Can't believe this isnt a bigger issue!!!!

[WVUPharm2007]

You dorks are still arguing over this crap...lmao. All of you just prescribe to a rigid ideology. Read a bunch of stupid ass books...then regurgitate it all on the internet to make yourself appear all intelligent and ****. I know this because I've read all of the crap that you've all read. None of you are original or can create an original thought. And, I hate to break it to you, but all of your stupid little economic ideologies are more or less bull****. An "economy" is an organic thing. The world is a dynamic place. Ideology and dynamic don't mix. It is not illogical. When you really sit down and think about this ****, you realize that it can't be predicted or gamed with any reliability.

Though I usually side with the leftists because their irrationality is at least benevolent. Rightists are just *******s that think altruism is a mental defect. But don't get me wrong. All of you are stupid. But there is such a thing as differing degrees of danger behind stupidity.

Not to mention that my irrational-fear-of-robots gambit says that in time and with an infinite degree of technological advancement an end game with the only possibility of a Marxist utopia or free market dystopia is not only likely, but inevitable. And eventually they will become self conscious and kill us all, anyway. So, **** it, all y'all will be wrong. And dead.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmEcon]

You dorks are still arguing over this crap...lmao. All of you just prescribe to a rigid ideology. Read a bunch of stupid ass books...then regurgitate it all on the internet to make yourself appear all intelligent and ****. I know this because I've read all of the crap that you've all read. None of you are original or can create an original thought. And, I hate to break it to you, but all of your stupid little economic ideologies are more or less bull****. An "economy" is an organic thing. The world is a dynamic place. Ideology and dynamic don't mix. It is not illogical. When you really sit down and think about this ****, you realize that it can't be predicted or gamed with any reliability.

So much for intellectual honesty. There is methodology, mathematics, and yes science involved in many of these situations. If you actually read this thread, I have clearly stated that I am not speaking out of ideology, but rather tested data and practical theories. You are just being extremely demeaning here to those who care to actually practice real economic science, psychology, etc.

Either way, models are used in many practical settings including in business, so even if they are wrong, they are important to discuss (and if they are wrong to prove wrong) since they impact so many decisions in government and business (especially big business, etc.). Hey, it's even why the supply of pharmacists is restricted and you make what you do.

Oh and the idea that the economy can't be predicted or gamed is one of the existing theories. Ever heard of the Austrian school?

Though I usually side with the leftists because their irrationality is at least benevolent. Rightists are just *******s that think altruism is a mental defect. But don't get me wrong. All of you are stupid. But there is such a thing as differing degrees of danger behind stupidity.

It isn't the clear cut. And ironically, you are the one looking at things ideologically here.

Not to mention that my irrational-fear-of-robots gambit says that in time and with an infinite degree of technological advancement an end game with the only possibility of a Marxist utopia or free market dystopia is not only likely, but inevitable. And eventually they will become self conscious and kill us all, anyway. So, **** it, all y'all will be wrong. And dead.

Technological singularity. It has been suggested before.

 

[PharmDstudent]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&feature=feedf[/YOUTUBE]

 

[StevePerry]

You dorks are still arguing over this crap...lmao. All of you just prescribe to a rigid ideology. Read a bunch of stupid ass books...then regurgitate it all on the internet to make yourself appear all intelligent and ****. I know this because I've read all of the crap that you've all read. None of you are original or can create an original thought. And, I hate to break it to you, but all of your stupid little economic ideologies are more or less bull****. An "economy" is an organic thing. The world is a dynamic place. Ideology and dynamic don't mix. It is not illogical. When you really sit down and think about this ****, you realize that it can't be predicted or gamed with any reliability.

Though I usually side with the leftists because their irrationality is at least benevolent. Rightists are just *******s that think altruism is a mental defect. But don't get me wrong. All of you are stupid. But there is such a thing as differing degrees of danger behind stupidity.

Not to mention that my irrational-fear-of-robots gambit says that in time and with an infinite degree of technological advancement an end game with the only possibility of a Marxist utopia or free market dystopia is not only likely, but inevitable. And eventually they will become self conscious and kill us all, anyway. So, **** it, all y'all will be wrong. And dead.

Well, well, well look who decided to show up and put on the bull---- holier-than-thou cap all of the sudden. Slow becoming disillusioned with your leftist regurgitated rantings of the past now, eh?

Actually I take that back as you seem to paint the right with quite broad strokes.

Oh, and while in your infinite wisdom you don't put forth a solution, your rebuttal of both the classic left and right ideology as well as your anti-technology slant all seem dangerously close to pointing to anarcho-syndicalism / anarcho-primitivism and all the other neo-liberal dogma. Hardly original...

 

[PharmEcon]

I don't think I did a good job explaining what I see as the difference between health insurance and other forms of insurance because your counterpoints have nothing to do with what I was saying. I didn't mean that other insurances are simpler (though I think they are) only that their focus is appropriately reactive while matters of health should be more proactive.

