tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7965969368611715331..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The Best and Worst of Capitalism…and Vice-Presidential ChoicesDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger190125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55005015404751397392008-06-09T06:59:00.000-07:002008-06-09T06:59:00.000-07:00You're all welcome to enjoy your unquestioned self...You're all welcome to enjoy your unquestioned self-reinforcing delusions and your hypocritical standards that you're above concern for the consequences of your actions because "something worse might happen."<BR/><BR/>Obviously, if I can't recognize you've supposedly responded to all 'five' of my points, then you've failed.<BR/><BR/>You've repeatedly speculated as to the nature of my own mind, implying that I am "yelling" or "enraged," so you've got no leg to stand on when I indicate the equivalency of your stated position and a historical position I feel is equivalent by using the convention 'if... then you would believe...'<BR/><BR/>If you're so upset about being compared to slavers, you ought to be pretty damn sure I'm wrong before you dismiss it out of hand.<BR/><BR/>Something worse can <B>always</B> happen, but this does not abrogate your responsibility.<BR/><BR/>"Dig it," I was trying to illuminate my point of view:<BR/><BR/><B>As far as I am concerned, you are involved in slavery right now</B>.<BR/><BR/>You're all pretty allergic to the idea that something other than capitalism is possible... <B>yet, your "capitalism we're going to fix" is as fictional as anything I might suggest in 1000 words or less.</B>B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60575191377967416842008-06-08T00:45:00.000-07:002008-06-08T00:45:00.000-07:00I had suspected that about Chomsky. He just seems ...I had suspected that about Chomsky. He just seems to know more than a person ought to be able to, and can win every argument simply by having ten times as many facts at hand than any opponent. Maybe that does make his conclusions wiser -- after all, wouldn't we all make better choices if we had data implants? -- but it's a bit suspicious. Anyone?<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, no one. With DB's permission, I would like to call: THE END OF THIS THREAD.<BR/><BR/>Shantih! Shantih! Shantih!David McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16603857353437134459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77791381859076894642008-06-07T17:03:00.000-07:002008-06-07T17:03:00.000-07:00Speaking of a dead thread...Getting back to Social...Speaking of a dead thread...<BR/><BR/>Getting back to Social Security...<BR/><BR/>What about a doughnut hole increase in withholding (from 200,000 or 250,000 to 500,000) COMBINED with allowing those who refrain from taking their SS when they qualify for it to earn up to the current cap (95k right now roughly) tax free?<BR/><BR/>Totally tax free.<BR/><BR/>Lower-income workers, who are generally the ones who do more physical labor, would still be able to take full benefit at 69.<BR/><BR/>Higher income workers who are still willing and able to work would have a big incentive to keep doing so, and we could certainly consider them to have "earned it" through their greater input into SS.<BR/><BR/>Since most seniors, particularly seniors who were in the top quintile, no longer have a home mortage deduction or kids to write off, it seems to me this would be an atractive deal.<BR/><BR/>I don't see this as only applying to salaray, but to IRAs and 401ks too. You could withdraw 95k from your IRA tax free the year you turned 69 if you didn't take your Social Security that year.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, the exact numbers change over time with inflation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32996829865148333412008-06-06T17:54:00.000-07:002008-06-06T17:54:00.000-07:00Probably a dead thread now... but just in case BD ...Probably a dead thread now... but just in case BD (and others) are still following.<BR/><BR/>Appealing to the authority of Chomsky isn't terribly convincing (unless we are discussing computational linguistics). I have it on good authority (first hand from students and peers of Chomsky) that he is a master bullshitter. Yeah, he is very smart, but he is also extremely reluctant to admit any ignorance, and instead typically responds by authoritatively spouting mountains of info which doesn't actually logically support his argument.<BR/><BR/>Humm... that seems much more relevant to the debate than I initially thought it would be.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25384372141044319342008-06-06T17:14:00.000-07:002008-06-06T17:14:00.000-07:00Steve, you're welcome. That was so outrageous tha...Steve, you're welcome. That was so outrageous that - lacking an apology to you, he is gone. Too bad, since he really was entertaining at time and we do need a crypto-anarchist-utopian around here. Just not a-28-daysafter rage-aholic.<BR/><BR/> Still, I do think that the outrageous CEO compensations of recent years show what Adam Smith was talking about -- the inherent tendency of free markets to be FAR more endangered by crony cheating than they ever are from socialist levellers and bureaucrats. The cabal of 1,000 golf buddies have gone on a great klepto raid and they never parse:<BR/><BR/>The theory of capitalism is that high wages should attract competitors, right? Talent should leave science, the arts, and flood into CEO-type management... until the absurd wages drop! But that never happens.