|
Nolanar posted:I'm not sure I can believe this. I need to check out this "bitcoin thread" you speak of. Does that involve going to GBS? Nah, it's in P/C, and is hilarious. Someone recently described it as, and I'm only paraphrasing slightly here, "like watching an ongoing session of the Prisoner's Dilemma except the only ones not furiously mashing the 'betray' button as hard as they can are the ones building new and improved 'betray' buttons to sell to the others."
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Trust me, I wasn't ignoring this issue on purpose. But now its your turn to form a substantive response to what I wrote if you want this discussion of healthcare to continue. Okay, here's as substantive a response on medicine as you'll get out of me, because this was brought up several times over the last few months. You've shown us now (and shown us before, when we started!) that healthcare costs in the US outstrip CPI. You assert that this is due to government intervention; we assert that it is due to more complicated (but more effective!) technology. How do we control for one to see if the other is the cause? The answer to me is simple: pick a society with a similar level of medical technology, but a different level of government interference, and see how the prices line up as compared to median income! To eliminate cultural biases as much as possible, I suggest anglophone countries. So, how do the costs of medical care compare between the US, UK, and Canada? Let's check Wikipedia!  (Note the graph has labels that tell you what the axes mean, and a source that tells you where the data came from. This makes it a Good Graph. Note also that the graph is posted as an image that is visible right away for ease of viewing. This makes me a So how do you explain the fact that costs in the US are substantially higher than those in socialist hellholes like Canada?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Sorry, the 80/20 rule is not an ahistorical truth, stop parroting bullshit from management consultants. Listen, everybody in this thread, look at my two last posts. Using the Pareto principal to legitimize inequality is a gigantic loving red flag about someone. There's a reason Mussolini loved him so much. Jrod is essentially legitimizing a distribution of wealth favored by fascists, especially by using Rothbard to argue the equality is "against nature". There is no excuse, there is no digression, that can overcome the fact that Jrod fundamentally does not care about the well-being of the mass of the populace, no matter what bullshit he spits out. Like most libertarians, he desires small tyrannies as the standard for all society. It is a morally bankrupt philosophy and if it ever had a chance of gaining power I would be out in the streets bashing the fasc because that is all it really is at its core.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Did this fool just credit libertarians for decriminalization in the Netherlands?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Nah, it's in P/C, and is hilarious. Someone recently described it as, and I'm only paraphrasing slightly here, "like watching an ongoing session of the Prisoner's Dilemma except the only ones not furiously mashing the 'betray' button as hard as they can are the ones building new and improved 'betray' buttons to sell to the others." I like to think of it as blind libertarians accidentally and painfully re-enacting the entire history of world finance in fast-forward, like a Benny Hill sketch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
How would I ever have learned that criminalizing pot is stupid unless I had followed the writings of an ignorant American political cult? They are the only ones who figured it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Well now that you're answering questions, how about telling me how ISIL is managing to wage a somewhat successful war of conquest without a pre-existing tax base or market for its debt? Because it kinda looks to me like proof that in the absence of a strong state able to exercise control of territory, it turns out it actually is very profitable to get a bunch of guys together, extort tribute from towns and villages, and seize oil wells for crude to sell on the black market, but idk, I'm open to the idea that ISIL came through a Slide from Caliphate Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have heard it claimed over and over that a true libertarian society, which to my mind means either the radical minarchism of Mises or the anarchism of Rothbard, would lead to disastrous consequences for most people. Because of that you are utilitarians whose primary concern is the "most happiness for the most people", rather than sticking to a moral principle that you derive based on logic and reason. These all happened with well-functioning, active states. If we're supposed to accept "less government is better" these are absolutely horrible examples to cite. This is coming from someone who thinks those examples are excellent examples of market liberalization success stories. But a well-functioning state ensuring basic stable elements of society is a pre-requisite. For me it's not about the economics. Markets can function at a certain level without any state or regulation. We know this. And it's not about racism or class. It's about the basics of politics and human nature. Anarchy can't survive because human nature doesn't allow it to. quote:These all, to my eyes, lend credibility to the notion that humans can and do flourish in response to real life libertarian reforms. Crime statistics (especially violent crime) fall when drugs are legalized, neutrality in international relations leads to peace and free commerce, and smaller political units can have populations that are as happy and prosperous if not more so than larger political units. You're really out of your element here aren't you, trying to feel your way through an appeal to utilitarians. This entire argument