Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

I'm guessing the child-like arguments are based on being in Petrograd and not fully understanding U.S. economics.

---

Economics are universal. If putting $20 under my mattress is an investment in the U.S. then it is also an investment in Petrograd.

I'm thinking about a major investment in my sock drawer this winter
Hahahahaha

---

I'm thinking you should consider a major investment in college. Clearly the first one didn't take.

---

Then please educate me on how my sock drawer "investment" affects GDP

---

Guys, I'm not an econ major and watching the two of you throw out a bunch of jargon and formulas so you can compare the size of your...er...educations isn't the most elucidating and frankly I've just tried to skim for relevance so forgive me if I missed the point, but is this focus on someone putting savings in a mattress or a sock drawer really a relevant part of the discussion. Does any sizable portion of the money actually go there? Practically speaking isn't savings just money that is given to a bank who then turns around and invests it?

---

Yep. Unfortunately, dajo moved the goalposts, called me a fraud, and somehow still feels entitled to me responding to him. It's his problem that he can't accept that water is wet.

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

In the modern context, no, money put into a bank is not necessarily invested. A bank could hold reserves or invest in secondary markets (buying a stock or bond in the secondary market is not an investment in the GDP sense).

---

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

In the modern context, no, money put into a bank is not necessarily invested. A bank could hold reserves or invest in secondary markets (buying a stock or bond in the secondary market is not an investment in the GDP sense).

---

---

Just stop - You're like Trump. Just repeat things boldly enough and people who don't know better will think you have a clue.

"When calculating the GDP, investment does NOT mean what we normally think of in the case of individuals. It does not mean buying stocks and bonds or putting money in a savings account. When calculating the GDP, investment means the purchases made by industry in new productive facilities, or, the process of "buying new capital and putting it to use"

http://mindtools.net/testgdp2/Soft-Project-3_print.html

---

Do you even bother to read the links you post or do you just Google for snippets that sound good?

From the above link:

Now, let's look at the role played by personal savings. The Money Flow diagram indicates that personal savings (what we normally call "investment") is actually a source of revenue for industry. This is because the money you put in the bank is loaned to businesses so that they can put it to work. Money NOT circulated in this way -- the money you stuff in a mattress -- would actually be subtracted from the GDP. For the most part, however, people do not put money in mattresses and the bank system uses the personal savings of individuals to give industry its reservoir of money to work from. This is why economists say that the amount of Savings is always going to be approximately equal to the amount available for Investment.

From another source:

https://mises.org/library/saving-bad-economy

"Production of goods ready for consumption requires the use of capital goods, that is, of tools and of half-finished material. Capital comes into existence by saving, i.e., temporary abstention from consumption."

Through money, people channel real savings, which permit economic activity to take place. Thus, the saving of money by one individual supports the production of another individual, who in turn, by exchanging his produce for money, supports a third individual. Likewise, when a company issues stocks or bonds, the money received for these financial instruments enables the company to buy real savings goods and serviceswhich will enable it to pursue planned objectives.

In this way, money enables real savings to permeate across the economy and lift the pace of production of goods and services. Contrary to popular thinking, saving doesn't weaken aggregate spending; on the contrary, it reinforces it. On this, Henry Hazlitt, in his "Economics in One Lesson," wrote:

When money is saved and then invested it is used to buy or build capital goods. Any of these projects puts as much money into circulation and gives as much employment as the same amount of money spent directly on consumption. Saving in short in the modern world, is only another form of spending.

And since I know the above will lead to another pissing contest on Austrian economics, perhaps we should consider whether the Federal Reserve is enough of a reputable source for you.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2012/05/01/wait-is-saving-good-or-bad-the-paradox-of-thrift/

However, in the long run, the accumulated money from individual savers is available for capital investment, a situation where businesses borrow to purchase capital (e.g., machinery and technology). Thus, an increase in the saving rate increases capital investment (e.g., investment in machinery for production). Such increases in capital stock ultimately lead to higher levels of business productivity and growth. Because economists are largely concerned with long-run growth and economic theory notes the positive aspects of increased saving, the paradox of thrift remains a controversial concept. So ultimately, it is OK to save for that big purchase since future consumption benefits both you and society.

