I read that certain hospitals in India have managed to make heart surgery a specialization that doesn't require one to be a full doctor. In essence one doctor oversees a number of "heart surgeon technicians". This has reportedly resulted in decrease costs and lower morbidity and mortality rates than US hospitals performing the same procedures. I wish I could find that article. It was interesting to say the least.
Novelty is not a goal for economic policy. Neither is volatility. Going to a gold standard is not something different. It was tried and was shown to be untenable. It produced more bank runs and economic uncertainty than the current system and strategies. If you want to try something different, I suggest advocating something with more promise. Perhaps NGDP level targeting and strict financial leverage restrictions.
Why shouldn't individual towns counties and States serve their residents with well maintained roads financed by taxes? Tolls as a preemptive defense against high speed rain projects which may or may not be beneficial to those residents seems like a weak argument.
I wasn't talking about better from the standpoint of a single individual but as a functioning system. You seem to be brushing off the possibility that for any area and distance airplanes and cars are may not be superior to trains in terms of transportation efficiency and promotion of economic growth. Why do you so easily dismiss the experience of light rail and subway systems that seem to work well in many cities? Or the high and average speed trains that seem to serve the needs of traveling intermediate (100 to 500 miles) distances between and among sufficiently dense populations?
In fact, it's happening now. There are companies that will install the array for you, maintain the array for you, and monitor the array's performance for you, all at no cost to you -- instead, they split the profit from your electric-bill savings with you.
Those installers are probably profiting more from the State's SREC (essentially a tax on energy companies not producing minimum ratio of power from solar) program than from the value of the electricity produced. If the market for solar panel installation were competitive, these companies would be paying the homeowner for the use of their real estate and the homeowner would not pay for any of the electricity generated.
That's where his overall position is weak. Following it to the extreme does not allow for pragmatism such as your example. RMS highlights valid concerns for software and copyright license issues, but I think that he is wrong about the absolute value of his position. I value free software and personal freedom in general but not above many issues, such as my need to pay rent, eat and preference to socialize and enjoy my limited time in life when possible.
You got modded insightful, but it seems that you missed RMS' entire point for creating GNU, FSF and GPL. He was and still is protesting the coercion that software developers place on their end users. Here the people spending money on his travel are in a very analogous way coercing RMS to alter his travel plans and activities while in the reason. Yet RMS is not protesting, he is choosing to metaphorically press the "accept the term of the EULA" buttons for pragmatic reasons. RMS criticizes those that accept limiting license agreements on software. He should expect criticism when he chooses to accept limiting terms in his agreements on other topics. He in fact brushed off such criticism claiming they are invalid due to semantics.
On the topic of this thread, the fake concern about government spending by the GOP, he did a complete reversal. He substantially changed his platform once money from the GOP stopped blocking him out of the the old boys club. But you are right that he hasn't changed his position on the Patriot Act's erosion of personal privacy from the government. (I was also mistaken when I said that it was Koch money that changed things for Rand. It was general GOP money. My bad. It Seems that the Koch money was funding his initial popularity and the Tea Party rallies in general.)
Here are some excerpts from a Rolling Stone Magazine article on the Rand Paul and Tea Party in Kentucky that illustrate my point:
"In the early days of his campaign, by virtually all accounts, Paul was the real thing — expansive, willing to talk openly to anyone and everyone, and totally unapologetic about his political views, which ranged from bold and nuanced to flat-out batshit crazy. But he wasn't going to change for anyone: For young Dr. Paul, as for his father, this was more about message than victory; actually winning wasn't even on his radar."
"Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. "Physicians," he said, 'should be allowed to make a comfortable living.'"
"Paul's platform began to rapidly "evolve." Previously opposed to erecting a fence on the Mexican border, Paul suddenly came out in favor of one. He had been flatly opposed to all farm subsidies; faced with having to win a general election in a state that receives more than $265 million a year in subsidies, Paul reversed himself and explained that he was only against subsidies to "dead farmers" and those earning more than $2 million. Paul also went on the air with Fox News reptile Sean Hannity and insisted that he differed significantly from the Libertarian Party, now speaking more favorably about, among other things, judicious troop deployments overseas.
Beyond that, Paul just flat-out stopped talking about his views — particularly the ones that don't jibe with right-wing and Christian crowds, like curtailing the federal prohibition on drugs."
Even with the help of your link and Opencongress.org and govtrack.us and thomas.loc.gov, I still have no fucking clue what they actually voted on. I spent the better part of an hour trying to figure it out. The best I could do was several news sites insisting the the Patriot Act was extended but no specifics other than dates.
...trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous.
