Anonymous asked: Is there any social safety net you do believe in? Yea Obamacare sucks, but if noone paid $200 for that advil, would the drug companies make enough to create the next drug? Where's the enhanced profit to pay for R&D? Why does it cost so much more for an MRI here vs abroad? Or medical school in general? Absent Defense, and maybe not even that, is there anything you believe the government should be involved in?
Social Security if the worst ponzi scheme in human history (besides the dollar, but that’s one long and complex story for another time). I don’t know much about Medicare or Medicaid, I just know that we keep having to reform it because it always on the brink of going broke. Sounds like a real winner.
I don’t know if there is anything I support to be run by the gov’t. Not saying that government was never necessary or that it hasn’t done any good. I just think that we’ve come to the point that there are too many people, access to information is much better with the internet and wireless communication and that people are ready (ready enough) to evolve passed this idea of government.
Yes, people would come up with an advil, even if they couldn’t charge $200 for it. People create things without having “money” as a motivator all the time. But there is always an incentive. Doesn’t have to be profit. It could be that they have a need to fill or they just like creating, but there’s always an incentive. But for many, it is money. Not solely, but mainly.
You’re also right to say that $200 for an advil is the market rate and the market always finds the most efficient price. Yes, I’d agree with that, but it’s not an efficient market, there are certain artificial prices floors and inflators. So while $200 is the market rate given the market conditions, I think that we can fix the conditions.
Most of the R&D costs in this country have to do with gov’t regulations and trials and retrials and all of the costs that are tied up in there. Those same costs don’t exist around the world and you can find many drugs in markets (legal, as well) outside of America that aren’t legal here. Not because they’re ruled illegal, but because they haven’t passed the approval process yet.
Then there’s the issue of such his litigation costs for both doctors and pharma. But that’s also a different story. We are a litigious culture, and I know you’re a lawyer and you might not agree, but high volume of laws and suits is a death spell for a country. We’re eating ourselves from the inside out in many industries.
The craziest part about the cost of procedures in this country is that other countries have to import machines and operators from western countries, like America and they still cost less over there. Why is that? I don’t really know but if I had to guess, I’d say the admin (insurance) costs, legal costs and the abuse of services since people don’t directly pay for an MRI. If you only think the cost of the MRI to you is the $50 co-pay, how much more likely are you to force your way into a machine for your knee pain? What if you knew that it would cost you $50 co-pay and premiums would go up $10/month for the rest of your life? We don’t EVER calculate for that second cost. In many ways, this cost being hidden makes people more willing to get care but in many more ways, it adds to the total cost of the system and we all end up paying for that system. A side note: I was just doing research for a business proposal about imaging costs; it costs about $100 for an MRI in Eastern Europe/Russia (without insurance!)
Medical school is expensive because it can be. It’s a highly specialized school with years and years of education and training and there’s a very limited number of positions. The real question should be “Why is medical school as cheap as a Law degree or a Masters in Business?” A 3rd tangent topic is how big of a scam 3 years of law school is. It’s probably a big driver in increased medical costs. All there lawyers with very few corporate jobs waiting for them. What’s the best place to go? Personal injury. No offense to all my PI attorneys, but the abuse in this sector is rampant and disgusting. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Every time you promise a client a payout, you’re fucking the entire system, including your client.
What should the gov’t be involved in? Not sure. I know that we can scale it back. Way back. Get them out of a lot of industry. Maybe we can just leave them to run the courts and postal service and make those services self-sufficient. Perhaps some form of military which scales down every year until it’s not there anymore. Private courts are very possible as is mitigation. The postal service won’t last, I like to just see it try mainly because their failure would be funny and their survival would be cool to see.
But obviously none of this can just happen overnight. Anyone who thinks so is silly. Got to peel back the layers of the onion. But eventually, I don’t think there should be anything run by a gov’t unless it’s agreed upon by 100% of the people who fund it.
Voting should go digital. We should be informed of every single issue and vote on it via some sort of web access. You don’t have to vote, but if you do, you also have to pay for the services you vote for. e.g. you want trash service and I don’t. You vote yes, I vote no. For everyone that voted yes, a second tax notice is served and you see what the cost is. You either accept it (that’s your final YES vote) and you pay that fee or you say NO (if you said NO the first time, you’re left alone, you don’t pay for it and you don’t get garbage collection from the city). It’s pretty simple.
Same with voting for war. You vote YES, you get a bill AND you have to serve. You want war, cool. I don’t. You can pay for it and fight it and give your life for it.
If it’s anything worth paying for people will pay for it and if it’s useless, people won’t. This way you only get the services you want and you only pay “tax” on services you want/need/use. If you want to use the roads, you pay the fee, get a pass and you can drive. If you don’t have the pass, you can’t get on the roads. If you’re caught on a paid road without a license, you’re kicked off and they can impound your property and use it as payment for your usage because you’re trespassing.
