Slashdot Mirror

Shadowstats is known to be wrong.

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/06/shadow-stats-debunked-part-ii.html

Unless you're going to claim that it costs you $35 to see a movie in a theater SGS inflation is clearly wrong.

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/03/shadow-stats-debunked-part-i.html

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/06/shadow-stats-debunked-part-ii.html

Unless you're going to claim that it costs you $35 to see a movie in a theater SGS inflation is clearly wrong.

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/03/shadow-stats-debunked-part-i.html

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/06/shadow-stats-debunked-part-ii.html

Singapore is routinely ranked as having one of the best healthcare system in the world (WHO 2000 study Singapore ranked 6th, U.S. was ranked 37th). It's universal healthcare that people pay for out of their own pocket.

The linky says they have "universal health savings accounts" NOT "universal healthcare".

It would seem, when the illiberals mean "universal healthcare", they mean "not the US system". Granted, this system sucks ass. HSA are a huge improvement that Bush and Obama have helped to kill. Bigger problems are supply restrictions by the AMA. We ought not be limited in the number of trained doctors just as we are not limited in the number of trained lawyers. Many lawyers seek better opportunities in unrelated fields. There are fewer barriers to becoming a lawyer (though there should be near zero, no degree requirements, just pass the state tests, e.g.). The AMA limits med schools and regulates them to keep the wash-out rate high. People here who have a shit fit over working 8 hours, 1 minute, seem deaf to a system that keeps people on working and on call for 24 hrs as part of med residential training. Is this really ideal?

Anyway, I like your Singapore link! What I don't like is this notion that "we need to do X because of country Y". Rarely do we discuss the specifics such as what makes healthcare so expensive (patents, FDA, e.g.). Rarely is it discussed - although your link alludes - that HMO and insurance is the last thing we want mandated between us and care. If our catastrophic care provider wants us to do routine stuff and meet health goals, they could offer financial incentives (as one example/alternative to nanny/HMO care).

Later.

The United States relies upon private health insurance to provide much of the financing for medical costs. This is unusual: in Britain, Canada, and Spain, for example, health-care costs are largely paid for by the government. In Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, medical costs are paid for by a system of "social insurance": it is compulsory for most people to buy insurance, but insurance premiums are tied by law to income rather than to the risk of a claim.

The United States system makes it voluntary to buy insurance, and premiums are linked to risk, not to income. But these market-based premiums, beloved of many Americans, do not seem to be delivering health care that makes them happy. A recent survey revealed that only 17 percent of respondents in the United States were content with the health-care system and thought no substantial reforms were necessary. Why the discontent?

The superficial reasons are simple enough to describe: the system is hugely expensive, very bureaucratic, and extremely patchy. The expense first: US health cares costs a third more, per person, than that of the closest rival, super-rich Switzerland, and twice what many European countries spend. The United States government alone spends more per person than the combination of public and private expenditure in Britain, despite the fact that the British government provides free health care for all residents, while the American government spending program covers only the elderly (Medicare) and some of the marginalized (Medicaid). Most Americans worry about health-care costs and would be stunned to discovered that the British government spends less per person than the American government but still manages to provide free health care for everyone. In fact, if you figure in the costs of providing health insurance to government employees and providing tax breaks to encourage private health care, the US government spending on health care, per person, is the highest in the world.

Bureaucracy next. Researchers at the Harvard Medical School found that the administrative costs of the US system, public and private, exceed $1,000 per persons. In other words, when you count all the taxes, premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses, the typical American spends as much on doctor's receptionists and the like as citizens of Singapore and the Czech Republic spend on their entire medical care. Both places are countries with health outcomes very similar to those in the United States: life expectancy and “healthy life” expectancy (a statistic that distinguishes a long healthy life and a long life plagued by years of severe disability) are a shade lower in the Czech Republic than in the United States; and in Singapore they are a little higher than in the United States. The costs of US bureaucracy is also more than three times the $307 cost per person for the administration of the Canadian health system, whic

The key words in your statement are "right now"

If you look at values over time you have an increase over time even taking the bubble into account:
http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/

Did your mother and your friend buy during the bubble or did they buy before the bubble and thus haven't actually lost value vs. the original purchase?

I don't blame anyone who bought and lost regardless. I blame the politicians who killed the Glass-Steagall Act and the banks that made and then sold loans that should never have happened, inflating and then crashing the entire market.

The equity accrual might be interesting - no idea how that would compare against a loan from a bank. The developers appear to take the risk or property values decreasing instead of the renters taking the risk but what happens to the accrued equity if the developer goes out of business?

Hi JimFive - I agree with you for the most part but I believe there is still somewhat of a relative gain over time even when adjusting for inflation:

http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/

Agreed that it's linked to demand and then it gets highly geographical. Overall though the population is increasing...

Danger Will Robinson, another fruit loop who has bought into the Shadow Stats hooey.

It's quite easy to prove that the CPI and not Shadow Stats is correct; massive studies on price information have been collected via Google Search to form Google's Price Index and similar studies by MIT to form their BillionPrice data. The fact is that the government CPI information is an accurate measure of inflation.

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/06/shadow-stats-debunked-part-ii.html

Yes, there was some subsidy implicit in the interest rates, however along with those rates the guvmint was purchasing preferred stock in the banks which required payment of additional dividends of 5 to 9%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122390023840728367.html

As far as Shadowstats, you actually believe that hooey? It's complete bull.

http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/06/shadow-stats-debunked-part-ii.html