Trump and Bernie would destroy the US economy

[beltim]

Bit off-topic: I have a question about the USPS - I hear about their "inefficiency" a lot, but is that due to actual inefficiency or because they have to serve the whole country, keep prices low and pay employees reasonable wages and benefits?  I mail a letter, it costs me $0.45; I send it fedex, it costs minimum $10(?), or more?  Just always wondered.  I am picking fedex as the capitalist alternative to the USPS.  Guess I am asking, what would we replace it (the USPS) with?

That is exactly the problem I am getting at. Is that how we would treat healthcare? Keep running up the costs and losses, but no worries we will just keep raising taxes to support it. Someone is paying for those losses with the USPS, while the private sector is adjusting for the costs. If capitalism goes it route, then UPS, FedEx, and other postal services would compete and try to become more efficient to drive down prices to compete. Right now they don't need to worry about regular mail, the governments biting that bullet, but if allowed to take over, I am betting they would find more efficient ways to run it and drive down costs. Just like all our other products we use daily that competition made affordable. In addition, it still doesn't mean the government can't help at all, but now they wont be trying to run a business. They can still give some land grants, some assets, ect.. and even that wont cost as much as trying to run an entire business like USPS.

Wouldn't fedex et al simply refuse to serve all areas?  Why would they bother delivering mail to some rural place in north dakota?  Why would they cut costs?  There is already fedex, UPS and many more.  I still find it cheaper to mail packages via USPS.  Like way cheaper.  You are almost making a case for USPS to increase their charges, not for fedex etc to cut theirs down, no?  USPS is acting more like a public good.

I don't believe that the private companies would refuse, but I see your point.

This happens now.  Fedex and UPS already refuse to deliver packages to some areas, and use the USPS because it's so much cheaper than they are. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-mail-does-the-trick-for-fedex-ups-1407182247

[Sean Og]

This was well thought out! I agree if Government does take over, they would have to cap areas of spending so the schools would not go crazy building nonsense items. However, should there still be a little cost to the student? Not an arm and leg, but some sort of cost to make the student appreciate what they are going toward. Like I mentioned earlier, my sister hated going to college in California, not because it was bad education or professors, but because she couldn't get in any classes. The classes would fill up instantly and then a few weeks later students would drop out without a care in the world because "Hey! it cost me almost nothing to go". Therefore, my sister took even longer to get the classes she needed and to complete some requirements. I believe those issues can be fixed though with strict rules though.

I do agree with this.

In Ireland our courses are structured much more rigidly than here in the US. For example I studied Aeronautical Engineering and the classes are 90% predetermined for me and the schedule I would take them, Sem 1 was X, Sem 2 was Y etc etc..we had a few elective choices over the 4 years but that was a case of pick A or B, not go off an pick ancient Egypt mythology or some other irrelevant class. This does however make it more difficult for mature and part-time students who both likely have jobs and this flexibility of when you take classes is one big advantages I see in the US system of classes.

If you drop out of a class you effectively drop out of the course for that year and this has big financial ramifications for receiving free tuition for the following repeat year. You must be progressing in your degree to be eligible for free fees so a repeat year would be costly without exceptional circumstances. Many halfhearted potential students are put off by this and decide to pursue non degree careers such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters etc.

Although tuition fees are paid for by the Government, the student is responsible to pay a student portion which is approximately $3000 per year give or take with the exchange rate so the student definitely has some skin in the game so to speak.

The following outlines the costs for anyone that is interested

http://www3.ul.ie/finance/docs/StudentFeeGuidelines.pdf

There are grants which assist lower income students/families with both the student contribution and also there is a maintenance grant which assists with housing and other costs awarded at different percentages based on income.

Also, higher income families do not get fully free tuition fees. The table at the bottom of the following link outlines the thresholds.

https://susi.ie/under-graduate-income-thresholds-and-grant-award-rates/

[Jeremy E.]

This was well thought out! I agree if Government does take over, they would have to cap areas of spending so the schools would not go crazy building nonsense items. However, should there still be a little cost to the student? Not an arm and leg, but some sort of cost to make the student appreciate what they are going toward. Like I mentioned earlier, my sister hated going to college in California, not because it was bad education or professors, but because she couldn't get in any classes. The classes would fill up instantly and then a few weeks later students would drop out without a care in the world because "Hey! it cost me almost nothing to go". Therefore, my sister took even longer to get the classes she needed and to complete some requirements. I believe those issues can be fixed though with strict rules though.

I do agree with this.

In Ireland our courses are structured much more rigidly than here in the US. For example I studied Aeronautical Engineering and the classes are 90% predetermined for me and the schedule I would take them, Sem 1 was X, Sem 2 was Y etc etc..we had a few elective choices over the 4 years but that was a case of pick A or B, not go off an pick ancient Egypt mythology or some other irrelevant class. This does however make it more difficult for mature and part-time students who both likely have jobs and this flexibility of when you take classes is one big advantages I see in the US system of classes.

If you drop out of a class you effectively drop out of the course for that year and this has big financial ramifications for receiving free tuition for the following repeat year. You must be progressing in your degree to be eligible for free fees so a repeat year would be costly without exceptional circumstances. Many halfhearted potential students are put off by this and decide to pursue non degree careers such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters etc.

Although tuition fees are paid for by the Government, the student is responsible to pay a student portion which is approximately $3000 per year give or take with the exchange rate so the student definitely has some skin in the game so to speak.

The following outlines the costs for anyone that is interested

http://www3.ul.ie/finance/docs/StudentFeeGuidelines.pdf

There are grants which assist lower income students/families with both the student contribution and also there is a maintenance grant which assists with housing and other costs awarded at different percentages based on income.

Also, higher income families do not get fully free tuition fees. The table at the bottom of the following link outlines the thresholds.

https://susi.ie/under-graduate-income-thresholds-and-grant-award-rates/

ya I'd be fine with a fee, I just don't want to pay for 100% of a college that spends $7 million/year on a college football coach. The profit from the tickets sold at football games should go to lowering tuition, not making coaches rich.

[Killerbrandt]

This was well thought out! I agree if Government does take over, they would have to cap areas of spending so the schools would not go crazy building nonsense items. However, should there still be a little cost to the student? Not an arm and leg, but some sort of cost to make the student appreciate what they are going toward. Like I mentioned earlier, my sister hated going to college in California, not because it was bad education or professors, but because she couldn't get in any classes. The classes would fill up instantly and then a few weeks later students would drop out without a care in the world because "Hey! it cost me almost nothing to go". Therefore, my sister took even longer to get the classes she needed and to complete some requirements. I believe those issues can be fixed though with strict rules though.

I do agree with this.

In Ireland our courses are structured much more rigidly than here in the US. For example I studied Aeronautical Engineering and the classes are 90% predetermined for me and the schedule I would take them, Sem 1 was X, Sem 2 was Y etc etc..we had a few elective choices over the 4 years but that was a case of pick A or B, not go off an pick ancient Egypt mythology or some other irrelevant class. This does however make it more difficult for mature and part-time students who both likely have jobs and this flexibility of when you take classes is one big advantages I see in the US system of classes.

If you drop out of a class you effectively drop out of the course for that year and this has big financial ramifications for receiving free tuition for the following repeat year. You must be progressing in your degree to be eligible for free fees so a repeat year would be costly without exceptional circumstances. Many halfhearted potential students are put off by this and decide to pursue non degree careers such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters etc.

Although tuition fees are paid for by the Government, the student is responsible to pay a student portion which is approximately $3000 per year give or take with the exchange rate so the student definitely has some skin in the game so to speak.

