Contributors

Thursday, April 11, 2013

32 comments:

The Bubba T said...

Can't wait for someone on here to defend the 300 people who have more than 3 billion.

Anonymous said...

Why, what are you going to counter with? Steal their money?! Confiscate anything over 3 billion? And then do what with it?

Mark Ward said...

The first thing that needs to happen is that the wealthy need to understand that they can't enjoy their lives and their money with an unstable society. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have already realized this and are taking steps with their own money to reduce inequality. If the other billionaires follow their lead, we can reduce inequality in the world and have a more stable earth in a number of ways.

Of course, this doesn't mean that inequality will be gone completely and I have no problem with that. It simply means that this great of degree is unsustainable.

The Bubba T said...

Mark, I love when people comment a have not watched the video. 300 people have more wealth than 3 billion people. Very unsustainable.

The Bubba T said...

By the way there are 458 people on earth with 3 billion dollars and up. Thats nuts! No wonder our planet is turning in to a Shit hole.

Unknown said...

Why don't you start with the people bubba and markadelphia support.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/elizabeth-warren-social-security_n_3053355.html

"Warren said her brother David lives on the $13,200 per year he receives in Social Security benefits."

Really? You think she could help him out a bit? Care to explain it or defend that bubba or markadelphia?

Anonymous said...

Mark, I love when people comment a have not watched the video.

Mark, I love it when you let retards like Bubba T post and they make an ass out of themselves constantly. I watched the video. I also looked up the list of top 500 richest people. Big deal. So what do you want to do to fix it?

Juris Imprudent said...

No wonder our planet is turning in to a Shit hole.

A raging pit of flaming sewage?!? I thought that was a right-wing meme?

So Bubba - what did Warren Buffet or any other rich person do to harm you?

The Bubba T said...

Warren Buffet owns Dairy Queen = bad and highly processed food = factory farms = terrible for the animals, environment, and people = poor health = trips to the doctor = in a car filled up with gas in which Warren owns millions of shares of Conoco Phillips = trips to the pharmacy for a heart drug because you ate one to many double cheeseburgers and milk shakes = profit for the drug company in which Warren Buffet owns millions of shares. Now I understand the people who comment on this blog and mock me can't put all this together because we are dealing with the lack of cognitive development. So its really simple if Americans decided to eat better you could limit the impact on making the earth a shit hole and stop filling the coffers of the mega rich. The list of making things better for all with little effort is endless you just have to use your brain and have a soul.

Juris Imprudent said...

Let me rephrase the question since you didn't appear to get it:

So Bubba - what did Warren Buffet or any other rich person do to harm you?

I don't give a shit about your opinion about other people. Either Buffet (or other rich person) did something that caused you harm or he didn't. Pretty fucking simple - should even be simple enough for you.

And do be careful about those boiling pits of sewage - they really get M riled up.

The Bubba T said...

Juris, nothing I said was an opinion those are facts about buffett and the chain that links things together. If you can't see how that affects you and I I'm sorry for your lack of cognitive developement.

Anonymous said...

Dairy Queen = bad and highly processed food


Dairy Queen (+poor choice to eat at and therefore support) = bad and highly processed food = ...blah blah blah

There, fixed it for you. You appear to suffer from the same misconception that Mark does, namely that big mean corporations somehow force you to buy their product.

Juris Imprudent said...

If you can't see how that affects you and I I'm sorry for your lack of cognitive developement.

It is precisely cognitive development that precludes me from taking shit on faith. You can't demonstrate that you have suffered harm - you just talk about other people and choices you don't approve of. I am deeply touched by your concern for people that you don't know but have decided that you know what is best for them. It makes me want to touch you just as deeply.

The Bubba T said...

Same old stuff from the Bubble Boys. Those things do affect me personally. It amazes me that folks can’t connect the dots.

1-I like to breath clean air and factory farms are terrible for methane being released at a concentrated level.

2- I pay for folks healthcare through being taxed. I don't think to many people who are vegan are using heart drugs that I'm paying for. I also know that money being made on a given drug that I’m paying for is making Buffett some cash.

3-I subsidize corn, beef, and dairy all products that are used at Buffets Dairy Queen. By the way eating shit food is far cheaper than eating healthy food and some folks don’t have that choice. - Thats for the duck...

4-10 billion a year in subsidies for big oil. Conoco Phillips falls in that category and Buffet owns millions of shares.

Anonymous said...

In reverse order:

4-10 billion a year in subsidies...

As repeated here many times before. If the gov't doesn't have the money or power to dispense 'favors' then nobody will bother trying to get 'favors'. Ask Mark if he wants the gov't to have more money and power, then ask juris.

3-I subsidize corn, beef, and...

Same answer as above.

2- I pay for folks healthcare through...

Same answer as above. Plus, ever asked yourself why you need to pay for someone else's healthcare to begin with?

1-I like to breath clean air and factory farms...

? Are you against meat or just against the most efficient way of producing it?

Juris Imprudent said...

1) You aren't harmed unless you happen to live next door. This may be a case where the govt could be involved to ameliorate the dispute.
2) The govt harms you by taxing you to pay for healthcare of others.
3) The govt subsidizes farmers, again with your tax dollars.
4) Again, the govt is subsidizing.

Gosh Bubba you must be some kind of anti-govt kook.

Mark Ward said...

The govt harms you by taxing you to pay for healthcare of others.

You would pay for that health care regardless of what taxes there were. Whether it would be insurance or a free market left to its own devices, you would pay based on someone else's poor choices. And that's even if we didn't have a law in place that says that we have to treat everyone which, y'know, you guys should just come out and say that you hate. At least be honest about the fact that you would let people die if they made poor life choices so people would leave the market and demand might be more elastic.

Juris Imprudent said...