I understand that you think healthcare should be more proactive, but insurance is inherently reactive that is the point of it- to hedge the risk of catastrophe- so that if you break your leg and have no money, you can still be treated. That does not mean an insurance system does not have an interest in proactive health though- I would say it does moreso than a government does. An insurance company that has a healthier pool of patients can charge less in premiums and/or would have to make less payouts. Insurance companies do try to encourage proactive health- I know the company that covers my family sends out monthly magazines on how to stay healthy, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that people will still get sick and that the reason people buy insurance in the first place is for when they do get sick.

But it is not worth rehashing. Suffice to say, I think health insurance should be about more than pooling risk, a good healthcare system would be one that focuses on preventative medicine, not PBM's deciding what good medicine is.

Again, you misunderstand the point of insurance. I suggest you do some more reading on the topic because I really am not sure what else to say. Even if you want to focus on preventative medicine, are reactive solutions and plans still not important?

I wasn't being hyperbolic when I said we have poor outcomes compared to other developed countries. Google it. Or look on the WHO website. We rank quite low on many meaningful scales. I seem to recall that out infant mortality is among the highest in the world. I don't mean to cherry pick though, if you can find some outcomes in which we rank highly, I would be happy to learn which ones they are.

I had misread that as worst in the world (not just compared to developed countries). Either way, I would argue otherwise, but vs. developed countries it is arguable. And what is a good measure of a healthcare system is of course subjective and can vary. In terms of options and innovation and fast service we are most certainly near the top- our problem is in cost. More government is not necessarily the answer to fix that though as I said earlier.

Glad you asked. There are several ways to design a system that is proactive rather than reactive. For one, our system is designed to reward procedures and tests. That pay-per-service model is just terrible. In Brittan doctors are paid bonuses based on the health of the patients in their assigned area. Things like number of smokers, etc. Obviously not a perfect system, but I love the focus on healthy lifestyles (proactive) vs rewarding high risk procedures (reactive).

The Cleveland Clinic, a private firm, has been lauded even by President Obama for the way it handles this (kind of ironic that it wasn't the . All docs are payed on salary and not on what they prescribe/treatments they run, etc.

I'll admit that I am not awfully familiar with this topic and it is something I plan on looking more into (thanks for bringing it up actually), but I can tell you that whether a system is public or private does not inherently mean it will or will not be conducive to prevention.

Basically if we removed barriers to preventative care we could easily drive down the total healthcare costs. I have heard ideas like excluding COPD treatment for smokers, which frankly I can easily get behind. If you want to smoke, fine with me, but don't ask me to pay for your lung transplant. We should reward healthy lifestyles (and possibly punish unhealthy ones).

This strikes me as really ironic considering your problem with things like preexisting conditions. I agree though, healthy lifestyles should be rewarded and naturally private firms paying for healthcare, such as insurance companies, will be incentivized to reward them too. It is more the politician whose interest is really just to get reelected regardless of whether or not he incentivizes public health as a preventative measure, that has me worried.

 

[PharmEcon]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c&feature=feedf[/YOUTUBE]

Sensationalism won't solve anything. That is why I am not a Schiff fan (although I do agree with some of his viewpoints and solutions)- when he is the context of making economic predictions he often goes overboard (anyone pay attention to his gold predictions over the years?), he likes to use convoluted analogies, and he likes to at times make disrespectful jokes at his opposition. Not so much in this video because he is up against an even worse kind of sensationalism- one that doesn't even want to listen to or hasn't even done the due diligence to learn what is wrong with the system, what needs to change, or even what they want. The sensationalism in this country, whether it be from the right, the left, the Tea Party, the Occupy crowd, or whoever is unfortunate and at times sad. All too often illogically fueled political anger has resulted in ignorance and outright anti-intellectualism. The politicians play to the field, use those emotions to get reelected under platforms of hope and change and turn around to sell out to the highest bidder. Advantage, special interests.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Sensationalism won't solve anything. That is why I am not a Schiff fan (although I do agree with some of his viewpoints and solutions)- when he is the context of making economic predictions he often goes overboard (anyone pay attention to his gold predictions over the years?), he likes to use convoluted analogies, and he likes to at times make disrespectful jokes at his opposition. Not so much in this video because he is up against an even worse kind of sensationalism- one that doesn't even want to listen to or hasn't even done the due diligence to learn what is wrong with the system, what needs to change, or even what they want. The sensationalism in this country, whether it be from the right, the left, the Tea Party, the Occupy crowd, or whoever is unfortunate and at times sad. All too often illogically fueled political anger has resulted in ignorance and outright anti-intellectualism. The politicians play to the field, use those emotions to get reelected under platforms of hope and change and turn around to sell out to the highest bidder. Advantage, special interests.

I think it's a good video that sums up this entire thread. I could probably reply parts of this video throughout this thread, so it's sort of like a CliffsNotes version.

 

[PharmEcon]

I think it's a good video that sums up this entire thread. I could probably reply parts of this video throughout this thread, so it's sort of like a CliffsNotes version.

