So I'm having this conversion in my head and it goes like this:
Other person: blah blah blah alternative lifestyles blah blah blah
Me: You mean by alternative lifestyles someone who chooses an unconventional lifestyle?
The other person: Yeah
Me: I'm just curious about whether you think that would be ok to say in front of someone who is homosexual, or likes kink.
The other person: Why not? It's just a word, a term
Me: People say that but it's not a good argument; words have consequences too.
The other person: Yeah whatever sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
Me: Could you pass me that bottle of scotch?
Me: Words have consequences like actions do in the sense that they have a place in the cause and effect paradigm. This means classic judgements can be made against words, the same as actions. I say to you, you should not use a word unless you are certain you know it's not going to be a negative experience to someone within earshot of you. Since you can't prove to me that nobody would be hurt by a particular word, and even more specifically that nobody in earshot would be hurt by a word you say, I say be very careful about what words you use.
You are going to say that the taxonomic imperatives of language outweigh the moral imperative of avoiding personal injury. I say to you that that is just rephrasing the maxim that we should all be utilitarians about words. I also say that what we say is one of the few things we may actually be able to exercise on the basis of pure will. There are no unavoidable impact calculi when we are discussing the taxonomic imperatives of language.
Ah, but then you say that if you know your audience you can safely make a utilitarian calculus of word choice against personal injury that results in a positive outcome. After all, you say, the beauty of operating on a case-by-case basis is that you have adaptability over stodgy moral imperatives. But I say to you, wouldn't behaving differently in different situations violate your true identity at least some of the time? I'm not sure what you would say then.
But, I would say that the notion of a true identity is a shaky one at best, and that if we were about to get all existentialist I would divert to metaphysics. The key change goes something like this: the entire notion of identity is presumed by the fact that we are entirely complex chemical reactions. What is so special about us is that we don't know the entirety of the reaction. In fact it's quite probable the reactions in each of us are so unique and complex we'll never know. It's the x-factor. It's certainly not God, but it's certainly a reason people go looking for God.
This leaves us at one possible resolution: we just don't know whether we are a single identity or many. I would say you can see how it relates back to what we were talking about originally.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Brookings Institute Should Hire the Entire Cast...
...of Armageddon, so that we can have more stunning analysis in the same vein as this:
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/06_nasa_easterbrook.aspx
So this letter (more or less, the internets ate my other copy) was sent to my Good Friends Who Make Money from This Sort of Thing:
This may not have been a good idea considering the ratio: number of jobs offered by Brookings institute / number of jobs I'm willing to take. ESPECIALLY considering the ratio: number of jobs / total number of people looking for jobs.
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/06_nasa_easterbrook.aspx
So this letter (more or less, the internets ate my other copy) was sent to my Good Friends Who Make Money from This Sort of Thing:
Having just read Gregg Easterbrook's commentary on a few subjects (including the inane article about planet-killing asteroids), I can say with certainty that my opinion of the Brookings Institute has declined sharply. This man is so unqualified, it makes me wonder about all the other "Experts", and how they could NOT deserve that title.
This may not have been a good idea considering the ratio: number of jobs offered by Brookings institute / number of jobs I'm willing to take. ESPECIALLY considering the ratio: number of jobs / total number of people looking for jobs.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
I get on CNN's case, a little
I dropped an email to CNN about this article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/biden.special.needs/index.html
The email:
I mean, honestly people, you put the thing about the lady with the lawsuit against Alaska for failing to provide for special needs children in the last paragraph? When the case was filed on a behalf of an autistic child, and Palin's nephew is autistic?
Huh?
What?
Right...
Uhhh...
And this article couldn't have been called "Biden slams McCain-Palin on lack of support for stem cell research"?
In completely unrelated news, I googled this ridiculous string of words "stem cell research percentage americans support" and got:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070616/poll-american-republican-support-for-embryonic-stem-cell-research-increasing.htm
Remind me way were arguing about this again, except as another way for the McCain monkey machine to fling poop at everything:
Republicans
Democrats
The email:
I'm left wondering why the article "Biden's comments on special needs called 'new low'" had a quote from the republican spokesperson in the title but none from the democratic one. I'm not trying to accuse cnn of systemic media bias, I just think non-partisan headlines might be a better idea.