The following outlines the costs for anyone that is interested

http://www3.ul.ie/finance/docs/StudentFeeGuidelines.pdf

There are grants which assist lower income students/families with both the student contribution and also there is a maintenance grant which assists with housing and other costs awarded at different percentages based on income.

Also, higher income families do not get fully free tuition fees. The table at the bottom of the following link outlines the thresholds.

https://susi.ie/under-graduate-income-thresholds-and-grant-award-rates/

Yeah I am good with that policy! Also, we would have to have an act of congress to make sure that extra money from taxes STAYS in the education programs. I hate when both sides take from other programs and then bitch they ran out of money!

[Killerbrandt]

I'll freely admit I read the OP and skipped the past 5 pages of comments because a friend posted this link, and I thought it was a really interested and well-researched article.  (Note, I didn't say if I agreed with it!)

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/

I certainly learned a thing or two - or at least remembered stuff I forgot long ago.

Excellent! That article makes some of the points I've beent rying to make, much more eloquently than I've been managing.

Killerbrandt, refute this:

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression. Because wealth was concentrating in the hands of the top 1%, the amount of investment steadily increased while the amount of consumption stagnated. Whenever there is too little consumption to support the level of investment in the economy, investors struggle to find profitable places to invest their money. Investment is usually a positive thing–it helps businesses increase their production and create jobs. But with consumption weak, businesses have little reason to increase their production, because no one will buy the additional goods and services provided. So instead, businesses that receive investment tend to reinvest that money rather than use it to grow. That investment circulates through the financial system and accumulates in speculative bubbles–places like the stock market, housing market, commodities market, or various foreign markets. These assets become massively overvalued until one day, the markets recognize the overvaluation. The assets collapse in value and the bubble bursts. People relying on these assets to pay off other debts get into serious trouble, and a contagion can spread throughout the economy with horrifying consequences.

So what did the left do? As you can see in the chart, between the 1930’s and the 1970’s, the United States drastically reduced economic inequality. It redistributed wealth from the top to the middle and the bottom, resulting in consistent wage increases and consequently consistent consumption increases. This allowed investment to be put to effective use–because the bottom and the middle were rising, they were able to support the additional spending that business owners needed to successfully expand. This was accomplished through a series of policies that if they were proposed today, would strike most Americans as socialist–Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, strong union rights, high minimum wages, high marginal tax rates on the wealthy (with a 90% top rate under Eisenhower), and strong enforcement of financial regulations and anti-trust laws.

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

[JLee]

I'll freely admit I read the OP and skipped the past 5 pages of comments because a friend posted this link, and I thought it was a really interested and well-researched article.  (Note, I didn't say if I agreed with it!)

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/

I certainly learned a thing or two - or at least remembered stuff I forgot long ago.

Excellent! That article makes some of the points I've beent rying to make, much more eloquently than I've been managing.

Killerbrandt, refute this:

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression. Because wealth was concentrating in the hands of the top 1%, the amount of investment steadily increased while the amount of consumption stagnated. Whenever there is too little consumption to support the level of investment in the economy, investors struggle to find profitable places to invest their money. Investment is usually a positive thing–it helps businesses increase their production and create jobs. But with consumption weak, businesses have little reason to increase their production, because no one will buy the additional goods and services provided. So instead, businesses that receive investment tend to reinvest that money rather than use it to grow. That investment circulates through the financial system and accumulates in speculative bubbles–places like the stock market, housing market, commodities market, or various foreign markets. These assets become massively overvalued until one day, the markets recognize the overvaluation. The assets collapse in value and the bubble bursts. People relying on these assets to pay off other debts get into serious trouble, and a contagion can spread throughout the economy with horrifying consequences.

So what did the left do? As you can see in the chart, between the 1930’s and the 1970’s, the United States drastically reduced economic inequality. It redistributed wealth from the top to the middle and the bottom, resulting in consistent wage increases and consequently consistent consumption increases. This allowed investment to be put to effective use–because the bottom and the middle were rising, they were able to support the additional spending that business owners needed to successfully expand. This was accomplished through a series of policies that if they were proposed today, would strike most Americans as socialist–Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, strong union rights, high minimum wages, high marginal tax rates on the wealthy (with a 90% top rate under Eisenhower), and strong enforcement of financial regulations and anti-trust laws.

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

He asked you to refute it, not to ignore everything and claim that you're right.

[Killerbrandt]

I'll freely admit I read the OP and skipped the past 5 pages of comments because a friend posted this link, and I thought it was a really interested and well-researched article.  (Note, I didn't say if I agreed with it!)

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/

I certainly learned a thing or two - or at least remembered stuff I forgot long ago.

Excellent! That article makes some of the points I've beent rying to make, much more eloquently than I've been managing.

Killerbrandt, refute this:

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression. Because wealth was concentrating in the hands of the top 1%, the amount of investment steadily increased while the amount of consumption stagnated. Whenever there is too little consumption to support the level of investment in the economy, investors struggle to find profitable places to invest their money. Investment is usually a positive thing–it helps businesses increase their production and create jobs. But with consumption weak, businesses have little reason to increase their production, because no one will buy the additional goods and services provided. So instead, businesses that receive investment tend to reinvest that money rather than use it to grow. That investment circulates through the financial system and accumulates in speculative bubbles–places like the stock market, housing market, commodities market, or various foreign markets. These assets become massively overvalued until one day, the markets recognize the overvaluation. The assets collapse in value and the bubble bursts. People relying on these assets to pay off other debts get into serious trouble, and a contagion can spread throughout the economy with horrifying consequences.

So what did the left do? As you can see in the chart, between the 1930’s and the 1970’s, the United States drastically reduced economic inequality. It redistributed wealth from the top to the middle and the bottom, resulting in consistent wage increases and consequently consistent consumption increases. This allowed investment to be put to effective use–because the bottom and the middle were rising, they were able to support the additional spending that business owners needed to successfully expand. This was accomplished through a series of policies that if they were proposed today, would strike most Americans as socialist–Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, strong union rights, high minimum wages, high marginal tax rates on the wealthy (with a 90% top rate under Eisenhower), and strong enforcement of financial regulations and anti-trust laws.

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

He asked you to refute it, not to ignore everything and claim that you're right.

Easy! Look at the damn market! it has grown even in those worst of times with inequality! look at all the businesses that are popping up right now and getting listed on the market! Even with this "inequality" that we have, we are growing! and getting stronger than ever!! We are having a market down turn right now, but there is not one piece of evidence saying it is getting dragged down my income inequality!

[Gin1984]

I'll freely admit I read the OP and skipped the past 5 pages of comments because a friend posted this link, and I thought it was a really interested and well-researched article.  (Note, I didn't say if I agreed with it!)

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/

I certainly learned a thing or two - or at least remembered stuff I forgot long ago.

Excellent! That article makes some of the points I've beent rying to make, much more eloquently than I've been managing.

Killerbrandt, refute this:

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression. Because wealth was concentrating in the hands of the top 1%, the amount of investment steadily increased while the amount of consumption stagnated. Whenever there is too little consumption to support the level of investment in the economy, investors struggle to find profitable places to invest their money. Investment is usually a positive thing–it helps businesses increase their production and create jobs. But with consumption weak, businesses have little reason to increase their production, because no one will buy the additional goods and services provided. So instead, businesses that receive investment tend to reinvest that money rather than use it to grow. That investment circulates through the financial system and accumulates in speculative bubbles–places like the stock market, housing market, commodities market, or various foreign markets. These assets become massively overvalued until one day, the markets recognize the overvaluation. The assets collapse in value and the bubble bursts. People relying on these assets to pay off other debts get into serious trouble, and a contagion can spread throughout the economy with horrifying consequences.