<BR/><BR/>In other words, they are the very worst sorts of hypocrites. Sorry.<BR/><BR/>(Not all CEOs of course. That is a huge caste. But those in the interlocking directorate cabal are enemies of free enterprise, far worse than Lenin or bakunin or even BD.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50745193670638739342008-06-06T16:32:00.000-07:002008-06-06T16:32:00.000-07:00Wow, BD, I expected you to avoid the question (who...Wow, BD, I expected you to avoid the question (who's work helps more workers, yours or mine?) and attack, but I lost my bet with myself - I thought you would claim that since I work with businesses I am on the side of evil. Didn't see the slavery thing coming. But it is good to know that you can read my mind and tell me what I am thinking, "and shame on [me] for not knowing it."<BR/><BR/>Um. In your indignation-junkie rush (now I am reading YOUR mind) you missed the fact that the shipbreaker example supports your argument that the West profits on the back of the third world, but that it also highlights the simplicity of your viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>Here: I give you the ultimate power to either allow or stop shipbreaking in Bangladesh. Also, child labor in oriental carpet factories. Do you allow it and allow these men and children to work in what might very well be part of an endless cycle of poverty and shortened lives, but who can bring home just enough money to where their family can eat enough to survive and maybe, just maybe, some of their children can get an education and escape? Or do you choose to shut them down, and stop their suffering - permanently - because they starve to death? Honestly, either position is ethically defensible, and both are abhorrent. Yet we have to make a choice.<BR/><BR/>Do you buy cheap goods made from Chinese labor? Because if you do you support harsh labor conditions, but also the greatest improvement in living conditions the world has ever seen. Or do you not so as to preserve the dignity of the Chinese worker, but also mourn for the poor Chinese workers who cannot get a job to provide for his or her family since you have chosen to spend your unneeded disposable income (a product of our modified capitalist society) in a way that does not get back to them?<BR/><BR/>What I am saying is that in the real world there are more complexities and consequences of our actions than you are accounting for. I don't like either choice, but I have to take a position on them since I am part of a society that benefits from them, directly or indirectly.<BR/><BR/>Using slavery as an analogy is silly since there are few if any parallels, but even so it hurts your case since transparency (and changing social norms and understandings) will never allow slavery *once uncovered*.<BR/><BR/>I don't deny that there are many people in the world who must work or die, or even that we in the West (directly and indirectly) take advantage of it. But our greedy society not taking advantage of them does not make happy people in the third world either. (Sorry for the double negative...) In fact, it might make them dead.<BR/><BR/>Now your whole post after the slavery one I agree with EXCEPT you refuse to see that in all those cases (lead, environment, tobacco) the system fixed itself (at great human cost, yes) due to what you seem to consider mythical - increasing transparency. And fixed itself in a way that decreases the likelihood of that ever happening again. Ask yourself if a common additive known to be as dangerous as lead would be allowed today - it is impossible. Could a product as dangerous and addictive as tobacco be approved for use today? Out of the question. The recent flap over lead in Chinese toys is a case in point - there are people out there who test toys and publicize this stuff, which even 20 years ago would not have happened. (Note that does not mean all products are safe, but we are talking multiple orders of magnitude less dangerous when we talk about BPA in baby bottles - and even THAT finding proves that there is increasing transparency!) <BR/><BR/>What I know is strange to me, and I think our host, is that you keep asking for how transparency will make society/business better, and yet you are surrounded by, and a product of, examples of it. Like a fish who does not believe in water, you can't see what is all around you.<BR/><BR/>Reasonable people may disagree over the best way to achieve common objectives. What I am saying is that I don't think it is necessary to scrap a system that both capitalizes on and limits human greed, since I think that aspect of humanity will be around longer than religion. I think we can change the system evolutionarily to make it better and achieve those objectives we hold in common. For example, I work with CEOs and I think they should be paid a lot, because what the best of them do is take responsibility and the risk and provide what is really a scarce and valuable commodity - leadership. But I also think that in the US they are generally paid too much. Shall we take away that great pay by fiat? If so, they go away and the good ones (e.g. as in Collins' Good to Great) are lost to someone who will pay. And I can tell you what has happened at *every single company* I have been to that tried to give front line workers that type of authority (a fad in the late 80's and early 90's) - they failed because the workers did not want it. They know they do not have the information or training to make such decisions,and they certainly don't have the pay to take those risks. But there is a way to empower them to do *their* job if they have: 1) knowledge and tools to do the job, 2) responsibility and accountability, and 3) authority within their span of control.