fuck man that is like the second link if you google "Cow goes moo autoadmit Nozick"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916210)

bro you can't talk sense to an idiot like this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916418)

it's a valid argument, to be sure, but there are better ways. This is always going to be a fundamental difference of opinions between us, and that's fine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916196)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916367)

First, "development" is a loaded term that implies subjective values. Already your post is meaningless under that context. I will however continue with the "common sense" definition;

How the fuck can you say that? You think Africa would be more developed if the Euros and Muslims never got their fingers in there? Are you fucking kidding me? The perfect case illustrating this would be Japan and China, stagnant shitholes that had not done anything for centuries finally began to develop further upon meeting Euros.

Are there really people out there that think this?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916434)

Discrimination is a necessary part of all businesses, especially when you are dealing with risk/cost pooling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916241)

This was actually a key distinction from Romneycare, which he unfortunately didn't stress enough, not that most people would've listened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916282)

And FYI the zero copay on preventative care is a good idea precisely because insurance separates people from the cost of care, i.e., because insurance covers people when they acquire a preventable condition, they aren't as inclined to pay extra for care that reduces the chances of acquiring the condition, even though the care is cost-justified. And insurers provide an inefficient level of preventative care, even though the insurance industry as a whole would benefit if it were offered, because people can switch insurers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20918270)

I hold no more love over Repub attempts to "reform" than Dems, but atleast get your fucking facts straight. Both parties have been "Reforming" HC and other shit like welfare for decades.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916185)

You are fucking dumb. The GOP has NEVER even TRIED to solve the problem of 40 mil uninsured because they simply don't give a fuck.

Even when Obama passes a law built on GOP conturd ideas it is not enough.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916301)

""true" healthcare reform means doing nothing to the GOP you dumb twat faggot"

In order for new post to be even remotely responsive you would have had to assume that HC reforms refers to only attempts to deal with 40M uninsured. Who the fuck thinks that?

What you should have written was "The GOP have actively remained idle when it comes to dealing with the uninsured in this country".

My god, do I really need to say this? Square is a rectangle, rectangle is not a square, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916314)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916316)

this is the relevant point.

if reptiles were truly concerned with "serious" reform, they wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to divest "Obamacare" of its real reform levers -- expansion of medicare to cover everyone age 55+, public option, direct government bargaining power, etc.

as per usual, they just want to hand the Dems an embarrassing legislative loss to make them look bad, in hopes of securing a short term political advantage. they are the party willing to sabotage what is in the country's interests, for short-term gain (i.e., say/do anything to get their guys in office next election cycle, so they can set about pursuing their real agenda: neverending tax cuts for the wealthy).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916342)

no, it would be a waste of both our time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916432)

the argument cynically presented by the party that expanded Medicare by a trillion dollars just a few years earlier?

no, it would be a waste of both our time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20918762)

why can't people read the writing on the wall.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916388)

1) Individual payment for most HC costs (i.e. checkups, minor surgeries, antibiotics, etc.)

2) Insurance for high cost, low probability things. I.e. "Cancer insurance".

You would therefore see prices constantly falling for all 1) inputs as consumers are the ones directly paying for them. The moment you have our current system, moral hazard runs rampant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916479)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916576)

I'm of the belief that societies can't prosper if time horizons are too short. While biology has a mild incentive for very short time-horizons, elective democracy has a much stronger one. If everyone chose to thwart savings/not enter into long-term contracts with HC providers, and hospitals didn't treat anyone without pre-existing contracts, we wouldn't get very far as a society. Those are years of productivity being effectively taken out of commission.

It might be a bit reactionary on my part, given how I observe how people act now under the current set of incentives, whereas you are looking at it from an idealized counterfactual, but i think the only way to "fix" the current problem, as it actually stands, is a bit of managed tough love.

Obviously further correction like removing the demand drivers of the HC industry is needed as well. Getting rid of corn subsidies and all that HFCS in American food.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916614)

I see this post in three distinct parts:

1) Subjective values: I don't see the spectrum here. This is an either or case; either you think that you can actually take individual preference and quantify it down to a common denominator with which to compare/quantify, or you cannot. While I use terms like "social cost" when discussing with people who actually put value in them, they really are meaningless as you cannot even begin to perform interpersonal utility comparisons or aggregation of utility.

2) Time preference: Longer time preference does tend to lead to a more capital-intensive society (what someone who does not think values are subjective, would say "Better" society). I would add however that you seem to presume that many/most humans in general have "too" short time preference. I don't think this is the case (I'll accept your judgement as objective). Western and Asian societies have been pretty damn good historically at delaying gratification in exchange for increased standard of living down the road. This is especially true in freer economic climates where the saver is comfortable that the benefits they will reap in the future will actually accrue to them. I would bet that you would see a 10%-15% disposable income savings rate in America tomorrow if the Fed allowed the market to set the interest rate. We are still nation of savers, I will agree however that the longer we bash savers the worse it is going to get.

