Russian prof predicts end of US

[southsider2k5]

Cutting waste does not help you out of the economic mess. It can improve the budget situation long-term, but it is unrelated to getting out of the economic mess. To fix the economic mess, I'm willing to tolerate some measure of waste, because waste can do things like keep people employed (i.e. the automobile bailouts, continued DOD spending on weapons programs we don't need, etc.)

 

So taking money that is wasted and putting in places where it could be useful doesn't help the economy? If waste doesn't matter then why is everyone raising s***fits about the automotive and bankers retreats? Why do people care about CEO salaries? Those all keep people employed as well, because that is money that is getting spent, using that logic.

 

No offense but that is some scary logic you are using there. The fact that we have tolerated governmental waste at such a large rate, for such a long period of time is why we have such a bloated and ineffective government in the first place. There is no motivation to get things done right, except as far as keeping your job. And because it is nearly impossible to lose your overpaying government job, there really isn't much motivation. For example, you don't think it would be more beneficial to the general American economy to clean up waste in places like social security, welfare, medicare/cade etc, so that more people actually got what they were intended to get out of the program, instead of it going to an army of paper pushers.

[Balta1701]

No offense but that is some scary logic you are using there. The fact that we have tolerated governmental waste at such a large rate, for such a long period of time is why we have such a bloated and ineffective government in the first place. There is no motivation to get things done right, except as far as keeping your job. And because it is nearly impossible to lose your overpaying government job, there really isn't much motivation. For example, you don't think it would be more beneficial to the general American economy to clean up waste in places like social security, welfare, medicare/cade etc, so that more people actually got what they were intended to get out of the program, instead of it going to an army of paper pushers.

I love this.

 

Medicare/Medicaid have dramatically lower overhead costs than comparable private insurance plans. Social Security's overhead costs are remarkably minimal. The idea of fighting government waste by focusing on those programs...while not mentioning the DOD, that's exactly what you're talking about, and you don't even realize it. You're tolerating by far the largest chunk of the waste to focus on programs that because of the focus on waste wind up running as efficiently as anything in the private sector.

 

Of course, I'd be happy to cut waste in Medicare. The easy way to do that is to make it so that everyone is served by it and there's no longer any question of whether or not treatment needs done, whether or not insurance will cover treatment, etc. You can dramatically cut overhead and waste by killing the paperwork related to those insurance questions.

 

Oh, and the problem with those giant CEO salaries is that it's not the most effective way in terms of job creation or anything else to spend the government monies. $25 million can fund a hell of a lot of jobs, but instead it goes to pay a bonus to a guy who ran Merrill Lynch for 1 month. Etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

Cutting waste does absolutely nothing to help you out of the current economic mess. Intelligent spending or intelligent tax cuts yes, but the key is they need to be BIG.

 

I could see a return to these spending levels in a couple years as a reasonable thing, but right now, a major infrastructure investment package taking advantage of the low interest rates and at the same time serving as a major economic stimulus is the only choic.e

 

You want to talk long-term...yeah, then we might be able to come to some measure of an agreement. I'd say it was quite shameful that we failed to take advantage of the last economic expansion to pay off some of the federal government's debts, but then people would just discard my statement because of the man who made the decision to stay in debt then.

 

And on the waste issue...this is constantly talked about, but the reality is...there are only a couple ways we're going to actually clean up waste in the government, because every administration comes in and tries to do it. Either we're going to have to make major cuts to the war department (and remember, spending on wars is not real spending, or at least that's how it's been treated the last 30 years) or we're going to have to perform a major overhaul in the health care sector (hopefully coming in a few months). It would be nice to have some measure of competence appear in government at a number of levels in terms of "reducing waste", but again, that's going to be an attack on the people currently making the decisions. There's a ton of useful, productive programs that simply get squeezed out because of the focus on "reducing waste." The reality winds up being that you can save small bits here and there by dropping things like abstinence-only education or various other projects, but the only real waste that will actually matter is the DOD and Health care.