<BR/><BR/>So going back to my area of expertise: How do we make business not do evil things in secret? Make it really dang hard to have secrets. This is made simpler since it actually makes a company healthier, more profitable, more interesting to work for, and increases its longevity. And by the time the bad guys (<1% in my experience) realize they can't hide behind "the company" and its secrecy facade anymore, it is too late.<BR/><BR/>Thanks Occam - you and your razor are needed here!<BR/><BR/>And thanks Dr. B, both for the forum and for pointing out how unwarranted it was to conclude I support slavery! :-) A genius to be sure...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38294885676693098372008-06-06T16:23:00.000-07:002008-06-06T16:23:00.000-07:00Very simply, we can stop paying for everything fro...Very simply, we can stop paying for everything from Prisons to Wars with taxes on Tobacco. Our government can stop taking protection money, and acting like the mob.<BR/><BR/>As long as tobacco is a source of Government revenue that can be used to patch holes in budgets in the short term, the "answer" will always be "raise the price on the junkies".<BR/><BR/>We know intellectualy, but refuse to recognize, that Nicotine is at least as addictive as heroin. Yet, most of us continue to talk about "Drugs" in one catagory and "Cigarettes and Alchohol" in a seperate catagory.<BR/><BR/>1) The congress shells out 10 billion to buy the patent for Chantix. Make it available for any Pharma company to produce and market at a ten percent mark-up. Subsidize scripts for those who still can't afford it.<BR/><BR/>2) Do not permit Tobacco taxes to be used for anything other than the treatment of Tobacco addicts, and information campaigns.<BR/><BR/>3) Restrict the sale of Tobacco to businesses selling nothing else. No more smokes at the Liqour store or gas station. <BR/><BR/>This will make it far, far harder for kids to get smokes, and reduce the constant temptation for those trying to quit.<BR/><BR/>4) Subsidized in-patient rehab. Rehab works, and works even better combined with approriate medication.<BR/><BR/>Market rules do not apply to addiction. We've seen for a long time that addiction is most prevelant among the communities where people are least able to afford it.<BR/><BR/>Nicotine reduces stress and anxiety. It's incredebily effective at supressing emotion. It's a mood "leveler".<BR/><BR/>Is it any wonder that a much higher percentage of those suffering from severe financial stresses and anxiety use it?<BR/><BR/>Should we be suprised that people who have good cause to fear being randomly murdered during a walk to the grocery store smoke in far higher numbers and quit in far lower numbers than the gated community crowd?<BR/><BR/>Increasing that anxiety through a higher tax on the drug is not the way to get people to quit. If that was effective, the War on Drugs would have succeeded years ago.<BR/><BR/>As long as budgets can be balanced on the back of a villianized class of sick people, the vast majority of whom GOT sick as adolescents lacking adult judgement, none of these things will happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77280955102744861892008-06-06T15:41:00.000-07:002008-06-06T15:41:00.000-07:00Boot:You don't get a bigger allocation based on pa...Boot:<BR/><BR/>You don't get a bigger allocation based on past usage, but based on your doctors' assessments of how much you'll need for the _coming_ year. I was proposing that you'd need at least two doctors to provide either estimates, or assessments which would be used to derive estimates, so their collusion would be required.<BR/><BR/>(As a side note, you can use a self-correcting model to adjust future estimates based on the accuracy of past estimates or assessments--or doctors.)<BR/><BR/>I don't claim that this eliminates all abuse, but there are some safeguards. <BR/><BR/>We can discourage cigarette companies from selling cigarettes (note that I didn't say "discourage smoking"--separate problem, which gets back to health incentives) by charging them , per cigarette, based on how much burden we think they'll put on the health care system. <BR/><BR/>Or since cigarettes are a pollutant, we can treat it as an environmental problem (cap-and-trade, etc.).<BR/><BR/>Companies tend to treat the possibility of punitive damages as a calculated risk. This prevents some behavior, but I'd much rather give them penalties with 100% certainty up front if we really believe that they're doing something wrong. Plus, it's costly for the courts to have to cope with this sort of thing.Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59964437719074251922008-06-06T15:06:00.000-07:002008-06-06T15:06:00.000-07:00Hi Joshua,Maybe you can help me through your idea ...Hi Joshua,<BR/><BR/>Maybe you can help me through your idea a bit.<BR/><BR/>How does it address the following situation…<BR/>A greedy bastard wants to get a larger tax break. In order to get this, he games the system in such a way that moves his possible break from $2000 to $4000. Say 1 year, he needed help because of a car accident. He intentionally goes to get things which will raise his HSA the next year because he knows he has already maxed out the current one (no break). This would stress the system more because of his fluff visits which nets him a tax break for the following year.