gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article k.net>,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> There is not a diagnostic test in existence for which
>> the wait in the US would be even four weeks.
>
> Not quite true; I waited a month for an MR arthrogram. Never had to
> wait more than a week for an ordinary MRI, though, and twice I got
> them the same day I made the appointment. None of these were
> emergency or urgent care situations.

I knew when I wrote it it probably wasn't completely
so; I was doing it for effect. The point is, it's
extremely rare. Even under most managed care plans,
you're going to get almost any diagnostic test done
very quickly - much more quickly than in Canada. I had
an intravenous pyelogram done a couple of years ago -
that's another contrast-medium X-ray like the
arthrogram - and I think my Kaiser doctor ordered it
and I got it a week later.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often
>>>>>>>>>>leads to prosperity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why stop at half the wages. China and India can do it for far far less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It just as clearly applies to Chinese workers eventually losing their
>>>>>>>>jobs to people in Burma or Nigeria thanks to "free trade."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's interesting, because that did happen already in Japan, is that
>>>>>>>eventually you run out of dirt poor people to shift the work to and then
>>>>>>>every group on the planet is suddenly better off. The people of Japan
>>>>>>>aren't in a state like the people of Nigeria even though the people of
>>>>>>>the worse world took their old jobs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But Japan never subjected itself to "free market" principles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Within Japan, you are correct the economy is pretty controlled. And
>>>>>you'll notice they've had serious problems.
>>>>
>>>>Not as serious as "free trade" countries like Mexico and Peru.
>>>>Argentina had so much "free market" they had to close the banks.
>>>
>>>Argentina hardly had a free market since their money wasn't floating.
>>
>>Mexico's currency was floating, and their economy sank. Clinton had
>>to bail out American bankers.
>
> What was your point again?

That the "free market" doesn't lead to prosperity. Sure, it can make a
few people obscenely wealthy. And with some luck, and a few
reincarnations, you might be one of them, but that's not the same thing.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If China and India threaten to get too expensive - not likely in China
>>>>>>with the gov't setting the (low) wages
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually I'm not sure they do.
>>>>
>>>>The "unions" are gov't-controlled. And gov't (and military) fat cats
>>>>are the ones with ownership of the companies.
>>>
>>>No. What gave you that idea ?
>>
>>Global consumers buying $25 Chinese-made DVD players usually assume
>>Chinese labor is cheap because the country has a limitless supply of
>>poor workers. But the morally cumbersome truth is that the Chinese
>>government systematically prevents workers from being paid the full
>>value of their labor.
>
> What does that mean, "the full value of their labor"?

It means paying them what their work is worth.

> You sound like a
> commie, Turner. When you work for pay, you engage at a wage you agreed
> to with the employer.

When you're a serf on the plantation, you take what the boss-man will
give you.

> Now if the employer then cheats you on pay or
> something like that, you have a good argument,

When the Chinese (or American) corporations use the power of the state
to depress the level of wages...

> but the idea that someone
> should pay you some magical amount that equals all the value you add,
> why should they hire you in the first place? What is the reason for
> having employees if you can't make a profit on what they do?

Exactly. Throw out the owners and run things as a cooperative.

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and
as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." -Thomas
Jefferson

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>If China and India threaten to get too expensive - not likely in China
> >>>>>>with the gov't setting the (low) wages
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Actually I'm not sure they do.
> >>>>
> >>>>The "unions" are gov't-controlled. And gov't (and military) fat cats
> >>>>are the ones with ownership of the companies.
> >>>
> >>>No. What gave you that idea ?
> >>
> >>Global consumers buying $25 Chinese-made DVD players usually assume
> >>Chinese labor is cheap because the country has a limitless supply of
> >>poor workers. But the morally cumbersome truth is that the Chinese
> >>government systematically prevents workers from being paid the full
> >>value of their labor.
> >
> > What does that mean, "the full value of their labor"?
>
> It means paying them what their work is worth.
>
You are just begging the question. Should they be paid the entire amount
they are an added value to the company they work for? In other words, if
you need help still, should they be paid exactly enough that there is no
profit from their efforts left over for anyone else including the
company?



> > You sound like a
> > commie, Turner. When you work for pay, you engage at a wage you agreed
> > to with the employer.
>
> When you're a serf on the plantation, you take what the boss-man will
> give you.
>
The the extent that employees of GM who get free health care and are
bankrupting the company are "serfs on the plantation", should they be
getting the entire value add for their labours or should some be left
over for the stockholders?



