Recently a health reform critic(kindly put) claimed that the founding fathers had hospitals and did not mention them in the constitution(awkwardly put), but I cannot adequately paraphrase the rhetoric. But I did wonder at the time if it was accurate. Yesterday NPI, has a different angle on health care reform and technical advances and the baby boom face of more than half of recipients of health care. But an auxiliary question came to mind. When did health care become for profit? But the real question is when did health insurance become for profit? My problem is that there is always a deeper question. Our problem is that too many have the wrong answers*.
Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.
In memoriam.
* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.
** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.
*** maybe him but not here
Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]
P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Negative Income Tax. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Negative Income Tax. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Use Dispersants On BP!
Not the chemical kind, the market kind.
The Answer to BP is Dispersants
Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.
Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.
If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**
Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.
* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress
[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]
[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]
The Answer to BP is Dispersants
Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.
Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.
If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**
Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.
* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress
[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]
[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Neo-Changian
An Exchange: In segments
(These are some comments I compiled on hold, including an exchange with FB)
Thom Hartmann
Me: On hold with Thom Hartmann, AM1090 Seattle, just missing the Laffer Curve creator, and up next will be Joe Stieglitz.
Summit
Me: In the spirit of the summit, I point to the political down side of some discussion, not that politics is bad, but a process. Much like the Laffer Curve, it depends on which side you are on. Laffer seems to misuse his own curve and extend it to all taxes...
Flat metaphor
Me(cont)...while a flat tax may not be bad, what it is and where it starts is what matters. Even Milton Friedman apparently in the Libertarian wing, suggested a Negative tax. I would love to have the opportunity, ask Nobel winner Stieglitz(about these)
Neo_changian
Me: Apparently out of time, but the metaphor of the "Invisible Hand" of Adam Smith is equivalent to the Laffer Curve at least in how you look at it. There is a real curve and a real hand, although it does depend on individuals to use it and which side your are on. i.e. Neo-Keynsian or more of the change
Exchange
FB: if you want to be a capitalist, actually read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations from cover to cover. ALL of it.
Me: Someday. But did you hear Thom Hartmann with Laffer and Stieglitz? More of your point... please. Mine may have been missed. I might quibble with the (my) equivalence, but not how we look at it mattering. Being on one side of the Laffer Curve statistically, as in raising or lowering taxes(or rather income), matters. Yet, there being no hand really, but the hand the individual has in creating government and corporations is what I meant. Not that they are Leviathans, woops other league (of a book), but it is important to note that Wealth of Nations was written in 1776 so we really have created a hand.
[Update 2-26-10 speaking of summit spirit and comprehensive... well...(is this a cheap shot?) ]
(These are some comments I compiled on hold, including an exchange with FB)
Thom Hartmann
Me: On hold with Thom Hartmann, AM1090 Seattle, just missing the Laffer Curve creator, and up next will be Joe Stieglitz.
Summit
Me: In the spirit of the summit, I point to the political down side of some discussion, not that politics is bad, but a process. Much like the Laffer Curve, it depends on which side you are on. Laffer seems to misuse his own curve and extend it to all taxes...
Flat metaphor
Me(cont)...while a flat tax may not be bad, what it is and where it starts is what matters. Even Milton Friedman apparently in the Libertarian wing, suggested a Negative tax. I would love to have the opportunity, ask Nobel winner Stieglitz(about these)
Neo_changian
Me: Apparently out of time, but the metaphor of the "Invisible Hand" of Adam Smith is equivalent to the Laffer Curve at least in how you look at it. There is a real curve and a real hand, although it does depend on individuals to use it and which side your are on. i.e. Neo-Keynsian or more of the change
Exchange
FB: if you want to be a capitalist, actually read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations from cover to cover. ALL of it.
Me: Someday. But did you hear Thom Hartmann with Laffer and Stieglitz? More of your point... please. Mine may have been missed. I might quibble with the (my) equivalence, but not how we look at it mattering. Being on one side of the Laffer Curve statistically, as in raising or lowering taxes(or rather income), matters. Yet, there being no hand really, but the hand the individual has in creating government and corporations is what I meant. Not that they are Leviathans, woops other league (of a book), but it is important to note that Wealth of Nations was written in 1776 so we really have created a hand.
[Update 2-26-10 speaking of summit spirit and comprehensive... well...(is this a cheap shot?) ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)