<BR/><BR/>This being said, I like the idea of giving incentives to improve personal health. Perhaps we can come up with a way that doesn’t lead to abuse. How about a massage for every 3-6 hours spent in the gym? Free tickets to *desirable location* for following the *tough program* which cures a personal disease. Obviously such perks should only be offered when it ultimately saves the taxpayer money.<BR/><BR/>As you mentioned, the bureaucracy could get nasty unless we simply had a computer program which calculated it based on the Health Care Record data.<BR/><BR/>----------------<BR/><BR/>How can we discourage smoking now? Taxation? What about another point I brought up… If your product has negative effects, you must operate under a small profit cap.<BR/><BR/>The main problem I see with this is fracturing. BigCorp gets limited to 5% so BigCorp becomes BigCorp A, B, C, D, E, F, G which provide services to one another. (Each taking their 5%.) Can we really claim that BigCorpAccounting (which also does business with other companies) is really bad for the Environment? Do they even have to work under the 5% limit?<BR/><BR/>Punitive Damages could be used to discourage this behavior.Boothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10681950101054813872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84347624636027823522008-06-06T14:54:00.000-07:002008-06-06T14:54:00.000-07:00All right, that's it. BD is soooo out of here.Tel...All right, that's it. BD is soooo out of here.<BR/><BR/>Telling Steve he'd be a slavery supporter was completely over the top.<BR/><BR/>Dig it, despite his being relentlessly bellicose and angry and endlessly insulting, I engaged BD for his other traits of passion and intelligence. He raised a few important points, between stomping and raging about...<BR/><BR/>But for a nasty and bellicose rage-aholic to then whimper "stop being mean to me!" is just plain silly and demeaning. Go back to the playground. You set the tone, I was honoring you by matching it.<BR/><BR/>Note, I addressed every major point he raised and he in the last five postings has not addressed one of mine. Not one. Because he can't. Because the statistics prove that society has marched forward, and our fight is over how to keep the momentum...<BR/><BR/>...and NOT how to put BD in charge so we can implement his vague but total revolution.<BR/><BR/>BD, go away now. I'll not let you treat guys like Steve that way. You can come back after the hot summer is over. If you've decided to be nice.<BR/><BR/>Oh, have a last word if you like. WTF.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24477918257506165402008-06-06T14:29:00.000-07:002008-06-06T14:29:00.000-07:00Boot:Re: punitive damages--generally speaking, I m...Boot:<BR/><BR/>Re: punitive damages--generally speaking, I much prefer solutions which discourage bad behavior on the front end, rather than punish it after it's already happened. (Insert obvious jokes about Minority Report and PreCrime here.)<BR/><BR/>I'm not necessarily as much of an advocate of transparency as some others here, but arguably these types of behaviors are some that transparency is best-suited to address.Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14815480330960039042008-06-06T14:25:00.000-07:002008-06-06T14:25:00.000-07:00Boot: Thanks for your clarification. It addresses...Boot: <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your clarification. It addresses one of my concerns (large out-of-pocket costs), which is good. But it does still encourage people to use no more than $2000 worth of benefit per year. For many this will be a no-brainer, but for people whose medical conditions require more attention and for whom $3000 is a lot of money, it's a tough choice to make.<BR/><BR/>I do recognize the tension: we want there to be incentives for people to stay healthy, and at the same time we don't want to give anyone (patients, doctors, or hospitals) incentive to provide care that isn't needed or useful.<BR/><BR/>One possible refinement: have the amount that you get in the HSA, and the maximum size of the tax benefit, be a function of your perceived health _and that of the population as a whole_. That is, there's a default amount (say $2K for the sake of argument). If your typical medical bills may reasonably be expected to be below that, you're fine. If above, you go to a couple of doctors and get them to certify that your 'floor' ought to be, say, $4000.<BR/><BR/>The max size of the tax benefit is then based on how much the medical system as a whole is expected to be used (plus exogenous factors like how much in debt we are, perhaps). If everyone's expected to be healthy, the the tax benefit can be higher (because the system costs will be lower). If the expected system load is high, the tax benefit for not maxing out can be reduced--which has the nice negative feedback property that it reduces incentive to not get yourself taken care of.<BR/><BR/>There may be holes here, of course, and it does entail a bit more bureaucracy...but it can't be much compared to the current morass that our current system has, and I think it's an improvement overall.Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40420297643319952162008-06-06T14:00:00.000-07:002008-06-06T14:00:00.000-07:00Sorry guys for the encouragement.Hi BD,What exactl...Sorry guys for the encouragement.<BR/><BR/>Hi BD,<BR/><BR/>What exactly is it about your system which stops unrealized costs? Self Interest doesn’t decrease when you properly redistribute the profits.