|
|
#81
10-08-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
because of their reliance on an economic theory that can only explain unemployment as laziness (LOL). [/ QUOTE ] LOL indeed. EDIT: More specifically, UE is almost by definition NOT attributable to laziness. People who aren't trying to find jobs aren't part of the work-force and are therefore not accounted for in UE stats. 
|
|
#82
10-08-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
Mortality rate demographics in the U.S. would be shed more light IMO. I have my doubts that people living below the poverty line have the same mortality rate as the wealthiest members of society do. Put another way, I would bet that life expectancy has significantly more years for the wealthiest 10% of society when compared to the poorest 10%. How will the bill that Bush vetoed change,impact that situation?
|
|
#83
10-08-2007, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Because growth is infinitely sustainable, right? That's the central contradiction that US policy-makers are running into now, because of their reliance on an economic theory that can only explain unemployment as laziness (LOL). Hence the economic mismanagement that has them in hock to their greatest rival; China is busy buying Africa and killing off the Monroe Doctine in South America and the US is powerless to stop it. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/bush/...958084,00.html http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9494 http://www.countercurrents.org/sa-nelson120106.htm [/ QUOTE ] Awesome. the rambling continues, with links to paranoid socialist conspiracy sources to boot! I wonder how long we can keep him going? I'm waiting for him to start talking about peak oil next... natedogg [/ QUOTE ] Resort to ad hominem only exposes the fact that you have no counter argument to offer. The fact that both left- and right-wing commentators agree on this is what makes the argument so powerful, IMO. But you have nothing to say about Stiglitz, who defines himself as a right-wing economist, free marketeer and proponent of globalisation. How very unexpected. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] In fact, a year after launching their assault on Stiglitz, the IMF attack dogs appear to be in full retreat. Stiglitz is grimly amused that the IMF recently published a mea culpa, of sorts, which concluded that countries that follow IMF suggestions often suffer a 'collapse in growth rates and significant financial crises'. Rogoff is one of its authors. Not content with using his intellectual capital to show up the failure of Washington policymaking, Stiglitz has also been developing what might be the next revolution in economic theory. He won his Nobel prize for work on 'informational asymmetries'. Last week he delivered Oxford University's prestigious Clarendon Lecture on refashioning the work of Keynes for the 21st century. It will fill in the gaps between his pioneering theoretical work on informational asymmetries, and his policy prescriptions for the World Bank, White House and IMF. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#84
10-08-2007, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
... But you have nothing to say about Stiglitz, who defines himself as a right-wing economist, free marketeer and proponent of globalisation. .... [/ QUOTE ] Where did you get the idea that Stiglitz is a right wing economist? Do you realize that Stiglitz worked for the Clinton administration? Not sure how you define a right wing economist and/or left wing economist. Also regarding unemployment you realize that full employment does not mean an unemployment rate of 0. NATURAL RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT "Full employment" does not mean 100 percent employment. For various reasons, the unemployment rate cannot be reduced to zero, if only because people are always being fired, laid off or moving between jobs. But even granting that unemployment can never be completely eliminated, it still might be possible to ensure that anyone searching for a job can find one reasonably quickly. Economists call this happy state of affairs "full employment."
|
|
#85
10-08-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] because of their reliance on an economic theory that can only explain unemployment as laziness (LOL). [/ QUOTE ] LOL indeed. EDIT: More specifically, UE is almost by definition NOT attributable to laziness. People who aren't trying to find jobs aren't part of the work-force and are therefore not accounted for in UE stats. [/ QUOTE ] Shhhhh. Let him keep going. Let's see where he goes next. So far we've got Enron, china trade deficit, education reform, and Stiglitz the "right wing" economist. I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. still not sure what point he's trying to make. natedogg
|
|
#86
10-08-2007, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
The willingness of people in the US to pay more to a middleman than purchase directly is bemusing. Why do US voters willingly spend so much for so little? This is the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy with spending on health care plotted over it (year 2000). You're spending 3 times as much on average to come 27th. And you mostly seem happy about it. Huh?  From: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php [/ QUOTE ] The problems with this analysis have been covered before. Cliff notes: Life expectancy at birth is not a good indicator of overall health. It is highly skewed by infant mortality, which is higher in the US due to higher at risk births. The cost figures are incomplete because they don't reflect the offsets to cost from more expensive, less invasive procedures, nor do they reflect the gains from getting care promptly, instead of waiting and being non-productive sometimes for months or years. They also don't reflect the very high cost of terminal care, the incidence of prolonging terminal cases and the complications from obesity, which is higher in the US than other countries.
|
|
#87
10-08-2007, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The willingness of people in the US to pay more to a middleman than purchase directly is bemusing. Why do US voters willingly spend so much for so little? This is the top 30 countries in the world ranked by life expectancy with spending on health care plotted over it (year 2000). You're spending 3 times as much on average to come 27th. And you mostly seem happy about it. Huh? From: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php [/ QUOTE ] The problems with this analysis have been covered before. Cliff notes: Life expectancy at birth is not a good indicator of overall health. It is highly skewed by infant mortality, which is higher in the US due to higher at risk births. The cost figures are incomplete because they don't reflect the offsets to cost from more expensive, less invasive procedures, nor do they reflect the gains from getting care promptly, instead of waiting and being non-productive sometimes for months or years. They also don't reflect the very high cost of terminal care, the incidence of prolonging terminal cases and the complications from obesity, which is higher in the US than other countries. [/ QUOTE ] Not to mention the free ride everyone else is getting from the USA subsidizing their drug research costs. natedogg
|
|
#88
10-08-2007, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
Because growth is infinitely sustainable, right? That's the central contradiction that US policy-makers are running into now, because of their reliance on an economic theory that can only explain unemployment as laziness (LOL). Hence the economic mismanagement that has them in hock to their greatest rival; China is busy buying Africa and killing off the Monroe Doctine in South America and the US is powerless to stop it. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/bush/...958084,00.html http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9494 http://www.countercurrents.org/sa-nelson120106.htm [/ QUOTE ] NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOT THE MONROE DOCTRINE! BASTARDS!!!!
|
|
#89
10-08-2007, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ... But you have nothing to say about Stiglitz, who defines himself as a right-wing economist, free marketeer and proponent of globalisation. .... [/ QUOTE ] Where did you get the idea that Stiglitz is a right wing economist? Do you realize that Stiglitz worked for the Clinton administration? Not sure how you define a right wing economist and/or left wing economist. [/ QUOTE ] LOL at Clinton or the Democrats not being right-wing! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Stiglitz is a free-marketeer and pro-globalisationist; that's right-wing for anyone outside of the US. The Democrats are further to the right than any electable party in Europe; barely distinguishable from the Republicans from a European perspective. Must try harder. LOL.
|
|
#90
10-08-2007, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bush\'s 4th veto of his presidency is a good one
[ QUOTE ]
Mortality rate demographics in the U.S. would be shed more light IMO. I have my doubts that people living below the poverty line have the same mortality rate as the wealthiest members of society do. Put another way, I would bet that life expectancy has significantly more years for the wealthiest 10% of society when compared to the poorest 10%. [/ QUOTE ] You are most likely correct. There is a distinct difference, for example, between the mortality rates for blue collar vs white collar workers. However, correlation != causation bites you when you try to look at statistics at that high a level. It is not relative income that causes those mortality differences, it is lifestyle factors. Primarily the incidence of smoking and obesity are negatively correlated with income, and those lead to morbidity and mortality differences. There are also requirements and/or incentives for many middle and upper management employees to receive annual or bi-annual physicals, and those that arent incentivized are still generally more prone to take preventative measures.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