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Please take your schlong measuring contest to PM, gentlemen

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

In the modern context, no, money put into a bank is not necessarily invested. A bank could hold reserves or invest in secondary markets (buying a stock or bond in the secondary market is not an investment in the GDP sense).

---

---

Just stop - You're like Trump. Just repeat things boldly enough and people who don't know better will think you have a clue.

"When calculating the GDP, investment does NOT mean what we normally think of in the case of individuals. It does not mean buying stocks and bonds or putting money in a savings account. When calculating the GDP, investment means the purchases made by industry in new productive facilities, or, the process of "buying new capital and putting it to use"

http://mindtools.net/testgdp2/Soft-Project-3_print.html

---

Do you even bother to read the links you post or do you just Google for snippets that sound good?

From the above link:

Now, let's look at the role played by personal savings. The Money Flow diagram indicates that personal savings (what we normally call "investment") is actually a source of revenue for industry. This is because the money you put in the bank is loaned to businesses so that they can put it to work. Money NOT circulated in this way -- the money you stuff in a mattress -- would actually be subtracted from the GDP. For the most part, however, people do not put money in mattresses and the bank system uses the personal savings of individuals to give industry its reservoir of money to work from. This is why economists say that the amount of Savings is always going to be approximately equal to the amount available for Investment.

From another source:

https://mises.org/library/saving-bad-economy

"Production of goods ready for consumption requires the use of capital goods, that is, of tools and of half-finished material. Capital comes into existence by saving, i.e., temporary abstention from consumption."

Through money, people channel real savings, which permit economic activity to take place. Thus, the saving of money by one individual supports the production of another individual, who in turn, by exchanging his produce for money, supports a third individual. Likewise, when a company issues stocks or bonds, the money received for these financial instruments enables the company to buy real savings goods and serviceswhich will enable it to pursue planned objectives.

In this way, money enables real savings to permeate across the economy and lift the pace of production of goods and services. Contrary to popular thinking, saving doesn't weaken aggregate spending; on the contrary, it reinforces it. On this, Henry Hazlitt, in his "Economics in One Lesson," wrote:

When money is saved and then invested it is used to buy or build capital goods. Any of these projects puts as much money into circulation and gives as much employment as the same amount of money spent directly on consumption. Saving in short in the modern world, is only another form of spending.

And since I know the above will lead to another pissing contest on Austrian economics, perhaps we should consider whether the Federal Reserve is enough of a reputable source for you.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2012/05/01/wait-is-saving-good-or-bad-the-paradox-of-thrift/

However, in the long run, the accumulated money from individual savers is available for capital investment, a situation where businesses borrow to purchase capital (e.g., machinery and technology). Thus, an increase in the saving rate increases capital investment (e.g., investment in machinery for production). Such increases in capital stock ultimately lead to higher levels of business productivity and growth. Because economists are largely concerned with long-run growth and economic theory notes the positive aspects of increased saving, the paradox of thrift remains a controversial concept. So ultimately, it is OK to save for that big purchase since future consumption benefits both you and society.

---

The amount AVAILABLE for investment is not the same thing as investment.

The reason I call you a fraud is your penchant for citing Austrian economics like Mises whose whole reason for existence is to disprove the economic policies of people like Bernie Sanders.

Choose 2
Support Sanders
Support Mises
Have a coherent argument

---

You continually wholly prove yourself unable or unwilling to actually address the content of what I post. This is why you are Cal 88 2.0 and why I prefer to just ignore you.

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Please take your schlong measuring contest to PM, gentlemen

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Back on topic, here is an article by Rick Lowery, which I'm putting here not because I agree with it, but it does raise some points. Lowry is editor of the National Review, who plays nice with liberals (he is the right on PPR's Left, Right and Center) and was in a major pissing fight with Trump during the GOP primaries (he is one of those Republicans, like George Will, that hates Trump and has left the party as a result).