I mean, honestly people, you put the thing about the lady with the lawsuit against Alaska for failing to provide for special needs children in the last paragraph? When the case was filed on a behalf of an autistic child, and Palin's nephew is autistic?
Huh?
What?
Right...
Uhhh...
And this article couldn't have been called "Biden slams McCain-Palin on lack of support for stem cell research"?
In completely unrelated news, I googled this ridiculous string of words "stem cell research percentage americans support" and got:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070616/poll-american-republican-support-for-embryonic-stem-cell-research-increasing.htm
Poll results show that 22 percent of Americans say the government should place no restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell, while another 38 percent thought the government should ease current restrictions to allow more research. In total, 60 percent of Americans support less restrictions on the research.
Support for expanding stem cell research has grown compared to in 2004 when 55 percent of Americans said the government should place no restrictions or ease current restrictions, and in 2005 when 53 percent supported this.
Remind me way were arguing about this again, except as another way for the McCain monkey machine to fling poop at everything:
Republicans
Barack Obama's running mate sunk to a new low today, launching an offensive debate over who cares more about special needs children," McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt said. "Playing politics with this issue is disturbing and indicative of a desperate campaign."
Democrats
This is a clash of policies, not a clash of personalities.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
"A Brave New World" Was Too Goddamn Patronizing
In between your seat and the snack car on the Train of Stupidity that is politics in general is the boxcar full of shit that is McCain's Health Care Plan, as developed by Pfizer (Motto: Singhandedly keeping McCain's love life alive since '98)
Initially I can tell you without really reading the plans, that I trust Barack Obama's much more than McCain's. Look how much shorter in description each plank of McCain's plan is compared to Obamas. How about all that absurd rhetoric on McCain's page, militarizing/romanticizing about health care, with his "Call to Action", his "Vision", his "Plan of Action". You can't win by leading the charge on Health Insurance Hill - its going to take a lot of nerds working late nights in broom closets with calculators to figure this one out. Which leads me to my next quick thing: mentions of cold hard numbers. I counted 4 numbers in McCain's plan. There are 26 in Obama's. Instead of numbers? McCain uses the word "should" eleven times in his plan; Obama twice.
It's comparable statements about the same ideas which really demonstrate my point:
McCain:
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Greater Use Of Information Technology To Reduce Costs. We should promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology that allows doctors to practice across state lines.
Obama:
Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based
electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
Here's another one:
McCain:
TRANSPARENCY: Bringing Transparency To Health Care Costs. We must make public more information on treatment options and doctor records, and require transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and recording treatments and outcomes.
Obama:
Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
And here's something which just flat out demonstrates how Obama's take on the world trumps McCain's:
McCain (this is under "Lowering Health Care Costs"):
TORT REFORM: Passing Medical Liability Reform. We must pass medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits.
Obama (this is under "Lower Costs"):
Insurance reform. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
Obama comes at this problem from two directions: The direct cost of the lawsuits themselves, and the indirect cost of covering the possibilities of the lawsuits (insurance). McCain only comes the problem in the former (and not the latter) way. Most importantly: Obama's plan is concerned with the prevention of malpractice; McCain's plan is concerned with the prevention of malpractice lawsuits.
Imagine a world under McCain's plan: Your doctor screws up while following procedure (since this seems to be the viable scenario for sueing in McCain's plan). Either the screw up was the doctor's fault, in which case you can't sue her/him because he was following procedure, or god forbid, the procedure was wrong in the first place. If the procedure was wrong either a) better luck next time, b) sue whoever developed the procedure. And voila, the blame shifting game goes on. McCain's plan could be: don't sue the doctor, sue big pharma/the hospitals! Great way to keep costs down...
Yes, Obama's plan is more touchy-feely, but also yes a good doctor patient relationship is crucial. What better way to keep a doctor from screwing up then by giving him an emotional investment in her/his patient. Obviously you people want some kind of "evidence".
Well here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/health/29well.html
Obama's plan is also much more adaptable - if the procedure is wrong, there are already people "addressing errors", and a reason to sue (force a change in the system) has been taken out of circulation. Plus I really like the bit about keeping malpractice insurance down - from what I know it's mandatory that doctors have it
most places, so it's probably really increasing overhead costs just about everywhere/is probably a noncompetitive market just about everywhere.