You would pay for that health care regardless of what taxes there were.

No I wouldn't. I would pay for my own and they would pay for theirs, or get it from charitable medical institutions. You are right that the cost gets transferred today because of the fucking law that mandates treatment and that is why so many ERs are inundated with primary care cases.

You want your conscience to be clear - fucking contribute YOUR OWN money to charity. Exhort that others do the same, but don't coerce others to do as you want.

Juris Imprudent said...

And people that make bad choices will eventually die, no matter how sad that makes you.

I am always honest about it - I don't fucking care [there are of course actual people I care about, just not the blind generalized care for everyone]. You can force me to pay taxes but you can't force me to care. Consider that my ultimate act of defiance to compassion fascists like you and Bush and others.

Mark Ward said...

No I wouldn't.

You would be forced to pay market price, juris, and what you fail to see, due to your epistemic closure, is that that price would be high for all of the reasons I've tried to get you to understand (inelastic demand, collusion, cartel behavior, oligopolies etc) and continue to rise as the thirst for profit with captive buyers would continue to grow.

Juris Imprudent said...

You would be forced to pay market price

Market price would not include coverage of non-payers, unless I was buying from a source that charitably served such (and did so because of that). As for the other aspects of economics that you don't really understand but pretend that you do - I'll just ignore that.

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, that's the dodge that you guys always do when you want to avoid work. All you have to do is draw a demand diagram with relatively inelastic demand and you will see how few people leave the market as the price rises. Suppliers can charge whatever they want, juris, because people aren't going to do without when it comes to their health. Further, with few suppliers, consumer surplus will be eroded and the market will not be in equilibrium as resources will not be distributed efficiently. The suppliers will raise the price because they want to make more profit and no one will stop them.

Economics is about human behavior and incentives, neither of which you address in your analysis of most health care markets.

Larry said...

Riight. You truly are an economic ignoranus, aren't you? Because there's no such thing as competition. That which has kept Lasik and plastic surgery getting better and better while getting cheaper can't possibly work in any other field currently covered by insurance. You're seemingly incapable of grasping the point that the current system is itself seriously distorting prices. Or that we think that the proposed "fixes" currently going into place will only make those problems worse, not better.

Mark Ward said...

Larry, clearly you are not grasping the concept of elasticity of demand. With Lasik, demand is relatively elastic because people can make do with glasses or contact lens. So, if the price gets too high, they will leave the market. You are correct in stating that the market for Lasik and other elective medical procedures should be left wholly to market forces.

But how about the market for stem cell treatment? With so few providers, sellers can charge whatever they want with demand relatively inelastic. Resources will not be distributed efficiently or equally in such a market. That's the problem with the more serious health care treatments which is why the government has to regulate those markets more closely.

Juris Imprudent said...

All you have to do is draw a demand diagram with relatively inelastic demand and you will see how few people leave the market as the price rises.

You do not grasp the concept. You can pretend you do, but the only people that you can convince are those as or more ignorant than yourself. Your half-ignorance is not equal to my (or someone elses) knowledge.

I've tried to explain this to you and you refuse to learn. You ought to understand that teacher.

Juris Imprudent said...

As usual I post here and find a perfectly appropriate link a little later...

It even quotes Adam Smith, and I know how much regard you have for him.

Mark Ward said...

You haven't really explained it, juris, and admitted in one of our last go rounds that you weren't familiar with elasticity of demand. It's just another one of those facts that bounce off the the bubble.

Larry said...

Your mistake, Mark, is to assume that there will always be few providers, and that those few actually want to minimize demand for their services. And that they're almost pure evil in their intent (because you can make a lot more money if you sell to a lot more people, duh). Unless they use government to stifle competition, how could they do that and not go under, anyway? Seriously, you have a shattered mirror view of economics and business (and so much, much more).

Juris Imprudent said...

You haven't really explained it, juris

You refuse to listen and refuse to admit to that.

The time you refer to was a specific use of a term, not the concept. I actually got a degree in the subject and you took one class. Seriously, who do you think knows this better?

Or, to flip it around, if I had taken one intro course to education - would that make my opinion on the subject better informed than your own?

Mark Ward said...

And that they're almost pure evil in their intent

People of the same trade seldom meet together, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some diversion to raise prices.

---Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.

If you can demonstrate how there will be many providers in some of the most complex health care markets, particularly the ones that involve intricate, life saving measures, be my guest. Remember, you're going to have to include geographic concerns in your analysis.

shattered mirror view of economics

If you are calling a basic economics text or the Nash equilibrium "shattered," then I suppose you are right:)

Mark Ward said...

Seriously, who do you think knows this better?

Well, I know who the adolescent one is, that's for sure..."knows this better"...sheesh.

It may come as a shock to you, juris, but people disagree on economic matters all the time. Economists disagree on economic matters as well. Saying that I don't know what I'm talking about is basically a tell for three things. First, you don't like the truth. Second, you don't like the fact that I do know what I am talking about and have supported it. Third, you likely haven't taken an economics course in the last couple of decades. As I have stated previously, I took one as an undergrad in the 1980s and one a few years ago for a CE credit.

So, why not say you disagree and present evidence? The rigmorale about me makes you look weak and we can't have that for all the "people" out there who are reading this right now, can we?:)

Juris Imprudent said...

Well, I know who the adolescent one is, that's for sure

Okay then, next discussion of education in this country and your opinion is no better informed than mine. I can live with that, but you sure as fuck won't.

Economists disagree on economic matters as well.

True, but they at least know what they are talking about even when they disagree.

First, you don't like the truth.

You know the truth eh? No investment of ego there, huh little boy?

You didn't read the article I linked quoting Smith did you. He laid all that down more than 20 or 30 years ago, didn't he?