You are confusing what politicians refer to as "waste" with real "waste". Administrations come in, and don't do anything real to cut waste because its not politically expedient. They instead act tough, and just cut programs willy-nilly. And I wholeheartedly agree with you, that's useless. But you can, in fact, cut real waste so that the money goes to areas of the economy where it goes more good.

 

[southsider2k5]

I love this.

 

Medicare/Medicaid have dramatically lower overhead costs than comparable private insurance plans. Social Security's overhead costs are remarkably minimal. The idea of fighting government waste by focusing on those programs...while not mentioning the DOD, that's exactly what you're talking about, and you don't even realize it. You're tolerating by far the largest chunk of the waste to focus on programs that because of the focus on waste wind up running as efficiently as anything in the private sector.

 

Of course, I'd be happy to cut waste in Medicare. The easy way to do that is to make it so that everyone is served by it and there's no longer any question of whether or not treatment needs done, whether or not insurance will cover treatment, etc. You can dramatically cut overhead and waste by killing the paperwork related to those insurance questions.

 

Oh, and the problem with those giant CEO salaries is that it's not the most effective way in terms of job creation or anything else to spend the government monies. $25 million can fund a hell of a lot of jobs, but instead it goes to pay a bonus to a guy who ran Merrill Lynch for 1 month. Etc.

 

Hell the very act of taking someone's money for no interest, and holding on to it for a year only to give it back to them after making the taxpayer complete loads of paperwork is wasteful.

 

They have remarkably lower costs because they reject everyone to start with and make them fight to earn their benefits. That is wasteful to me. How long does it take to get approved for any of those programs? Waste is having over 100 regulating agencies for all of the individual pieces of the financial sector that compete with each other, when we should have one.

 

As for Medicare/cade, do you really think if we just said everyone could have every treatment, everytime that the waste would go away? You can't be that naive, right. You realize that with our medical system falling apart from being overburdened now, that all of the new people added in, plus no need to be effecient about what health care you seek would collapse the whole system. We would have health care rationing, and we would still have bureuocrats deciding who gets treatment and who does, except on a much grander scale, instead of smaller.

[Balta1701]

As for Medicare/cade, do you really think if we just said everyone could have every treatment, everytime that the waste would go away? You can't be that naive, right. You realize that with our medical system falling apart from being overburdened now, that all of the new people added in, plus no need to be effecient about what health care you seek would collapse the whole system. We would have health care rationing, and we would still have bureuocrats deciding who gets treatment and who does, except on a much grander scale, instead of smaller.

Other countries are able to come shockingly close to that goal while still spending a ton less than us on health care. France is of course the timeless example in that regard.

 

Britain is closer to the rationing end of the scale, but even then, they still produce better overall results than our system does, at a cost significantly less than that of even France.

[NorthSideSox72]

Other countries are able to come shockingly close to that goal while still spending a ton less than us on health care. France is of course the timeless example in that regard.

 

Britain is closer to the rationing end of the scale, but even then, they still produce better overall results than our system does, at a cost significantly less than that of even France.

Something a lot of people don't mention in this debate... part of the reason why our costs are so damn high is the prevalence of fully private health insurance AND private health care providers. It introduces all sorts of falsehoods and strange attractors into the economic equations. The usual economic equations are closer to two-sided, or liner in nature, which is also more true in at least some of those European nations (though I don't know them all, or any very well). This privatized triad we have going here is problematic, IMO.

 

I don't really know the answer on this one. Its a huge puzzle.

 

[lostfan]

Frankly, I don't like that health insurance is a for-profit industry. I won't go so far as to say I want socialized insurance (YET, because I haven't become convinced it's the wrong idea yet either), and definitely not full-blown government-run healthcare, but this is somewhere I don't think the pure free market is the answer.