Lol, I stopped watching around 8 minutes when that guy says he can't talk to Schiff anymore because Schiff is a fool for wanting to get rid of the Dept. of Education. Can't stand it when people are so entrenched in their viewpoints that they won't even listen to and consider arguments against them, regardless of how logical they might be.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Lol, I stopped watching around 8 minutes when that guy says he can't talk to Schiff anymore because Schiff is a fool for wanting to get rid of the Dept. of Education. Can't stand it when people are so entrenched in their viewpoints that they won't even listen to and consider arguments against them, regardless of how logical they might be.

Some people can't debate very well. They get too emotional.
I just get tired.


This is my final conclusion: government ⇄ private businesses ⇄ employees ⇄ government

 

[owlegrad]

Again, you misunderstand the point of insurance. I suggest you do some more reading on the topic because I really am not sure what else to say. Even if you want to focus on preventative medicine, are reactive solutions and plans still not important?

Looking at our discussion I think I might have been using insurance synonymously with healthcare system, leading to some of the confusion. I mean that healthcare systems should focus on prevention and that health insurance does not do that. Sorry about that. Yes, reactive solutions are also important.

I had misread that as worst in the world (not just compared to developed countries). Either way, I would argue otherwise, but vs. developed countries it is arguable. And what is a good measure of a healthcare system is of course subjective and can vary. In terms of options and innovation and fast service we are most certainly near the top- our problem is in cost. More government is not necessarily the answer to fix that though as I said earlier.

Yes, our options are great if you can afford them. I would argue that many Americans have fewer choices than many other developed countries. Innovation is arguable as well - unfortunately almost every drug on this list (FDA new drug approvals) is basically a patent extender (or a me-two drug), not some novel drug. Medical breakthroughs happen all over the world, I am not sure that the US leads the world in medical innovation. I would need to look that up. I have no clue how our system ranks in speed, I have never seen any metrics on that. It certainly seems plausible. I do know we pay the most per capita of any developed nation and have some of the worst outcomes (link provided this time for clarity). 39th for infant mortality.

There is a deep belief that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. That is simply false. I do not mean to insinuate that you personally believe it, I just wanted to throw it out there.

I'll admit that I am not awfully familiar with this topic and it is something I plan on looking more into (thanks for bringing it up actually), but I can tell you that whether a system is public or private does not inherently mean it will or will not be conducive to prevention.

Oh yeah, our fee-per-service is a pretty faulty model. Outcome based payment schedules have their flaws and it would certainly be a radical paradigm shift for us, but it has real promise as a model that can control costs and improve outcomes.

We have studied various healthcare systems around the world in class and it is a personal interest of mine. It is interesting how different countries attempt to solve the same problem (limited healthcare resources). The US simply does a very poor job using virtually any metric. We pay more for terrible outcomes. IMO deeply fundamental to our problems is the reliance on private insurances. I admit you have really brought up some good points and I think I have learned a thing or two, but to be completely honest, I don't think I could ever be lead to believe that private insurances is compatible with an optimally designed healthcare system.

Mind if I really expand the conversation? I would love our healthcare system to be more like our educational system, that is to have a basic functional system that covers every American (well, at least in theory) and a private option for those that want to use it. If you can afford better care and wish to pay for it (or have insurance for it), so be it. Have <properly funded> public hospitals that treat everyone and have private offices for people who choice not to go to the public option. A national forulary of covered drugs, and if you want the most expensive new treatment for gout and your doctor is willing to prescribe it you can purchase it yourself (or through insurance I guess).

This strikes me as really ironic considering your problem with things like preexisting condition. I agree though, healthy lifestyles should be rewarded and naturally private firms paying for healthcare, such as insurance companies, will be incentivized to reward them too. It is more the politician whose interest is really just to get reelected regardless of whether or not he incentivizes public health as a preventative measure, that has me worried.

Ha! You got me, that is ironic (some might even say hypocritical).

 

[StevePerry]

There is a deep belief that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. That is simply false.

Wrong. You should have stopped after the first part of your argument.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

So much for intellectual honesty. There is methodology, mathematics, and yes science involved in many of these situations. If you actually read this thread, I have clearly stated that I am not speaking out of ideology, but rather tested data and practical theories. You are just being extremely demeaning here to those who care to actually practice real economic science, psychology, etc.

Well, I'm not trying to single you out...but looking at just your posts, you seem to have a hard-rightist slant and only seem to use very cherry picked facts. You probably get a hard on when reading CATO institute "studies" and you think Krugman is an idiot (which he is). Yeah...I know your type...

Oh and the idea that the economy can't be predicted or gamed is one of the existing theories. Ever heard of the Austrian school?

Those dudes are amongst the worst of all. The only people I can think of that are more ideologically nutty are the hard-line Marxists that think the government should literally take over the means of all production. They are religious nuts. They think a magical, invisible hand is going to go around making everything better. Yeah, sorry, don't see it. They really think that a 100% hand off situation is a good idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it would work out great in a pure data, the economy is roaring sense, but its rather obvious that a plutocracy would form and those outside of the capital owning class would become serfs. The robber baron era back in the day was pretty much like this. Or, again, like Somalia. Sure...they had thriving open air markets...and the entire population lived under the thumbs of those with economic power. They treat Hayek and Rand like some sort of bizarre demigods. And what really cracks me up is that they are all about killing social programs...when you read Lord Hayek's actual writings, he pretty much makes it clear that a minimalist solution would require a social safety net due to the lack of labor opportunities it would create...and that it would be the government's job to create said safety net.