> > Now if the employer then cheats you on pay or
> > something like that, you have a good argument,
>
> When the Chinese (or American) corporations use the power of the state
> to depress the level of wages...
>
What does that even mean? Are you saying when a corporation creates a
monopoly and therefore can set the price, in this case in the purchase
of labour?



> > but the idea that someone
> > should pay you some magical amount that equals all the value you add,
> > why should they hire you in the first place? What is the reason for
> > having employees if you can't make a profit on what they do?
>
> Exactly. Throw out the owners and run things as a cooperative.
>
So you want to essentially run the US like China under Mao?

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often
> >>>>>>>>>>leads to prosperity.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Why stop at half the wages. China and India can do it for far far less.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>It just as clearly applies to Chinese workers eventually losing their
> >>>>>>>>jobs to people in Burma or Nigeria thanks to "free trade."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What's interesting, because that did happen already in Japan, is that
> >>>>>>>eventually you run out of dirt poor people to shift the work to and then
> >>>>>>>every group on the planet is suddenly better off. The people of Japan
> >>>>>>>aren't in a state like the people of Nigeria even though the people of
> >>>>>>>the worse world took their old jobs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>But Japan never subjected itself to "free market" principles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Within Japan, you are correct the economy is pretty controlled. And
> >>>>>you'll notice they've had serious problems.
> >>>>
> >>>>Not as serious as "free trade" countries like Mexico and Peru.
> >>>>Argentina had so much "free market" they had to close the banks.
> >>>
> >>>Argentina hardly had a free market since their money wasn't floating.
> >>
> >>Mexico's currency was floating, and their economy sank. Clinton had
> >>to bail out American bankers.
> >
> > What was your point again?
>
> That the "free market" doesn't lead to prosperity. Sure, it can make a
> few people obscenely wealthy. And with some luck, and a few
> reincarnations, you might be one of them, but that's not the same thing.
>
The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
price controls off, the bread was available.

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If China and India threaten to get too expensive - not likely in China
>>>>>>>>with the gov't setting the (low) wages
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actually I'm not sure they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The "unions" are gov't-controlled. And gov't (and military) fat cats
>>>>>>are the ones with ownership of the companies.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. What gave you that idea ?
>>>>
>>>>Global consumers buying $25 Chinese-made DVD players usually assume
>>>>Chinese labor is cheap because the country has a limitless supply of
>>>>poor workers. But the morally cumbersome truth is that the Chinese
>>>>government systematically prevents workers from being paid the full
>>>>value of their labor.
>>>
>>>What does that mean, "the full value of their labor"?
>>
>>It means paying them what their work is worth.
>
> You are just begging the question. Should they be paid the entire amount
> they are an added value to the company they work for? In other words, if
> you need help still, should they be paid exactly enough that there is no
> profit from their efforts left over for anyone else including the
> company?

I've said before that it generally pays to reinvest some of the profits.
But really, I don't think that's a decision I should be making.
Ideally, the workers would allocate the profits in a democratic system.

>>>You sound like a
>>>commie, Turner. When you work for pay, you engage at a wage you agreed
>>>to with the employer.
>>
>>When you're a serf on the plantation, you take what the boss-man will
>>give you.
>
> The the extent that employees of GM who get free health care and are
> bankrupting the company are "serfs on the plantation", should they be
> getting the entire value add for their labours or should some be left
> over for the stockholders?

It's not the workers' fault that the American system of private health
insurance is bankrupting GM. Other companies are buliding plants in
Canada because American healthcare is too expensive. Stockholders have
to assume some risk in any investment. A diversified portfolio is the
best option. If times are tight then some sort of arrangement should be
negotiated between the owners, the creditors and the workers.

>>>Now if the employer then cheats you on pay or
>>>something like that, you have a good argument,
>>
>>When the Chinese (or American) corporations use the power of the state
>>to depress the level of wages...
>
> What does that even mean? Are you saying when a corporation creates a
> monopoly and therefore can set the price, in this case in the purchase
> of labour?

That's part of it. The Chinese gov't runs the unions as well as the
corporations. Independent labor organizing is illegal in China. So
wages are whatever the gov't says they shall be, and the gov't has an
interest in keeping wages low.

>>>but the idea that someone
>>>should pay you some magical amount that equals all the value you add,
>>>why should they hire you in the first place? What is the reason for
>>>having employees if you can't make a profit on what they do?
>>
>>Exactly. Throw out the owners and run things as a cooperative.
>
> So you want to essentially run the US like China under Mao?