sits uncomfortably with much of your posting in this thread. People have been throwing examples of beneficial state action at you for 100 pages and you dismiss them offhandedly. But here are trying to do the same thing with examples where the state and the market are so clearly intertwined. If we were playing your game we could effortlessly swat this down by simply claiming "nope, that's not the market". But that's not how it works. It's not that simple. The way it works is that we synthesize a combination of reason, history and judgment in a subjective and imprecise fashion to analyze the situations at hand. "Must" we be willing to try a new idea "in order to ascertain it's utilitarian effects" - no absolutely not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Wrong. It would make us consequentialists, of which utilitarians are but one type. I've repeatedly stated my own philosophical bent as being toward Rawls's "justice as fairness" ideas, but that isn't as easy to attack, so you won't be able to look it up on mises.org to get your opinion on it. I believe that others on this forum ascribe to the beliefs of one Karl Marx, rather than JS Mill. You may have heard of him. You know what, I'm going to take this back. Caring about the consequences of one's ethics at all isn't called consequentialism, it's called ethics. Consequentialism says that moral ends can justify otherwise immoral means. So for our beliefs to actually be consequentialist, you'd need to prove to us that taxation is actually immoral in the first place! Because as I see it, taxation to benefit the poor isn't a "torture a terrorist to find out where the bomb is" situation, it's an "ask the terrorist where the bomb is" situation. Moral means to moral ends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
I'm going to make my primary point here at the front, and again at the end: Healthcare costs have climbed, unarguably, but outcomes have also improved, technology has advanced, and the amount of knowledge required to compete has skyrocketed, educational costs have vastly increased, and insurance companies have left most individuals divorced from their own actual health care costs. jrodefeld posted:My first response about healthcare is to note that healthcare inelasticity is not a new phenomenon. If you needed heart surgery in the 1950s or you would die you would pay whatever the cost was as long as you could gather the money, borrow the money or steal the money to pay. Yet healthcare costs were much lower throughout the history of the United States. All of this is true, but do you know what else has risen a lot since the 60s?  I'd be much more interested, though, to see you talking about prices in states with actual socialist medical programs, like Canada or England. Of course, that would be quite inconvenient for you, I'm sure. quote:The supply of medical care services is much lower than it otherwise would be do to medical lobbying and special privilege. We talk frequently about crony capitalism and unfortunately the medical care sector of the economy is riddled with the phenomenon. For a century entrenched medical care interests have lobbied for legislation that reduces potential competition through licensing requirements, monopoly privilege grants and subsidies. The AMA went after lodge doctors and others who provided low cost medical services to the lower classes because they were being undercut on price. "Special privilege?" Being able to properly diagnose and treat injuries is not "special privilege," unless you're trying to turn this into an argument against extraordinarily high education costs? But I don't know why you' be talking about that, because rising education costs are 100% a capitalist, market issue, and not one faced in more socialist european countries like Germany or Sweden. Licensing? Driving those who can't get a license out of the market? Good! Those unqualified hacks and murderers can get the gently caress away from my children. This is not a coincidence. Medical licensing is an unequivocal good, instituted for the benefit of patients, NOT for the benefit of "entrenched" doctors. It's a lot easier to make it to 80 when the guy performing surgery on your heart doesn't cut hair in his spare time, or, to use a less hyperbolic example, actually agrees with and understands scientific and medical consensus. But if I understand it, you're claiming here that licensing standards are rigged or unfair, causing otherwise-qualified doctors from being unable to enter the market? Could you elaborate on this concept, and what evidence or theory you have to support it? Please be clear precise in your answer, as you tend to speak in vague generalities. quote:This has persisted. The supply has gone down CITATION NEEDED, thanks Gul Madred while the demand has gone up, which naturally leads to higher costs. If the supply was increased and demand stayed the same, prices would be pushed downward. [I forgot, we're inferring this, not with facts, but LOGIC!] You... really don't understand the benefit of price fixing?  Yes, people would likely pick the best doctor. But they would do that even if he was more expensive, wouldn't they? A lovely, say, car, is not like a lovely heart surgery is not like a car—buying a Kia Rio doesn't by necessity result in you being dead or permanently maimed. Perhaps the best doctor can only perform one surgery per day, but there are eight hundred people per year who need heart surgeries, so two other doctors are still making the fixed price over and over again. Or perhaps the best doctor is at the center of some criminal intrigue that's getting a lot of press, and so not everyone wants to go to him. Or perhaps the best doctor is an rear end in a top hat. Or maybe I live in Kentucky, and can't just hop on a train to the Mayo Clinic, and have to make do with one of the four price-fixers in my state. Or maybe all the local ambulance companies get a cut from the other doctors, and take patients to them. These are just a