The budget battles

[blackshoe]

1. Civil suit(s). 2. Probably.

 

I'm not saying people would never do it, but people do stuff like that either because they're clueless, or because they think they can get away with it. I suspect that in a truly free market society there would be less of both.

[PassedOut]

One of the problems with debates on economics and government is that we have experiences of some things, and no experiences of others. No one alive today has seen a true free market, for example. And some of the backward looks into history claim that "see, this was a free market, and it didn't work," when in fact what they're looking at wasn't a free market at all.

In my experience, advocates of utopian philosophies always make this argument to brush aside historical examples. My most vivid memories of this come from long-ago arguments with young communists, who invariably emphasized that "true communism" had never been tried: true communism, they insisted, would not exhibit whatever historical problem I'd brought up.

 

What's wrong with solving big problems incrementally by adopting changes that have worked well in smaller arenas?

 

1. Civil suit(s). 2. Probably.

 

I'm not saying people would never do it, but people do stuff like that either because they're clueless, or because they think they can get away with it. I suspect that in a truly free market society there would be less of both.

The idea of using civil suits to punish grocers who've sold spoiled or poisoned food strikes me as impractical. The process is cumbersome and the evidence is gone.

 

And why would a truly free market society produce better people? Reminds me of the glowing descriptions I used to hear about the new "socialist man."

[phil_20686]

I suspect that in a truly free market society there would be less of both.

 

It is one of my favorite thought experiments, that if every individual was perfectly just/moral/generous, there would be absolutely no need for government. The corollary being that all systems of government are equivalent if every individual can be relied on to act in the best interests of the country.

 

It is the fallacy of Utopian thinking from Thomas More through to marx, to assume that one can somehow create that condition. Your argument amounts to saying that if you dismantled the federal government, people would behave better than they do now. More thought heavy punishment could create that, marx thought good education could. I think Government exists precisely because humans are crooked beings, who often do bad things for next to no reason. Government exists precisely to deal with these problems.

 

There are many things that one can do to reduce the tendency of people to behave badly, but nothing will ever eliminate it entirely. Thus the need for a government.

[hrothgar]

Ok this isnt true, the number i had in my head for a ten sigma event was one in 400,000,000. Which, for a daily event, only requires one to assemble roughly a million man-years of life between a group. For a group with average afre of 50, that would be about 20,000 people. Apparently the average number of people that one is on speaking terms with is about 300, so that would need only 700 forum members. However, one in 400,000,000 is only a six sigma event. Ten sigma is one in 10^23 roughly. That would require about 10^19 people with average age 50. Therefore, there is only a one in ten to the ten chance that an person currently living would have seen a specific ten sigma event.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Rules_for_normally_distributed_data

[blackshoe]

The idea of using civil suits to punish grocers who've sold spoiled or poisoned food strikes me as impractical. The process is cumbersome and the evidence is gone.

 

And why would a truly free market society produce better people? Reminds me of the glowing descriptions I used to hear about the new "socialist man."

 

The process as it exists now is cumbersome. And the evidence is not necessarily "gone".

 

I'm still trying to come to grips with all this "free market economics" stuff (I had one course in Economics in college, 40+ years ago, and none of it made sense to me - and that was "main stream" stuff). So I can't argue very well the points I'm trying to make. I guess that means you win. If I must, I'll fall back on these words: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." The rest of you can do what you like.

[PassedOut]

I'll fall back on these words: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." The rest of you can do what you like.

To me, the fact that folks who long ago lived in truly free market economies rejected them is significant in itself. But there are always options: Living Free: Libertarian Utopias

 

Libertarians always have a special place in their heart for getting away from it all and doing your own thing. There have been numerous attempts at starting libertarian countries, cities, communities, and other ways to live free.

And, just last month: Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia

 

PayPal founder Peter Thiel has put $1.25 million toward building floating, autonomous countries at sea.

In my opinion, this is the way to go about it. If any of these utopias becomes successful for a few years, practical folks will take a look at it.