What's behind Liz Warren's humiliating retreat on 'Medicare for All'? https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/whats-behind-liz-warrens-humiliating-retreat-on-medicare-for-all/?


The problems he raises about salami slicing is a legit issue. I much prefer the transparency of Warren's we have to work for single payor (or whatever you call it). Other nations do this, they make everyone pay, and it always took some time to implement. My problem with salami slicing continues to be you get a half pregnant system, like Obamacare, that doesn't work (sorry Mr. Biden). At least with a public option you have a program that can be developed somewhat quickly, that people can use and conclude, this doesn't have all the horrible consequences we were worried about (or told about). And like the English and Aussie systems, you still have a private sector that has to compete and people can opt to use private providers if they so choose (and it usually is more expensive). This isn't salami cutting, it is a first step.

Lowry is usually good at recognizing political trends (thought he certainly got Trump wrong). Sure, he is right that Trump and the GOP will raise a stink about single payor, but it is one of those battles worth fighting. Even conservatives, if they pay attention, will appreciate that you can develop a system which in the long run will be more efficient, inclusive and less costly if done right. Americans and their employers pay way too much of their income to the medical system.

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

Glad to see we're back on topic. A while back I raised some issues that I haven't seen addressed. That may be because I skimmed and ignored most of the thread when it was dueling over mattress stuffing.

Anyway, my three big concerns with Warren's Medicare for all are:

1. As far as I can tell the proposal does not address the 40 trillion odd dollars of unfunded liability the current Medicare system bears. Fixing that issue is going to require additional taxes on the same order of magnitude that the expansion requires. Where are the funds to fix this issue coming from?

2. With some exceptions (Kaiser, for example) Medicare operates under a fee-for-service system with a utilization control system that is far, far less stringent than that employed by private insurance. In my experience these factors lead to a lot of unnecessary procedures and outright fraud. There's been some improvement in the fraud area lately, but I just don't have faith that you can effectively address this issue when there's little if any direct financial incentive to do so.

3. Our physicians, nurses and allied health personnel earn substantially more than their counterparts in the systems which have lower costs. (The comparisons are made after adjusting for difference in per-capita GDP.) We aren't going to bring our costs in line unless we reduce the compensation of these groups. I don't see that happening. In fact, I think the recent endorsement of Sanders by one of the largest nurse unions shows that they believe the regulatory capture that characterizes the current system would continue.

As I said before there are lots of problems with the current system. But I fear Medicare for all can only go one of two ways -- a far more expensive than proposed system that provides the same degree of access as Medicare does currently or lower costs accompanied by a devolution into Medicaid for all, with access issues those of you not familiar with that system can only imagine.

Again, I am in now way trying to pick a fight. But I would like to understand how the many thoughtful proponents of single payer here think these issues will be addressed. Or even if they think these are issues.

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

3. I wonder a lot about this one. On the one hand, if the people in the health care industry aren't making as much as they did before, that will tend to encourage some of the people who might otherwise become doctors and nurses to seek employment in other sectors which would lead to somewhat of a brain drain. On the other, even with some wage disparity, the overall health outcomes for a lot of these countries is higher. My guess is that it can work, but we need to study how some of the other countries with working systems do it to do it so that we can adopt a more-or-less proven methodology.

---

calbear93 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Back on topic, here is an article by Rick Lowery, which I'm putting here not because I agree with it, but it does raise some points. Lowry is editor of the National Review, who plays nice with liberals (he is the right on PPR's Left, Right and Center) and was in a major pissing fight with Trump during the GOP primaries (he is one of those Republicans, like George Will, that hates Trump and has left the party as a result).

What's behind Liz Warren's humiliating retreat on 'Medicare for All'? https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/whats-behind-liz-warrens-humiliating-retreat-on-medicare-for-all/?