Except for the large increase in government under the Bush Administration who had a Republican controlled congress for a good portion of his term. The Republican Party and the money that funds it didn't seem interested in reducing government when it was able to. They do seem interested in creating fires so that they can keep the campaign funds and the lobbying economy flowing while trying to take credit for solutions to the problems they create. The Democratic Party works the campaign funds and the lobbying economy from a different angle often for the benefit of the same corporate and wealthy individual interests.
But the 'myth' is that "the poor don't pay taxes for the most part", as LWATCDR put it. And Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are funded by taxes on payrolls. Unless "the poor" is defined by not paying taxes, these programs are a direct counter to the claim that the poor don't pay taxes.
I guess Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security don't count. Even though the federal budget has depended on borrowing heavily from those funds for a long time.
If the money of rich people is held in the bank then the bank lends it out. It never leaves the economy.
One thing that we are seeing is that wealthier and people with higher incomes are saving a higher percentage of their income. Banks have also greatly increased their reserves, i.e. they aren't lending out all of the money that they are legally allowed to. Additionally, derivative securities markets have shrunk significantly. Thus, there is much less money circulating in the economy because financial leverage creates money.
I don't think you understand how inflation and deflation works. In your situation a decrease in nominal pay would have the potential to be in increase in real value of your paycheck.
That being said. the BitCoin Idea is a solution looking for a larger problem.
Thus highlighting the insane policy of the USA's Federal government to trade security theater on an already lower risk for increasing use of higher risk activities nation wide as the economics of time and convenience of various modes of travel are altered.
Unfortunately, because of the perfectly rational like minded people that increasingly make the same choice, there has been a proportionate increase in the number of deaths as a result of using significantly less safe modes of transportation compared to flying for a larger percentage of their distance traveled annually.
Slashdot Mirror
healthcare in the US is a lot better than in most of those other nations.
For those that receive care, absolutely. On average, when factoring in denied care, maybe. On a cost effectiveness basis, almost certainly not.
I read that certain hospitals in India have managed to make heart surgery a specialization that doesn't require one to be a full doctor. In essence one doctor oversees a number of "heart surgeon technicians". This has reportedly resulted in decrease costs and lower morbidity and mortality rates than US hospitals performing the same procedures. I wish I could find that article. It was interesting to say the least.
Novelty is not a goal for economic policy. Neither is volatility. Going to a gold standard is not something different. It was tried and was shown to be untenable. It produced more bank runs and economic uncertainty than the current system and strategies. If you want to try something different, I suggest advocating something with more promise. Perhaps NGDP level targeting and strict financial leverage restrictions.
Why shouldn't individual towns counties and States serve their residents with well maintained roads financed by taxes? Tolls as a preemptive defense against high speed rain projects which may or may not be beneficial to those residents seems like a weak argument.
I wasn't talking about better from the standpoint of a single individual but as a functioning system. You seem to be brushing off the possibility that for any area and distance airplanes and cars are may not be superior to trains in terms of transportation efficiency and promotion of economic growth. Why do you so easily dismiss the experience of light rail and subway systems that seem to work well in many cities? Or the high and average speed trains that seem to serve the needs of traveling intermediate (100 to 500 miles) distances between and among sufficiently dense populations?
Ron Paul will ruin the US economy in the name of States' Power to govern over the Federal government.
In fact, it's happening now. There are companies that will install the array for you, maintain the array for you, and monitor the array's performance for you, all at no cost to you -- instead, they split the profit from your electric-bill savings with you.
Those installers are probably profiting more from the State's SREC (essentially a tax on energy companies not producing minimum ratio of power from solar) program than from the value of the electricity produced. If the market for solar panel installation were competitive, these companies would be paying the homeowner for the use of their real estate and the homeowner would not pay for any of the electricity generated.
See:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Solar_Renewable_Energy_Certificates
http://www.srectrade.com/background.php
Roads and Airplanes are always better at transporting people compared to trains (high-speed or otherwise)?
All roads should be toll roads?
That's where his overall position is weak. Following it to the extreme does not allow for pragmatism such as your example. RMS highlights valid concerns for software and copyright license issues, but I think that he is wrong about the absolute value of his position. I value free software and personal freedom in general but not above many issues, such as my need to pay rent, eat and preference to socialize and enjoy my limited time in life when possible.
Another member of the mailing list supports funding the trip and placing no restrictions on RMS' activities. Not everyone agrees of course.