So what did the left do? As you can see in the chart, between the 1930’s and the 1970’s, the United States drastically reduced economic inequality. It redistributed wealth from the top to the middle and the bottom, resulting in consistent wage increases and consequently consistent consumption increases. This allowed investment to be put to effective use–because the bottom and the middle were rising, they were able to support the additional spending that business owners needed to successfully expand. This was accomplished through a series of policies that if they were proposed today, would strike most Americans as socialist–Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, strong union rights, high minimum wages, high marginal tax rates on the wealthy (with a 90% top rate under Eisenhower), and strong enforcement of financial regulations and anti-trust laws.

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Actually it has been shown (via past results) that we are a country do best when the middle class has money, not the investor class because businesses expand to fill a need (aka when people are buying).

[Killerbrandt]

I'll freely admit I read the OP and skipped the past 5 pages of comments because a friend posted this link, and I thought it was a really interested and well-researched article.  (Note, I didn't say if I agreed with it!)

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/

I certainly learned a thing or two - or at least remembered stuff I forgot long ago.

Excellent! That article makes some of the points I've beent rying to make, much more eloquently than I've been managing.

Killerbrandt, refute this:

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression. Because wealth was concentrating in the hands of the top 1%, the amount of investment steadily increased while the amount of consumption stagnated. Whenever there is too little consumption to support the level of investment in the economy, investors struggle to find profitable places to invest their money. Investment is usually a positive thing–it helps businesses increase their production and create jobs. But with consumption weak, businesses have little reason to increase their production, because no one will buy the additional goods and services provided. So instead, businesses that receive investment tend to reinvest that money rather than use it to grow. That investment circulates through the financial system and accumulates in speculative bubbles–places like the stock market, housing market, commodities market, or various foreign markets. These assets become massively overvalued until one day, the markets recognize the overvaluation. The assets collapse in value and the bubble bursts. People relying on these assets to pay off other debts get into serious trouble, and a contagion can spread throughout the economy with horrifying consequences.

So what did the left do? As you can see in the chart, between the 1930’s and the 1970’s, the United States drastically reduced economic inequality. It redistributed wealth from the top to the middle and the bottom, resulting in consistent wage increases and consequently consistent consumption increases. This allowed investment to be put to effective use–because the bottom and the middle were rising, they were able to support the additional spending that business owners needed to successfully expand. This was accomplished through a series of policies that if they were proposed today, would strike most Americans as socialist–Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, strong union rights, high minimum wages, high marginal tax rates on the wealthy (with a 90% top rate under Eisenhower), and strong enforcement of financial regulations and anti-trust laws.

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Actually it has been shown (via past results) that we are a country do best when the middle class has money, not the investor class because businesses expand to fill a need (aka when people are buying).

You can still have "inequality" and the middle class having money. I really need to find that video of Margret Thatcher talking about "the Gap". In addition, the 1 percent is very fluid, those people change all the time, people from all categories move up and down all the time. Should we scream because a few made a successful business and moved up? What about the 1 percent that lost it all and moved down. I see no one screaming support for them on here?

[Jack]

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Economics 101: for a business to be able to sell shit, a customer has to be able to afford to buy it!

The argument in that quote was specifically that the inequality got so high that the lack of customers caused overall harm to the economy, and nothing you write addresses that, let alone refutes it.

You claim that there "is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system." While you're right in that it's not a "conspiracy" and that it doesn't float around "forever," your characterization of it as such is -- you guessed it -- yet another straw-man! In order to actually refute the article's claim you'd have to take the position that speculative bubbles don't exist, and clearly they do.

[Killerbrandt]

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Economics 101: for a business to be able to sell shit, a customer has to be able to afford to buy it!

The argument in that quote was specifically that the inequality got so high that the lack of customers caused overall harm to the economy, and nothing you write addresses that, let alone refutes it.

You claim that there "is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system." While you're right in that it's not a "conspiracy" and that it doesn't float around "forever," your characterization of it as such is -- you guessed it -- yet another straw-man! In order to actually refute the article's claim you'd have to take the position that speculative bubbles don't exist, and clearly they do.

Don't you think businesses notice that? They know when people do not have the money to buy their product! You really think the market doesn't react to that and adjust with more efficient ways of producing, lowering pricing, reducing values in some companies (which naturally lowers some wealthy), ect.. In addition, don't you think they would use that money that was invested to invest in ways to get product to the public, which tends to lead to a company growing and expanding, which adds jobs. In addition, with more product out there than ever before, don't you think that creates higher paying jobs to handle that?

Sorry, but I am just not buying the inequality argument. I tried looking up online if inequality was truly the issue and NOT ONE! could hold it as a real reason at all! If you know how the Market works, then you would know that the 1 percent are not really holding onto the money under a mattress and instead that money is going back into businesses. Also Money is not finite, there is not a limited supply, it can grow and grow, it is impossible for the top to hold every single dollar and why would that benefit them in the first place?

Also, what bubbles are you talking about? like the .com boom, housing bubble? Was taking the riches money the answer to those problems? No!

[Killerbrandt]

Lets change topics, this is going in circles!! hahaha

Another area brought up, what do you all think of the recent primary results?

Looks like Trump and Bernie got the top!

Personally I cheered for Bernie winning that side. He is majorly the lesser evil in my opinion! I would rather have a more honest guy like him in office than Hillary by far!!!

The Republican side was fun to watch though!! Trump dominated, but the others were just punching each other like crazy!! which I think lead to Kasich to get second (not a bad thing in my mind)

[Jack]

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Economics 101: for a business to be able to sell shit, a customer has to be able to afford to buy it!

The argument in that quote was specifically that the inequality got so high that the lack of customers caused overall harm to the economy, and nothing you write addresses that, let alone refutes it.

You claim that there "is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system." While you're right in that it's not a "conspiracy" and that it doesn't float around "forever," your characterization of it as such is -- you guessed it -- yet another straw-man! In order to actually refute the article's claim you'd have to take the position that speculative bubbles don't exist, and clearly they do.

Don't you think businesses notice that? They know when people do not have the money to buy their product! You really think the market doesn't react to that and adjust with more efficient ways of producing, lowering pricing, reducing values in some companies (which naturally lowers some wealthy), ect.. In addition, don't you think they would use that money that was invested to invest in ways to get product to the public, which tends to lead to a company growing and expanding, which adds jobs. In addition, with more product out there than ever before, don't you think that creates higher paying jobs to handle that?

Some businesses might realize that they need to lower their price and/or expand production to become more efficient, but others might just see the apparent lack of demand and conclude that they already have plenty of production capacity and they're better off stashing their extra cash in paper assets instead. Or they might decide they need to pay their CEO more so that he'd magically figure out how to increase profits (because they believe skill is directly proportional to salary, but only for CEOs, not rank-and-file employees).

Sorry, but I am just not buying the inequality argument. I tried looking up online if inequality was truly the issue and NOT ONE! could hold it as a real reason at all! If you know how the Market works, then you would know that the 1 percent are not really holding onto the money under a mattress and instead that money is going back into businesses. Also Money is not finite, there is not a limited supply, it can grow and grow, it is impossible for the top to hold every single dollar and why would that benefit them in the first place?

Also, what bubbles are you talking about? like the .com boom, housing bubble? Was taking the riches money the answer to those problems? No!

"Not one" what? Research study? Economist? Blogger? Conspiracy site nut-job?

Anyway, you're wrong. First of all, "the 1%" -- and more importantly, corporate entities -- certainly can and do hold onto money under the proverbial mattress. Apple has $178 billion stuffed under there right now! That is money that's not going towards R&D, not going to capital improvements, not going to their employees, not going to their customers, and in general not going to anything that would help Apple or the overall economy.