The problems he raises about salami slicing is a legit issue. I much prefer the transparency of Warren's we have to work for single payor (or whatever you call it). Other nations do this, they make everyone pay, and it always took some time to implement. My problem with salami slicing continues to be you get a half pregnant system, like Obamacare, that doesn't work (sorry Mr. Biden). At least with a public option you have a program that can be developed somewhat quickly, that people can use and conclude, this doesn't have all the horrible consequences we were worried about (or told about). And like the English and Aussie systems, you still have a private sector that has to compete and people can opt to use private providers if they so choose (and it usually is more expensive). This isn't salami cutting, it is a first step.

Lowry is usually good at recognizing political trends (thought he certainly got Trump wrong). Sure, he is right that Trump and the GOP will raise a stink about single payor, but it is one of those battles worth fighting. Even conservatives, if they pay attention, will appreciate that you can develop a system which in the long run will be more efficient, inclusive and less costly if done right. Americans and their employers pay way too much of their income to the medical system.

---

Even as someone who is open to a single payor system where everyone has some skin in the game and has to pay at least something for each service to avoid overuse of the services, I just don't have confidence that our government can get it done right.

I would much prefer a public option to force the government and the private sector to compete with each other. If expanded Medicare and the government truly are the better option, we will eventually move to a single payor system anyway.

Let's let the government prove itself in this industry before we hand over something like healthcare and medical services to the government as the only option.

---

sycasey said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

3. I wonder a lot about this one. On the one hand, if the people in the health care industry aren't making as much as they did before, that will tend to encourage some of the people who might otherwise become doctors and nurses to seek employment in other sectors which would lead to somewhat of a brain drain. On the other, even with some wage disparity, the overall health outcomes for a lot of these countries is higher. My guess is that it can work, but we need to study how some of the other countries with working systems do it to do it so that we can adopt a more-or-less proven methodology.

---

Yeah, I wonder about this. How many of those other countries actually face doctor shortages? Do doctors have to pay less to go to school in the first place? (That's another thing that could maybe be reformed.) Are they happier even with less pay because they don't have to deal with insurance companies?

How much of the high doctor pay in the US is for specialists (surgeons) when what we really need are more generalists and pediatricians (who don't get paid as much)? Perhaps this is a necessary correction.

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

The unfunded liability is the present value of future projected cost less future projected revenue (the Medicare tax and Part B premiums). It's calculated annually as part of the Trustee's report on Medicare.

Incidentally, I once looked at the ten year cost projections from several ten year old reports and found that the actual costs were higher by a 15 to 20% margin, so I tend to think the projected liability is actually larger.

---

Another Bear said:

---

...and there's this...

Almost Half Of Men In The U.S. Are Uncomfortable With A Female President

---

Quote:

---

It seems like a promising time for women in politics, yet a survey published Tuesday found that just 49% of men and 59% of women in the U.S. would feel "very comfortable" with a woman as the head of government.

---

golden sloth said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

...and there's this...

Almost Half Of Men In The U.S. Are Uncomfortable With A Female President

---

I found this sentence more surprising:

Quote:

---

It seems like a promising time for women in politics, yet a survey published Tuesday found that just 49% of men and 59% of women in the U.S. would feel "very comfortable" with a woman as the head of government.

---

I'm kind of surprised the difference between men and women is only 10%. Why does that 41% not trust their own gender?

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

The unfunded liability is the present value of future projected cost less future projected revenue (the Medicare tax and Part B premiums). It's calculated annually as part of the Trustee's report on Medicare.

Incidentally, I once looked at the ten year cost projections from several ten year old reports and found that the actual costs were higher by a 15 to 20% margin, so I tend to think the projected liability is actually larger.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

...and there's this...

Almost Half Of Men In The U.S. Are Uncomfortable With A Female President

---

I found this sentence more surprising:

Quote:

---

It seems like a promising time for women in politics, yet a survey published Tuesday found that just 49% of men and 59% of women in the U.S. would feel "very comfortable" with a woman as the head of government.