Annnnd here's some evidence:
http://insurance-reform.org/StableLosses2007.pdf
and ahahahahaha some more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/eveningnews/consumer/main610102.shtml
(this one even goes so far as to refute even the existence of all those "frivolous" lawsuits)
The bottom line with regards to McCain's plan is this: it is like a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. I know I pay about 1500 dollars a year for health insurance, and that my employer coughs up the other 3/4s of the cost, so insuring me costs about 6000 dollars a year. McCain would give me a 2500 dollar tax credit (5000 for families, but god knows how much insuring a family costs, I don't even want to
know).
McCain: is that 2500 dollars in cold cash, or is that a write-down on my income, meaning that instead of getting the money I actually just don't pay the government 2500 dollars times my tax rate. Which in my case, making what I do (which is much more than an actually "poor" person according to the government) would be max about 250 bucks. Two months worth of employer-subsidized health insurance. Great.
Assuming it's actually 2500 dollars, good luck trying to buy insurance with that money if your employer doesn't provide any kind of plan (remember my plan is 6000 dollars). And how many people work for employers who don't offer a plan? 8 in 10 uninsured people (that's from http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml). That's 38 out of the 47 million unemployed. Mean McCain has the balls to tell people he's offering them this money "While still having the option of employer-based coverage". 38 million people in the US don't have that option. They can't do a damn thing with that 2500/5000 dollar check. Except that they can't do a damn thing with it anyway because McCain also says:
"...the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider". So I'm not even in the loop for that cash. I, along with the rest of America, would never even see it. So McCain's plan is: every year the U.S. Government would write a 500 billion dollar check (approx. 100 million households in the US times 5000) to the insurance companies.
Shit.
Obama: Mandatory insurance for children. Bam, that's 9 million of the uninsured insured right then and there. No checks to private companies, no "Health Savings Accounts", no mucking about with taxes. Just the Government stepping in and insuring our children. One step program: uninsured --> insured. Obama would also directly provide an option for insurance through the U.S. Government for the remaining uninsured. Instead of just mailing the insurance industry a gigantic check each year, he would create a competitive atmosphere across the public/private divide. Obama's plan would give us (we, the people) leverage over big pharma and the insurance industry, badly needed leverage. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies are profit-oriented, not people oriented. These industries need to remember - they provide a critical service; they do not exist merely to enrich themselves. Pharma and insurance should probably be non-profit - Obama gets us closer, McCain just momentarily satiates their lust for cash.
Sources:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
href="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
By the way, finding the sources of evidence for the things I write about is so blindingly easy I feel almost useless typing this stuff up. It took me four google searches to find everything I needed. I don't understand how people can quibble about facts so often, but never look shit up for themselves (not directed at you CH). It's the internet people! It's simpler than a dick in a box.
Initially I can tell you without really reading the plans, that I trust Barack Obama's much more than McCain's. Look how much shorter in description each plank of McCain's plan is compared to Obamas. How about all that absurd rhetoric on McCain's page, militarizing/romanticizing about health care, with his "Call to Action", his "Vision", his "Plan of Action". You can't win by leading the charge on Health Insurance Hill - its going to take a lot of nerds working late nights in broom closets with calculators to figure this one out. Which leads me to my next quick thing: mentions of cold hard numbers. I counted 4 numbers in McCain's plan. There are 26 in Obama's. Instead of numbers? McCain uses the word "should" eleven times in his plan; Obama twice.
It's comparable statements about the same ideas which really demonstrate my point:
McCain:
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Greater Use Of Information Technology To Reduce Costs. We should promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology that allows doctors to practice across state lines.
Obama:
Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based
electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
Here's another one:
McCain:
TRANSPARENCY: Bringing Transparency To Health Care Costs. We must make public more information on treatment options and doctor records, and require transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and recording treatments and outcomes.
Obama:
Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
And here's something which just flat out demonstrates how Obama's take on the world trumps McCain's:
McCain (this is under "Lowering Health Care Costs"):
TORT REFORM: Passing Medical Liability Reform. We must pass medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits.
Obama (this is under "Lower Costs"):
Insurance reform. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
Obama comes at this problem from two directions: The direct cost of the lawsuits themselves, and the indirect cost of covering the possibilities of the lawsuits (insurance). McCain only comes the problem in the former (and not the latter) way. Most importantly: Obama's plan is concerned with the prevention of malpractice; McCain's plan is concerned with the prevention of malpractice lawsuits.