And that's small potatoes compared to the real black-holes of finance, which are things like derivatives and hedge funds. True, the money isn't sitting still -- it's getting passed back and fourth between entities in the finance sector like a hot potato, with each entity claiming it as profit on each pass. But it's not creating any real value to the wider economy. It's not causing an increase in the production of physical goods, and it's not causing any services to be rendered except to the finance people themselves.

As for bubbles, go take a look at the "is anything NOT 'overvalued'" thread for examples.

[crazyworld]

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Economics 101: for a business to be able to sell shit, a customer has to be able to afford to buy it!

The argument in that quote was specifically that the inequality got so high that the lack of customers caused overall harm to the economy, and nothing you write addresses that, let alone refutes it.

You claim that there "is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system." While you're right in that it's not a "conspiracy" and that it doesn't float around "forever," your characterization of it as such is -- you guessed it -- yet another straw-man! In order to actually refute the article's claim you'd have to take the position that speculative bubbles don't exist, and clearly they do.

Don't you think businesses notice that? They know when people do not have the money to buy their product! You really think the market doesn't react to that and adjust with more efficient ways of producing, lowering pricing, reducing values in some companies (which naturally lowers some wealthy), ect.. In addition, don't you think they would use that money that was invested to invest in ways to get product to the public, which tends to lead to a company growing and expanding, which adds jobs. In addition, with more product out there than ever before, don't you think that creates higher paying jobs to handle that?

Sorry, but I am just not buying the inequality argument. I tried looking up online if inequality was truly the issue and NOT ONE! could hold it as a real reason at all! If you know how the Market works, then you would know that the 1 percent are not really holding onto the money under a mattress and instead that money is going back into businesses. Also Money is not finite, there is not a limited supply, it can grow and grow, it is impossible for the top to hold every single dollar and why would that benefit them in the first place?

Also, what bubbles are you talking about? like the .com boom, housing bubble? Was taking the riches money the answer to those problems? No!

Interesting op-ed - read until the end about the inequality part:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/opinion/dont-break-up-the-banks-theyre-not-our-real-problem.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

[Killerbrandt]

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Economics 101: for a business to be able to sell shit, a customer has to be able to afford to buy it!

The argument in that quote was specifically that the inequality got so high that the lack of customers caused overall harm to the economy, and nothing you write addresses that, let alone refutes it.

You claim that there "is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system." While you're right in that it's not a "conspiracy" and that it doesn't float around "forever," your characterization of it as such is -- you guessed it -- yet another straw-man! In order to actually refute the article's claim you'd have to take the position that speculative bubbles don't exist, and clearly they do.

Don't you think businesses notice that? They know when people do not have the money to buy their product! You really think the market doesn't react to that and adjust with more efficient ways of producing, lowering pricing, reducing values in some companies (which naturally lowers some wealthy), ect.. In addition, don't you think they would use that money that was invested to invest in ways to get product to the public, which tends to lead to a company growing and expanding, which adds jobs. In addition, with more product out there than ever before, don't you think that creates higher paying jobs to handle that?

Some businesses might realize that they need to lower their price and/or expand production to become more efficient, but others might just see the apparent lack of demand and conclude that they already have plenty of production capacity and they're better off stashing their extra cash in paper assets instead. Or they might decide they need to pay their CEO more so that he'd magically figure out how to increase profits (because they believe skill is directly proportional to salary, but only for CEOs, not rank-and-file employees).

Sorry, but I am just not buying the inequality argument. I tried looking up online if inequality was truly the issue and NOT ONE! could hold it as a real reason at all! If you know how the Market works, then you would know that the 1 percent are not really holding onto the money under a mattress and instead that money is going back into businesses. Also Money is not finite, there is not a limited supply, it can grow and grow, it is impossible for the top to hold every single dollar and why would that benefit them in the first place?

Also, what bubbles are you talking about? like the .com boom, housing bubble? Was taking the riches money the answer to those problems? No!

"Not one" what? Research study? Economist? Blogger? Conspiracy site nut-job?

Anyway, you're wrong. First of all, "the 1%" -- and more importantly, corporate entities -- certainly can and do hold onto money under the proverbial mattress. Apple has $178 billion stuffed under there right now! That is money that's not going towards R&D, not going to capital improvements, not going to their employees, not going to their customers, and in general not going to anything that would help Apple or the overall economy.

And that's small potatoes compared to the real black-holes of finance, which are things like derivatives and hedge funds. True, the money isn't sitting still -- it's getting passed back and fourth between entities in the finance sector like a hot potato, with each entity claiming it as profit on each pass. But it's not creating any real value to the wider economy. It's not causing an increase in the production of physical goods, and it's not causing any services to be rendered except to the finance people themselves.

As for bubbles, go take a look at the "is anything NOT 'overvalued'" thread for examples.

HAHAHA! to your first part, I have to admit I was thinking in my head "yeahhhh, they do that shit" "hey lets solve the problem by giving this shit head a golden parachute! SAVE US!", I am not claiming they are perfect, just better than government overall.

To the second part (damn I need to learn how to organize these comments), Did you think that maybe Apple is saving up for future downward trends so they do not end up almost in bankruptcy like they were at in the beginning of the 2000s. In addition, what about all the money they are already spending? which is billions! and how they pay almost ALL of their employees above min wage. In addition, you do know on the balance sheet, "CASH" could include investments, which if you read their 10k fully, they invest in a lot of US Bonds and other companies. Also, you know there are caps on CEO pay already, how did that turn out? Government intervention failed on that, now they just compensate with shares.

Overall, why do you care what the Company is planning with its money or individuals? what if tomorrow Apple decides it wants to give all that money away or open a free university? Just like Facebook guy decided to give his share away and help fund Planned Parent hood. Like I have said a million times, I am not for getting rid of government help all the way, but I am not for them controlling entire industries or deciding what to do with my money!

and Blah and Blah and BLAH!! I bet that is what I am starting to sound like now huh? haha!

[JLee]

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Economics 101: for a business to be able to sell shit, a customer has to be able to afford to buy it!

The argument in that quote was specifically that the inequality got so high that the lack of customers caused overall harm to the economy, and nothing you write addresses that, let alone refutes it.

You claim that there "is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system." While you're right in that it's not a "conspiracy" and that it doesn't float around "forever," your characterization of it as such is -- you guessed it -- yet another straw-man! In order to actually refute the article's claim you'd have to take the position that speculative bubbles don't exist, and clearly they do.

Don't you think businesses notice that? They know when people do not have the money to buy their product! You really think the market doesn't react to that and adjust with more efficient ways of producing, lowering pricing, reducing values in some companies (which naturally lowers some wealthy), ect.. In addition, don't you think they would use that money that was invested to invest in ways to get product to the public, which tends to lead to a company growing and expanding, which adds jobs. In addition, with more product out there than ever before, don't you think that creates higher paying jobs to handle that?

Some businesses might realize that they need to lower their price and/or expand production to become more efficient, but others might just see the apparent lack of demand and conclude that they already have plenty of production capacity and they're better off stashing their extra cash in paper assets instead. Or they might decide they need to pay their CEO more so that he'd magically figure out how to increase profits (because they believe skill is directly proportional to salary, but only for CEOs, not rank-and-file employees).

Sorry, but I am just not buying the inequality argument. I tried looking up online if inequality was truly the issue and NOT ONE! could hold it as a real reason at all! If you know how the Market works, then you would know that the 1 percent are not really holding onto the money under a mattress and instead that money is going back into businesses. Also Money is not finite, there is not a limited supply, it can grow and grow, it is impossible for the top to hold every single dollar and why would that benefit them in the first place?

Also, what bubbles are you talking about? like the .com boom, housing bubble? Was taking the riches money the answer to those problems? No!

