Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

[jaeger19]

So private insurance is going to be outlawed, then?

You mean private healthcare insurance? Very possibly.

that's pretty much the point of "SINGLE PAYER". isn't it John?

Come on.. you are now just being silly. You guys and your egos.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You mean private healthcare insurance? Very possibly.

that's pretty much the point of "SINGLE PAYER". isn't it John?

No, the point of single payer is to insure everybody. I see no reason why private insurance wouldn't be allowed to co-exist.

Come on.. you are now just being silly. You guys and your egos.

Quite the opposite, Jaeger. I only intervened because I saw you going down this well-traveled road yet again, where you are wrong, your error is pointed out to you, but you refuse to admit it and move on. It's a thread-killer when you do that. I mean, you were arguing that monopolies were efficient, and their pricing was still controlled by market forces - it's an obviously incorrect position. Ask anybody in a market with only one cable company how efficient it is.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not simply ask for a Standard form?

 

[pinqy]

\


nope.. did not make it a strawman.

Oh? Then cite where anyone else said that a monopolist could or would set a price regardless of demand. No one did...you added it.

 

[Incisor]

I'm not asking any help from the government except to leave me alone so that I can make a living. I'm not a one percenter, not even close, not even in the same ballpark.

Then none of what we are talking about affects you! Yeesh.

 

[jaeger19]

No, the point of single payer is to insure everybody. I see no reason why private insurance wouldn't be allowed to co-exis

.

no john.. insuring everybody is UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

Single payer.. is exactly that john.. the idea of ONE or SINGLE payer. :doh

Quite the opposite, Jaeger. I only intervened because I saw you going down this well-traveled road yet again, where you are wrong, your error is pointed out to you, but you refuse to admit it and move on. It's a thread-killer when you do that. I mean, you were arguing that monopolies were efficient, and their pricing was still controlled by market forces - it's an obviously incorrect position.

No.. john.. you intervened because your ego desperately needs to find me wrong because you and others here have set themselves up as some self styled economists.

You use your very limited understanding of economics and business and manage to defeat a harebrained debate from a "conservative" or James.. and you pat yourself on the back about how smart you are.

and it burns you to be confronted by someone like me that has a greater grasp of real world economics than your limited learning allows.


I mean really.. Are you really going to argue with me.. that 100 small insurance companies.. all with different payment schemes, all duplicating the same infrastructure..and the same staff... is inherently more efficient than one large company with one payment scheme, and with a third of the staff necessary because they have one ceo.. where 100 companies have a total of 100 ceo's? One marketing division versus 100 marketing divisions? So on and so forth?

Please

 

[Incisor]

Look at you wiggle. So now the facts are that it WILL affect small businesses. well lookee there. Yet again.. I am right.

You are making it sound like it will affect all small businesses, when it only really affects a handful. That's not me wiggling, that's you.

because it still affects firms that make less than 250,000 especially depending on how much of a tax increase it is.

If you're raising taxes on income above $250K, then it won't affect firms that clear less than that in income.

Why have wages stagnated? Well it for certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "trickle down".

It has pretty much everything to do with it. We were promised that if taxes were cut for the 1%, they would "trickle down" wealth on everyone. However, you're saying that wages have stagnated since the start of trickle-down. Ergo, the premise that cutting taxes for the top trickles down wealth on everyone else is false. So what happens instead? Because taxes are cut, it reduces revenue which leads to deficits, which are then used by the same people who cut revenue as justification for cutting spending. Almost always, the cuts to spending are operational which further undermines the effectiveness of those programs causing them to fail, which results in the sell-off of those programs to private interests who run it for profit and don't pass any of those gains on to their employees because why would they?

 

[jaeger19]

Oh? Then cite where anyone else said that a monopolist could or would set a price regardless of demand. No one did...you added it.

John just did.

Further, monopolists are price-setters; they can set the price where they want,

 

[Incisor]

Single payer.. is exactly that john.. the idea of ONE or SINGLE payer.e

One single payer means the bargaining power with drug and medical companies is in the favor of the payer, which lets it negotiate for better prices thus lowering costs.