[kenberg]

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." The rest of you can do what you like.

 

Sounds like a good way to get in trouble with the cops.

 

Becky and I were chatting about such things. I was saying that I can't really think of many things that I have wanted to do that the government prevents me from doing. Becky pointed out that I drive over the speed limit, and that's true. But I do it on roads that the government has built. Maybe I could claim entrapment.

 

I think that there are some serious practical arguments for the government not overdoing the protection bit, one of them being that it can dull the very useful instinct to watch out for ourselves. Still, I like to shop for groceries without having a lawyer on speed dial.

[hrothgar]

 

In my opinion, this is the way to go about it. If any of these utopias becomes successful for a few years, practical folks will take a look at it.

 

 

I think that the whole "sea steading" concept is completely nuts.

 

I'm not saying that folks shouldn't try it; however, I think that they're going to run into some significant problems. In all seriousness, I think that pirates are going to be a major concern - especially given the libertarian prediliction for gold coins.

 

I'd also like to point out that there is a reason that super tankers and cargo ships aren't armed.

(It's called insurance companies)

[blackshoe]

Yes, that approach can end with you in jail. If you don't want to go to jail, don't defy The Man. The point is, it's a personal choice. Make your choice, knowing and accepting the possible consequences.

 

None of this has much to do with whether, or how, the current US government can get us out of the hole they've dug for us (while we stood by and watched, I grant you). As to that, all I know is that I'm pretty sure that nothing they're doing right now is going to work.

[kenberg]

I share your pessimism, albeit on somewhat different grounds. I comment on two often cited reasons for the slow recovery:

 

1. The housing collapse. At it's root, this was caused by purchasing houses and lending money on houses in amounts that far exceeded any rational assessment of the worth of the houses. If someone pays too much for something, there really is no way to make it worth what was paid.

 

2. Consumers are not spending like they used to do. This is said to be because they are scared. An alternative explanation is that it is because they have come to their senses. No doubt there is some spending that would come from putting more money in their hands but perhaps people are deciding that they would like to pay down debt or save a little. I gather that the people who track such things are seeing considerable evidence that this is happening.

 

Everything is more complicated than what I say or what anyone says, but to the extent that the housing collapse was caused by paying too much for too little and the decreased spending is rational behavior, it could be tough to do much about it. Even among those who are most critical of Obama, mostly they do not claim that they know how to cure this quickly.

 

But Michelle will bring gas prices down to $2.00 a gallon. I really don't know why Obama didn't think of that.

[hrothgar]

My parents would view the following comment with horror, but I think that the economy needs some inflation.

[helene_t]

But Michelle will bring gas prices down to $2.00 a gallon. I really don't know why Obama didn't think of that.

She will also stop childhood vaccines that cause mental retardation. So with her as president, future generations will be much smarter and will easily be able to solve the economical problems.

[phil_20686]

She will also stop childhood vaccines that cause mental retardation. So with her as president, future generations will be much smarter and will easily be able to solve the economical problems.

 

I am not sure if this was intended as a joke? But I did think it was pretty funny.

[luke warm]

But Michelle will bring gas prices down to $2.00 a gallon. I really don't know why Obama didn't think of that.

probably cuz he's too busy trying to get the economy out of the crapper, you know, given the unemployment and unprecedented numbers of people below the poverty level... either that or trying to figure out how to stop losing house seats

 

“It was all Obama — not even a thought of anything else,” Turner consultant Steve Goldberg said.