"Not one" what? Research study? Economist? Blogger? Conspiracy site nut-job?

Anyway, you're wrong. First of all, "the 1%" -- and more importantly, corporate entities -- certainly can and do hold onto money under the proverbial mattress. Apple has $178 billion stuffed under there right now! That is money that's not going towards R&D, not going to capital improvements, not going to their employees, not going to their customers, and in general not going to anything that would help Apple or the overall economy.

And that's small potatoes compared to the real black-holes of finance, which are things like derivatives and hedge funds. True, the money isn't sitting still -- it's getting passed back and fourth between entities in the finance sector like a hot potato, with each entity claiming it as profit on each pass. But it's not creating any real value to the wider economy. It's not causing an increase in the production of physical goods, and it's not causing any services to be rendered except to the finance people themselves.

As for bubbles, go take a look at the "is anything NOT 'overvalued'" thread for examples.

HAHAHA! to your first part, I have to admit I was thinking in my head "yeahhhh, they do that shit" "hey lets solve the problem by giving this shit head a golden parachute! SAVE US!", I am not claiming they are perfect, just better than government overall.

To the second part (damn I need to learn how to organize these comments), Did you think that maybe Apple is saving up for future downward trends so they do not end up almost in bankruptcy like they were at in the beginning of the 2000s. In addition, what about all the money they are already spending? which is billions! and how they pay almost ALL of their employees above min wage. In addition, you do know on the balance sheet, "CASH" could include investments, which if you read their 10k fully, they invest in a lot of US Bonds and other companies. Also, you know there are caps on CEO pay already, how did that turn out? Government intervention failed on that, now they just compensate with shares.

Overall, why do you care what the Company is planning with its money or individuals? what if tomorrow Apple decides it wants to give all that money away or open a free university? Just like Facebook guy decided to give his share away and help fund Planned Parent hood. Like I have said a million times, I am not for getting rid of government help all the way, but I am not for them controlling entire industries or deciding what to do with my money!

and Blah and Blah and BLAH!! I bet that is what I am starting to sound like now huh? haha!

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

[Killerbrandt]

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Economics 101: for a business to be able to sell shit, a customer has to be able to afford to buy it!

The argument in that quote was specifically that the inequality got so high that the lack of customers caused overall harm to the economy, and nothing you write addresses that, let alone refutes it.

You claim that there "is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system." While you're right in that it's not a "conspiracy" and that it doesn't float around "forever," your characterization of it as such is -- you guessed it -- yet another straw-man! In order to actually refute the article's claim you'd have to take the position that speculative bubbles don't exist, and clearly they do.

Don't you think businesses notice that? They know when people do not have the money to buy their product! You really think the market doesn't react to that and adjust with more efficient ways of producing, lowering pricing, reducing values in some companies (which naturally lowers some wealthy), ect.. In addition, don't you think they would use that money that was invested to invest in ways to get product to the public, which tends to lead to a company growing and expanding, which adds jobs. In addition, with more product out there than ever before, don't you think that creates higher paying jobs to handle that?

Some businesses might realize that they need to lower their price and/or expand production to become more efficient, but others might just see the apparent lack of demand and conclude that they already have plenty of production capacity and they're better off stashing their extra cash in paper assets instead. Or they might decide they need to pay their CEO more so that he'd magically figure out how to increase profits (because they believe skill is directly proportional to salary, but only for CEOs, not rank-and-file employees).

Sorry, but I am just not buying the inequality argument. I tried looking up online if inequality was truly the issue and NOT ONE! could hold it as a real reason at all! If you know how the Market works, then you would know that the 1 percent are not really holding onto the money under a mattress and instead that money is going back into businesses. Also Money is not finite, there is not a limited supply, it can grow and grow, it is impossible for the top to hold every single dollar and why would that benefit them in the first place?

Also, what bubbles are you talking about? like the .com boom, housing bubble? Was taking the riches money the answer to those problems? No!

"Not one" what? Research study? Economist? Blogger? Conspiracy site nut-job?

Anyway, you're wrong. First of all, "the 1%" -- and more importantly, corporate entities -- certainly can and do hold onto money under the proverbial mattress. Apple has $178 billion stuffed under there right now! That is money that's not going towards R&D, not going to capital improvements, not going to their employees, not going to their customers, and in general not going to anything that would help Apple or the overall economy.

And that's small potatoes compared to the real black-holes of finance, which are things like derivatives and hedge funds. True, the money isn't sitting still -- it's getting passed back and fourth between entities in the finance sector like a hot potato, with each entity claiming it as profit on each pass. But it's not creating any real value to the wider economy. It's not causing an increase in the production of physical goods, and it's not causing any services to be rendered except to the finance people themselves.

As for bubbles, go take a look at the "is anything NOT 'overvalued'" thread for examples.

HAHAHA! to your first part, I have to admit I was thinking in my head "yeahhhh, they do that shit" "hey lets solve the problem by giving this shit head a golden parachute! SAVE US!", I am not claiming they are perfect, just better than government overall.

To the second part (damn I need to learn how to organize these comments), Did you think that maybe Apple is saving up for future downward trends so they do not end up almost in bankruptcy like they were at in the beginning of the 2000s. In addition, what about all the money they are already spending? which is billions! and how they pay almost ALL of their employees above min wage. In addition, you do know on the balance sheet, "CASH" could include investments, which if you read their 10k fully, they invest in a lot of US Bonds and other companies. Also, you know there are caps on CEO pay already, how did that turn out? Government intervention failed on that, now they just compensate with shares.

Overall, why do you care what the Company is planning with its money or individuals? what if tomorrow Apple decides it wants to give all that money away or open a free university? Just like Facebook guy decided to give his share away and help fund Planned Parent hood. Like I have said a million times, I am not for getting rid of government help all the way, but I am not for them controlling entire industries or deciding what to do with my money!

and Blah and Blah and BLAH!! I bet that is what I am starting to sound like now huh? haha!

Uhm, what?

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

[JLee]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

[Killerbrandt]

Sounds like that guy has no clue on how the stock market works, just like Bernie has no clue. You do know what businesses do with that money right? They use the capital to expand! This is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system. That money is used to grow and expand! if the company was not recording profits or expanding then their values would decrease significantly and the value of the stock would shrink! if that were to happen then individuals would not see the interest on their funds grow or stay. You all should know that companies would change their product around or services to adjust to the lowing buying power, they don't just sit there doing nothing! In addition, those top earners also invest and create other businesses, how did Uber and other companies form? By big investments! those created jobs and salaries for individuals which increased those individuals buying power. Damn this is like 101 economics shit I keep repeating!

Economics 101: for a business to be able to sell shit, a customer has to be able to afford to buy it!

The argument in that quote was specifically that the inequality got so high that the lack of customers caused overall harm to the economy, and nothing you write addresses that, let alone refutes it.

You claim that there "is not some conspiracy of money floating around forever in a market system." While you're right in that it's not a "conspiracy" and that it doesn't float around "forever," your characterization of it as such is -- you guessed it -- yet another straw-man! In order to actually refute the article's claim you'd have to take the position that speculative bubbles don't exist, and clearly they do.

Don't you think businesses notice that? They know when people do not have the money to buy their product! You really think the market doesn't react to that and adjust with more efficient ways of producing, lowering pricing, reducing values in some companies (which naturally lowers some wealthy), ect.. In addition, don't you think they would use that money that was invested to invest in ways to get product to the public, which tends to lead to a company growing and expanding, which adds jobs. In addition, with more product out there than ever before, don't you think that creates higher paying jobs to handle that?