Imagine a world under McCain's plan: Your doctor screws up while following procedure (since this seems to be the viable scenario for sueing in McCain's plan). Either the screw up was the doctor's fault, in which case you can't sue her/him because he was following procedure, or god forbid, the procedure was wrong in the first place. If the procedure was wrong either a) better luck next time, b) sue whoever developed the procedure. And voila, the blame shifting game goes on. McCain's plan could be: don't sue the doctor, sue big pharma/the hospitals! Great way to keep costs down...
Yes, Obama's plan is more touchy-feely, but also yes a good doctor patient relationship is crucial. What better way to keep a doctor from screwing up then by giving him an emotional investment in her/his patient. Obviously you people want some kind of "evidence".
Well here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/health/29well.html
Obama's plan is also much more adaptable - if the procedure is wrong, there are already people "addressing errors", and a reason to sue (force a change in the system) has been taken out of circulation. Plus I really like the bit about keeping malpractice insurance down - from what I know it's mandatory that doctors have it
most places, so it's probably really increasing overhead costs just about everywhere/is probably a noncompetitive market just about everywhere.
Annnnd here's some evidence:
http://insurance-reform.org/StableLosses2007.pdf
and ahahahahaha some more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/eveningnews/consumer/main610102.shtml
(this one even goes so far as to refute even the existence of all those "frivolous" lawsuits)
The bottom line with regards to McCain's plan is this: it is like a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. I know I pay about 1500 dollars a year for health insurance, and that my employer coughs up the other 3/4s of the cost, so insuring me costs about 6000 dollars a year. McCain would give me a 2500 dollar tax credit (5000 for families, but god knows how much insuring a family costs, I don't even want to
know).
McCain: is that 2500 dollars in cold cash, or is that a write-down on my income, meaning that instead of getting the money I actually just don't pay the government 2500 dollars times my tax rate. Which in my case, making what I do (which is much more than an actually "poor" person according to the government) would be max about 250 bucks. Two months worth of employer-subsidized health insurance. Great.
Assuming it's actually 2500 dollars, good luck trying to buy insurance with that money if your employer doesn't provide any kind of plan (remember my plan is 6000 dollars). And how many people work for employers who don't offer a plan? 8 in 10 uninsured people (that's from http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml). That's 38 out of the 47 million unemployed. Mean McCain has the balls to tell people he's offering them this money "While still having the option of employer-based coverage". 38 million people in the US don't have that option. They can't do a damn thing with that 2500/5000 dollar check. Except that they can't do a damn thing with it anyway because McCain also says:
"...the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider". So I'm not even in the loop for that cash. I, along with the rest of America, would never even see it. So McCain's plan is: every year the U.S. Government would write a 500 billion dollar check (approx. 100 million households in the US times 5000) to the insurance companies.
Shit.
Obama: Mandatory insurance for children. Bam, that's 9 million of the uninsured insured right then and there. No checks to private companies, no "Health Savings Accounts", no mucking about with taxes. Just the Government stepping in and insuring our children. One step program: uninsured --> insured. Obama would also directly provide an option for insurance through the U.S. Government for the remaining uninsured. Instead of just mailing the insurance industry a gigantic check each year, he would create a competitive atmosphere across the public/private divide. Obama's plan would give us (we, the people) leverage over big pharma and the insurance industry, badly needed leverage. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies are profit-oriented, not people oriented. These industries need to remember - they provide a critical service; they do not exist merely to enrich themselves. Pharma and insurance should probably be non-profit - Obama gets us closer, McCain just momentarily satiates their lust for cash.
Sources:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
href="http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
By the way, finding the sources of evidence for the things I write about is so blindingly easy I feel almost useless typing this stuff up. It took me four google searches to find everything I needed. I don't understand how people can quibble about facts so often, but never look shit up for themselves (not directed at you CH). It's the internet people! It's simpler than a dick in a box.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
More ridiculous letter writing
As if this would make a difference, especially since I'm from a state which already voted in the primaries. Fuck politics.
"Ms. Clinton,
I greatly admire what you've done for the democratic process by sticking to your guns throughout this nomination battle, but I humbly request that you cede the ticket to Obama. Now is the time for party unity; we MUST set our sights on McCain and the Republican party; we MUST win the White House in '08.