few reasons, but the entire multi-trillion dollar international industries of marketing, advertising and PR are based entirely on getting people to do things for reasons other than price preference and quality preference. But you are also VASTLY underestimating the barriers to entry for modern-quality medical practice. There is a reason people go to school for a decade or more to study medicine, and that's because incredible accuracy only comes at the cost of incredible time spent learning. There is a reason there are rarely multiple hospitals in proximity to each other, and it's not because of licensing: it's because it's incredibly expensive to obtain, maintain, and retain all of the equipment and human resources required to run a good hospital. Some plucky heart surgeon, or radiologist, or gastroenterologist, is not going to be able to just set up shop in the way a food vendor at a market might be able to. And even if they do—even if EVERYTHING you claim is true—if the heart surgeon cabal has fixed the price of open heart at five million dollars, what price does it make sense for the plucky challenger to charge? quote:The fact remains that it wasn't inelasticity of demand that caused medical care costs to begin to drastically outpace the consumer price index over the last forty years. It was State involvement in medical care through a series of legislative actions and increasing Federal funding of medical care costs that artificially inflated costs, led to increased demand and increased regulations that artificially restricted supply. You have yet to show any causal evidence that these costs are caused solely, or even primarily, by undue government regulation. Yes, regulation has led to higher costs, because only the qualified, those who paid a lot of money to be educated and for expensive equipment, can practice. This is a good thing. But so far your only answer to "why wouldn't people collude to fix prices?" is just "competition!" which, as much as you'd like it to be, isn't the magical monopoly-breaker. It's a shame that this has been your response, as I thought it was going to actually be interesting in some way, rather than just another form of the insane claim that monopolies cannot exist without the state. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm not sure I can believe this. I need to check out this "bitcoin thread" you speak of. Does that involve going to GBS? come to yospos, my pretty 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:My first response about healthcare is to note that healthcare inelasticity is not a new phenomenon. If you needed heart surgery in the 1950s or you would die you would pay whatever the cost was as long as you could gather the money, borrow the money or steal the money to pay. Yet healthcare costs were much lower throughout the history of the United States. There are plenty of other reasons why healthcare costs have gone up. We mentioned them before. But instead of listening to people who argued against you, you rather waste time showing people how you're not a racist. I'll make it simple. Costs have gone up for a large variety of reasons. First off, there's more treatment options available. Secondly, people are living longer, and end of life care is VERY expensive. Thirdly, we're able to treat diseases now that we couldn't treat before. Finally, most doctors get paid per service rather than paid a salary. Insurance companies make it difficult to approve treatments as well. And yes, sometimes bad regulations get in the way of good medicine. That encourages doctors to do more unnecessary work and do more tests which cost people money. Also, due to the fact that everyone can't get healthcare, we have to pay the burden of those people when they need emergent care. So you go to the hospital. They cannot turn you away if you can't pay. Well, they need to get their money somehow. So everyone else's costs go up! Also, your chart isn't very relevant. It's almost meaningless. All it shows is that costs have increased ahead of inflation. However, it doesn't attempt to explain why that has happened, allowing you to go through the metaphorical looking glass. quote:The supply of medical care services is much lower than it otherwise would be do to medical lobbying and special privilege. We talk frequently about crony capitalism and unfortunately the medical care sector of the economy is riddled with the phenomenon. For a century entrenched medical care interests have lobbied for legislation that reduces potential competition through licensing requirements, monopoly privilege grants and subsidies. The AMA went after lodge doctors and others who provided low cost medical services to the lower classes because they were being undercut on price. Yes. Licensing. The hidden evil of the medical community. Jrod - do you have a medical license? Well I used to have a medical license as a pharmacy technician. I even became a certified pharmacy technician. Here's what licensing required: 1. I worked in the state. 2. I had my fingerprints taken and I wasn't convicted of any major felonies. To get certified I had to take a test that would show people I knew what I was talking about. Medical licensing exists as a way to help ensure that only people who are qualified to practice medicine can practice it. It ensures that you have a proper baseline of knowledge, and if you act in a manner that would put people or their lives at risk, it can be rescinded to prevent you from inflicting further harm. Are there people who could practice medicine who don't have a license and can't get one for whatever reason? Sure. I know there are. Are there bad doctors who have a license who shouldn't? Of course there are! But no system is perfect, and frankly, I like having a system that tries to ensure the person who is operating on me is at least marginally qualified. And you see changes happening in healthcare. Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart all offer in store clinics where you can spend 40 bucks and be seen by an NP. Hospitals are starting to focus on results and push through changes that make their clinicians more efficient, while bringing down costs. quote:This has persisted. The supply has gone down while the demand has gone up, which naturally leads to higher costs. If the supply was increased and demand stayed the same, prices would be pushed downward. Why? Here's the thing - healthcare isn't like most goods. When I go to get treatment, I have no real idea what the cost is going to be. It is very difficult for me to shop around, because stuff is based on insurance, what I end up needing, possible complications. Here's an even funnier story. For the second half of 2012, I didn't pay a cent in health-care costs. See, my insurance limits my out-of-pocket spending to 2,000 dollars. Well, when I hit my 2,000 dollar limit, they covered 100% of my healthcare costs. I got a massively expensive surgery for free! Do you know how many surgeries I had? Only one. I didn't say "Hey, let's take the appendix out while we're at it! After all, it's free for me!" But if I had to pay out of pocket, you know what, I would have to. Because dying seemed worse than the being broke. quote:Even if demand is inelastic, and remember that it is only inelastic for some medical care services (there are plenty of optional medical treatments, tests and doctors visits whose demand would surely change based on the price level), a greater supply of the service by competing suppliers would still push the price downward. What advantage would it be for ALL medical care providers to collude and raise prices for, say, heart surgery at the same time? You are still only going to choose one doctor or hospital to get the procedure done. And if all hospitals have colluded and are charging the same high price, you will make your decision on other factors than price. You will likely choose only that hospital that has the very best doctor. For gently caress's sake. Can you stop doing this thing where you assume that people are always going to be able to make the best and correct choices and never waver at all from the path. It's intellectually lazy, and it's allowing you to delude yourself. There's so many other factors that are available. See, here's the problem. At some level, you need heart surgery. And it doesn't matter what the price is, you're going to get heart surgery. And if it is emergent enough, you're not going to have the ability to make the best pricing decision because you don't have time. And you see, this is where a free market health-care system would scare me. Think of UPS. If I want something here tomorrow, I got to pay out of the rear end to get it done. But if I want something in five days, it's much cheaper. Hell, when I buy online, I pay a premium for faster shipping! So what do you think is going to happen in Libertarian world. "Hey, you need heart surgery. Since it's an emergency, we're going to have to bump the price up 500%!" Then there's the locales that are available. You might not live in an area with a lot of hospitals near-by. Depending on how sick you are, you might be stuck with the nearest hospitals. And of course, there's the openings. You need a doctor, you need an OR, you need a ton of staff. So, that further limits your choices. And since a lot of healthcare tends to be on a timetable, you're going to have to take what you can get. The fact is, when it comes to healthcare, you're a captive audience. Finally, you can't do every surgery in every hospital. If you need a surgery that requires special equipment, you may be limited further. Also, you don't know how healthcare is paid for today. Since healthcare decisions are made by insurance companies, who don't like to pay money, do you think that maybe there is only so low healthcare costs can really go? quote:But what of the hospitals with less experienced doctors? Or less state-of-the-art facilities and amenities? How are they going to attract customers? Naturally the only way they could differentiate themselves in the marketplace is to compete on price. The doctors may be less experienced but the price is also significantly lower. It only takes one to break a cartel by undercutting the price fixing scheme. What? Where the gently caress did this cartel come from? Also, where is this hospital going to come from? Because unlike you, I actually work in the healthcare field, and so I understand the business side of things. See, the reason why you don't see Level 1 trauma centers all over the loving place isn't because there's this massive conspiracy to keep healthcare costs high - it's because there's only so much demand for them. And why would all the inexperienced doctors band together? quote:It doesn't matter how "inelastic" the demand for heart surgery may be, an individual hospital or healthcare provider on the market will still want you to choose THEM to perform the procedure not one of their competitors. So there will be an incentive to compete on prices. Providers will want to serve every market. Some clinics may choose very basic and simple offices and buildings to perform their procedures. This reduces overhead and allows them to offer procedures at a much lower price to, say, Stanford or the Mayo Clinic. You know, some of the things you say on the surface make sense, but to people who know what they're talking about, it's ridiculous. It's laughable. First off, you can go over all the factors I listed that limits your choices. Secondly, THIS IS loving SURGERY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. There's only so simple you can go. You see, the room has to be clean. It has to be sterile. You need to have things you can easily keep sterile and clean. Depending on the surgery you are performing, you need very specialized equipment to do it. You see, this equipment is used not because these guys just want to jack up the price, but because it allows them to perform safer surgeries. Also, the buildings have very little to do with the