This way no majority can force a minority into paying for anything. It’s no longer rule by majority. It’s rule by individuals for individuals. 200+ years ago, we didn’t have the technology for this and a democratic republic was the best option. Today, we do, yet we refuse to evolve our culture and adapt technology to make life better for everyone.
This was way too long. i apologize.
Whoever sent me the anon ask with the Kardashians reference, I’ll answer you in private but I don’t want to post the answer to that ask in public.
If you don’t care, that’s cool too.
openourminds-deactivated2013022 asked: i'm sorry. you know everything. even the potential outcomes of anything. but you're right; there is no want to end the grasp on the fed from the outside. if there is, they can send us whirling down depression like the did post JFK... duh.. hence obama not passing the trillion dollar coin. had he, your fear of leveraging the FED more would have been far from reality for if that were true it would be a lot less opposed. if THE coin did so: it would have passed under obama. but he doesn'thave balls
I never said I know everything.
But I do know that creating a fiat asset out of thin air in order to use it as leverage to borrow more of a fiat currency from a private bank is no way of ending the stronghold of that bank.
It’s the equivalent of needing more money from your bank so you forge a paper that says you own China and taking that to the bank as an asset to secure a loan against. You don’t actually own China, just like THE Coin wouldn’t actually have a trillion dollars worth of assets behind it. If the US Government actually had a trillion dollars worth of assets, they would just use them and not have to mint a stupid coin in the first place.
The entire reason we need to mint THE Coin is because we are going to hit the debt ceiling and the House might not allow the Federal Gov’t to borrow anymore money so since it can’t borrow anymore, it will just invent it’s own money, because it has the power to still mint certain forms of currency like a platinum coin, and then it will send that coin to the Federal Reserve as a deposit so that it can write out checks.
I don’t understand why this much is hard to understand and where you’re getting the ridiculous idea that minting THE Coin would be the start of ending the Fed. It would not be. Not in any way, shape or form. We would use THE Coin as a deposit with the Federal Reserve bank.
Here’s the grim reality: We (The Federal Gov’t) have already spent money. We are now being invoiced for our expenditures. The problem is that we are flush out of cash. We need to borrow more to pay for what we’ve already consumed. The problem is that the House, the arm of government that must approve all spending, won’t let us use the credit card anymore (borrowing) by not increasing the debt ceiling. So we have one of two choices, find another way to pay for these items or default on the debt. So Obama can, in theory, ask the Treasury, who he personally appoints the director of, to help him out and go around the House and the legislation.
This is like going to a restaurant with your wife, ordering all sorts of things you aren’t going to eat and then when the check comes, you have no cash in your pocket to pay for it. In fact, you have no money at all, your bank accounts all read zero and you don’t even have a single red cent in your couch cushions. So, you now have to ask your wife, who has all the family credit cards, to hand one over, but even these are maxed out because you’ve been spending like crazy. So you ask her to call and ask for a higher spending limit and she says ‘no way’.
But you have to pay for the dinner some how, right? And you’re running out of options. So you ask your son to help you out, and he will, because you pay his allowance and he’s on your side. So your son fabricates a deed for an item you don’t actually own and uses it to borrow money from the bank and gives it to you to pay for dinner.
Well, that’s exactly where this country is right now. We already ordered and ate our dinner but we haven’t paid for it yet and we probably can’t unless we either have our wives get another credit card or invent another fiat asset.
So, in short, no, the trillion dollar coin is a stupid idea but so is a debt ceiling when dealing with a fiat currency and so is dealing with a fiat currency when you have zero fiscal responsibility or recourse.
In other words, the whole system is bullshit and the possibility of THE Coin being a real thing proves it.
openourminds-deactivated2013022 asked: LOL. no the coin doesn't have to be a trillion dollars. just like the FED loaning $ doesn't have to be backed by any standard. just a few keyboard crunches. the coin would be issued to PAY THE BANKS BACK with money we create out of thin aoir just as they do. it's playing their game back at them. we pay our debt back, issue a real SOVEREIGN MONETARY SYSTEM and the banks don't twist our arm like after JFK did the same. a trillion dollar coin with real value? LOL. you're too into the head space.
You’re right, the coin doesn’t have to contain a trillion dollars worth of platinum (or even be backed by a trillion dollars worth of platinum or anything for that matter). But, you would essentially be creating another fiat currency if it wasn’t backed by anything.
I also think you’re very confused by who wants and benefits from the Federal Reserve and a fiat currency system with valuation based solely on confidence. The Federal Government does not want to end the relationship with the Federal Reserve. The Reserve helps debt disappear and gives the government endless money to spend while the government lets the Federal Reserve leech off profits via the taxation arm of the government all while the government protects the value of that currency through the military arm of the state.
