Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[The Oracle]

Eisenhower was far more progressive than today's Republicans too. So were Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, and Gerald Ford. It was a different time.

Can someone explain to me why "progressive" is a bad thing again in politics? Seems pretty fucking backward.

[AlabamAlum]

Who said it was bad?

[AlabamAlum]

Fwiw, I am a progressive, and I am fucking awesome.

[The Oracle]

I see it tossed around in a negative connotation at times....

[hack]

Thanks, talent.

[hack]

Regarding inflation rates:

SF Fed Chief's new paper:
San Francisco Fed chief Williams argues that we’re currently getting a first taste of the future: a world where interest rates are permanently lower, growth is slower and unacceptably low inflation is more of a risk than in the past. “Unfortunately, if the status quo endures, the future is likely to hold more of the same — with the possibility of even more severe challenges to maintaining price and economic stability,” he writes. He urges a rethink of both monetary and fiscal policy to deal.
Williams’s really dramatic statement here is that he thinks the Fed should consider scrapping low-inflation targeting — long the mantra of central banking — in favor of a higher inflation goal, or even nominal GDP targeting. He also suggests that Capitol Hill could consider rolling out bigger and broader automatic stabilizers that kick in to stimulate the economy as soon as there’s a downturn. Tying social security to the business cycle could be one option, he writes.

Suggests a central-banker rethink is in the cards. http://www.garp.org/#!/risk-intellig...0000003CebWEAS. Also some red meat for the charter schools debate lower down.

[Jeff Buchanan]

For-profit prisons is the well-intentioned deregulation/privatization movement taken too far. Incarceration is a textbook public good -- same as building infrastrcture and national defense. You can't privatize a good like that because there is no check or balance on the profit making side.

About an hour into a 9h flight from Rome to Detroit. Had some time to catch up with this thread. Some good stuff.

I found the quote above interesting coming from Hanni. I think I know what he means, but I can think of a lot of services and goods that are "textbook" examples of things that are undertaken for the public good. Communication services, for example.

Would you consider the deregulation of this particular activity as an example of privatization gone too far? These services in Europe, although still private enterprises, are regulated to a much greater degree than in the US. IMO, they're also better because of it. Especially telephone and wireless services.

[froot loops]

Regarding inflation rates:

SF Fed Chief's new paper:
San Francisco Fed chief Williams argues that we?re currently getting a first taste of the future: a world where interest rates are permanently lower, growth is slower and unacceptably low inflation is more of a risk than in the past. ?Unfortunately, if the status quo endures, the future is likely to hold more of the same ? with the possibility of even more severe challenges to maintaining price and economic stability,? he writes. He urges a rethink of both monetary and fiscal policy to deal.
Williams?s really dramatic statement here is that he thinks the Fed should consider scrapping low-inflation targeting ? long the mantra of central banking ? in favor of a higher inflation goal, or even nominal GDP targeting. He also suggests that Capitol Hill could consider rolling out bigger and broader automatic stabilizers that kick in to stimulate the economy as soon as there?s a downturn. Tying social security to the business cycle could be one option, he writes.

Suggests a central-banker rethink is in the cards. http://www.garp.org/#!/risk-intellig...0000003CebWEAS. Also some red meat for the charter schools debate lower down.

Some of that is what I was alluding to previously. We're at a point where interest rates are as low as they can feasibly go and it hasn't stimulated the economy. Monetary policy can't do much more, it has to be fiscal policy.

[Hannibal]

About an hour into a 9h flight from Rome to Detroit. Had some time to catch up with this thread. Some good stuff.

I found the quote above interesting coming from Hanni. I think I know what he means, but I can think of a lot of services and goods that are "textbook" examples of things that are undertaken for the public good. Communication services, for example.

Would you consider the deregulation of this particular activity as an example of privatization gone too far? These services in Europe, although still private enterprises, are regulated to a much greater degree than in the US. IMO, they're also better because of it. Especially telephone and wireless services.

Communication isn't a public good in the sense that you can't directly pay for it. I pay my own cell phone bill, my own satellite bill, etc. But it comes with some large economies of scale. That's somewhat of a different problem. You can't rely on pure competition to build enough communication infrastructure to create a competitive marketplace. But there are IMHO hybrid solutions.

[Hannibal]

Clinton is running for Obama's 3rd term versus Trump running for Nixon's 3rd term.

Not really. There isn't a modern historical precedent for what Trump is doing because about half of the issues have never been on the table.

Eisenhower was far more progressive than today's Republicans too. So were Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, and Gerald Ford. It was a different time.

Tough to make that comparison. Eisenhower predates the welfare state and the issues were different. Not sure about those other guys since none of them ever won a Presidential election. Nixon's economics were crap and between him, Ford, and Carter, you got the stagflation '70s.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks to AA and others for the posts on the ACA (Obama care).

I agree with the view that the left has executed a brilliant incrementalist strategy to obtain a single payer system for health care in the US. Resistance to a system like this, implemented and executed in most western countries to good effect, comes from profit driven entities involved in delivering health care in the US. The outcome has not been a good one and there are plenty of objective numbers to support that claim.

The history of health care in the US is a complicated one but needless to say, the US system has significat flaws, not all of which will be corrected by a single payer system, but in a decade or so, the US health care delivery system has a good chance of being better and probably less costly, all things considered, than it is now.

In a related item, "preventative care" is one of those feel good cures folks advance for improving outcomes. I don't know of anyone practicing medicine for the last half century that to some degree does not incorporate that concept into their practice.

The real story is that patients routinely here only a small portion of medical advice delivered during an encounter and act on even less than that. It is no where close to the panacea those advancing such notions think it is.

The leading edge of medical science involves deciphering the genome and safely manipulating it to prevent disease. While there are legitimate concerns about the inherent risks in these endeavors, in the end, benefits that will reduce morbidity and mortality will far outweigh them.

Much closer to actually having a positive impact on outcomes is the research being done on stimulating the immune system to cure disease. Some of this science is already having an impact. Many cancers are not too far away from being the devastating diseases they once were. The toxicity of chemotherapeutic drugs can be reduced by using lower doses to kill tumors in concert with immune stimulators.

New organs or parts of them can be grown in vitro and then transplanted in Vivo without rejection that has foiled this approach for decades. So, it's a brave new world for medicine that is going to look a whole lot different 20 years down the road.

[AlabamAlum]

Agreed. Preventative care has been done for a long time in medicine. Arguably, going back as far as Asclepieia who rendered medical advice from the gods. When I spoke of lack of preventative care, I was referring to the uninsured who get treated in an ER emergently, and have no exposure to health care otherwise.

And research on organ replacement, an HIV vaccine, stem cell therapy and myriad other things on the cutting edge are definitely awe inspiriing; however, more basic treatments can help now. For example, simple remedies like making available BP checks and HTN counseling for the uninsured, combined with the availability of low cost (or even free) HCTZ and/or lisinopril has been shown to save money and lives. Of course, we cancelled our health department ran BP program here in Alabama because we are friggin' geniuses.

Anyway, it's a good discussion, but possibly moot with the insurance metamorphosis we are living through. My concern with single-payer is how it will impact or affect R&D for the awe-inspiring cures and such mentioned above.

[entropy]

Fwiw, I am a progressive, and I am fucking awesome.

I think that supports the bad theory....

[entropy]

"I know for a fact Ryan Lochte got robbed, my girlfriend was there and saw the whole thing."- Manti Te'o

[AlabamAlum]

I think that supports the bad theory....

Harsh....