<BR/><BR/>I’m of the opinion that punitive damages would better take care of the situation. If say the government discovered that BigTobacco was bad for people and that they had been hiding it, they force the company to become non-profit. They raid assets of those who profiteered off the misfortune of others at all levels. This money is then channeled into positive sources like David Brin’s Whistle Blower program and curing common forms of lung cancer.<BR/><BR/>Option 1: Continue to profit on misfortune until the company gets caught. At which point you lose your entire savings.<BR/><BR/>Option 2: You gain immunity and a healthy bonus for protecting the public good.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it’s draconian. We really do need to find ways to reward those who do the right thing and >really< punish those who do harm.<BR/><BR/>How many of you would object if we forced Oil Company to become non-profit /low-profit (1%) until Global warming was solved? (Obviously you’d also address funneling profits into top end wages.)<BR/><BR/>Original point. How do you stop BigTobacco and BigOil when you decentralize? Do you mandate the dismantlement of large corporations? Do you prevent them from reaching a certain size?<BR/><BR/>I like the idea of BigCorps. I just think we need to make the entity and the people inside accountable.Boothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10681950101054813872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31836165031313231692008-06-06T13:54:00.000-07:002008-06-06T13:54:00.000-07:00one moreThe Shorter BD,Its tough for organizations...one more<BR/>The Shorter BD,<BR/>Its tough for organizations to do the right thing; it takes education, organization and effort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7563877285494776992008-06-06T13:30:00.000-07:002008-06-06T13:30:00.000-07:00By request, The shorter SteveOHey BD, in my day jo...By request, <BR/>The shorter SteveO<BR/>Hey BD, in my day job I make corporations more profitable by making them more transparent. I do good and I do well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32208738383747379912008-06-06T13:26:00.001-07:002008-06-06T13:26:00.001-07:00Hey Travc,I agree with your point about not lookin...Hey Travc,<BR/><BR/>I agree with your point about not looking at Social Security as a retirement fund. If it were that, I'd advocate for is dismantlement rather than reform.<BR/><BR/>It seems to be that the hard part is selling it the average American. I'd be happy any number of ways to provide it. <BR/><BR/>HSAs are one tool which could be used. It's also a clever way to shift to a Health Information Card. Most people may be reluctant to sign up for something like that. However, they'd love to get their $2000 Dollar Card.Boothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10681950101054813872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40151083506573289812008-06-06T13:26:00.000-07:002008-06-06T13:26:00.000-07:00If, rather than patting the good slaveholders on t...If, rather than patting the good slaveholders on the back... (and if you're confused, direct your attn. to the original title post), and had followed my advice and listened to someone smarter than I, here is what you'd be reading.<BR/><BR/>http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20080519.htm<BR/><BR/>I think there's something pathological about it but it's not peculiar. I mean, if you look at it within the framework of elite perceptions, it has a kind of rationality. Short-term considerations of profit and power quite often tend to overwhelm longer-term considerations of security and welfare, even for your own children.<BR/><BR/>I mean, take environmental concerns. Take, say, lead. It was known in the early 1920s by the huge corporations that were producing lead-based products that lead was poisonous. They knew it. We now know -- there's been extensive discussion and revelations -- and they knew it right away. But they concealed it. And they paid huge amounts of money and effort and legal maneuvers and lobbying and so on to prevent any constraints on it. Well, you know, those windowsills poisoned with lead paint are going to harm their own children, but the interests of profit overwhelmed it. And that's standard.<BR/><BR/>And take, say, tobacco. It's been known for decades, from the very beginning, that it's a very poisonous product. That didn't stop the tobacco producers from trying to get everyone possible to smoke. Make women smoke, children and others -- even their own. These are conflicting demands of profit and power on the one hand, and of care about even your own family on the other hand. And very commonly profit and power win out. I think it's pathological. But it's not a pathology of individuals, it's a pathology of social institutions. ...<BR/><BR/>Suppose, for example, that there are three U.S.-based conglomerates that produce automobiles: GM, Ford, Chrysler (no longer). They were able to gain their status through substantial reliance on a powerful state, and they were able to survive the 1980s only because the president, Ronald Reagan, was the most protectionist in postwar history, virtually doubling protective barriers to save these and other corporations from being taken over by more advanced Japanese industry. But they (more or less) survive. \<BR/><BR/>Suppose that GM invests in technology that will produce better, safer, more efficient cars in twenty years, but Ford and Chrysler invest in cars that will sell tomorrow. Then GM will not be here in twenty years to profit from its investment. The logic is not inexorable, but it yields very significant anti-social tendencies. ...