overheard of running a business. It's there. But it's not impacting the price that much. Do some loving research. And Mises.org doesn't count as research. quote:The fact remains that it wasn't inelasticity of demand that caused medical care costs to begin to drastically outpace the consumer price index over the last forty years. It was State involvement in medical care through a series of legislative actions and increasing Federal funding of medical care costs that artificially inflated costs, led to increased demand and increased regulations that artificially restricted supply. You can't say that the fact remains because you have failed to show that it was state involvement in medical care that caused the cost to go up. You need to show that. You can't just say that. You didn't make the argument you thought you made. You just asserted it, made some terrible argument that didn't do anything to support it and was frankly unrelated to your claim, and then said "the fact remains that what I said is true!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I too would appreciate more libertarians on this site, if only so that a discussion like this could be more comprehensive and not a thirty to one sort of pile on. Man, if only there were multiple posters here offering you a means to have more focused and comprehensive discussions on specific topics. Wouldn't that be great? Especially if these offers had been on the table for months now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
I had to call him a quaffer of horse semen just to get him to respond to one post (THAT'S WHAT CAUSED IT SHUT UP), so I can't imagine what you're going to have to do or say to him to get him to actually debate you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I had to call him a quaffer of horse semen just to get him to respond to one post (THAT'S WHAT CAUSED IT SHUT UP), so I can't imagine what you're going to have to do or say to him to get him to actually debate you. I think he wants to live in this fantasy where he's under attack not because he's a stupid idiot who can't formulate an argument to save his life, but rather one where we are all mean. I mean, yeah. I'm pretty mean to him. But it's because he hands in these non-arguments and act like we're not giving him substantive arguments to counter his postings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I had to call him a quaffer of horse semen just to get him to respond to one post (THAT'S WHAT CAUSED IT SHUT UP), so I can't imagine what you're going to have to do or say to him to get him to actually debate you. The only thing I won't give him is a ten minute break between each of my questions or statements in order to scour mises.org articles to formulate a response. He says he wants an opportunity for comprehensive dialog about one subject and he claims to be able to form his own thoughts and arguments rather than just rewrite what he's read from others. Live debates are an opportunity to achieve the former and prove the latter. Yet he doesn't seem keen an actually doing this, which isn't shocking at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Unseen posted:Stupid as in they're illogical or stupid as in you don't agree with them? Stupid as in "This ponzi scheme, named BITCOIN-PONZI, is a legitimate investment opportunity that gives a good return and the owner is not going to abscond with all of the money" Stupid as in "This cloud mining contract costs me $10k/month in exchange for $6k/month worth of bitcoins? Sign me up for 10!" Stupid as in "Why won't the US give me a Visa? I only renounced my citizenship and fled the country because I wanted to avoid paying taxes!  "quote:Are you implying that political groups and ideologies can claim ownership of ideas? Explicitly, I am saying the opposite of that. Jrod believes that libertarianism owns the ideas of diplomatic cooperation and drug legalization, and I am stating that no political group owns these ideas. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Speaking of bitcoiners, if anyone isn't following the trial of Silkroad "mastermind" and probable person behind the DPR online persona Ross Ulbright right now you're missing out on some purestrain hilarity. Forward-thinking captain of industry that he was, he kept records of basically every illegal thing he'd done on his laptop, labeled mycrimes.doc, essentially. His defense is..well, I don't know what it is, really, since he's dead to rights. I think they're trying a combination of "as you can see, my client is so appalling stupid he can barely dress himself unaided, and thus couldn't have been behind this complex online drug smuggling business nor have contracted hits on people" and also trying to argue that the corpulent loser who tanked Mt.Gox secretly planted all that evidence on Ulbright's laptop, somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Stupid as in "This ponzi scheme, named BITCOIN-PONZI, is a legitimate investment opportunity that gives a good return and the owner is not going to abscond with all of the money" And it's important to clarify, for those of you uninitiated, that this literally isn't an exaggeration. The phrase "legitimate ponzi" is thrown around frequently on bitcointalk, and there is an ongoing search for the One Honest Ponzi (ignoring, of course, that bitcoin itself was the Honest Ponzi all along  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Stupid as in "This ponzi scheme, named BITCOIN-PONZI, is a legitimate investment opportunity that gives a good return and the owner is not going to abscond with all of the money" I'm pretty sure I own them, I came up with them on my own. Other things I came up with in a vaccum: Sanitation The Electromagnetic Spectrum Freedom Liberty (original work DO NOT STEAL) Contracts Cheese burgers The process for which one person exchanges one good for another but with a database. The State of Hawaii Wine Dogs Pay up you filthy moochers!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:And it's important to clarify, for those of you uninitiated, that this literally isn't an exaggeration. The phrase "legitimate ponzi" is thrown around frequently on bitcointalk, and there is an ongoing search for the One Honest Ponzi (ignoring, of course, that bitcoin itself was the Honest Ponzi all along I am now out of breath from laughing. Oh; oh, mercy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm not sure I can believe this. I need to check out this "bitcoin thread" you speak of. Does that involve going to GBS? Just go to buttcoinfoundation.org for some of the highlights, otherwise there's a thread in YOSPOS There's also a thread in the conspiracy theory / paranormal subforum There's some good stuff in both but I probably miss a lot of it because they both update so quickly. January has been full of way more crazy bitcoin poo poo than a typical month