And Rand's writings made me laugh they were so ******ed. I actually read that stupid ass Atlas Shrugged book. That stupid dildo Galt is going off on a 50 page rant (literally 50 pages...dude, brevity is a virtue...)...and his conclusion at the end is that he wouldn't want to live for another man, nor expect for a another man to live for him...you stupid mother****er...your "tragically regulated" buddies own ****ing corporations. You have laborers that literally are living for you 40 hours a week. You use your capital and economic leverage to essentially squeeze any added value from another man's labor...and to then compensate them for less than their value. The definition of capitalism, essentially...and you have the gall to proclaim that you don't want another man giving a portion of his life to you?

The stupidest **** imaginable. It really is. The total lack of introspection and general assumption that other people exist. It's like when Italians claim Columbus "discovered" America...completely ignoring the fact that...you know...people were already there. It's this lack of ability to realize that capitalism - oh, glory be its name - is nothing but socialism for those that happen to own capital. They are being subsidized by the labor of others. They "own" the work of others because their capital ownership allows them to. Which, naturally, made me think Rand was an idiot.

Unless, of course, Rand was against the entire idea of corporations...or hiring workers. Which she wasn't. She's was just a damned idiot. Well, really, she was a sociopath that couldn't come to grips with her illness like you'd hope...instead she create an idiotic "philosophy" around it rather than facing reality. I read the book in like 1998 and I thought that it must just be something no person would ever actually take seriously because it is so infantile. And, yet, here I am a decade later and there are idiots actually taking it seriously without examining it critically. It cracks me up how so many people fear the prospect of an overbearing government (which, don't get me wrong, is rational in and of itself), yet, simultaneously, they have no fear of the potential for plutocracy that unchecked capitalism also presents.

But don't think I'm just berating the rightist crap. It's just what's being presented on here. I hold similar feelings for hard-leftist ideas...its just that nobody is stupid enough to actually hold said ideas...at least nobody in the US. Of course, in the US anyone, like, say, me, that thinks a rationally regulated, highly mixed economy that focuses on maximizing output, but without allowing a vast amount of power to fall into the hands of a small percentage of people...is considered a radical leftist.

Technological singularity. It has been suggested before.

Not really what I'm talking about. More like the idea that as technology improves, the need for labor decreases. As such, a time would theoretically come when there would be no jobs for anyone. And, thus, no means of obtaining resources unless one was a member of the capital owning class. "Robots" would do everything. A time of 100% slave-labor production. When that happens, really, only two options would exist...either a plutocracy with serfs and limited resources for the vast majority of humans...or a more Marxist workers' (or do-nothingers', anyway, there would be no need for human labor) paradise of sorts.

...and every day the value of human labor is decreased more and more. **** makes you wonder what the future will hold...because with less workers, there is less money circulated...less aggregate demand...etc, etc...at some point it will get to the point where socialism will pretty much be a literal necessity. Because otherwise, there will be an enormous stratification of wealth and clear class lines of excess and suffering will be drawn. In this case, not going with a more socialist system would lead the vast majority of people down the road of serfdom...(har har)

Or maybe it won't happen that way...I ain't omniscient...point is, the world is dynamic as hell and I really don't think that any sort of ideology is going to be consistently fruitful in every situation imaginable unless that ideology is, more or less, "do what is necessary given the situation." Which isn't the ideology shared by anyone...because its not really an ideology...and people like having ideologies.

...

Man, I'm just rambling about nothing...with no real point...maybe you should just ignore me...I'll be in the corner with popcorn...eff it...I ain't got the patience, conviction, or free time to argue with religious people...

 

[owlegrad]

Wrong. You should have stopped after the first part of your argument.

OK, in what way is our system the best in the world?

 

[PharmEcon]

Well, I'm not trying to single you out...but looking at just your posts, you seem to have a hard-rightist slant and only seem to use very cherry picked facts. You probably get a hard on when reading CATO institute "studies" and you think Krugman is an idiot (which he is). Yeah...I know your type...

I will not dignify YOUR ideological biases and stereotyping with a response. Have fun with the anti-intellectualism

Those dudes are amongst the worst of all. The only people I can think of that are more ideologically nutty are the hard-line Marxists that think the government should literally take over the means of all production. They are religious nuts. They think a magical, invisible hand is going to go around making everything better. Yeah, sorry, don't see it. They really think that a 100% hand off situation is a good idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it would work out great in a pure data, the economy is roaring sense, but its rather obvious that a plutocracy would form and those outside of the capital owning class would become serfs. The robber baron era back in the day was pretty much like this. Or, again, like Somalia. Sure...they had thriving open air markets...and the entire population lived under the thumbs of those with economic power. They treat Hayek and Rand like some sort of bizarre demigods. And what really cracks me up is that they are all about killing social programs...when you read Lord Hayek's actual writings, he pretty much makes it clear that a minimalist solution would require a social safety net due to the lack of labor opportunities it would create...and that it would be the government's job to create said safety net.