<BR/><BR/>There aren't any magic keys here; there are no mysterious ways of approaching things. What it takes is just what has led to progress and success in the past. We live in a much more civilized world than we did even when Forster was writing, in many respects.<BR/><BR/>Say, women's rights, or opposition to torture -- or even opposition to aggression -- environmental concerns, recognition of some of the crimes of our own history, like what happened to the indigenous population. We can go on and on. There's been much improvement in those areas. How? Well, because people like those working in alternative media, or those we never hear about who are doing social organizing, community building, political action, etc., engage themselves in trying to do something about it.<BR/><BR/>And the modes of engagement are not mysterious. You have to try and develop a critical, open mind, and you have to be willing to evaluate and challenge conventional beliefs -- accept them if they turn out to be valid but reject them if, as is so often the case, they turn out to just reflect power structures. And then you proceed with educational and organizing activities, actions as appropriate to circumstances. There is no simple formula; rather, lots of options. And gradually over time, things improve. I mean, even the hardest rock will be eroded by steady drips of water. That's what social change comes to and there are no mysterious modes of proceeding. They're hard ones, demanding ones, challenging, often costly. But that's what it takes to get a better world.B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13149902995272209012008-06-06T13:04:00.000-07:002008-06-06T13:04:00.000-07:00Alright Steve, that is too much for me to remain s...Alright Steve, that is too much for me to remain silent...<BR/><BR/>In 1859, you'd be arguing the black slaves are better off in chains than they would have been in Africa.<BR/><BR/>You ought to know that isn't the point, and shame on you for not knowing it.B. Dewhirsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949715179057866177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62499269228913119152008-06-06T13:00:00.000-07:002008-06-06T13:00:00.000-07:00Bravo SteveO.--Boot, I think you are focusing on a...Bravo SteveO.<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Boot, I think you are focusing on a relatively minor detail. If I understand you correctly, you suggest a a universal coverage system to kick in after the HSA is depleted. Well, the HSA part isn't exactly the most important or difficult part there.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3172508276500418622008-06-06T12:09:00.000-07:002008-06-06T12:09:00.000-07:00Occam, love the zorgon digest...BD, I appreciated ...Occam, love the zorgon digest...<BR/><BR/>BD, I appreciated the change in tone you had taken, and was listening to what you had to say, but man you need to grow some thicker skin if you are going to rally the oppressed! Or blog.<BR/><BR/>You haven't been abused, you have been faced with a cognitive dissonance. You need to resolve that for yourself, if not for us. Namely, you should give credit to the great things that have been achieved while agitating for further improvements, then resolve what is the most effective way to achieve those improvements.<BR/><BR/>Two ways to do that: evolution or revolution. The former is advocated by many here, you have concluded the latter. You have a big burden of proof, though, to move us "pragmatics" off of our position.<BR/><BR/>Things are not perfect, but historically they are better than ever. I can foresee many ways to make things better within the system. I even agree with some of your points, but you are not going to convince someone like me the way you are communicating. Think strategically!<BR/><BR/>I agree with concerns about the corporation-entity. How do we solve it? Well, we have seen a number of, more or less, successful modifications to laissez-faire capitalism that have moved us on the path to better corporations. Increased transparency has been the key to them all. There is a mistake in conflating a corporate entity with an organic entity. The corporation is made up of many people who don't want to be embarrassed in front of their friends and family, and with increased transparency that is the risk if they 1) see something done that is bad and 2) do nothing about it. (By the way, this is why the corporation as serial killer analogy fails - it is made up of non-serial killers who will not stand for it. On the other side, there is a dilution of accountability in many businesses that does lead to the egregious.)<BR/><BR/>I could choose to rail against corporations to the net, but what I actually do changes something. Part of my job is to make businesses better by using data more effectively and by helping the business leaders to figure out and deploy a business plan throughout the organization. - it creates communication lines between previously isolated managers and their workers. It gives workers an understanding of what is important to accomplish in their job - and what is not. It, in fact, increases transparency within the organization. It assigns accountability appropriately and we find, as Dr. Deming said, that 80-90% of a company's problems are problems in management, not problems due to the workers. But it also gives the managers tools to understand that and fix it.