Some businesses might realize that they need to lower their price and/or expand production to become more efficient, but others might just see the apparent lack of demand and conclude that they already have plenty of production capacity and they're better off stashing their extra cash in paper assets instead. Or they might decide they need to pay their CEO more so that he'd magically figure out how to increase profits (because they believe skill is directly proportional to salary, but only for CEOs, not rank-and-file employees).

Sorry, but I am just not buying the inequality argument. I tried looking up online if inequality was truly the issue and NOT ONE! could hold it as a real reason at all! If you know how the Market works, then you would know that the 1 percent are not really holding onto the money under a mattress and instead that money is going back into businesses. Also Money is not finite, there is not a limited supply, it can grow and grow, it is impossible for the top to hold every single dollar and why would that benefit them in the first place?

Also, what bubbles are you talking about? like the .com boom, housing bubble? Was taking the riches money the answer to those problems? No!

"Not one" what? Research study? Economist? Blogger? Conspiracy site nut-job?

Anyway, you're wrong. First of all, "the 1%" -- and more importantly, corporate entities -- certainly can and do hold onto money under the proverbial mattress. Apple has $178 billion stuffed under there right now! That is money that's not going towards R&D, not going to capital improvements, not going to their employees, not going to their customers, and in general not going to anything that would help Apple or the overall economy.

And that's small potatoes compared to the real black-holes of finance, which are things like derivatives and hedge funds. True, the money isn't sitting still -- it's getting passed back and fourth between entities in the finance sector like a hot potato, with each entity claiming it as profit on each pass. But it's not creating any real value to the wider economy. It's not causing an increase in the production of physical goods, and it's not causing any services to be rendered except to the finance people themselves.

As for bubbles, go take a look at the "is anything NOT 'overvalued'" thread for examples.

HAHAHA! to your first part, I have to admit I was thinking in my head "yeahhhh, they do that shit" "hey lets solve the problem by giving this shit head a golden parachute! SAVE US!", I am not claiming they are perfect, just better than government overall.

To the second part (damn I need to learn how to organize these comments), Did you think that maybe Apple is saving up for future downward trends so they do not end up almost in bankruptcy like they were at in the beginning of the 2000s. In addition, what about all the money they are already spending? which is billions! and how they pay almost ALL of their employees above min wage. In addition, you do know on the balance sheet, "CASH" could include investments, which if you read their 10k fully, they invest in a lot of US Bonds and other companies. Also, you know there are caps on CEO pay already, how did that turn out? Government intervention failed on that, now they just compensate with shares.

Overall, why do you care what the Company is planning with its money or individuals? what if tomorrow Apple decides it wants to give all that money away or open a free university? Just like Facebook guy decided to give his share away and help fund Planned Parent hood. Like I have said a million times, I am not for getting rid of government help all the way, but I am not for them controlling entire industries or deciding what to do with my money!

and Blah and Blah and BLAH!! I bet that is what I am starting to sound like now huh? haha!

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

Also just saw the facebook highlighted, Look it up! Facebook founder announced he was going to give away his shares to charity and he also contributed over 900 million to planned parenthood.

[Jeremy E.]

Lets change topics, this is going in circles!! hahaha

Another area brought up, what do you all think of the recent primary results?

Looks like Trump and Bernie got the top!

Personally I cheered for Bernie winning that side. He is majorly the lesser evil in my opinion! I would rather have a more honest guy like him in office than Hillary by far!!!

The Republican side was fun to watch though!! Trump dominated, but the others were just punching each other like crazy!! which I think lead to Kasich to get second (not a bad thing in my mind)

I think what lead to Kasich getting 2nd was him spending most of his resources campaigning in new Hampshire, going to over 100 town hall meetings, etc.

[JLee]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

Also just saw the facebook highlighted, Look it up! Facebook founder announced he was going to give away his shares to charity and he also contributed over 900 million to planned parenthood.

You would save money, therefore giving you even more dollars for your own personal decisions. The government would then be giving you MORE control over your money, not less! Isn't that what you want?

Regarding your "look it up" comment, you should take your own advice. If you rely on Facebook headlines for accurate information, you will not end up with accurate information.
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/624226/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-NOT-Donate-Billions-Charity-LLC-Foundation

[Killerbrandt]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

Mod Note: Please read the forum rules on rudeness/debate.

[Killerbrandt]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

Also just saw the facebook highlighted, Look it up! Facebook founder announced he was going to give away his shares to charity and he also contributed over 900 million to planned parenthood.

You would save money, therefore giving you even more dollars for your own personal decisions. The government would then be giving you MORE control over your money, not less! Isn't that what you want?

Regarding your "look it up" comment, you should take your own advice. If you rely on Facebook headlines for accurate information, you will not end up with accurate information.
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/624226/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-NOT-Donate-Billions-Charity-LLC-Foundation

Maybe because I am not selfish and know my share would have to be taken by another! great! I saved a few bucks, but who is paying the other side?!?!?! that money must appear from some place JLEE!

Yeah! He is giving up his share over a lifetime, geeze dude, do I really need to post an essay for you?

[Killerbrandt]

Lets change topics, this is going in circles!! hahaha

Another area brought up, what do you all think of the recent primary results?

Looks like Trump and Bernie got the top!

Personally I cheered for Bernie winning that side. He is majorly the lesser evil in my opinion! I would rather have a more honest guy like him in office than Hillary by far!!!

The Republican side was fun to watch though!! Trump dominated, but the others were just punching each other like crazy!! which I think lead to Kasich to get second (not a bad thing in my mind)

I think what lead to Kasich getting 2nd was him spending most of his resources campaigning in new Hampshire, going to over 100 town hall meetings, etc.

That is true and he was a good candidate for people that still want to vote republican but not extreme. I will be saddened when he leaves

[JLee]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

Also just saw the facebook highlighted, Look it up! Facebook founder announced he was going to give away his shares to charity and he also contributed over 900 million to planned parenthood.

You would save money, therefore giving you even more dollars for your own personal decisions. The government would then be giving you MORE control over your money, not less! Isn't that what you want?

Regarding your "look it up" comment, you should take your own advice. If you rely on Facebook headlines for accurate information, you will not end up with accurate information.
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/624226/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-NOT-Donate-Billions-Charity-LLC-Foundation

Maybe because I am not selfish and know my share would have to be taken by another! great! I saved a few bucks, but who is paying the other side?!?!?! that money must appear from some place JLEE!

Yeah! He is giving up his share over a lifetime, geeze dude, do I really need to post an essay for you?

I am paying the other side.  I don't mind.  You're welcome. :)

[Killerbrandt]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

Also just saw the facebook highlighted, Look it up! Facebook founder announced he was going to give away his shares to charity and he also contributed over 900 million to planned parenthood.

You would save money, therefore giving you even more dollars for your own personal decisions. The government would then be giving you MORE control over your money, not less! Isn't that what you want?

Regarding your "look it up" comment, you should take your own advice. If you rely on Facebook headlines for accurate information, you will not end up with accurate information.
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/624226/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-NOT-Donate-Billions-Charity-LLC-Foundation

Maybe because I am not selfish and know my share would have to be taken by another! great! I saved a few bucks, but who is paying the other side?!?!?! that money must appear from some place JLEE!

Yeah! He is giving up his share over a lifetime, geeze dude, do I really need to post an essay for you?

I am paying the other side.  I don't mind.  You're welcome. :)

Probably not, but thank you for your share! :) but just because you do not mind, I don't think all of them don't mind.

[Kris]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

[Killerbrandt]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

[Kris]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

No, I think swearing at people, mocking them for wanting clear language so they understand your point, and excessive, insulting sarcasm directed toward your interlocutor is rude.

[Killerbrandt]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

No, I think swearing at people, mocking them for wanting clear language so they understand your point, and excessive, insulting sarcasm directed toward your interlocutor is rude.