[NorthSideSox72]

Frankly, I don't like that health insurance is a for-profit industry. I won't go so far as to say I want socialized insurance (YET, because I haven't become convinced it's the wrong idea yet either), and definitely not full-blown government-run healthcare, but this is somewhere I don't think the pure free market is the answer.

I agree, for the simple reason that the motivation is wrong. Profit motivation and quality health care just don't get along. And with consumer choice being a near non-factor in health care (again, due to that triad), that problem is magnified even further.

 

 

[mr_genius]

Well, the other argument I can make is that it'd be dramatically more dangerous to not take on additional debt and just let the economy spiral its way completely down the liquidity trap.

 

These bailouts and giveaways aren't fixing anything. The massive debt we are accumulating could very well end up launching this second great depression. The dollar cannot sustain it's worth if we continue on this reckless spending spree. Right now next years budget is going to be at least a 1 trillion deficit, could end up being 2 trillion. We are getting into very dangerous territory with our current levels of debt within the government and in the general population.

 

The US is setting itself up for an epic disaster if we get anywhere near -30 trillion. Monetary collapse. The United States could likely survive a crash like that, but it would get extremely ugly.

Edited December 31, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

I agree, for the simple reason that the motivation is wrong. Profit motivation and quality health care just don't get along. And with consumer choice being a near non-factor in health care (again, due to that triad), that problem is magnified even further.

Right, that is a major piece of the free market equation missing there. Buying health insurance isn't like shopping for a TV or going to a restaurant.

[mr_genius]

Something a lot of people don't mention in this debate... part of the reason why our costs are so damn high is the prevalence of fully private health insurance AND private health care providers. It introduces all sorts of falsehoods and strange attractors into the economic equations. The usual economic equations are closer to two-sided, or liner in nature, which is also more true in at least some of those European nations (though I don't know them all, or any very well). This privatized triad we have going here is problematic, IMO.

 

I don't really know the answer on this one. Its a huge puzzle.

 

Also keep in mind countries like Germany and Japan have strict guidelines which doctors and hospitals can charge patients. Like a week stay in the hospital is $130 in Japan and like $50,000 here. They actually have large phone book looking manuals which mandate what they can charge patients. For example, the average rates charged in the U.S. and the average rates charged in Germany are WAY different.

Edited December 31, 2008 by mr_genius

[ptatc]

Frankly, I don't like that health insurance is a for-profit industry. I won't go so far as to say I want socialized insurance (YET, because I haven't become convinced it's the wrong idea yet either), and definitely not full-blown government-run healthcare, but this is somewhere I don't think the pure free market is the answer.

 

the only problem is that the socialization of medicine maybe economically better but is horrible for the consumer and the provider. There isn't a single country that has socialized medicine that is approved by it's citizens. Everyone I know from those countries wants a job they can in which they can climb the ladder high enough to get private insurance. The medical professionals don't like it either because more often than not their hands are tied and they cannot provide the care they should.

 

Socialized medicine doesn't improve medical care. It only prescribes that all people will have mediocre healthcare and will bring the ceiling and floor of care to the middle. Kind of like the current state of the NFL, lots of mediocre teams with many holes in them and nothing particularly great. (I had to bring sports in somehow).

Edited December 31, 2008 by ptatc

[southsider2k5]

Other countries are able to come shockingly close to that goal while still spending a ton less than us on health care. France is of course the timeless example in that regard.

 

Britain is closer to the rationing end of the scale, but even then, they still produce better overall results than our system does, at a cost significantly less than that of even France.

 

So, as I ask everytime this debate comes up, where is all of the excess capacity at to treat all of these new patients, plus the patients who don't have to ration their health care under the Balta System?

[southsider2k5]

Something a lot of people don't mention in this debate... part of the reason why our costs are so damn high is the prevalence of fully private health insurance AND private health care providers. It introduces all sorts of falsehoods and strange attractors into the economic equations. The usual economic equations are closer to two-sided, or liner in nature, which is also more true in at least some of those European nations (though I don't know them all, or any very well). This privatized triad we have going here is problematic, IMO.