---

I'm kind of surprised the difference between men and women is only 10%. Why does that 41% not trust their own gender?

---

Aslo strange that in the index, the US came in third in terms of women succeeding. Something doesn't connect. Maybe a good portion of those polled are not comfortable with anyone being President.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Back on topic, here is an article by Rick Lowery, which I'm putting here not because I agree with it, but it does raise some points. Lowry is editor of the National Review, who plays nice with liberals (he is the right on NPR's Left, Right and Center) and was in a major pissing fight with Trump during the GOP primaries (he is one of those Republicans, like George Will, that hates Trump and has left the party as a result).

What's behind Liz Warren's humiliating retreat on 'Medicare for All'? https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/whats-behind-liz-warrens-humiliating-retreat-on-medicare-for-all/?


The problems he raises about salami slicing is a legit issue. I much prefer the transparency of Warren's we have to work for single payor (or whatever you call it). Other nations do this, they make everyone pay, and it always took some time to implement. My problem with salami slicing continues to be you get a half pregnant system, like Obamacare, that doesn't work (sorry Mr. Biden). At least with a public option you have a program that can be developed somewhat quickly, that people can use and conclude, this doesn't have all the horrible consequences we were worried about (or told about). And like the English and Aussie systems, you still have a private sector that has to compete and people can opt to use private providers if they so choose (and it usually is more expensive). This isn't salami cutting, it is a first step.

Lowry is usually good at recognizing political trends (thought he certainly got Trump wrong). Sure, he is right that Trump and the GOP will raise a stink about single payor, but it is one of those battles worth fighting. Even conservatives, if they pay attention, will appreciate that you can develop a system which in the long run will be more efficient, inclusive and less costly if done right. Americans and their employers pay way too much of their income to the medical system.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Back on topic, here is an article by Rick Lowery, which I'm putting here not because I agree with it, but it does raise some points. Lowry is editor of the National Review, who plays nice with liberals (he is the right on NPR's Left, Right and Center) and was in a major pissing fight with Trump during the GOP primaries (he is one of those Republicans, like George Will, that hates Trump and has left the party as a result).

What's behind Liz Warren's humiliating retreat on 'Medicare for All'? https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/whats-behind-liz-warrens-humiliating-retreat-on-medicare-for-all/?


The problems he raises about salami slicing is a legit issue. I much prefer the transparency of Warren's we have to work for single payor (or whatever you call it). Other nations do this, they make everyone pay, and it always took some time to implement. My problem with salami slicing continues to be you get a half pregnant system, like Obamacare, that doesn't work (sorry Mr. Biden). At least with a public option you have a program that can be developed somewhat quickly, that people can use and conclude, this doesn't have all the horrible consequences we were worried about (or told about). And like the English and Aussie systems, you still have a private sector that has to compete and people can opt to use private providers if they so choose (and it usually is more expensive). This isn't salami cutting, it is a first step.

Lowry is usually good at recognizing political trends (thought he certainly got Trump wrong). Sure, he is right that Trump and the GOP will raise a stink about single payor, but it is one of those battles worth fighting. Even conservatives, if they pay attention, will appreciate that you can develop a system which in the long run will be more efficient, inclusive and less costly if done right. Americans and their employers pay way too much of their income to the medical system.

---

I have to point out that in the last two weeks in the realclearpolitics average of national polls, Warren has lost 3.6% points to Biden, 3.8% to Bernie and 2.9% to Buttigieg. Her support has gone down 2.1% while the others have gained. I think that confirms my theory about why you saw the big backtrack on healthcare from her campaign.

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Democrats are three groups-
1. professional class, mostly white
2. The remnants of the traditional white union working class
3. Minorities, also mostly working class

The first group is more socially liberal and ironically more identify focused. The second is economically liberal and socially conservative. The third group is also economically liberal and more socially liberal than number two but less so than number 1.

Biden's strength is 2 and 3. Warren's is 1. Sanders is mostly 2 and 3. Buttigieg is 1.