That "Goddamn" was a reaction on my feels, not a name calling. Also, who are you to speak about insulting sarcasm?!?! You mentioned earlier we should just shoot someone so they don't cost us anymore.

[Killerbrandt]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

No, I think swearing at people, mocking them for wanting clear language so they understand your point, and excessive, insulting sarcasm directed toward your interlocutor is rude.

How about we drop it Kris, I apologized and moved on. Or we can just start nit picking each others posts :)

[Kris]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

No, I think swearing at people, mocking them for wanting clear language so they understand your point, and excessive, insulting sarcasm directed toward your interlocutor is rude.

That "Goddamn" was a reaction on my feels, not a name calling. Also, who are you to speak about insulting sarcasm?!?! You mentioned earlier we should just shoot someone so they don't cost us anymore.

That "goddamn" was not the only thing you said.  And insulting sarcasm is sarcasm directed at a particular individual in order to make fun of that person in particular.  Mocking a point of view that is attributable to the views of a group of people is not quite the same thing.

At any rate, I am sure JLee can defend himself from you.  But I personally was, and still am, fairly shocked that you think this is an appropriate way to conduct a conversation with a person who has only been civil to you.

[Killerbrandt]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

No, I think swearing at people, mocking them for wanting clear language so they understand your point, and excessive, insulting sarcasm directed toward your interlocutor is rude.

That "Goddamn" was a reaction on my feels, not a name calling. Also, who are you to speak about insulting sarcasm?!?! You mentioned earlier we should just shoot someone so they don't cost us anymore.

That "goddamn" was not the only thing you said.  And insulting sarcasm is sarcasm directed at a particular individual in order to make fun of that person in particular.  Mocking a point of view that is attributable to the views of a group of people is not quite the same thing.

At any rate, I am sure JLee can defend himself from you.  But I personally was, and still am, fairly shocked that you think this is an appropriate way to conduct a conversation with a person who has only been civil to you.

JLee I am very sorry if I offended you and to help me out, just message me that I am getting too far on the rude side and I promise I will improve on that. Once again, I do suck at writing and what is Extremely rude to some (Kris) may not appear it to me.

[Gin1984]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

No, I think swearing at people, mocking them for wanting clear language so they understand your point, and excessive, insulting sarcasm directed toward your interlocutor is rude.

That "Goddamn" was a reaction on my feels, not a name calling. Also, who are you to speak about insulting sarcasm?!?! You mentioned earlier we should just shoot someone so they don't cost us anymore.

That "goddamn" was not the only thing you said.  And insulting sarcasm is sarcasm directed at a particular individual in order to make fun of that person in particular.  Mocking a point of view that is attributable to the views of a group of people is not quite the same thing.

At any rate, I am sure JLee can defend himself from you.  But I personally was, and still am, fairly shocked that you think this is an appropriate way to conduct a conversation with a person who has only been civil to you.

JLee I am very sorry if I offended you and to help me out, just message me that I am getting too far on the rude side and I promise I will improve on that. Once again, I do suck at writing and what is Extremely rude to some (Kris) may not appear it to me.

It is not just Kris that thinks you are being rude, I agree.  This is some of the worse behavior I have seen on her that has not been moderated.  The only reason I think it has not been is it is possible you are not trying to be an asshole, and therefore people are giving you a chance. 

[Killerbrandt]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

No, I think swearing at people, mocking them for wanting clear language so they understand your point, and excessive, insulting sarcasm directed toward your interlocutor is rude.

That "Goddamn" was a reaction on my feels, not a name calling. Also, who are you to speak about insulting sarcasm?!?! You mentioned earlier we should just shoot someone so they don't cost us anymore.

That "goddamn" was not the only thing you said.  And insulting sarcasm is sarcasm directed at a particular individual in order to make fun of that person in particular.  Mocking a point of view that is attributable to the views of a group of people is not quite the same thing.

At any rate, I am sure JLee can defend himself from you.  But I personally was, and still am, fairly shocked that you think this is an appropriate way to conduct a conversation with a person who has only been civil to you.

JLee I am very sorry if I offended you and to help me out, just message me that I am getting too far on the rude side and I promise I will improve on that. Once again, I do suck at writing and what is Extremely rude to some (Kris) may not appear it to me.

It is not just Kris that thinks you are being rude, I agree.  This is some of the worse behavior I have seen on her that has not been moderated.  The only reason I think it has not been is it is possible you are not trying to be an asshole, and therefore people are giving you a chance.

Thank you Gin, I apologize, please message me on ways to improve my way of expressing. Like I have said, I am not the best at writing and I apologize. I would love better examples of expressing my points and learn to progress better at my writing skills, especially in a blog type environment.

[Jack]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

The difference gets accounted for by reduced insurance company profits, which will cause that industry to shrink and both capital and labor to be re-allocated from middlemen to more productive endeavors.

Interesting, almost like getting rid of the 3rd party car dealership? Just go directly to the source (Car manufacture or in this topic, Hospitals)?

In a very loose sense, sort of. However, that analogy has enough problems that I don't like it.

But yes, you only thought somebody else needs to "cover your share" because you're trying to hold the total overall cost of health care constant. But the crux of the single-payer plan is that the total overall cost decreases because the health insurance overhead is cut out.

[Killerbrandt]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

The difference gets accounted for by reduced insurance company profits, which will cause that industry to shrink and both capital and labor to be re-allocated from middlemen to more productive endeavors.

Interesting, almost like getting rid of the 3rd party car dealership? Just go directly to the source (Car manufacture or in this topic, Hospitals)?

[JLee]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

The difference gets accounted for by reduced insurance company profits, which will cause that industry to shrink and both capital and labor to be re-allocated from middlemen to more productive endeavors.

Which should then reduce the amount of money the US spends on health care, bringing it more in line with other modern countries. 17.1% of the GDP of the United States goes to health care (over $9,000 per person per year), which is frankly outrageous.

Reference: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

If we could bring our per-person costs down to around Canada's level (just for example), 8.55% of the entire GDP of the nation could be used for other purposes. That's a staggering amount of money!

[Killerbrandt]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

The difference gets accounted for by reduced insurance company profits, which will cause that industry to shrink and both capital and labor to be re-allocated from middlemen to more productive endeavors.

Which should then reduce the amount of money the US spends on health care, bringing it more in line with other modern countries. 17.1% of the GDP of the United States goes to health care (over $9,000 per person per year), which is frankly outrageous.

Reference: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

If we could bring our per-person costs down to around Canada's level (just for example), 8.55% of the entire GDP of the nation could be used for other purposes. That's a staggering amount of money!

Oh shit, HAHAHA!! Was I looking at the Healthcare push wrong? They are just proposing eliminating the Insurance middle man, not taking over the hospitals and things like that?

[Jack]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

The difference gets accounted for by reduced insurance company profits, which will cause that industry to shrink and both capital and labor to be re-allocated from middlemen to more productive endeavors.

Interesting, almost like getting rid of the 3rd party car dealership? Just go directly to the source (Car manufacture or in this topic, Hospitals)?

In a very loose sense, sort of. However, that analogy has enough problems that I don't like it. (Your analogy is more what it would be like if public health care and private insurance were both abolished and everyone had to pay for their own care out-of-pocket -- an option that would never be allowed to happen because it's unethical to let poor people die in the street because the ER refused service.)

But yes, you only thought somebody else needs to "cover your share" because you're trying to hold the total overall cost of health care constant. But the crux of the single-payer plan is that the total overall cost decreases because the health insurance overhead is cut out.

Oh shit, HAHAHA!! Was I looking at the Healthcare push wrong? They are just proposing eliminating the Insurance middle man, not taking over the hospitals and things like that?