 

[jaeger19]

You are making it sound like it will affect all small businesses, when it only really affects a handful. That's not me wiggling, that's you.
?

Actually no.. I did not.. that's you wiggling. I said that it will affect small businesses over 250k.. and could affect other businesses that are contemplating expanding and going over that 250K mark.

If you're raising taxes on income above $250K, then it won't affect firms that clear less than that in income.

Sure it does.. it affects any business when they have to decide if its financially sound to go above that 250K barrier.

It has pretty much everything to do with it. We were promised that if taxes were cut for the 1%, they would "trickle down" wealth on everyone. However, you're saying that wages have stagnated since the start of trickle-down. Ergo, the premise that cutting taxes for the top trickles down wealth on everyone else is false. So what happens instead? Because taxes are cut, it reduces revenue which leads to deficits, which are then used by the same people who cut revenue as justification for cutting spending. Almost always, the cuts to spending are operational which further undermines the effectiveness of those programs causing them to fail, which results in the sell-off of those programs to private interests who run it for profit and don't pass any of those gains on to their employees because why would they?

What an absolute load of horsecrap.

Okay.. first... please show that US revenue has been steadily decreasing since 1980.

.

Then please show us that US spending has steadily decreased since 1981.

 

[jaeger19]

One single payer means the bargaining power with drug and medical companies is in the favor of the payer, which lets it negotiate for better prices thus lowering costs.

Right..

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

John just did.

Don't ever cut off part of my post and try to use it to support your weak position. That is absolutely pathetic, and basically an admission of defeat.

Further, monopolists are price-setters; they can set the price where they want, and, as always, they want to set it at the most profitable point. But that most profitable point in a monopoly is determined far differently than the most profitable point in a competitive environment.

That means that the monopolist will logically set the price where they make the most profit; demand is obviously a part of that equation.

 

[jaeger19]

Don't ever cut off part of my post and try to use it to support your weak position. That is absolutely pathetic, and basically an admission of defeat.



That means that the monopolist will logically set the price where they make the most profit; demand is obviously a part of that equation.

right.. now that you have clarified that demand was part of the equation.

After telling me over and over how wrong my position was...

to think that demand was part of the equation. :roll:

Whats really pathetic.. is that you.. among others here.. are so quick to try and prove me wrong.. that you don't even bother to read what I have posted.

And so it goes.. where you spend thread after thread telling me I am wrong.. and stupid.. and have no idea of economics...

and then at the end of it all... you end up adopting my original position AS YOUR OWN.

Meanwhile telling me how pathetic I am....

Which is exactly what you just did.

:2wave:

 

[mmi]

someone like me that has a greater grasp of real world economics than your limited learning allows.

Does anyone else here repeatedly proclaim their own superior knowledge of the issues involved? Is it always people on the Right who say they know more than others, placing their supposed qualifications over the merit of their argument?

show that US revenue has been steadily decreasing since 1980

Steadily? How about intermittently? Like 1981-83 and 2001-03? The years of the masive and completely unproductive GOP SSE tax cut giveaways to wealthy households.



It then took a couple more years just to get back to the previous level of receipts.

The graph you posted is for total gubmint revenues (including state and local), and measures as a percentage of GDP. Here's federal revenue by that criterion:

cut off part of my post and try to use it to support your weak position.

And again mangled the link, making it difficult for readers to see the original context. A trick he picked up from ConMan.

you spend thread after thread telling me I am wrong.. and stupid.. and have no idea of economics...and then at the end of it all... you end up adopting my original position AS YOUR OWN. Meanwhile telling me how pathetic I am....Which is exactly what you just did.

No, as is so often the case, yer so busy saying yer right that you don't think straight.

pinqy asked you to "cite where anyone else said that a monopolist could or would set a price regardless of demand." (emphasis added). You then quoted John saying that "monopolists are price-setters; they can set the price where they want." "Where they want" does NOT mean any price "regardless of demand." E.g., they can't set a price of $100 trillion. But they can set a price of, say, fifty bucks, when a competitive marketplace would have it settle at something closer to, say, thirty.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Whats really pathetic.. is that you.. among others here.. are so quick to try and prove me wrong.. that you don't even bother to read what I have posted.