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:And it's important to clarify, for those of you uninitiated, that this literally isn't an exaggeration. The phrase "legitimate ponzi" is thrown around frequently on bitcointalk, and there is an ongoing search for the One Honest Ponzi (ignoring, of course, that bitcoin itself was the Honest Ponzi all along quote:Send BTC and get a return of 120%, your payout is funded by the players who deposit after you.  that's literally the part of a Ponzi scheme that makes them scams.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Who says I fail to notice it? Isn't it enough that I say explicitly, over and over, that I am fundamentally opposed to any situation where one person or group of people use coercion and initiatory violence against anyone else? This would be like saying "I hate those fleet-footed niggers, we should lynch all of them" and then saying over and over "I am not a racist, isn't it enough that I say explicitly, over and over, that I am fundamentally opposed to racism?" The point of these examples is that they are counterexamples to your argument that private groups never go to war with each other, and they are proof that the upper class will do literally anything that they can get away with in order to preserve the 80/20 rule that you believe arises naturally. These labor wars occurred in regions that were essentially lawless, without government interference. By promoting a system that lacks government, you promote a system that permits more events like this, where laborers are physically crushed under the boots of a ruling class. And there are countless other examples of the wealthy using their money to crush peaceful protests as well as competition with violence when the government is unable to keep order. You promote a system in which violence can be used against laborers in order to further entrench a wealthy elite. In other words, your support for the lack of a system would result in the rise of a feudal system, whereby wealthy land owners collect fees (most often as goods) from the peasants that they allow to live and work on their land. quote:Seriously, you are projecting your conception of what you think a libertarian must believe onto me rather than responding to what I've actually said. Somehow you think I am more concerned about poor people using aggression against the rich than I am about the rich using aggression against the poor. Nothing I have said would support this assertion. I consider all acts of aggression to be wrong no matter which source they come from. Your personal morality is not reflective of reality. That's a major problem with libertarianism: it makes unrealistic assumptions about how others act
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:
Bitcoiners refer to a "legitimate ponzi" as one in which the guy running it actually keeps paying out until new members stop signing up. Of course that never happens, the owner always runs away with all of the remaining funds as soon as it looks like the ponzi is losing steam. Rational actors and all of that. But one day, if we believe hard enough, the legitimate ponzi will appear, and it will still gently caress over most of its members but not quite as many I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I am now out of breath from laughing. Oh; oh, mercy. Given that one of their brightest stars in on trial for, well, all that stuff I mentioned above, you'll also likely manage a chuckle when I tell you that sovereign citizens have emerged to give advice on this one weird trick he could use to derail the whole thing! Also, found the quote I was paraphrasing earlier. opaopa13 posted:Bitcoin is the version of the Prisoner's Dilemma where halfway through the explanation you're horrified to realize that both prisoners have somehow built newer, more cruel betray buttons out of things lying around their cell, and only stop mashing these new buttons long enough to attempt to sell broken versions to each other (caveat emptor).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Isn't DPR the guy who hired a hitman who was really an undercover cop to kill that same undercover cop?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