Yes! The plan is more akin to putting everybody on Medicare, not putting everybody into the VA system.

[Killerbrandt]

But wait, if you eliminate the health insurance, what would be the incentive for hospitals (medical practices) to attract customers and compete? For example, I would want people (insurance) to pick my hospital over Hospital B, so I hire better doctors, lower costs, bring in better equipment, ect..

Which now makes me think vouchers might be good? Then you hold the key to picking a place to treat you? Would that work better? Technically the government is helping out by providing this, but are not sitting in the hospital chair telling them what to do exactly. (does this make sense?)

[Killerbrandt]

Did not catch your second part! I would save 1k :), but who will cover my share? If I am getting money back, then someone is making up for it some place else. Also, the advanced calculator did not work.

The difference gets accounted for by reduced insurance company profits, which will cause that industry to shrink and both capital and labor to be re-allocated from middlemen to more productive endeavors.

Interesting, almost like getting rid of the 3rd party car dealership? Just go directly to the source (Car manufacture or in this topic, Hospitals)?

In a very loose sense, sort of. However, that analogy has enough problems that I don't like it. (Your analogy is more what it would be like if public health care and private insurance were both abolished and everyone had to pay for their own care out-of-pocket -- an option that would never be allowed to happen because it's unethical to let poor people die in the street because the ER refused service.)

But yes, you only thought somebody else needs to "cover your share" because you're trying to hold the total overall cost of health care constant. But the crux of the single-payer plan is that the total overall cost decreases because the health insurance overhead is cut out.

Oh shit, HAHAHA!! Was I looking at the Healthcare push wrong? They are just proposing eliminating the Insurance middle man, not taking over the hospitals and things like that?

Yes! The plan is more akin to putting everybody on Medicare, not putting everybody into the VA system.

Hmmm, trying to wrap my head around this, because so much brainwashing from media kept spouting VA type healthcare. So what would make the Hospitals want to keep quality up and costs down? I mean, yeah Hospital A would want the very best so you go to their place, but if Medicare only says we pay this much, doesn't that limit the quality that hospital can provide? (ugh, does this make sense now? I suck at this writing crap)

[Vertical Mode]

On a lighter note, I found this amusing:

[Jack]

But wait, if you eliminate the health insurance, what would be the incentive for hospitals (medical practices) to attract customers and compete? For example, I would want people (insurance) to pick my hospital over Hospital B, so I hire better doctors, lower costs, bring in better equipment, ect.

Under single-payer, people would choose which doctor to go to the same way that people with Medicare choose which doctor to go to now.

Hmmm, trying to wrap my head around this, because so much brainwashing from media kept spouting VA type healthcare. So what would make the Hospitals want to keep quality up and costs down? I mean, yeah Hospital A would want the very best so you go to their place, but if Medicare only says we pay this much, doesn't that limit the quality that hospital can provide? (ugh, does this make sense now? I suck at this writing crap)

On one hand, it eliminates price discrimination on the part of the health care provider (i.e., they can't make patient A pay $X and patient B pay $Y). That's a good thing, as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, it also eliminates the ability to differentiate product by price (i.e., provider A can't choose to charge all patients $X while provider B chooses to charge all patients $Y, where it's reasonable for $X to be larger than $Y because provider A is better than provider B). That's... less good. All patients would have no reason not to prefer provider A because they pay the same amount either way, resulting in provider A having wait lists (or something) while provider B has unused capacity.* I'm not sure if this is actually a necessary consequence of monopsony or not, but (I think) it's how Medicare currently works, at least. If single-payer actually came to pass, it's an issue that might need revisiting.

Edit: one way to avoid that monopsony problem might be to implement single-payer as a sort of government-funded HSA or FSA. That way providers could still charge different prices and the patient would be making the decision balancing quality vs. price, which would be ideal. Then the problem becomes making sure people spend that money when necessary, while also not spending it frivolously (e.g. if you treated it like an HSA where it could become general income eventually people might hoard it, but if you treated it like an FSA people would gain a "use it or lose it" mentality and spend unnecessarily.)

(*There's economic jargon for all this stuff, but I can't remember it right now.)

[Kris]

It's ok, read slower, then you can understand my 3rd grade writing skills haha

First - what? Mark Zuckerberg (I assume he is "Facebook guy") founded a for-profit corporation, which he claims will be used for charitable endeavors - but he most certainly did not "give his share away and help fund Planned Parenthood."

Second - how much more will you end up paying if Bernie's tax plan is put into effect? You never posted results, so I am curious to see how much of "your money" you would lose power over.

Really man, you are that type of person that I have to literally be 100 percent specific for you to understand the "Facebook guy" is Mark! Goddamn dude! Just like fucking Google providing CABLE like services is so CRAZY and hard to understand! I should have said "Tv and internet provider". Please lighten up a bit, this is not a debate airing on CNN, I've even been busting on my writing, but you keep your Robot mode on 100 percent.

A) If you are arguing a point, the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up that point.  This is obvious.

B) You are being extremely rude.

I did show my point, but then trying to throw off the discussion because one was not 100 specific on the Naming, that is rude also.

Sorry you think that was rude Kris, I apologize.

No, I think swearing at people, mocking them for wanting clear language so they understand your point, and excessive, insulting sarcasm directed toward your interlocutor is rude.

That "Goddamn" was a reaction on my feels, not a name calling. Also, who are you to speak about insulting sarcasm?!?! You mentioned earlier we should just shoot someone so they don't cost us anymore.

That "goddamn" was not the only thing you said.  And insulting sarcasm is sarcasm directed at a particular individual in order to make fun of that person in particular.  Mocking a point of view that is attributable to the views of a group of people is not quite the same thing.

At any rate, I am sure JLee can defend himself from you.  But I personally was, and still am, fairly shocked that you think this is an appropriate way to conduct a conversation with a person who has only been civil to you.

JLee I am very sorry if I offended you and to help me out, just message me that I am getting too far on the rude side and I promise I will improve on that. Once again, I do suck at writing and what is Extremely rude to some (Kris) may not appear it to me.

It is not just Kris that thinks you are being rude, I agree.  This is some of the worse behavior I have seen on her that has not been moderated.  The only reason I think it has not been is it is possible you are not trying to be an asshole, and therefore people are giving you a chance.

Thank you Gin, I apologize, please message me on ways to improve my way of expressing. Like I have said, I am not the best at writing and I apologize. I would love better examples of expressing my points and learn to progress better at my writing skills, especially in a blog type environment.

You will find rules for interacting respectfully on this forum in the "Forum Rules."

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

Additionally, these rules will help you with some guidelines for how to frame your arguments in ways that are not only respectful, but logical (as in, not using logical fallacies).

[Jeremy E.]

On a lighter note, I found this amusing:

lol, thanks for that

[Jeremy E.]

Everyone stop being mean

[Kris]

On a lighter note, I found this amusing:

lol, thanks for that

My immediate reaction, after laughing, was to think that the libertarian version of this would be a power strip that's not plugged into anything.

[RangerOne]

On a lighter note, I found this amusing:

lol, thanks for that

My immediate reaction, after laughing, was to think that the libertarian version of this would be a power strip that's not plugged into anything.

I think it would more likely be plug into a bike that you are peddling for power, since things are better if we do everything our selves...

[Jeremy E.]

On a lighter note, I found this amusing:

lol, thanks for that

My immediate reaction, after laughing, was to think that the libertarian version of this would be a power strip that's not plugged into anything.

I think it would more likely be plug into a bike that you are peddling for power, since things are better if we do everything our selves...

that sounds like an MMM quote, "better if we do everything ourselves"