So, no, THE Coin isn’t trying to End the Fed, it’s giving it more power. We aren’t trying to “pay our debt back” with THE Coin, we are trying to borrow even more money by using THE Coin as leverage to obtain more Federal Reserve notes.
GO ON ANON AND ASK ME THE MOST AWKWARD QUESTION YOU CAN THINK OF. IF I CAN’T PUBLISH IT, YOU WIN.
I got hundreds of followers but zero asks. Why?
What would you rather have?
Safety through enslavement or the dangers of liberty?
Anonymous asked: Sup Coach, I'm the guy who sent you a message last time asking about my ECON paper. Again, do you have any example social science papers that I could follow? I saw your post with the MEME and decided not to respond, but it looks like I still need your help. The goal of the paper is to show that I understand the technical models (AD/AS/Loanable Funds/Planned Investments/etc.) using macroeconomic domestic and/or international issues in the past 6 months.
I’m not sure what, exactly, you’re looking for (what you’re asking for is pretty broad is that’s why it’s an entire class and not a blog post).
How much time do you have? Read Economics in One Lesson and Human Action.
My Inbox Messages
Heads up, if you send me a message, anon or otherwise, I will always answer it privately unless you ask me specifically to keep it private.
freemarketliberal asked: Prices are sticky. Wages are sticky. Moms are sticky. Everything's sticky.
I agree and that’s why Quantity Theory of Money fails, at least in the short term. Prices react to money supply but that reaction time varies and isn’t (always) instantaneous, this is why monetary inflation and price inflation can exist individually and aren’t economic singularity like rknjl says they are.
missnorris asked: can you provide some links/texts/authors on your topic in the Democracy Fails Again post? Would love to read more. Interesting and devastating topic/reality.
Sure, what exactly would you like to get information on? Numbers behind my stats? More righting on the failure of our democratic system?
For now, here is a video on how our single-vote democracy will always have us selecting the “lesser of two evils” from a two party system:
Anonymous asked: thoughts on states trying to "secede"
First, let’s clarify. I don’t think states are trying to secede, I think the citizens of those states are PETITIONING to secede. Big difference.
But for the sake of this post, clump it all together and say that the States are trying to secede.
The United States of America is bound together by the ratification of the US Constitution as the doctrine that “Unites” all the states into a single Union where the Constitution grants the Federal Gov’t certain rights, lays out a list of human rights that all 50 states agree to protect, denies states some powers and then allows states to do whatever the Federal Gov’t wasn’t permitted to do and whatever the States weren’t prevented from doing under the US Constitution.
But, these states still exist on their own as 50 Nation States and the Constitution is a legally binding contract between them and the Federal Government.
Being a legal contract, if the States/People believe that there are performance issues by the Federal Government, they can ask for a remedy to the situation. Remedies include damages, specific performance and other remedies (which I’ll get to in a second).
The idea of Nullification was also introduced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as a means to combat the unjust laws created by the Federal Government and applied to the states. The theory stands on the grounds that since the binding document between the State and Fed is a legal contract, no new clause or requirement can be introduced by one party without the approval of the other party or parties.
For example, if you sign a contract to buy 100 apples a month from me. I can’t, ex post facto, also make you buy 50 oranges a month with that order and then require you to do so or lose your apple contract. We never agreed on those terms and we are only bound by the terms we agreed to.
This is nullification.
The more extreme form of nullification is secession.
Which brings us to the other remedy of a breached contract: Rescission or the act of rescinding a contract.
In this case, Federal Government is found, by the people or the states, to no longer be engaging in the services which they promised or offered as consideration for the powers that were granted to them.
Not sure on what grounds these secessionists will argue that the Federal Government has failed to perform, but I can think of a few:
- Protection of the Bill of Rights (TSA, NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, etc, etc, etc)
- Violation of the 5th Amendment (US Citizens were killed with out Due Process of Law),
- Violation of the 1st Amendment (No persons shall protest a public place that has a public servant with Secret Service present)
- Violation of Article 3, Section 3 - Treason (Aiding an enemy of the state, in this case militants in both Libya and Syria who we consider enemies of the state received federal aid and weapons from the government).
- Violation of the 4th Amendment - Search and Seizure (NSA and FBI wire taps and spying without court orders or justification).
This list can probably go on and on, but you get the picture.
As for how I feel about the states actually trying to secede, not sure. Obviously I have a healthy mistrust and distaste for government, so the smaller the better.
To knock a couple of billion off the budget, we could just go back to using Hummvees. How about this? Go fuck yourself.
Or maybe we can get the fuck out of the sand pit and stop fighting wars for oil and profits of private defense contractors and bankers. Or is that too civilized and humane of a concept?