The fact that people wanted to start a currency based on the "labor" of the already wealthy (I mixed my labor with electricity!) Says a lot about the failures of the free market philosophy in general when enough people bought into a scheme like it that could be argued to have created negative productivity overall and then should be paid with the money made from actual labor, ( or capitals theft of it). I mean I'm hard pressed for better proof of the market and people not being rational than bitcoin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Isn't DPR the guy who hired a hitman who was really an undercover cop to kill that same undercover cop? He, in all likelihood, paid one person (posing as like 4 different people) to assassinate other personas of himself five times, and a cop to assassinate him a sixth. jony ive aces posted:i'm still getting my head around this but from skimming http://antilop.cc/sr/ i think i finally understand how they arrived at that figure of 6 hired hits But there are other threads for this—this is unrelated to libertarianism, as Ross is clearly breaking the NAP here! ...well, not technically. Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Libertarians are so obsessed with a free market where it would be legal to hire assassins, they forgot to notice that in the real, statist world, all assassins are undercover cops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Libertarians are so obsessed with a free market where it would be legal to hire assassins, they forgot to notice that in the real, statist world, all assassins are undercover cops. A state-enforced monopoly has driven all private operators out of the marketplace! Jrod was right all along!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Obviously health care costs are high because government imposes burdensome licensing requirements like "you have to know what you're doing before you cut people open". If big government would just get out of the way and let my buddy Bill do surgery in his garage, the cost of a triple bypass would fall to $20 and a pack of cigs that Bill can smoke during the operation to steady his nerves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
I know exactly what you mean VitalSigns! I myself have perfected a neuro-surgical technique guaranteed to cure smoking, rubella, AIDS, and several forms of cancer by strengthening the chakra flows, but the drat government keeps me from cutting open people's skulls and poking their brains!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Unseen posted:Stupid as in they're illogical or stupid as in you don't agree with them? This post I made while trolling is literally just 2 real bitcoin enthusiasts opinions back to back. (Think of bitcoin as a virus... is the start of the second one) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3636681&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=151#post440363277 Here's a few more good examples of bitcoin.txt In an alien visitation scenario, Bitcoin will be what redeems us as a species. I really believe the state is obsolete. The only reason it is existing is because it has guns. loans will be a redundant financial instrument in a Bitcoin world because saving will get you what you want far faster than a loan ever will Investments and wives really don't go together, except when it's time to cash out and spend your hard earned cash on useless women luxury If everything fails I'm thinking of going to a drug dealer and borrowing 10k [to buy bitcoin] and paying it off in 2 months or so. Literally The Worst posted:Isn't DPR the guy who hired a hitman who was really an undercover cop to kill that same undercover cop? And a guy who scammed him out of (at least) $500k to assassinate himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll answer this post even though I am trying to move away from the race question. I did answer the question on healthcare after all, so I'm not exclusively focusing on this issue. Since you're actually answering questions about healthcare, I am not going to debate you about libertarianism's inherent racism. But I want to just give you an idea to mull over. When asked if racial discrimination is morally wrong, the first thrusts of your response are 1) justifying the idea of not preventing it, and 2) nitpicking about how it's okay sometimes. This suggests to the reader that you are more concerned with not being called racist than with actually ending racism. I would ask you to really seriously think about what caused you to address the question in this way. e: Just for clarity, I am not trying to drive you to the conclusion "I, jrod, secretly hate all black people" because I am honestly willing to believe you that you want the best for others. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Since you're actually answering questions about healthcare, I am not going to debate you about libertarianism's inherent racism. But I want to just give you an idea to mull over. When asked if racial discrimination is morally wrong, the first thrusts of your response are 1) justifying the idea of not preventing it, and 2) nitpicking about how it's okay sometimes. This suggests to the reader that you are more concerned with not being called racist than with actually ending racism. I would ask you to really seriously think about what caused you to address the question in this way. This is a very good point. Jrod, you seem very concerned with being perceived as racist. You don't seem to be very concerned with the actual racist outcomes of the policies you and your idols advocate, beyond reciting some vague platitudes about the drug war which most non-libertarians here would agree with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Okay, here's as substantive a response on medicine as you'll get out of me, because this was brought up several times over the last few months. Your argument that is is merely superior technology that accounts for the rising cost of healthcare does not wash. This is not true in any other sector of the economy where dramatically increasing levels of technology have actually lowered costs. Why are computers not drastically more expensive than they were thirty years ago given how much more powerful and sophisticated they are today? Healthcare has transformed in many ways over the past half century but improved technology usually results in labor saving for the same procedures and routines. We can compare apples to apples and when we do we see that heart surgery in 1960 and heart surgery in 2015 are drastically different in cost, with the inflated cost outstripping the CPI over the past half century. The other angle to this is that if you examine the sector of healthcare where State interference is less, like Lasik eye surgery, cosmetic dentistry and surgery, we see falling prices due to price competition. Insurance don't cover these procedures