[hrothgar]

probably cuz he's too busy trying to get the economy out of the crapper, you know, given the unemployment and unprecedented numbers of people below the poverty level... either that or trying to figure out how to stop losing house seats

 

I agree that the economy had some impact on the results, however, I doubt that it was decisive. This district in New York is dominated by religious Jews and the recent gay marriage decision in New York had a MAJOR impact on voting

 

In the run up to the election, a group of Orthodox rabbis, most from Brooklyn, but including others, notably Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky and Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen, two nationally prominent Orthodox Jewish authorities, published a letter stating that "it is forbidden to fund, support, or vote for David Weprin." The reason? As a member of the New York state legislature, Weprin, despite his Orthodox Jewish beliefs, voted to redefine marriage to include same-sex partnerships. This, the rabbonim declared, was chillul Hashem---a desecration, or bringing of shame, on God's name. The rabbis went on to say that "Weprin's claim that he is Orthodox makes the chillul Hashem even greater."

 

http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/09/the-rabbonim-speak-in-new-york-9.html

[luke warm]

I agree that the economy had some impact on the results, however, I doubt that it was decisive. This district in New York is dominated by religious Jews and the recent gay marriage decision in New York had a MAJOR impact on

that and his perceived (let's call it) indifference concerning israel

[hrothgar]

that and his perceived (let's call it) indifference concerning israel

 

All in the eye of the beholder...

 

The evangelical right and Likudnics certainly believe that Obama has a profound antipathy towards Israel.

I agree that Obama policies are closer to the second President Bush than the first; however, I'd hardly call Obama indifferent let alone anti semitic.

[Winstonm]

My parents would view the following comment with horror, but I think that the economy needs some inflation.

 

Unfortunately, I fear the die is cast, and 2012 will bring about a Republican sweep, which means we all will get to relive the 1930s.

[mike777]

Unfortunately, I fear the die is cast, and 2012 will bring about a Republican sweep, which means we all will get to relive the 1930s.

 

 

I hope not.

 

 

Even with all the Keynesian economics/spending during the 30's I think unemployment was 15% -37%.

[kenberg]

I agree that the economy had some impact on the results, however, I doubt that it was decisive. This district in New York is dominated by religious Jews and the recent gay marriage decision in New York had a MAJOR impact on voting

 

 

 

http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/09/the-rabbonim-speak-in-new-york-9.html

 

 

So an Orthodox Jew lost an election because he lost the Jewish vote? Wiener was ok by them because he sent the photos to women? Can I turn off the news now?

 

I had not been aware of any religious aspect to all this and I was happy in my ignorance.

 

Oh, and yes Phil, Helene and I were both joking about Michele's favorable impact. But the joke is maybe going to be on us.

[mike777]

I have read but cannot confirm that the liberal/Reform jewish population in Forest Hills went Republican....fwiw.

[hrothgar]

So an Orthodox Jew lost an election because he lost the Jewish vote? Wiener was ok by them because he sent the photos to women? Can I turn off the news now?

 

I had not been aware of any religious aspect to all this and I was happy in my ignorance.

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/a-massive-jewish-vote-overreaction/245135/

[hrothgar]

Good article by Nate Silver on 538

 

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/a-guide-to-cutting-through-special-election-spin/

 

2. New York’s Ninth Congressional District has highly unusual demographics, with a set of local issues that are unlikely to extrapolate well to the rest of the country.

 

On the other hand, while all Congressional districts have their quirks, New York’s Ninth is especially unusual.

 

First, there are the local issues — Barack Obama’s positioning toward Israel, Mr. Weprin’s endorsement of a plan to build a mosque and Muslim cultural center in Lower Manhattan, and possibly gay marriage — that will resonate more in Queens than they will in the rest of the country.

 

Roughly 40 percent of voters in the Ninth District are Jewish, 20 times the rate in the country as a whole. Moreover, and perhaps more important, many of those voters are Orthodox Jews, who often have starkly different political viewpoints than Reform or secular Jews, and who are extremely rare in the United States outside a few spots in the New York region.

 

There’s also the fact that the district was already behaving unusually in 2008. Despite having a 37-point edge in party registration, Mr. Obama won the election by only 11 points there — barely better than the seven-point edge he had nationwide. I doubt that there was any district in the country, perhaps outside a few remnants of the “Solid South,” where so many enrolled Democrats voted against Mr. Obama.