I only mentioned them because you believe things can't be modeled- a take they often use. Ironically, you still believe in institutions that use the very models you say don't work since you clearly don't agree with the Austrians in terms of the role of government and markets.

That aside, you clearly have not taken the time to read and understand the arguments put forth by the Austrian school. I do not consider myself a strict adherent of any school, but I do take the time to understand where they are coming from, look at their studies, read their writings, etc. before I just bash like this. And before you tell me you have taken the due diligence let me tell you the following WRONG assumptions you make:

-You think the robber barons are the result of a free market and the Austrians are fine with that. The Austrians would say it is because of the government that the robber barons got as big as they did. The argument would likely be along the lines of this one by Milton Friedman (who is of course not an Austrian, but would likely be similar on this point): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

-You bring up Somalia and take the current situation and compare it to the West or the United States of whatever, which makes no sense logically. Compare it to the time before Somalia was in its current governmental state and you get a much better story of what happened. It is all relative. That aside, many (not all) Austrians would likely support a government based on contractual law and the harm principle in place and would not see Somalia as an ideal situation even today.

-Rand and Hayek are not synonymous in opinion and the Austrian school is a lot more represented by the latter although even within the school, as with any school, you will find disagreement.

-You clearly have not read any of the actual work Hayek put forth. You also don't realize how he influenced the field and who he has influenced. He is considered one of the greatest economists in modern history- he was the rival of Keynes and he is respected for his work amongst all the schools. You are just taking your politically influenced assumption of what Hayek is and using it to demean his work just as those who don't support Keynes often do with him on the political field. Anti-intellectualism won't get you far.

And Rand's writings made me laugh they were so ******ed. I actually read that stupid ass Atlas Shrugged book. That stupid dildo Galt is going off on a 50 page rant (literally 50 pages...dude, brevity is a virtue...)...and his conclusion at the end is that he wouldn't want to live for another man, nor expect for a another man to live for him...you stupid mother****er...your "tragically regulated" buddies own ****ing corporations. You have laborers that literally are living for you 40 hours a week. You use your capital and economic leverage to essentially squeeze any added value from another man's labor...and to then compensate them for less than their value. The definition of capitalism, essentially...and you have the gall to proclaim that you don't want another man giving a portion of his life to you?

You clearly don't understand what capitalism is. I am not sure why you keep bringing up Rand either considering she has not once been mentioned in this thread prior to you bringing her up (as far as I remember).

The stupidest **** imaginable. It really is. The total lack of introspection and general assumption that other people exist. It's like when Italians claim Columbus "discovered" America...completely ignoring the fact that...you know...people were already there. It's this lack of ability to realize that capitalism - oh, glory be its name - is nothing but socialism for those that happen to own capital. They are being subsidized by the labor of others. They "own" the work of others because their capital ownership allows them to. Which, naturally, made me think Rand was an idiot.

You don't understand capitalist theory.

Unless, of course, Rand was against the entire idea of corporations...or hiring workers. Which she wasn't. She's was just a damned idiot. Well, really, she was a sociopath that couldn't come to grips with her illness like you'd hope...instead she create an idiotic "philosophy" around it rather than facing reality. I read the book in like 1998 and I thought that it must just be something no person would ever actually take seriously because it is so infantile. And, yet, here I am a decade later and there are idiots actually taking it seriously without examining it critically. It cracks me up how so many people fear the prospect of an overbearing government (which, don't get me wrong, is rational in and of itself), yet, simultaneously, they have no fear of the potential for plutocracy that unchecked capitalism also presents.

Still ranting?

But don't think I'm just berating the rightist crap. It's just what's being presented on here. I hold similar feelings for hard-leftist ideas...its just that nobody is stupid enough to actually hold said ideas...at least nobody in the US. Of course, in the US anyone, like, say, me, that thinks a rationally regulated, highly mixed economy that focuses on maximizing output, but without allowing a vast amount of power to fall into the hands of a small percentage of people...is considered a radical leftist.

The right and left don't matter. They don't exist. They are subjective. If you ask people in different parts of the world what the "right" that you speak of is, some will say right, some will say center, others will say left. On the scale of world history we are all leftists. The founding fathers were the liberals of their day. If you want to discuss the facts do so, but I do not care for this game of political monikers because they don't matter.

Not really what I'm talking about. More like the idea that as technology improves, the need for labor decreases. As such, a time would theoretically come when there would be no jobs for anyone. And, thus, no means of obtaining resources unless one was a member of the capital owning class. "Robots" would do everything. A time of 100% slave-labor production. When that happens, really, only two options would exist...either a plutocracy with serfs and limited resources for the vast majority of humans...or a more Marxist workers' (or do-nothingers', anyway, there would be no need for human labor) paradise of sorts.

Well that is not what you described in your last post. Anyway, even to this, it might be arguable, but not very sensible. There will always be a demand for human service- not to be crude, but an easy example is sex. Do you think robots will take that over too? There will always be a market for sex and most likely humans will want somewhat of a perfect substitute for humans over a robot. Now if the robot is so real that it is virtually human, then is it even a robot anymore? This can extend to human interaction and many many things.

