RE: Obama care
July 29, 2012 at 5:18 am
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2012 at 6:57 am by Darth.)
Sorry, I was asking Creed of Heresy a question, he said he'd learnt something, came to a new understanding, but didn't share what that was.
looking at that graph, Gary johnson is only excellent by comparison? =P
Well, runs on the bank, ok.
What if there were no government guarantee on deposits, how much more discerning would people be in terms of which banks you choose? Without a government backing people are thinking "how likely is it that my gold/silver/paper will still be here when I come to spend it" as well as "how much interest are they offering me", rather than just focusing on the interest. Now banks get much less reckless and hold much more reserves, because their depositors insist on it. I would imagine there would be a larger market for banking where you actually pay the bank to just keep your gold/silver/paper... safe and maybe not lend it out at all (not that that doesn't already exist, just that there would be a much bigger market). People looking for interest payments would go with banks that do lend out their depositors money, even to the point of lending out more than they hold, and if people bank with such a bank what they are doing is taking on risk in return for profit. That's their decision, and their consequences to deal with. The government backing, by reducing the risk of any one bank failing, makes all banks become riskier, even the banks that would be conservative can't advertise themselves as effectively as safe banks*, because they are all 'safe', they must attract depositors by offering higher interest rates, which means making they all have to make more, (and perhaps riskier), loans. I'm not convinced that we need to stop all bank runs, banks just vault all their cash/gold are immune except in cases of large-scale theft, and banks that are still sound investments, despite panics with no basis in reality, will still get wise investors. Banks that are run poorly will eventually have a bank run, and so what? Why keep a poorly run bank around and why promise to make anyone who deals with it whole again? The depositors lose their deposits, that's what happens when you hand your money over to muppets. Fraud is what needs to be policed.
Didn't you still have bank runs in the 80's(edit, wrote 70's initially, my bad)? And it can still happen because the government guarantee is up to a certain amount and not indefinite, no? Though from what I understand (I could be wrong) the 80's situation was handled better than the current situation, where healthy banks (well run ones) were given cash to buy up the useless ones (or their 'assets'). It's still not ideal, but it's much better than simply paying the assholes who got you into the crisis in the first place. Northern rock, still had a bank run. 1907 panic, who stopped that one? The fed was created in 1913 after the 1907 panic (and ones before that) IIRC, which is when I'd say government really got involved (again).
I disagree, and think citizens united was actually good for you guys. Take a read of the transcript of citizens united, and do a ctrl/command F search for the word 'book'. It's scary stuff.
I hate the idea of abridging the freedom of speech. Even on a purely utilitarian basis, I think that that the harm that would result would be greater than the benefits to the political process, which can be gained by other reforms (two party systems are awful, fixing that would solve many of the problems you mention imo).
Basic infrastructure? Not hugely opposed to it, just shouldn't be done as stimulus imo, more as a constant thing if it's going to be done, as apparently it needs to be done anyway.
I don't see any type of insurer as useless middlemen (What is a useless middleman in the private sector anyway? If they were useless then people wouldn't use them for long, they connect people, that's their use), what you are doing is paying them to take your risk. If you go through life uninsured you run the risk of an accident that cripples you financially, even if you have a rainy day fund. What you are paying them to do is take on your risk, they are providing you with that service, and you pay them to do it. Sure they take a profit (otherwise few would bother), but under the system you are proposing the obese smoking daredevils increase the costs by socialising the risk/losses onto you, either way you pay more than the pure cost, at least the private business relationship is voluntary.
Are there any non-profit insurers (of any type, not just healthcare) over there?
*and what's worse, they have to pay to keep their reckless competitors safe, while not getting as much, or any, benefit themselves.
looking at that graph, Gary johnson is only excellent by comparison? =P
Well, runs on the bank, ok.
What if there were no government guarantee on deposits, how much more discerning would people be in terms of which banks you choose? Without a government backing people are thinking "how likely is it that my gold/silver/paper will still be here when I come to spend it" as well as "how much interest are they offering me", rather than just focusing on the interest. Now banks get much less reckless and hold much more reserves, because their depositors insist on it. I would imagine there would be a larger market for banking where you actually pay the bank to just keep your gold/silver/paper... safe and maybe not lend it out at all (not that that doesn't already exist, just that there would be a much bigger market). People looking for interest payments would go with banks that do lend out their depositors money, even to the point of lending out more than they hold, and if people bank with such a bank what they are doing is taking on risk in return for profit. That's their decision, and their consequences to deal with. The government backing, by reducing the risk of any one bank failing, makes all banks become riskier, even the banks that would be conservative can't advertise themselves as effectively as safe banks*, because they are all 'safe', they must attract depositors by offering higher interest rates, which means making they all have to make more, (and perhaps riskier), loans. I'm not convinced that we need to stop all bank runs, banks just vault all their cash/gold are immune except in cases of large-scale theft, and banks that are still sound investments, despite panics with no basis in reality, will still get wise investors. Banks that are run poorly will eventually have a bank run, and so what? Why keep a poorly run bank around and why promise to make anyone who deals with it whole again? The depositors lose their deposits, that's what happens when you hand your money over to muppets. Fraud is what needs to be policed.
Didn't you still have bank runs in the 80's(edit, wrote 70's initially, my bad)? And it can still happen because the government guarantee is up to a certain amount and not indefinite, no? Though from what I understand (I could be wrong) the 80's situation was handled better than the current situation, where healthy banks (well run ones) were given cash to buy up the useless ones (or their 'assets'). It's still not ideal, but it's much better than simply paying the assholes who got you into the crisis in the first place. Northern rock, still had a bank run. 1907 panic, who stopped that one? The fed was created in 1913 after the 1907 panic (and ones before that) IIRC, which is when I'd say government really got involved (again).
I disagree, and think citizens united was actually good for you guys. Take a read of the transcript of citizens united, and do a ctrl/command F search for the word 'book'. It's scary stuff.
I hate the idea of abridging the freedom of speech. Even on a purely utilitarian basis, I think that that the harm that would result would be greater than the benefits to the political process, which can be gained by other reforms (two party systems are awful, fixing that would solve many of the problems you mention imo).
Basic infrastructure? Not hugely opposed to it, just shouldn't be done as stimulus imo, more as a constant thing if it's going to be done, as apparently it needs to be done anyway.
I don't see any type of insurer as useless middlemen (What is a useless middleman in the private sector anyway? If they were useless then people wouldn't use them for long, they connect people, that's their use), what you are doing is paying them to take your risk. If you go through life uninsured you run the risk of an accident that cripples you financially, even if you have a rainy day fund. What you are paying them to do is take on your risk, they are providing you with that service, and you pay them to do it. Sure they take a profit (otherwise few would bother), but under the system you are proposing the obese smoking daredevils increase the costs by socialising the risk/losses onto you, either way you pay more than the pure cost, at least the private business relationship is voluntary.
Are there any non-profit insurers (of any type, not just healthcare) over there?
*and what's worse, they have to pay to keep their reckless competitors safe, while not getting as much, or any, benefit themselves.