I read what you posted, as long as I could stand it, before intervening. Both Kush and Pinqy proved you wrong - you just wouldn't accept it, as usual. This is your pattern. You were shown to be flat-out wrong about monopolies; then you make a vain attempt to dance around the edges of some word's definition to find a way down from the tree; finally, you chop up a quote to change or hide it's intended meaning, then claim we are adopting the position you held all along. A few pages later, the whole point of the thread has been lost.

 

[Moderate Right]

I have repeatedly said that.



Well, I don't really think they're "wrong", just over-reaching.

You're either with them or against them. I never see you reply to them that $12 or $15 is too high and, in fact, in this post you say they are not wrong so, if you think they are not wrong then you think they are right.

 

[Moderate Right]

How do you mean? I want to have an honest conversation and debate. I can't have that if one side submits anecdotes as their primary source of support for their positions.

We have real life experiences. You refuse to listen to them, dishonestly trying to force us into posting personal information on ourselves while at the same time refusing to post personal information on yourself. We get our information from experience. You get your information from liberally biased sources and then claim that they are facts.

 

[Moderate Right]

here is what the left and the right really don't get.

The reality is that much of regulation/taxes etc.. are the result of lobbying by the one percenters. those with the gold.. make the rules.

So lets say we take you. now as a small business.. you are definitely hurt more by a minimum wage increase.. then say your much bigger competitor that's already because of size more efficient. AND because of size has more access to capital to do things such as automate.

So.. when the left says "we need to raise minimum wage and that will help the poor"... what really happens.. is that it hurts you.. while not hurting the one percent owner hardly at all. So you go out of business.. and he snaps up your marketshare.

and now the one percent is wealthier.. and the middle class suffers

And don't forget that when I go out of business, 30 of my employees collect unemployment instead of having a real job. And this doesn't include all of the other mom and pops who will go out of business along with their employees. I'm all for going after the one percent and their golden parachutes, etc. but leave us little guys alone.

 

[Critter7r]

You're either with them or against them. I never see you reply to them that $12 or $15 is too high and, in fact, in this post you say they are not wrong so, if you think they are not wrong then you think they are right.

Youre a simpleton.

I think they're right that MW needs to increase. I disagree that it needs to increase as much as some have recommended. However, I understand the limitations of my understanding of the subject matter, so i won't say they're "wrong".

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Moderate Right]

Then none of what we are talking about affects you! Yeesh.

Did you forget what we were talking about? Large increases to the minimum wage will put me out of business. Most small business owners do not make $250,000 per year. They are the backbone of America and you want to put them all out of business. I even gave you an example and put numbers out there to work with. Yeesh.

 

[mmi]

We have real life experiences.

And some of us aren't limited by them.

>>You refuse to listen to them

Nah, we listen. And then we laugh when you say that there's nothing more to be considered other than yer particular experience. If you don't like what's being said, you make a big deal of publicly stating that yer Ignoring someone.

>>dishonestly trying to force us into posting personal information on ourselves

Dishonestly? And how is anyone trying to force you to do anything?

>>refusing to post personal information on yourself.

Whadda ya wanna know? My shoe size?

>>We get our information from experience.

You apparently limit yerself to yer personal experiences is formulating yer views … on things like national economic policy.

>>You get your information from liberally biased sources and then claim that they are facts.

You disparage any source you disagree with, and you never do anything to back up yer claims that our data is "cherry-picked" or otherwise inaccurate/misleading. As I've said before, it's almost shocking that conservative thought is so poorly represented in this community. And fwiw, I find that very disappointing.

 

[jaeger19]

Does anyone else here repeatedly proclaim their own superior knowledge of the issues involved? Is it always people on the Right who say they know more than others, placing their supposed qualifications over the merit of their argument?
.

Yep... all the time.. in fact constantly. heck.. look at the last example:

Kushinator stated that monopolies set prices. I pointed out that demand was still a factor.

