Noyes Notebook: Shuhei Nakamoto Interview

mylexicon · Nov 8, 2012

Andy Roo said:
Fantastic, thank you Australia! I am not looking for reds under the bed, or a higher purpose than can justify cruelty There is a "function of government" argument that Rep.Americans in all their Jeffersonian (governed least = best) wisdom have never caught onto. I think it is honestly tragic.

First, the United States has corporations with more members and insurees than the population of Oz and many European nations. Wellpoint, for instance, has over 34 million members and 70 million insurees. That's more members than the population of Canada and more insurees than the population of France or the UK. Imagine if a disenfranchised German was able to opt into the French system. Most Americans have that option by choosing between 5 or 6 major health insurance companies with economies of scale similar to European nations.

What is the moral justification for discarding this system again? The cost overrun is clearly not derived from lack of economies of scale or lack of private competition.

Second, Jeffersonian theory applies to the Federal government. Governor Romney actually instituted the first universal healthcare system at the state level in Massachusetts, but he rejects national universal healthcare on a federal level b/c it infringes on the sovereignty of state voters and it disassembles the competitive mechanism between states. Administering one national healthcare system may not lead to synergies either. It could lead to paralysis by gigantism.

The United States is complicated. I can vote for near anarchy in federal election and near-totalitarian control in my home state. It is a mistake to glean information about how things work in the US without using federalism as a guide.

BJ.C · Nov 8, 2012

mylexicon said:
First, there was no ....... surplus. The surplus was a projection that used profligate dotcom investment as its basis while ignoring the underfunding of US entitlements. It wasn't dishonest, it was just an inaccurate CBO projection, worsened by the unexpected events of 9-11, the airline bailouts, and WOT.

You need to take Forbes, the Economist and the WSJ, and all those other left-leaning MSM outlets to task then, because they insist that "The ....... administration delivered a couple of years of real verifiable budget surpluses in the late 1990s, and if Clintonian levels of taxation and spending had continued, they likely would have continued to generate annual surpluses"

So, where is your source for "there was no ....... surplus"?

BJ.C · Nov 8, 2012

Keshav said:
BTW - I think you keep typing tenants when you mean tenets.

It's his lexicon, remember!

mylexicon · Nov 8, 2012

Dr No said:
Lex, you do know that the "great stuff" comment was sarcastic?

All you have managed to do is continue to regurgitate your creed while demonstrating a (mis)understanding of heathcare based on purely economic considerations and what appears to be a exceedingly narrow world view (let's just call it blindingly Americancentric).

"...constitutional monarchy and aristocratic plutocracy so the original purpose of universal healthcare was kind of a contract between the ruling elites and the common citizens." Yeah, that's where the NHS came from. FFS.

I'm out. But the baiting was kinda fun.

michaelm can continue his starry-eyed gaze at your turgid writing.

How are you supposed to know if you are being 'humanitarian'? Lick you finger and hold it up in the breeze? Your healthcare actuaries conduct these kinds of economic analyses on a daily basis to decide what will/won't be covered in the future based upon various cost-benefit models and utility concepts. They also evaluate all of the existing policies and funding models.

Sorry, I'm just now realizing that you really think the government is willing to pay any bill b/c they love you and they want you to be happy. The propaganda ministries are far more powerful than I thought.

Andy Roo · Nov 8, 2012

mylexicon said:
First, the United States has corporations with more members and insurees than the population of Oz and many European nations. Wellpoint, for instance, has over 34 million members and 70 million insurees. That's more members than the population of Canada and more insurees than the population of France or the UK. Imagine if a disenfranchised German was able to opt into the French system. Most Americans have that option by choosing between 5 or 6 major health insurance companies with economies of scale similar to European nations.

What is the moral justification for discarding this system again? The cost overrun is clearly not derived from lack of economies of scale or lack of private competition.

Second, Jeffersonian theory applies to the Federal government. Governor Romney actually instituted the first universal healthcare system at the state level in Massachusetts, but he rejects national universal healthcare on a federal level b/c it infringes on the sovereignty of state voters and it disassembles the competitive mechanism between states. Administering one national healthcare system may not lead to synergies either. It could lead to paralysis by gigantism.

The United States is complicated. I can vote for near anarchy in federal election and near-totalitarian control in my home state. It is a mistake to glean information about how things work in the US without using federalism as a guide.