<BR/><BR/>I usually work in unionized businesses, and the unions I work with are the biggest supporters because of the increase in transparency. The "boss" can't just come down and beat you up for something that is outside of your control, or due to gut feel. Upper level managers also love this since it allows people to fulfill the company objectives creatively without top-down dictates of how it will be done. (Middle managers are the roadblock, since just at the cusp of success, we are changing the rules on them.)<BR/><BR/>The analogy I use with my clients is that we want to move a business from an orchestra (one guy telling everyone what to do by waving a stick) to a jazz band (everyone knows what needs to be done and figures how to get there together).<BR/><BR/>Now is what I do going to change the world overnight? Probably not, I conclude. But if, as I have evidence to show, these companies do better, then they survive the market and pass on these characteristics to other businesses as people change jobs and start new businesses. So I feel that my activities are making changes within the system of our modified capitalist/democratic system.<BR/><BR/>Now I don't go in and make a point to tell them that part of what happens is a change in the organization that makes it more transparent, I tell them (with evidence) that it will make them more profitable. That is the "why" - the "how" ends up with a more humane company. (For example, a colleague of mine was able to help a major heavy manufacturing company to stop killing 5 employees per year. No one wanted it to happen, they just didn't have a system to understand it and prevent it. After all of our work, it was still heavy manual labor, but it was better and the company was financially viable, so those laborers without the training to live in the nice white collar world would have a job for a while longer, so maybe their kids could.)<BR/><BR/>So I feel (and have data to show) that what I do makes a company more transparent, more profitable, gives the workers more control over their job, and results in a better (if not yet perfect) corporation that finds it more difficult to be "evil."<BR/><BR/>So, the honest question I have is how many people's lives and livelihoods have been positively impacted by BD's philosophies versus my consulting? Or, alternatively, who is making more substantive, measurable changes to the worker's lives? This is a question of pragmatism. I don't rule out revolution <I>a priori</I>, I just don't think that such a drastic upheaval is necessary.<BR/><BR/>Hopefully, that also answers BD's question and shows one way that transparency is pragmatically used to make business and society better.<BR/><BR/>Side note to BD, please please read <A HREF="http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/investigative-reporting/works/day3/1.html" REL="nofollow">this Pulitzer-prize winning article on shipbreaking</A> before you blithely talk about exporting slavery. This is the absolute worst example that you will find that <B>supports</B> your thesis AND it shows why it is much more complicated than that. If we didn't buy Chinese goods, would the life of the Chinese laborers be better or worse than it is? If the West didn't send ships to Bangladesh to be broken, would the lives of the people who work there be better or worse? This is a very difficult ethical question: do we make requirements (environmental, worker rights, etc) that will directly result in people starving to death, or do we take advantage of their status but give their children a chance to escape? Do we have the right to impose our morals on others at the cost of their lives? Short of some bad sci-fi (I use the term in full knowledge) <I>deus ex machina</I> we are stuck in reality, and reality has hard choices and tough compromises. And sometimes there is no right answer.<BR/><BR/>Yeesh - almost as long as a Zorgon or BD post! Occam - help! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58927613383932213652008-06-06T12:07:00.000-07:002008-06-06T12:07:00.000-07:00Hi Joshua,I listed $2000 dollars which were possib...Hi Joshua,<BR/><BR/>I listed $2000 dollars which were possible to be received back. The $3000 dollars in other taxes were to go specifically to A) Making the first $2000 dollars co-pay and B) covering everything beyond the first $2000. <BR/><BR/>There would be $0 out of pocket expense at any time. The first $2000 would be out of the HSA account. Any additional expenses would be simply covered. Obviously Single Payer Universal system needs to have some watch dogs to ensure people aren't abusing unlimited care.<BR/><BR/>It isn't a handout because those that use the system share a greater burden. ($5000 compared to $3000)<BR/><BR/>Does this address your concern?Boothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10681950101054813872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7378969375897447272008-06-06T11:56:00.000-07:002008-06-06T11:56:00.000-07:00Matthew, thanks for the transparency leg link.TPM ...Matthew, thanks for the transparency leg link.<BR/><BR/>TPM had something about that yesterday, but focusing on McCain's 'me-too' and instead of what the bill does. Obama and Coburn(!?!) worked together on 'good government' legislation... McCain heard about it and wanted to co-sponsor too.<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Jester... I agree. Edwards is my fav VP pick at this point. He isn't as much of a 'balancing the ticket' as a reinforcement and help in defining Obama. Edwards does bring Appalachia appeal, but I think it would go even deeper... Obama would actually 'frame' *himself* better by choosing Edwards.