If Warren falters, Buttigieg may gain but how he does after Iowa and New Hampshire are key- he has significant problems with minorities and it just isn't that they don't know him.

Sanders supporters are most loyal and he will never quit the race. Oddly he may benefit greatly by the Warren- Buttigieg-Biden tussle. If Buttigieg actually surges, he may pick up strength from Warren's constituency and be the "progressive" standard bearer.

Iowa and New Hampshire are very important for Buttigieg and Warren. Warren can't afford to finish third in both. Buttigieg has to at least finish second in one or both to build momentum. Sanders and Biden will soldier on. Biden will win South Carolina- barring a miracle- and the big industrial states and the south will be good for him. Sanders will be stronger in Nevada than people think and also strong like last time in the industrial Midwest.

---

golden sloth said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

...and there's this...

Almost Half Of Men In The U.S. Are Uncomfortable With A Female President

---

I found this sentence more surprising:

Quote:

---

It seems like a promising time for women in politics, yet a survey published Tuesday found that just 49% of men and 59% of women in the U.S. would feel "very comfortable" with a woman as the head of government.

---

I'm kind of surprised the difference between men and women is only 10%. Why does that 41% not trust their own gender?

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Democrats are three groups-
1. professional class, mostly white
2. The remnants of the traditional white union working class
3. Minorities, also mostly working class

The first group is more socially liberal and ironically more identify focused. The second is economically liberal and socially conservative. The third group is also economically liberal and more socially liberal than number two but less so than number 1.

Biden's strength is 2 and 3. Warren's is 1. Sanders is mostly 2 and 3. Buttigieg is 1.

If Warren falters, Buttigieg may gain but how he does after Iowa and New Hampshire are key- he has significant problems with minorities and it just isn't that they don't know him.

Sanders supporters are most loyal and he will never quit the race. Oddly he may benefit greatly by the Warren- Buttigieg-Biden tussle. If Buttigieg actually surges, he may pick up strength from Warren's constituency and be the "progressive" standard bearer.

Iowa and New Hampshire are very important for Buttigieg and Warren. Warren can't afford to finish third in both. Buttigieg has to at least finish second in one or both to build momentum. Sanders and Biden will soldier on. Biden will win South Carolina- barring a miracle- and the big industrial states and the south will be good for him. Sanders will be stronger in Nevada than people think and also strong like last time in the industrial Midwest.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Democrats are three groups-
1. professional class, mostly white
2. The remnants of the traditional white union working class
3. Minorities, also mostly working class

The first group is more socially liberal and ironically more identify focused. The second is economically liberal and socially conservative. The third group is also economically liberal and more socially liberal than number two but less so than number 1.

Biden's strength is 2 and 3. Warren's is 1. Sanders is mostly 2 and 3. Buttigieg is 1.

If Warren falters, Buttigieg may gain but how he does after Iowa and New Hampshire are key- he has significant problems with minorities and it just isn't that they don't know him.

Sanders supporters are most loyal and he will never quit the race. Oddly he may benefit greatly by the Warren- Buttigieg-Biden tussle. If Buttigieg actually surges, he may pick up strength from Warren's constituency and be the "progressive" standard bearer.

Iowa and New Hampshire are very important for Buttigieg and Warren. Warren can't afford to finish third in both. Buttigieg has to at least finish second in one or both to build momentum. Sanders and Biden will soldier on. Biden will win South Carolina- barring a miracle- and the big industrial states and the south will be good for him. Sanders will be stronger in Nevada than people think and also strong like last time in the industrial Midwest.

---

I get where you are gong, and this is not a bad way to generalize the Dems.. Let me give you another distinction. The gender gap means a lot more Dems are women. You keep thinking women would be doing better as candidates, but they are not. I keep thinking identity politics matter and should help Warren at the lead woman candidate in the field. Maybe not in the polls yet, but in the ballot box. Again, watch me proved wrong.

I agree Sanders has staying power, but if he can't gain more traction, does he blow out and defer to Warren?

---