What is dying is manual physical labor. There is nothing wrong with that. The market, if allowed, can adapt to it. We still need people to innovate, come up with new ideas, etc. And there are plenty of things that we probably can't even predict right now that we will need. People during the industrial revolutions had sentiments VERY similar to what you hold here too. And yet, everything worked out even when they lost their jobs.

...and every day the value of human labor is decreased more and more. **** makes you wonder what the future will hold...because with less workers, there is less money circulated...less aggregate demand...etc, etc...at some point it will get to the point where socialism will pretty much be a literal necessity. Because otherwise, there will be an enormous stratification of wealth and clear class lines of excess and suffering will be drawn. In this case, not going with a more socialist system would lead the vast majority of people down the road of serfdom...(har har)

It is ironic to me that you think the corporations and capitalists are inherently all big and bad, yet you think a government is somehow different when it consists of the same people. But again, my points above stand on this.

Man, I'm just rambling about nothing...with no real point...maybe you should just ignore me...I'll be in the corner with popcorn...eff it...I ain't got the patience, conviction, or free time to argue with religious people...

Who is discussing religion? If anything you are the one making points that are based on your misunderstanding of various ideas.

 

[PharmEcon]

Let me just add onto that that I have NO PROBLEM with people who disagree with me as there are most definitely arguable points here. I actually welcome that as it might lead to me learning new things. I DO have a problem, however, when someone accuses me of not going off of studies and facts, but instead off of political ideology (especially when that person is basing their views on political bias). That is the LAST thing I believe in and I am always open to data or things that prove what I am suggesting is wrong because I may well be wrong, but you can't just tell me I'm wrong to prove it- you have to actually prove it or make some viable points that might suggest I am wrong. Such is the nature of logical exchange.

 

[StevePerry]

OK, in what way is our system the best in the world?

I'm just messing with you. You're obviously a bright guy (or girl)... you know the "paradox" of US healthcare.

Best specialists, ER, and innovation all while subsidizing the rest of the world, but don't get ranked #1 b/c the US doesn't have "healthcare for all", is expensive for MANY reasons (which is great for pharmacists!!! $$$$), and has a litany of unaccounted for cultural differences that influence life expectancy...

Great system or not-so-great system depending on who you are...

 

[StevePerry]

I will not dignify YOUR ideological biases and stereotyping with a response. Have fun with the anti-intellectualism


I only mentioned them because you believe things can't be modeled- a take they often use. Ironically, you still believe in institutions that use the very models you say don't work since you clearly don't agree with the Austrians in terms of the role of government and markets.

That aside, you clearly have not taken the time to read and understand the arguments put forth by the Austrian school. I do not consider myself a strict adherent of any school, but I do take the time to understand where they are coming from, look at their studies, read their writings, etc. before I just bash like this. And before you tell me you have taken the due diligence let me tell you the following WRONG assumptions you make:

-You think the robber barons are the result of a free market and the Austrians are fine with that. The Austrians would say it is because of the government that the robber barons got as big as they did. The argument would likely be along the lines of this one by Milton Friedman (who is of course not an Austrian, but would likely be similar on this point): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

-You bring up Somalia and take the current situation and compare it to the West or the United States of whatever, which makes no sense logically. Compare it to the time before Somalia was in its current governmental state and you get a much better story of what happened. It is all relative. That aside, many (not all) Austrians would likely support a government based on contractual law and the harm principle in place and would not see Somalia as an ideal situation even today.

-Rand and Hayek are not synonymous in opinion and the Austrian school is a lot more represented by the latter although even within the school, as with any school, you will find disagreement.

-You clearly have not read any of the actual work Hayek put forth. You also don't realize how he influenced the field and who he has influenced. He is considered one of the greatest economists in modern history- he was the rival of Keynes and he is respected for his work amongst all the schools. You are just taking your politically influenced assumption of what Hayek is and using it to demean his work just as those who don't support Keynes often do with him on the political field. Anti-intellectualism won't get you far.


You clearly don't understand what capitalism is. I am not sure why you keep bringing up Rand either considering she has not once been mentioned in this thread prior to you bringing her up (as far as I remember).


You don't understand capitalist theory.


Still ranting?


The right and left don't matter. They don't exist. They are subjective. If you ask people in different parts of the world what the "right" that you speak of is, some will say right, some will say center, others will say left. On the scale of world history we are all leftists. The founding fathers were the liberals of their day. If you want to discuss the facts do so, but I do not care for this game of political monikers because they don't matter.


Well that is not what you described in your last post. Anyway, even to this, it might be arguable, but not very sensible. There will always be a demand for human service- not to be crude, but an easy example is sex. Do you think robots will take that over too? There will always be a market for sex and most likely humans will want somewhat of a perfect substitute for humans over a robot. Now if the robot is so real that it is virtually human, then is it even a robot anymore? This can extend to human interaction and many many things.