 

I don't really know the answer on this one. Its a huge puzzle.

 

Not to mention all of the government regulations and the need/cost to protect oneself from lawsuits, which the government does not have to worry about. Much of the price differential for the private sector is because of the government. If the government gave the private sector the same free hand, their costs would drop dramatically.

[kapkomet]

I said it somewhere else, but why even have a free market on anything anymore? I think we need to have caps on what EVERYONE can earn, in ANY position... no one needs to have more then $25-30K per year, right? I mean, we can buy food on all that. The rest of everything needs to go to the government so they can take care of every problem we United States of Socialisam needs. They can provide us government owned housing, government owned Yugos, government owned health care (which they decide when we need to be treated for anything), government owned sports teams, government owned kids, government owned everything. I'm so tired of you people who make more then me. You don't need it, you should be "speading your wealth" to the rest of us lowly people who can't make it on our own. Government owned careers, government owned industries (hell, we're almost there, let's just get it over with).

 

I love this thinking. Let's make it happen!

 

CLASS WARFARE IS GONE! Woot!

 

 

[lostfan]

I said it somewhere else, but why even have a free market on anything anymore? I think we need to have caps on what EVERYONE can earn, in ANY position... no one needs to have more then $25-30K per year, right? I mean, we can buy food on all that. The rest of everything needs to go to the government so they can take care of every problem we United States of Socialisam needs. They can provide us government owned housing, government owned Yugos, government owned health care (which they decide when we need to be treated for anything), government owned sports teams, government owned kids, government owned everything. I'm so tired of you people who make more then me. You don't need it, you should be "speading your wealth" to the rest of us lowly people who can't make it on our own. Government owned careers, government owned industries (hell, we're almost there, let's just get it over with).

 

I love this thinking. Let's make it happen!

 

CLASS WARFARE IS GONE! Woot!

Ok, I'll bite. Why even have a government? Let's just privatize the whole thing!

 

ANARCHY IS THE ONLY PURE FREEDOM! Woot!

[kapkomet]

You're sort of making my point.

 

[Texsox]

Yeah, I've heard about this guy before. I don't know about the breakup of the U.S. but I'll say this much, our ridiculous federal deficit and borrowing silly amounts of money from China really concerns me, and there are no mainstream politicians that appear to be taking that seriously.

 

I strongly disagree. People feel that government spending has to go up now because the danger of that debt is something that hasn't come home to roost yet. The risk you take on is big, people just don't see it in front of them. But if you look at the projections for CURRENT spending levels, in 10 years the interest on our debt is going to be a pretty big chunk of the budget. That is a dangerous spiral that you cannot easily escape, and I fear that spiral more than I fear the current economy going into depression. Ironically, you need less debt now to give you the flexibility to take on more in situations like this one. We just can't at this point without huge risk.

 

I guess this all depends on whether or not you feel we've reached the point of too much debt risk yet. I feel we have, especially when you look at other financial and energy risks hanging over us. Others may not feel that way.

 

Waste is an interesting concept. What happens when the government wastes money? A supplier makes a higher profit and hires more people? The government hires more people thereby lowering unemployment? While I wish the government would make the fullest use of every dollar we spend, I think I agree with Balta, it isn't that crucial if you believe the government needs to be racking up debt and spending, spending, spending.

[southsider2k5]

 

 

Waste is an interesting concept. What happens when the government wastes money? A supplier makes a higher profit and hires more people? The government hires more people thereby lowering unemployment? While I wish the government would make the fullest use of every dollar we spend, I think I agree with Balta, it isn't that crucial if you believe the government needs to be racking up debt and spending, spending, spending.

 

I guess Balta believes that one $60 an hour job is more important than 3 $20 an hour jobs because that is what you get from a wasteful government. You also get all of the goods and services that you are paying for not delivered in a timely and efficient manner. Every dollar wasted in a program is one that isn't reaching the intended target.