I don't think Mao ran China as a cooperative. I mean there should be
democracy in the running of corporations and in the economy overall.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Losing your job to someone who'll work for half the wages *so* often
>>>>>>>>>>>>leads to prosperity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Why stop at half the wages. China and India can do it for far far less.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It just as clearly applies to Chinese workers eventually losing their
>>>>>>>>>>jobs to people in Burma or Nigeria thanks to "free trade."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What's interesting, because that did happen already in Japan, is that
>>>>>>>>>eventually you run out of dirt poor people to shift the work to and then
>>>>>>>>>every group on the planet is suddenly better off. The people of Japan
>>>>>>>>>aren't in a state like the people of Nigeria even though the people of
>>>>>>>>>the worse world took their old jobs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But Japan never subjected itself to "free market" principles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Within Japan, you are correct the economy is pretty controlled. And
>>>>>>>you'll notice they've had serious problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not as serious as "free trade" countries like Mexico and Peru.
>>>>>>Argentina had so much "free market" they had to close the banks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Argentina hardly had a free market since their money wasn't floating.
>>>>
>>>>Mexico's currency was floating, and their economy sank. Clinton had
>>>>to bail out American bankers.
>>>
>>>What was your point again?
>>
>>That the "free market" doesn't lead to prosperity. Sure, it can make a
>>few people obscenely wealthy. And with some luck, and a few
>>reincarnations, you might be one of them, but that's not the same thing.
>
> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
> price controls off, the bread was available.

And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.

I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
corporate model is wrong. And while the price feedback mechanism is
generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs. And the
cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. We need to take the money out
of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
respond to the needs of their constituents.

--Jeff


--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>

> > The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
> > under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
> > indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
> > but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
> > state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
> > that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
> > price controls off, the bread was available.
>
> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>
Ya znaiyu.



> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
> corporate model is wrong.
>
Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
not like what you advocated earlier.


> And while the price feedback mechanism is
> generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
> think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
> ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
> regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs.
>
Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from
the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since
administration is the purview of the executive branch.



> And the
> cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
> system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
> the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
>
It's broken because there is unlimited demand.


> We need to take the money out
> of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
> respond to the needs of their constituents.
>
If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and
later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes?




--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
>>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course,
>>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
>>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the
>>>price controls off, the bread was available.
>>
>>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
>>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>
> Ya znaiyu.
>
>>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
>>corporate model is wrong.
>
> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
> not like what you advocated earlier.

It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
why shouldn't it be democratic too?

>>And while the price feedback mechanism is
>>generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
>>think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
>>ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
>>regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs.
>
> Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from
> the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since
> administration is the purview of the executive branch.
>
>>And the
>>cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
>>system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
>>the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
>
> It's broken because there is unlimited demand.

What do you mean?

>>We need to take the money out
>>of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
>>respond to the needs of their constituents.
>
> If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and
> later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes?

Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign
contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting.

--Jeff

--
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market
>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do
>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of
>>>> course,
>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down
>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw
>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let
>>>> the
>>>> price controls off, the bread was available.
>>>
>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become
>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism.
>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies.
>>
>> Ya znaiyu.
>>
>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current
>>> corporate model is wrong.
>>
>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's
>> not like what you advocated earlier.
>
> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries,
> why shouldn't it be democratic too?

Because it's not a country and not an economy. It's a
company that's privately owned.


>>> And while the price feedback mechanism is
>>> generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I
>>> think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is
>>> ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to
>>> regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs.
>>
>> Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from
>> the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since
>> administration is the purview of the executive branch.
>>
>>> And the
>>> cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the
>>> system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of
>>> the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
>>
>> It's broken because there is unlimited demand.
>
> What do you mean?

With every post, you show you don't understand a thing
about economics. The consumers of medical care don't
internalize the cost of the care. To them, the medical
care appears "free", so they want too much of it. More
care is demanded by consumers than is available at that
price.

Medical care is no different from any other good or
service. There is a cost to providing the stuff, and
there's no reason suppliers shouldn't make a profit in
doing a good job of supplying the goods or service.


>>> We need to take the money out
>>> of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to
>>> respond to the needs of their constituents.

Getting to decide how several trillion dollars are
spent is valuable. Why would you think huge resources
wouldn't be spent to be in that position?

If you want to get the money out of politics, you first
need to get rid of the ability of politicians to decide
winners and losers. Then running for office won't seem
so attractive.


>>
>> If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and
>> later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes?
>
> Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign
> contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting.

Won't work. Getting to be the "decider" is too
valuable. It will draw the money one way or another.