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, we have to just wait a couple of months and see what the situation looks like then.<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>About Soc Sec... I'd like to reiterate a point (hopefully more clearly).<BR/><BR/>Viewing Soc Sec as insurance instead of a 'retirement account' helps greatly IMO. It makes addressing the problems and coming up with rational fixes we can all agree on much easier.<BR/><BR/>From this POV, the retirement age questions just boil down to 'at what point do we assume someone is too old to reasonably expect them to work'. A means/ability test of some sort is not morally repugnant, but the implementation details are really tricky (which is why we just picked a 'retirement age' in the first place).<BR/><BR/>Framing Soc Sec as a retirement account/benefit is very problematic. That opens up all the "I don't want to pay for someone else" and the sense of "I want my money that I've paid in". In contrast, most people don't feel robbed if they have home-owner's insurance and their house doesn't burn down (or health insurance and they don't get cancer, ect ect).Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54642226081140270482008-06-06T11:51:00.000-07:002008-06-06T11:51:00.000-07:00quoth Boot:...If you maintain your health, you get...quoth Boot:<BR/><BR/><I>...If you maintain your health, you get the remaining balance of the HSA as a tax break on the next year’s taxes.<BR/><BR/>From a perception standpoint, we are rewarding through tax breaks those who are not burdening the system.</I><BR/><BR/>The most fundamental problem with this--if you believe that adequate health care is a fundamental human right--is that health care needs are far from uniformly distributed. I'm fairly healthy; I generally get my teeth cleaned twice a year, and that's usually it. My infant sons need considerably more care. So do people who give birth, or get cancer, or don't actually have either hands or feet (an extreme example, perhaps, but my youngest brother is in this category--and you might be surprised what unexpected medical conditions he's subject to). A flat maximum is really not appropriate.<BR/><BR/>Certainly "adequate" is question-begging. But it's possible to agree on a definition; this was the basis for the Oregon Health Plan.<BR/><BR/>In addition, when you propose this sort of thing, it's useful to think about what behavior you're promoting. In this case, you're encouraging people to not cope with any medical problems that would drive their cost above $2000 a year. <BR/><BR/>I'm not a health policy expert, but I'm not sure you've thought this all the way through.Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87343136129356058532008-06-06T11:47:00.000-07:002008-06-06T11:47:00.000-07:00Am I the only one who’s vaguely uncomfortable with...Am I the only one who’s vaguely uncomfortable with saying to the workers: “Surprise, suckers! You get to spend another four years at your factory/cubicle/secretary’s desk! Enjoy your failing health!”<BR/><BR/>I know I’m running up against the cold hard facts of life here, but I have this notion that our culture dangles the carrot of retirement out in front of people to convince them to spend their lives toiling away. It’s not a notion I like. <BR/>And, now that medical advances have given people increased healthy lifespans, I don’t like the idea of forcing them to spend their extra years at work – they’ve already worked through the prime of their lives, why should they sacrifice every year of reasonably healthy lifespan to their jobs?<BR/><BR/>I’m speaking from the POV of a childless young person who enjoys the benefits of American life (so I realize there are tremendous flaws in my logic), and I don’t have a solution to this – we’re coming up against some hard times. I just wanted to register a complaint against feeding people’s lives to the corporate grindstone in such a blasé manner.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43672078484019016862008-06-06T11:20:00.000-07:002008-06-06T11:20:00.000-07:00Earlier in the thread, HSAs were dismissed as a so...Earlier in the thread, HSAs were dismissed as a solution for Healthcare. I’d like to disagree with this and give an example of their use.<BR/><BR/>I come from the position of supporting single payer, universal healthcare. It hasn’t been implemented in the US for two main reasons. Firstly, those that take advantage of the existing system spend lots of money to ensure they can keep taking advantage of it. Secondly, there is a strong trend in American away from taxes/government/handouts.<BR/><BR/>HSAs can be incorporated into the system to address the second problem. Suppose we determine the cost of Universal Single Payer at $4000 per person. We tax everyone at $5000 which is less than we currently spend per capita on market based solutions. We then offer a $2000 dollar HSA card which is used as a co-pay system for all government funded programs. If you maintain your health, you get the remaining balance of the HSA as a tax break on the next year’s taxes.<BR/><BR/>From a perception standpoint, we are rewarding through tax breaks those who are not burdening the system. From a tax amount, we can clearly show that we were paying more before we moved to this system.<BR/><BR/>Obviously these numbers are not right, but I simplified things to display the concept rather than policy. For one thing, I’d want the tax to be pseudo-progressive or progressive rather than this pseudo-regressive tax.Boothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10681950101054813872noreply@blogger.com