It's quite funny but I believe this place (Australia) runs best with a Federal Liberal (conservative) and Labor (lefties and unionists) state governments, there is a synergy to it.

As far as the gigantic exploding bubble of health care, isn't it more logical to have a federal system to take advantage of economies of scale, to my way of thinking it would suck to live in one state knowing the state next door has better health care because of some tribal local issue.

BJ.C · Nov 8, 2012

Andy Roo said:
...to my way of thinking it would suck to live in one state knowing the state next door has better health care because of some tribal local issue.

Coming from WA, that's how life is, pal

michaelm · Nov 8, 2012

Dr No said:
michaelm can continue his starry-eyed gaze at your turgid writing.

No, I am interested to hear/see someone intelligent argue this particularly american viewpoint, which in my experience is held by many intelligent americans, some of them doctors with whom I am acquainted and don't feel disposed to argue.

Nothing to do with my personal views on public health/health funding. I am definitely a socialist by current standards.

Andy Roo · Nov 8, 2012

Andy Roo said:

It is public health, most of us have never met a socialist, certainly no American I know.

there is an erection thread. Nakamoto made no mention of public health in his interview.

[font="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"] [/font]

michaelm · Nov 8, 2012

Andy Roo said:
It is public health, most of us have never met a socialist, certainly no American I know.

there is an erection thread. Nakamoto made no mention of public health in his interview.

Fair cop.

mylexicon · Nov 9, 2012

BJ.C said:
You need to take Forbes, the Economist and the WSJ, and all those other left-leaning MSM outlets to task then, because they insist that "The ....... administration delivered a couple of years of real verifiable budget surpluses in the late 1990s, and if Clintonian levels of taxation and spending had continued, they likely would have continued to generate annual surpluses"

So, where is your source for "there was no ....... surplus"?

Just look at the public records, and think about how national income works. GDP = C+I+G+X. C is consumption. I is investment. G is government spending. X is net exports.

If we have a $200B surplus and a $400B trade deficit in FY2000, we have a -6% drag on our $10T GDP. But GDP growth was reported at 4% in FY2000, which means we would have needed 10% GDP growth to overcome the deficit and the surplus. Not believable, and it is verified by the rising national debt during the entirety of .......'s presidency.

It's a bit complicated but I will try to explain. The 'surplus' was being generated by excess receipts in the Social Security fund, but that cash must be converted to government securities by law. The law says that the government must reduce revenues, reduce the surplus, increase assets (reduce national debt) and increase liabilities. But here's the loophole, if the government borrows the bonds from the SSA then they get to move the SSA liability into intra-government holdings (part of national debt). When they sell the bonds, the cash receipt can be recorded as revenue.

In non-accounting terms, ....... got into his time machine and traveled to Bush's/Obama's presidency. He borrowed about $400B dollars, which Bush/Obama recorded as a deficit, and then ....... brought the money back to the present as a surplus in FY 1998, 1999, and 2000.

This wasn't political chicanery. It was just the government bureaucracies selling bonds to get the cash they needed to keep the government running. The unintended consequence was that ....... and the Republican Congress got to pretend they were running surpluses. Those surpluses were actually Bush's/Obama's deficits b/c they had to cover the bad IOU's the ....... administration put into Social Security. .... had a front row seat to the inner workings of the bureaucracy, and that's why he proposed a security lockbox to stop bureaucrats from classifying social security liabilities as revenues.

Keshav · Nov 9, 2012

mylexicon said:
First, the United States has corporations with more members and insurees than the population of Oz and many European nations. Wellpoint, for instance, has over 34 million members and 70 million insurees. That's more members than the population of Canada and more insurees than the population of France or the UK. Imagine if a disenfranchised German was able to opt into the French system. Most Americans have that option by choosing between 5 or 6 major health insurance companies with economies of scale similar to European nations.

What is the moral justification for discarding this system again? The cost overrun is clearly not derived from lack of economies of scale or lack of private competition.

Second, Jeffersonian theory applies to the Federal government. Governor Romney actually instituted the first universal healthcare system at the state level in Massachusetts, but he rejects national universal healthcare on a federal level b/c it infringes on the sovereignty of state voters and it disassembles the competitive mechanism between states. Administering one national healthcare system may not lead to synergies either. It could lead to paralysis by gigantism.