I began as a supporter of yours, but times have changed. I sincerely bought the argument that experience was paramount. Then, you started endorsing policies which shook my faith. The summer gas tax, for instance. And your comments which followed, regarding the uselessness of economists. You've taken a lot of media-related heat on that issue, but I'm here to tell you it was the straw which broke the camel's back for this 1 in 300 million.
I'm tired of arguments about "electability", too. Essentially, "electability" and "experience" are different names for the same concept: "safe bet". Well, the world isn't safe anymore. We need someone to break us out of the status quo, and that someone is the one for change. Barack Obama.
Thank you for listening."
"Ms. Clinton,
I greatly admire what you've done for the democratic process by sticking to your guns throughout this nomination battle, but I humbly request that you cede the ticket to Obama. Now is the time for party unity; we MUST set our sights on McCain and the Republican party; we MUST win the White House in '08.
I began as a supporter of yours, but times have changed. I sincerely bought the argument that experience was paramount. Then, you started endorsing policies which shook my faith. The summer gas tax, for instance. And your comments which followed, regarding the uselessness of economists. You've taken a lot of media-related heat on that issue, but I'm here to tell you it was the straw which broke the camel's back for this 1 in 300 million.
I'm tired of arguments about "electability", too. Essentially, "electability" and "experience" are different names for the same concept: "safe bet". Well, the world isn't safe anymore. We need someone to break us out of the status quo, and that someone is the one for change. Barack Obama.
Thank you for listening."
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Letter I sent to all my congress-bots
"Mr. Olver (et al.),
In a May 7 2008 Wall Street Journal article I read that the Federal Reserve is going to go before Congress and ask if it could pay interest on the reserves banks are required to keep at the Fed. I am writing to express my complete disapproval of this request; I think it is a poor usage of tax dollars.
From the article, the argument by the Fed seems to be twofold. First, the Fed claims this measure will allow them to entice banks into holding more reserves for a rainy day. To this I say: the reserve requirement is set by the Government and as such, if the reserve needs to be higher, then just set it higher. Banks don't need to be reimbursed for this "lost" reserve money; the reserve requirement exists to protect banks from themselves (and protect America from banks) by preventing banks from lending more then they can handle. And banks will do this (ex: S&L crisis).
The Fed also claims this new measure will allow them to keep the market-set interest rate from falling well below the Fed-set interest rate when there is a lot of free cash in the market and lending is prevalent. This is an interesting argument considering the credit crisis might aptly be retitled the "cash-or-no-cash-we-aren't-going-to-lend crisis". The disjunction between liquidity and interest rates aside, I don't see when exactly market-set interest rates are going to fall below Fed-set interest rates - they haven't yet.
The bottom line again: I feel the Fed's idea is just a waste of money. Please don't support it.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Nathaniel Walton"
I might have just made up the part about market-set interest rates being higher than fed-set interest rates but I'm tired and I'm just trying to make a point, rather than discover the truth. Truth is for the well-rested.
cites:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121011673771072231.html
In a May 7 2008 Wall Street Journal article I read that the Federal Reserve is going to go before Congress and ask if it could pay interest on the reserves banks are required to keep at the Fed. I am writing to express my complete disapproval of this request; I think it is a poor usage of tax dollars.
From the article, the argument by the Fed seems to be twofold. First, the Fed claims this measure will allow them to entice banks into holding more reserves for a rainy day. To this I say: the reserve requirement is set by the Government and as such, if the reserve needs to be higher, then just set it higher. Banks don't need to be reimbursed for this "lost" reserve money; the reserve requirement exists to protect banks from themselves (and protect America from banks) by preventing banks from lending more then they can handle. And banks will do this (ex: S&L crisis).
The Fed also claims this new measure will allow them to keep the market-set interest rate from falling well below the Fed-set interest rate when there is a lot of free cash in the market and lending is prevalent. This is an interesting argument considering the credit crisis might aptly be retitled the "cash-or-no-cash-we-aren't-going-to-lend crisis". The disjunction between liquidity and interest rates aside, I don't see when exactly market-set interest rates are going to fall below Fed-set interest rates - they haven't yet.
The bottom line again: I feel the Fed's idea is just a waste of money. Please don't support it.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Nathaniel Walton"
I might have just made up the part about market-set interest rates being higher than fed-set interest rates but I'm tired and I'm just trying to make a point, rather than discover the truth. Truth is for the well-rested.
cites:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121011673771072231.html
There is a difference
Today on NPR I heard a woman, in the context of privatizing water rights, confuse the difference between the concept of and the existence of "economies of scale." People do analogs of this all the time; the difference between concept and existence is not "academic", or "theoretical", or whatever. It's completely practical.