See:
http://hamakor.org.il/pipermail/discussions/2011-May/003030.html
You got modded insightful, but it seems that you missed RMS' entire point for creating GNU, FSF and GPL. He was and still is protesting the coercion that software developers place on their end users. Here the people spending money on his travel are in a very analogous way coercing RMS to alter his travel plans and activities while in the reason. Yet RMS is not protesting, he is choosing to metaphorically press the "accept the term of the EULA" buttons for pragmatic reasons. RMS criticizes those that accept limiting license agreements on software. He should expect criticism when he chooses to accept limiting terms in his agreements on other topics. He in fact brushed off such criticism claiming they are invalid due to semantics.
See:
Response to RMS decision sent to RMS:
http://hamakor.org.il/pipermail/discussions/2011-May/002978.html
RMS reply to criticism:
http://hamakor.org.il/pipermail/discussions/2011-May/003024.html
On the topic of this thread, the fake concern about government spending by the GOP, he did a complete reversal. He substantially changed his platform once money from the GOP stopped blocking him out of the the old boys club. But you are right that he hasn't changed his position on the Patriot Act's erosion of personal privacy from the government. (I was also mistaken when I said that it was Koch money that changed things for Rand. It was general GOP money. My bad. It Seems that the Koch money was funding his initial popularity and the Tea Party rallies in general.)
Here are some excerpts from a Rolling Stone Magazine article on the Rand Paul and Tea Party in Kentucky that illustrate my point:
"In the early days of his campaign, by virtually all accounts, Paul was the real thing — expansive, willing to talk openly to anyone and everyone, and totally unapologetic about his political views, which ranged from bold and nuanced to flat-out batshit crazy. But he wasn't going to change for anyone: For young Dr. Paul, as for his father, this was more about message than victory; actually winning wasn't even on his radar."
"Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. "Physicians," he said, 'should be allowed to make a comfortable living.'"
"Paul's platform began to rapidly "evolve." Previously opposed to erecting a fence on the Mexican border, Paul suddenly came out in favor of one. He had been flatly opposed to all farm subsidies; faced with having to win a general election in a state that receives more than $265 million a year in subsidies, Paul reversed himself and explained that he was only against subsidies to "dead farmers" and those earning more than $2 million. Paul also went on the air with Fox News reptile Sean Hannity and insisted that he differed significantly from the Libertarian Party, now speaking more favorably about, among other things, judicious troop deployments overseas.
Beyond that, Paul just flat-out stopped talking about his views — particularly the ones that don't jibe with right-wing and Christian crowds, like curtailing the federal prohibition on drugs."
I mean the new guys like Rand Paul too. He changed his entire platform once money from the Kochs started coming in.
Even with the help of your link and Opencongress.org and govtrack.us and thomas.loc.gov, I still have no fucking clue what they actually voted on. I spent the better part of an hour trying to figure it out. The best I could do was several news sites insisting the the Patriot Act was extended but no specifics other than dates.
...trying to paint republicans as favoring large expansive governments is disingenuous.
Except for the large increase in government under the Bush Administration who had a Republican controlled congress for a good portion of his term. The Republican Party and the money that funds it didn't seem interested in reducing government when it was able to. They do seem interested in creating fires so that they can keep the campaign funds and the lobbying economy flowing while trying to take credit for solutions to the problems they create. The Democratic Party works the campaign funds and the lobbying economy from a different angle often for the benefit of the same corporate and wealthy individual interests.
How do you know?
But the 'myth' is that "the poor don't pay taxes for the most part", as LWATCDR put it. And Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are funded by taxes on payrolls. Unless "the poor" is defined by not paying taxes, these programs are a direct counter to the claim that the poor don't pay taxes.
I guess Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security don't count. Even though the federal budget has depended on borrowing heavily from those funds for a long time.
Yeah. For example, Bill Gates runs his own CDC.
If the money of rich people is held in the bank then the bank lends it out. It never leaves the economy.
One thing that we are seeing is that wealthier and people with higher incomes are saving a higher percentage of their income. Banks have also greatly increased their reserves, i.e. they aren't lending out all of the money that they are legally allowed to. Additionally, derivative securities markets have shrunk significantly. Thus, there is much less money circulating in the economy because financial leverage creates money.
I don't think you understand how inflation and deflation works. In your situation a decrease in nominal pay would have the potential to be in increase in real value of your paycheck.
That being said. the BitCoin Idea is a solution looking for a larger problem.
What is the complimentary rule of thumb for monthly rental payments?
Thus highlighting the insane policy of the USA's Federal government to trade security theater on an already lower risk for increasing use of higher risk activities nation wide as the economics of time and convenience of various modes of travel are altered.
Unfortunately, because of the perfectly rational like minded people that increasingly make the same choice, there has been a proportionate increase in the number of deaths as a result of using significantly less safe modes of transportation compared to flying for a larger percentage of their distance traveled annually.