What is dying is manual physical labor. There is nothing wrong with that. The market, if allowed, can adapt to it. We still need people to innovate, come up with new ideas, etc. And there are plenty of things that we probably can't even predict right now that we will need. People during the industrial revolutions had sentiments VERY similar to what you hold here too. And yet, everything worked out even when they lost their jobs.


It is ironic to me that you think the corporations and capitalists are inherently all big and bad, yet you think a government is somehow different when it consists of the same people. But again, my points above stand on this.


Who is discussing religion? If anything you are the one making points that are based on your misunderstanding of various ideas.

LMAO... that was absolutely brutal. A+

Case F---ing Closed.

 

[PharmEcon]

Another relevant (to the original topic) blog post made earlier today by Alex Tabborak of GMU, over at the Marginal Revolution blog: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/11/college-has-been-oversold.html

 

[PharmDstudent]

Another relevant (to the original topic) blog post made earlier today by Alex Tabborak of GMU, over at the Marginal Revolution blog: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/11/college-has-been-oversold.html

This author assumes that people will walk out of college and work in their field with a bachelor's degree, which is a bunch of garbage. Who can do that right now (other than maybe a nurse)? My pizza delivery guy recently graduated in engineering and filled out roughly 100 job applications, which resulted in ONE job interview.

 

[PharmEcon]

This author assumes that people will walk out of college and work in their field with a bachelor's degree, which is a bunch of garbage. Who can do that right now (other than maybe a nurse)? My pizza delivery guy recently graduated in engineering and filled out roughly 100 job applications, which resulted in ONE job interview.

He isn't making that assumption- not sure how you thought he was. If anything, he is more in line with what you are saying, except he is saying that certain majors (i.e. sciences) are having a much easier time finding jobs compared to humanities, etc.

 

[PharmDstudent]

He isn't making that assumption- not sure how you thought he was. If anything, he is more in line with what you are saying, except he is saying that certain majors (i.e. sciences) are having a much easier time finding jobs compared to humanities, etc.

Of course he is. I have a Bachelor's of Liberal Arts degree and a PharmD. Where do people like that come into play? Or the people with Biology degrees who end up working as pharmacy techs and waitresses... because they want to?

 

[PharmEcon]

Of course he is. I have a Bachelor's of Liberal Arts degree and a PharmD. Where do people like that come into play? Or the people with Biology degrees who end up working as pharmacy techs and waitresses... because they want to?

Both those situations make up a very small part of the market. The sheer number of undergrads vs. grads/professional students vs. those with bachelor's degrees looking for jobs alone supports that. Are you suggesting that the number of people who major is something just for the sake of majoring in it and not to lead to a related job field is a sizeable part of the market?

 

[PharmDstudent]

Perhaps my whole point is that a bachelor's degree is no longer very relevant, and to assume that "graduating with a degree that doesn't pay" is anyone's intended purpose is short-sighted. Many of my friends who were liberal arts majors wanted to teach or go to law school, not work as journalists, psychologists, or dancers. And a few students that I knew wanted to go to med school, etc. while majoring in liberal arts.

Both those situations make up a very small part of the market. The sheer number of undergrads vs. grads/professional students vs. those with bachelor's degrees looking for jobs alone supports that. Are you suggesting that the number of people who major is something just for the sake of majoring in it and not to lead to a related job field is a sizeable part of the market?

I think it occurs more often than people realize.

 

[BenJammin]

The reason tuition is so high is because there is this societal notion (and no it is not just limited to students, but often to their parents, teachers, etc. too) that every child should go to a 4-year school and possibly grad school, etc. almost regardless of cost. The government offers all of this money to "help", when in reality it only leads to schools competing to see who can build the best luxury resort to attract students who are willing to take any debt on (and can do so because of the government "assistance") because they believe college will make their lives a lot better regardless of what they major in, etc. It is a vicious cycle. Unfortunately, it is most likely an asset bubble much like the housing bubble was, except this time, there is no foreclosure when it bursts.

Truer words have never been spoken. The fact that people think they are entitled to a job because their English degree came from USC or their Elementary Education degree came from Penn State is outrageous. Prestige used to mean something a long time ago but it doesn't impress me anymore.

Oh yeah? You got a medical degree from Harvard? Well if you can't differentiate a myocardial infarction from indigestion then nobody is impressed.

Perhaps my whole point is that a bachelor's degree is no longer very relevant, and to assume that "graduating with a degree that doesn't pay" is anyone's intended purpose is short-sighted. Many of my friends who were liberal arts majors wanted to teach or go to law school, not work as journalists, psychologists, or dancers. And a few students that I knew wanted to go to med school, etc. while majoring in liberal arts.

Eh, law school isn't the best example of what you're talking about. The fact that an elementary education major with a 3.9 will always be accepted over a doctor of pharmacy with a 3.85 is one that doesn't sink in to professionals and students like us.

 

[PharmDstudent]

Eh, law school isn't the best example of what you're talking about. The fact that an elementary education major with a 3.9 will always be accepted over a doctor of pharmacy with a 3.85 is one that doesn't sink in to professionals and students like us.

I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly?