Practically, it is as easy to win against the concept of "economics of scale" as it would be to eradicate the usage of a word from the english language ("politics", for example), to wipe a disease from the face of the planet, to halt an internet meme, or to uninvent the atomic bomb. Less rhetorically, YOU WILL FAIL.
Practically, it is significantly easier to demonstrate the existence of "economies of scale." Due to the vagaries of statistics, I would bet real money that it's even easier to actually do what this woman wants to do (though she never says it), which is: disprove the existence of "economics of scale" in the case of water. By the way, there are terms for the lack of "economies of scale", before anybody tells me the jargon of economics itself limits the discussion. They are: "diseconomies of scale" and "constant returns to scale".
So, when you confuse concept and existence, you get a mixed bag of arguments; depending on the composition of the bag your opponents may be required to defend their position by doing anything from
a) stand around watching you defeat yourself to
b) ignore you
The bottom line is the level of economic ignorance in this country is staggering. And it's not because people are disconnected from the economy. 95% of the population has a job, more than that use money day-to-day. The government subsists on money flows; companies are some of the most powerful institutions in the country. But, left and right we still have people making logically incoherent statements about this system they are irrevocably entwined with, all the while expressing an intense dislike for the people interested enough in the system to study it. And when I say study, I do not mean profit.
Because when we discuss the people who study and the people who profit, we are talking about two different sets, neither of which is fully a subset of the other. In economics there are many things to discuss which do not offer opportunities for profit (succeed in making the study of poverty as profitable as investment banking, and I guarantee the world you create will look NOTHING like the world of today). In profiting there are many ignored economic concepts which offer opportunities for loss (pollution is an "externality", or something which a free market does not price into the cost of manufacturing something; this failure to account properly is known as a "market failure").
And don't get me started on the people who think they can use non-economic rhetoric to effect markets. This includes: politians; moralists. But specifically, not McCain or Hillary - these two belong to a slighty different crowd who believe they can craft excellent economic policy on the basis of:
a) sheer willpower
b) blinding charisma
c) how it sounds
d) whether they thought of it
Practically, it is as easy to win against the concept of "economics of scale" as it would be to eradicate the usage of a word from the english language ("politics", for example), to wipe a disease from the face of the planet, to halt an internet meme, or to uninvent the atomic bomb. Less rhetorically, YOU WILL FAIL.
Practically, it is significantly easier to demonstrate the existence of "economies of scale." Due to the vagaries of statistics, I would bet real money that it's even easier to actually do what this woman wants to do (though she never says it), which is: disprove the existence of "economics of scale" in the case of water. By the way, there are terms for the lack of "economies of scale", before anybody tells me the jargon of economics itself limits the discussion. They are: "diseconomies of scale" and "constant returns to scale".
So, when you confuse concept and existence, you get a mixed bag of arguments; depending on the composition of the bag your opponents may be required to defend their position by doing anything from
a) stand around watching you defeat yourself to
b) ignore you
The bottom line is the level of economic ignorance in this country is staggering. And it's not because people are disconnected from the economy. 95% of the population has a job, more than that use money day-to-day. The government subsists on money flows; companies are some of the most powerful institutions in the country. But, left and right we still have people making logically incoherent statements about this system they are irrevocably entwined with, all the while expressing an intense dislike for the people interested enough in the system to study it. And when I say study, I do not mean profit.
Because when we discuss the people who study and the people who profit, we are talking about two different sets, neither of which is fully a subset of the other. In economics there are many things to discuss which do not offer opportunities for profit (succeed in making the study of poverty as profitable as investment banking, and I guarantee the world you create will look NOTHING like the world of today). In profiting there are many ignored economic concepts which offer opportunities for loss (pollution is an "externality", or something which a free market does not price into the cost of manufacturing something; this failure to account properly is known as a "market failure").
And don't get me started on the people who think they can use non-economic rhetoric to effect markets. This includes: politians; moralists. But specifically, not McCain or Hillary - these two belong to a slighty different crowd who believe they can craft excellent economic policy on the basis of:
a) sheer willpower
b) blinding charisma
c) how it sounds
d) whether they thought of it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