 

Mr. Obama’s unpopularity is no doubt a huge factor in this race. But certain types of critiques are likely to be disproportionately resonant in this particular district compared with others.

 

3. If the polls are right, the result in Nevada should be as troubling to Democrats as the result in New York.

 

Although the special election in Nevada has gotten less attention, in some ways it might be the more appropriate race for drawing national implications.

 

Sure, Nevada’s Second Congressional District has a few oddities: it’s had fast population growth and crashing housing prices. But its demographics are otherwise fairly “normal” and heterogeneous. And in contrast to the New York district, it seems to be a place where Democrats were making a lot of progress: Mr. Obama lost it by less than a full percentage point in 2008, whereas John Kerry was beaten there by 16 points in 2004.

 

Democrats probably weren’t going to be favored in this district, which is still somewhat Republican-leaning. But a double-digit loss, as seems possible based on the polls, is a decidedly subpar result for them.

 

In addition, the national implications notwithstanding, Nevada is a pivotal state in both the presidential and Senate elections next year.

[onoway]

(1) These things happen, I am confident that if we asked everyone on the forum whether event X had ever happened to them or their friends (one handshake) you could find an example of most ten sigma events.

 

(2) This isn't even nearly true. Pasteurization was invented with the express intentions of making milk last longer before it spoiled, and of killing disease causing microbes in milk. Louis Pastuer was not completely sure what disease could be got from milk, but it was known at that time that TB was a disease found in cattle aswell as humans. In practice TB is a normal infection in cattle similar to the common cold in severity, but some strains are extremely virulent in un vaccinated humans. Pasteurization massively reduced the incidence of TB, and scarlet fever in children, and almost entirely eliminated puerperal fever, all child-killers at that time. Raw milk can also carry, e.coli, salmonella, and diphtheria.

 

Pasteurization is one of the few preventative medicine techniques whose benefits are huge. Its up there with vaccination. A lot of its benefit is the fact that most diseases you can get from milk are a-symptomatic in cattle, so you would have to test literally every single cow in order to make milk "safe" without pasteurization, and you would have to do so every week or so, and even then a cow could get sick between tests. While this is "possible" it is certainly vastly more expensive.

 

I wasn't trying to suggest that pasteurization was invented "for" milk, only that that now ..as your post itself says..it is regarded as a way to make milk "safe" when it is presented to the general population as normally "unsafe". Your post shows to what degree this belief is held. To consider milk unsafe unless pasteurized is to consider all milking herds to be badly managed with little or no regard for cleanliness in handling the product. Undulant fever was a major concern (milk from sick cows) tb (sick cows) and the practice of pasteurizing milk was very reasonably adopted before there was any way to test the cows for such things. That is not now the case and hasn't been for well over 70 years.

Armchair Science, a British magazine of way back before WW2 had this to say:

 

"Pasteurization's great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

 

Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food — a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy-farmer's answer to the pasteurization zealots.

 

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported."

(end quote)

 

To say that milk CAN contain e coli and other pathogens is stating the obvious. What vegetable did they finally decide was responsible for the massive e coli outbreak in Europe some months ago?. A few years ago it was strawberries from California. WATER felled a whole bunch of people with e coli in Waterton when the treatment of contaminated water failed. (The point being if the water had not been contaminated it wouldn't have needed to be treated). Chicken is a MAJOR carrier of salmonella. Should we start to boil all our water at home, to pasteurize chickens, spinach and strawberries?

 

If diptheria is such a threat with raw milk why don't the thousands of people who drank it when growing up or who drink it in the few European countries where it is still legal to get it, have a higher incidence of diptheria, TB, etc. than the general population?

 

Now all dairy herds are routinely tested for such things as brucellosis and TB, and animals found to be suffering from such things are destroyed. Actually Canada and a number of other countries have declared themselves to be free of brucellosis as of some number of years ago. Pasteurization is a leftover from a time that there wasn't any other reasonable way to enforce that milk came from healthy cows, and handled correctly. That hasn't been the case for well over the lifetime of most of us.