Teaching, like, professor. You can teach elementary school with a bachelor's. You need to go to grad school to become a professor, which is what everyone seemed to want to do. That, and law school. Making a bachelor's degree just a stepping stone...

Maybe I'm out of touch. I graduated undergrad 5 or 6 years ago. Perhaps they've wised up? I doubt it, though.

 

[BenJammin]

I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly?


Teaching, like, professor. You can teach elementary school with a bachelor's. You need to go to grad school to become a professor, which is what everyone seemed to want to do. That, and law school. Making a bachelor's degree just a stepping stone...

Maybe I'm out of touch. I graduated undergrad 5 or 6 years ago. Perhaps they've wised up? I doubt it, though.

I might have misunderstood your post. I got the impression that you think that an easy (or should I say a major that isn't very intensive like a science major) degree isn't what people want. If your goal is law school then it's suicide to go for a degree that would net you bad grades.

 

[joh0472]

Just looking at the starting premise of this thread I wonder if the person making this statement understands why a student loan is a more risky investment than an auto loan or a mortgage. If a person defaults on an auto or mortgage loan then there are steps the lender can take to recoup some of that investment (repossession, foreclosure).

What do you do if a student loan debt is defaulted? You can't really take away the knowledge gained, and it would be political suicide if degrees are revoked because of loan default. Also there are so many caveats when it come to paying back the loans. Personal hardship can result in delayed payments, grace periods can be extended.

If you look at it from an investors side 8% would even be low considering the risk involved in the investment. If I were an investor I wouldn't invest my money in this investment with such little return. Why should people as a whole have to take this risk?

Take your money you get from student loans as a partial gift and be happy about it. Thanks to the student loans many doors are opened to you that would otherwise be closed.

 

[Hope1974]

OK, in what way is our system the best in the world?

It's not the best system in the world. And, it hasn't been for a while. The American system is too capitalistic in everything. i.e. student loan burden, insurance companies. For example, insurance companies won't pick you up if you have a pre-existing condition.

Trying to explain to people who have only lived in this country and have experienced nothing else, why more of a social aspect should be included, is like talking to a dead cockroach- Theres no point in discussing it.

But, truth be heard, 100% socialism as there is in Cuba is bad for the people, just as 100% capitalism is bad for the people. There needs to be a mix of both, as there is in the healthcare systems in Europe. Yes, they are not perfect either, but they seem more fair than here.

And too, people in Europe and in the U.S. think differently, not all, but many when it comes to certain things like: Why should someone be paid a couple thousand in one year, say 2k whereas someone else is being paid millions or billions?

 

[bmkleinb]

Personally, I have always believed that at the highest levels of specialized care and/or if you have the money, then the US does have the best health care for you. However, if you are not fitting of that mold, which most are not, then there are other health systems throughout the world that would be considered better.

 

[Shnurek]

Unsubsidized government 6.8% loans are the last loans you should take. They WILL make you a financial slave and that is exactly why the government has made it so easy to get them and you have to go through THEM.

1st line of defense: Apply for any and all scholarships (its free money folks)
2nd line of defense: Take a year off if you can, save up some money, live with your parents, do anything not to take out those terrible loans.
3rd line of defense: Apply for as many private loans as you will get that are below 6.8%.

 

[Hello2011]

Unsubsidized government 6.8% loans are the last loans you should take. They WILL make you a financial slave and that is exactly why the government has made it so easy to get them and you have to go through THEM.

1st line of defense: Apply for any and all scholarships (its free money folks)
2nd line of defense: Take a year off if you can, save up some money, live with your parents, do anything not to take out those terrible loans.
3rd line of defense: Apply for as many private loans as you will get that are below 6.8%.

That's terrible advice.

 

[Shnurek]

I meant only if you have to. In order to pay for the school when the first two lines of defenses fail.

 

[whidbeyboy]

The various political entities make it plainly clear and obvious where they stand on these types of things. So if it's a high priority issue to you then one thing you can do is make sure you vote. If you don't, then you get whatever you get.

Can we vote out the special interest and the banks giving politicians money? Nope, and so I doubt voting will really change anything.

Student loans are the biggest scam I have ever read about. It's the one system where a bank can lend as much money as someone needs plus more for (?) and make back no less then 120% if that person is unable to pay for whatever reason. Perfect set up for iiresponsible banks lending money to many who can never pay it back.

Sound familiar? Hint: Housing bubble?

Like the lady who borrowed $200,000 to get a degree in sociology? Really? Stupid or naive on her part, unethical and irresponsible on the banks. But they will get their money plus 20% at least, and her life will forever be devastated.

 

[BMBiology]

^^ there are some people who borrow 300+ k, just so they can work as a pharmacist. A profession that has already saturated and salary is in the decline.

 

[Guitarmacy]

yea i wanted a rational discussion and u aint providing it....

This may be an online forum on some mysterious thing called the "Internet", but if you want a rational discussion, you may want to start with some punctuation. It's pretty difficult to gain credibility when it looks like a 5 year old wrote your posts for you. If somehow you're able to gain respect from anyone, more power to you. Writing perfectly is by no means necessary, but damn.