional ahole exception. Similarly, it's a mistake to discount the value of free markets simply because there is the occasional ahole exception.
Helmet Head
01-17-08, 03:04 PM
The total inability of a free market system to control pollution clearly is an indictment of free markets.
The free market system is based on the premise that all resources are owned and cared for by their owners. This is not the case with air, most bodies of water and large pieces of land. So of course we need top-down authoritarian solutions there. But it is not an indictment of free markets outside of the context where externalities are a significant factor.
Putting a price on external costs will never be accomplished by free markets. That's what governments are for.
I believe the solution is ultimately probably some kind of compromise. Of course free markets alone will not put a price on unowned costs, so there is obviously some role for government there. But I think that role is to incorporate the external costs into the equation somehow, rather than just regulate behavior by fiat. But, until if and when that ever gets worked out, top-down authoritarian solutions are our only solutions.
The free market system is based on the premise that all resources are owned and cared for by their owners. This is not the case with air, most bodies of water and large pieces of land. So of course we need top-down authoritarian solutions there. But it is not an indictment of free markets outside of the context where externalities are a significant factor.
Putting a price on external costs will never be accomplished by free markets. That's what governments are for.
I believe the solution is ultimately probably some kind of compromise. Of course free markets alone will not put a price on unowned costs, so there is obviously some role for government there. But I think that role is to incorporate the external costs into the equation somehow, rather than just regulate behavior by fiat. But, until if and when that ever gets worked out, top-down authoritarian solutions are our only solutions.
Allister
01-17-08, 04:24 PM
The natural forces are similar to gravity and to the "invisible hand" of natural selection in evolution. You can't see it or feel it, but the evidence of its presence, as if by magic, is overwhelming.
Well I'm glad we cleared that up. Maybe David Copperfield should be President.
Well I'm glad we cleared that up. Maybe David Copperfield should be President.
makeinu
01-17-08, 05:16 PM
Now, now, boys, you're starting to bore me. The beginning of this thread hit close to home and was so terribly interesting because:
1. As long as I can remember my Grandmother has cursed Robert Moses for taking her house in Brooklyn. She's almost 100 now and still curses him.
2. I grew up about a 1.5 mile bike ride from one of Robert Moses' pinnacle achievements: Jones Beach State Park, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
3. I currently live about 1/10th of a mile from the Franklin-Mulberry "parkway" in Baltimore. In fact, I merge with the traffic coming off it on my commute every day.
In the poll I chose "Not sure".
1. As long as I can remember my Grandmother has cursed Robert Moses for taking her house in Brooklyn. She's almost 100 now and still curses him.
2. I grew up about a 1.5 mile bike ride from one of Robert Moses' pinnacle achievements: Jones Beach State Park, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
3. I currently live about 1/10th of a mile from the Franklin-Mulberry "parkway" in Baltimore. In fact, I merge with the traffic coming off it on my commute every day.
In the poll I chose "Not sure".
invisiblehand
01-17-08, 08:51 PM
Now, now, boys, you're starting to bore me. The beginning of this thread hit close to home and was so terribly interesting because:
1. As long as I can remember my Grandmother has cursed Robert Moses for taking her house in Brooklyn. She's almost 100 now and still curses him.
2. I grew up about a 1.5 mile bike ride from one of Robert Moses' pinnacle achievements: Jones Beach State Park, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
3. I currently live about 1/10th of a mile from the Franklin-Mulberry "parkway" in Baltimore. In fact, I merge with the traffic coming off it on my commute every day.
In the poll I chose "Not sure".
:D Not surprising since I am a boring guy. :D
Although remarkably, my old teaching evaluations were not bad.
1. As long as I can remember my Grandmother has cursed Robert Moses for taking her house in Brooklyn. She's almost 100 now and still curses him.
2. I grew up about a 1.5 mile bike ride from one of Robert Moses' pinnacle achievements: Jones Beach State Park, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
3. I currently live about 1/10th of a mile from the Franklin-Mulberry "parkway" in Baltimore. In fact, I merge with the traffic coming off it on my commute every day.
In the poll I chose "Not sure".
:D Not surprising since I am a boring guy. :D
Although remarkably, my old teaching evaluations were not bad.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.