 

As a side note, something that has been becoming more and more of an issue in hospitals is the question of infections. A head nurse in a major hospital told my sister to have a sign over her bed.."wash your hands before you touch me." and to enforce it. Perhaps another sign of people counting on technology to take care of the results of carelessness.

 

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that a carte blanche acceptance of the government to take care of any particular segment of societal regulation isn't an especially good idea. Such a group soon develops its own momentum and needs to justify its own growth and importance. Sometimes it's far too easy to manipulate the general population into accepting regulations that are not necessarilly in the best interests of the public at large

 

btw...soured milk from raw milk can and is used with excellent results. Pasteurized milk cannot be used this way, it will not sour, it rots. If you want to have soured milk from pasteurized milk you have to add an acid to it.

[phil_20686]

I wasn't trying to suggest that pasteurization was invented "for" milk, only that that now ..as your post itself says..it is regarded as a way to make milk "safe" when it is presented to the general population as normally "unsafe". Your post shows to what degree this belief is held. To consider milk unsafe unless pasteurized is to consider all milking herds to be badly managed with little or no regard for cleanliness in handling the product. Undulant fever was a major concern (milk from sick cows) tb (sick cows) and the practice of pasteurizing milk was very reasonably adopted before there was any way to test the cows for such things. That is not now the case and hasn't been for well over 70 years.

 

Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food — a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy-farmer's answer to the pasteurization zealots.

 

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported."

 

If diptheria is such a threat with raw milk why don't the thousands of people who drank it when growing up or who drink it in the few European countries where it is still legal to get it, have a higher incidence of diptheria, TB, etc. than the general population?

 

 

Obvious points first: Diptheria has been almost eradicated by widespread vaccination.

 

Your tuberculosis statistics are obviously nonsense. One case in 70 children over five years is high but believable, 14 cases from seventy children is a pandemic-level outbreak. Given that most children are vaccinated against TB (the BGC vaccine) its hard to believe you could find a group of seventy un-vaccinated children anywhere in the UK. I presume that most other countries are the same.

 

You seem to be dividing the world up into "safe" and "unsafe". In reality everything has a varying degree of risk. Pasteurised milk is significantly, and quantifiable safer than un-pasteurised milk. It is also both cheap and simple. Regulatory regimes in order to insure that herds are disease free are neither cheap nor easy. If you would like a case study just look to the foot and mouth outbreak in the UK. A single case of infection can rapidly run rampant. This is despite the strong regulatory framework in the UK.

 

There are any number of diseases that can be spread from cattle to humans via milk, that is not to say they are common, or that drinking raw milk is particularly risky in an absolute sense, but eventually a widespread infection will go unnoticed long enough to infect large numbers of people. When it does the costs are massive. Thus pasteurisation remains eminently sensible. It is up alongside vaccination in terms of a cost/benefit analysis.

 

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that a carte blanche acceptance of the government to take care of any particular segment of societal regulation isn't an especially good idea. Such a group soon develops its own momentum and needs to justify its own growth and importance. Sometimes it's far too easy to manipulate the general population into accepting regulations that are not necessarilly in the best interests of the public at large

 

 

I am sympathetic to this point of view, but pasteurisation is really a ridiculous example. Even seat belt legislation seems to be a better target - studies of risk compensation behaviour have repeatedly shown that people drive worse when seat belts are compulsory. (Although seat belts work well enough to more than outweigh this factor). (Mandatory) Safe® sex campaigns represent another interesting study of risk compensation. However, we are drifting a long way off topic.

 

EDIT: An example that might bring it back on topic is the move to objective basis for measuring risk in financial services. This was undertaken by the UK financial authorities in the late 80's because objective measures were felt to be more reliable than relying on the regulators "judgement", however, the objective measures were hard to interpret, and probably resulted in a box ticking mentatilty that actually reduces oversight.