And that set off a whirlwind of you don't know what you are talking about.. and other personal attacks.

And at the end of the day.. everyone.. EVERYONE is admitting that well yes monopolies still have to be concerned about demand.

Steadily? How about intermittently? Like 1981-83 and 2001-03? The years of the masive and completely unproductive GOP SSE tax cut giveaways to wealthy households.

intermittently? Sure. but of course thats not is what is being argued here. Its argued that SINCE 1981, the decline of the middle class, and stagnant wages is due to a loss of revenue to the government.

And clearly.. thats not the case.

pinqy asked you to "cite where anyone else said that a monopolist could or would set a price regardless of demand." (emphasis added). You then quoted John saying that "monopolists are price-setters; they can set the price where they want." "Where they want" does NOT mean any price "regardless of demand." E.g., they can't set a price of $100 trillion. But they can set a price of, say, fifty bucks, when a competitive marketplace would have it settle at something closer to, say, thirty.

Right.lets get this straight:

So.. when John says.. "they can set the price where they want"... he is correct.

Even though you admit that they cannot set the price where they want because of course they can't set it at 100 million.

You guys are too funny.

All anyone of you could have simply clarified your answer and set "yes jaeger.. a monopoly cannot set any price they want.. they are constrained by demand,, but at times they can get a higher price than in a more competitive market".. and I would have said ... wait for it "yes".

and that would be it. but instead you and the rest of the crew had to go on the very tiring... "you don't know anything.. you are pathetic etc" route.. and at the end of the day.. you are all crawfishing to admit .. well, I am right.

 

[jaeger19]

Youre a simpleton.

I think they're right that MW needs to increase. I disagree that it needs to increase as much as some have recommended. However, I understand the limitations of my understanding of the subject matter, so i won't say they're "wrong".

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

You know critter... he does have a point. You certainly do not lack the objectivity of the rest of the liberal crew here...

However,, you do tend to apply a different standard to posts. You will call Moderate right a simpleton.. and argue with me..

but let it slide when it comes to the more liberal view.

 

[jaeger19]

And don't forget that when I go out of business, 30 of my employees collect unemployment instead of having a real job. And this doesn't include all of the other mom and pops who will go out of business along with their employees. I'm all for going after the one percent and their golden parachutes, etc. but leave us little guys alone.

Of course.. and then what happens which has continued to happen.. the poor and middle class suffer.. as the one percenters get even more.

 

[jaeger19]

I read what you posted, as long as I could stand it, before intervening. Both Kush and Pinqy proved you wrong - you just wouldn't accept it, as usual. This is your pattern. You were shown to be flat-out wrong about monopolies; then you make a vain attempt to dance around the edges of some word's definition to find a way down from the tree; finally, you chop up a quote to change or hide it's intended meaning, then claim we are adopting the position you held all along. A few pages later, the whole point of the thread has been lost.

Yeah.. here you go again.

You keep claimint.. "you were proved wrong"...

Oh really.. so now we are back to monopolies can set prices where they want regardless of demand?

Or does demand now matter again.

At the end of the day John.. this is what happened.

Kushinator stated that monopolies can set prices. And I pointed out that they still had to accede to demand.

And Kush and Pinqy and the rest of the crew... jumped on the band wagon and told me how stupid, and pathetic, etc etc I am

and at the end of the day... ooops..you have all had to admit that well yes.. the price is dependent on demand and they are not able to just set "what they want"..


And in the meantime of that debate... Pinqy was claiming that monopolies by definition can't have any competition or near competition.. and his own definition stated that they could. then he threw down "perfect competition".. which probably doesn't even exist in reality.
You mixed up single payer healthcare and universal healthcare.. and when shown wrong tried to claim that SINGLE payer of course meant multiple payers.. :roll:

Kushinator went off on a diatribe on how if "you sell goods in the US you pay US taxes"..

When the facts are.. that a company can sell goods in the US and avoid paying us taxes by using a variety of mechanisms.. including transfer pricing, thin capitalization etc.

That's simply it.