3) "Practical" steps: I can appreciate the stance that instead of discussing a counterfactual "ideal" you would be better off promoting tangible, although not completely "right", moves in the correct direction. I think there is a place for both groups of people. Remember: Liberalism itself was tainted, and then shat on, from the 20s to the 40s (becoming the monster it is today) because very few actually stood by the principle of the movement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20917369)

That being said, while allowing people the freedom to overpay for things or to consume savings because of their own subjective discount rates makes for a very facially free society, it exacerbates a collective action problem where sufficient resources might not be available for projects that yield the highest net returns if people had worked collectively. The opportunity costs of failing to capture those returns are part of that social cost equation. As those opportunity costs increase, society's long-run growth rates will begin to slow substantially. So the spectrum argument is an attempt to compromise by allowing a cushion or band of market valuation, rather than a precise pinpoint, but managing those bands competently so that irrationality doesn't set in.

If the fed allowed the market to set rates, short-run volatility would incentivize households to save more. I agree. But most people are trained to be stupid from years of moral hazard, however well-intentioned, and there would be a lag before that awakening happened. The managed aspects would exist to soften the pain of that transitory period, thereafter more and more controls could and should be relaxed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20917482)

"which implies that the mean valuation converges on an actual objective market valuation and anything in excess of that is simply irrational surplus"

This is not true at all. It is only the LAST person on both the supply and demand curve that you can argue do not reap a surplus. Consider an exchange of $$$ for a ham sandwhich. On the demand curve you have the following preference attributes

Person A: $10, Ham, $9, $8...

Person B: $7, Ham, $6, $5...

Person C: $3, Ham, $2, $1...

And on the supply:

Person D: $4, Ham, $3...

Person E: $6, Ham, $5...

Person F: $11, Ham, $10...

The market clearing price for the ham sandwich is going to be between $6 and $7, Person C and F will not be in the market, but Persons A,B,D and E will each be in the market have a surplus (it is possible that one of E or B has 0 surplus if they are a bad bargainer). Person A and D will ALWAYS have a surplus in this scenario unless their personal valuations change (but this is far from a mandatory phenomena which it would need to be for your statement to be correct).

Your mistake is assuming equivalent subjective valuation across all market participants that approaches the market clearing price. This is not correct EXCEPT for the marginal pair (i.e the last pair on both S and D curves in the market).

"That being said, while allowing people the freedom to overpay for things or to consume savings because of their own subjective discount rates makes for a very facially free society"

The term "overpay" assumes there is an objective measure of value, which even you seem to agree does not exist. Second, if people have very high time-preference, it makes perfect sense for them to not save (and consumer their own savings if available), what is the problem with that? If you have cancer and know you are going to die in 6 months, should someone (or the gov't) step in and say "No Mr. Huffpo, you cannot spend these savings as they are needed to increase societies QOL"?

"it exacerbates a collective action problem where sufficient resources might not be available for projects that yield the highest net returns if people had worked collectively."

If you have to stop people from adhering to their own time-sensitivity, how can that be said to reap the "highest net returns"?

"so that irrationality doesn't set in. "

I would need you to define irrationality. People who have short time preferences (for whatever reason: e.g. normal character or cancer) consuming their savings/not saving sounds perfectly rational to me. You mean something like irrationality as defined from a "greater good of society" standpoint, which I am sure you can imagine my feelings towards.

"If the fed allowed the market to set rates, short-run volatility would incentivize households to save more. I agree. But most people are trained to be stupid from years of moral hazard, however well-intentioned, and there would be a lag before that awakening happened. The managed aspects would exist to soften the pain of that transitory period, thereafter more and more controls could and should be relaxed."

This goes back to the "practical" vs. principle distinction. I don't have a problem with this, just keep in mind that gov't never relaxes controls. Gov't is a weed. You cannot just slowly cut the top off over time and not expect it to grow back.

In anycase, I am going out for the night. It is always great to see calm and rational people are still around. In the end we agree on most things, it is just your methodology and rationale that differs. I rate you David Friedman.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20917779)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20916600)

*draws on pipe*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20917714)

Even if I disagree with him 100% on methodology, David Friedman is right up your alley. The above is a video on exactly how gov't intervention implemented to correct even things that are not pareto-optimal still end up ALWAYS doing more harm than good.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20917873)

Will check out this presentation. But again, there's an operational issue -- a competence (and benevolence, which has more to do with how we structure incentives for public actors) issue -- that deeply impacts the larger normative issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20917901)

Fine, if you want to play the "we are slaves to external stimulus" argument, I am good with that. At the end of the day however, how do you rationalize the fact that because people find themselves in worse situations than others that force is justified to try and even things out? Even if the worse-off people did not get that way through their own doing, on what basis do you justify violence?

"Regardless, there is no point in providing charity to others. If you find yourself in a good position in life, you should take advantage of it as much as possible, and not let the misfortune of others bring you down."

What the fuck? This is just what you think. The billions of examples of pure charity throughout our history is evidence that many do not share this sentiment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974124&forum_id=2#20917801)