The United States is complicated. I can vote for near anarchy in federal election and near-totalitarian control in my home state. It is a mistake to glean information about how things work in the US without using federalism as a guide.

What a load of horseshit. That two-faced dimwit turned his back on Universal Healthcare because he was busy pandering to the tea party nut jobs and the insurance industry that pumped millions into his campaign fund.

Keshav · Nov 9, 2012

mylexicon said:
How are you supposed to know if you are being 'humanitarian'? Lick you finger and hold it up in the breeze? Your healthcare actuaries conduct these kinds of economic analyses on a daily basis to decide what will/won't be covered in the future based upon various cost-benefit models and utility concepts. They also evaluate all of the existing policies and funding models.

Sorry, I'm just now realizing that you really think the government is willing to pay any bill b/c they love you and they want you to be happy. The propaganda ministries are far more powerful than I thought.

I would unravel this giant mystery for you but it would be like trying to explain to a $5.00 Radio Shack calculator how you know if you're in love with someone.

Goatboy · Nov 9, 2012

Lex you really are part of the problem.

Andy Roo · Nov 9, 2012

I have changed my mind, the parallel just occurred to me and I can see it all now, the reason this is in the Nakamoto thread is because the analogy of Nakamoto's adherence to strict engineering and caring for little other than the mechanics of making a fast bike are all consuming.

But he doesn't care about or even really want to "get" racing and riders and people. It is just a mathematical exercise.

It isn't off topic at all, my bad, I just didn't understand the complexity of the analogy.

BJ.C · Nov 11, 2012

mylexicon said:
This wasn't political chicanery. It was just the government bureaucracies selling bonds to get the cash they needed to keep the government running.

OK - that is chicanery in my book, but you explained it well enough for my uneducated ... to follow. Why is it that the supposed 'financial' broadsheets continue to spread the myth that ....... ran up a surplus? They are far from left-leaning organs.

mylexicon · Nov 11, 2012

BJ.C said:
OK - that is chicanery in my book, but you explained it well enough for my uneducated ... to follow. Why is it that the supposed 'financial' broadsheets continue to spread the myth that ....... ran up a surplus? They are far from left-leaning organs.

It was chicanery, just not politically motivated.

The financial broadsheets showed a surplus b/c the late 90s were a weird moment in time when everyone was on the same page. Bureaucrats wanted to spend the SS and MED funds, but they needed surpluses to push for higher budgets. Economists were worried that surpluses in SS and MED would worsen our trade deficit. The CBO was afraid that interest rates were so low that the assets held by the SSA would not outperform inflation during the millennium boom. Everyone wanted to avoid a surplus, but you can't spend a surplus that doesn't exist on paper. They shifted money around to make the surplus appear on the financial documents.

Politicians wanted to believe the surplus b/c they could campaign on good finances. The public wanted to believe national debt was falling. Businesses were rich and had no interest in blowing the whistle over minor governmental accounting fraud.

Unfortunately, the surplus wasn't real. Who cares?! It's the dotcom boom, baby! It's a new millennium!! Soon we're all going to be living in tropical locations, spending our afternoons day-trading by the pool!!

BJ.C · Nov 11, 2012

mylexicon said:
Soon we're all going to be living in tropical locations, spending our afternoons day-trading by the pool!!

Oh ...., you mean people know what I do? Day-trading's for wimps - no skin in the game. Freight, now that's a man's game.

But the whole tropical location/by the pool is pretty close to reality

Mick D · Nov 11, 2012

I currently refer to myself as a beach-side turf investor....

Mental Anarchist · Nov 11, 2012

Keshav said:
What a load of horseshit. That two-faced dimwit turned his back on Universal Healthcare because he was busy pandering to the tea party nut jobs and the insurance industry that pumped millions into his campaign fund.

100% accurate. Even everyone in Australia who took any interest in the US Election knows that.

barbedwirebiker · Nov 11, 2012

And I'm a beach side herb vendor.

Not entirely what you're thinking.

Search

Search

Noyes Notebook: Shuhei Nakamoto Interview

mylexicon

BJ.C

BJ.C

mylexicon

Andy Roo

BJ.C

michaelm

Andy Roo

michaelm

mylexicon

Keshav

Keshav

Goatboy

Andy Roo

BJ.C

mylexicon

BJ.C

Mick D

Mental Anarchist

barbedwirebiker

Similar threads

Recent Discussions