and the State doesn't pay for them either. Yet prices have continually fallen in Lasik eye surgery even though the technology has continued to improve. We can similarly see that where price competition is introduced into conventional medicine, as with the Oklahoma Surgery Center that advertises its prices for common procedures, prices fall far below the cost at other hospitals that rely on State funding and insurance payments. Comparing healthcare costs in the United States to a place like Canada is not an apt comparison if your goal is to prove that since healthcare costs are lower in Canada that somehow means that State intervention doesn't cause excessive price inflation. Canada's healthcare costs are likely to be inflated beyond what would exist in a market economy. There are too many moving parts in a complex economy and with central banking and fiscal policy of the governments of different nations to make precisely productive comparisons. The best comparison is the one I have made where you compare, ceteris paribus, the costs of healthcare where there is no government involvement in the same economy to where there is heavy government involvement. Or to compare costs of healthcare from before the State got involved and insurance companies took on an outsized role in paying medical expenses to after these interventions took place. If we do that, all evidence points to the fact that State intervention and third party payer schemes raise the cost of medical care way beyond the general inflation rate in the broader economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Your argument that is is merely superior technology that accounts for the rising cost of healthcare does not wash. This is not true in any other sector of the economy where dramatically increasing levels of technology have actually lowered costs. Hahahaha Off the top of my head, other industries that have had their costs increased by technology include food preservation, transportation, telecommunications. Back in the old days, all I needed to do to preserve food was rub salt on it, or smoke it! Nowadays, though, I have to not only buy a refrigerator, but also the electricity to run it! PRICES SKYROCKET!! The time was, I got around on my own two good ol' feet, for FREE. Nowadays you can hardly buy a bicycle for $200, much less getting around in a car for thousands of dollars, or by plane for hundreds of dollars per trip!! LITERALLY INFINITE PRICE INFLATION!!! My grandpa could send a message across the world by just strolling down to the local telegraph office and paying a nickel to send 140 characters to his sweetheart in Cincinnati. But now? I've gotta have this dumb iPhone, and make monthly payments to Verizon—or worse yet, use an expensive computing doodad to access that newfangled Internet thing!! What do these three examples, and healthcare, have in common? What do they have that other industries made cheaper by technology lack? Things that were once impossible are now possible. When technology makes a procedure easier, the cost is likely to decrease, but when a new and better process is developed—not an improvement, but a replacement—prices tend to rise!!!! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If we do that, all evidence points to the fact that State intervention and third party payer schemes raise the cost of medical care way beyond the general inflation rate in the broader economy. The hell it does. Show this evidence and how it points towards government interference raising prices. And, unless you're suggesting that insurance companies be completely outlawed in your ideal world then the fact that they drive up prices is a point against your claims. Which, of course, is actually true, which is why you are trying to weasel the blame away from your side like the dishonest lying twerp you are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Political Whores posted:Sorry, the 80/20 rule is not an ahistorical truth, stop parroting bullshit from management consultants. Please take a moment to read Mises's "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" and really ask yourself whose philosophy has actually caused the greatest rising living standards and increased well being for society as a whole. The notion that Marxists and advocates of State power are on the side of the average person is tragically misguided. These people simultaneously enjoy living standards and luxuries afforded only through private production and division of labor while railing against the system that has provided them, all while ignoring the blatant irony. Do you honestly feel like absolute material equality is a virtuous, desirable or feasible goal? And you propose we achieve it through the State, which is the most blatantly anti-egalitarian institution ever created? This is a bankrupt ideology. People in the market who attain wealth through voluntary transactions deserve what they attain. They are free and indeed I would consider it a virtue, if they used their wealth to help others through charity and humanitarian pursuits. But we mustn't forget that it is the market economy that compels others to provide value to consumers in the pursuit of improving their own well being. Envy is called the "green eyed monster" for a reason. It is a tragically destructive tendency of man. We should never think ill of a man because he has more than we do. We should think ill of him if he used coercion and theft to achieve his status in life. Plenty of rich cronies have achieved their wealth through illegitimate means as I have stressed over and over. Again, it is the force, the coercion and the theft that makes these people deserving of our ire, not their superior wealth or social status. And no, voluntarily hiring workers is NOT theft of their labor for any Marxists who are reading this. I've explained why a thousand times. If I was speaking to an audience, my voice would be hoarse by repeating myself so many times. I voluntary contract is not, by definition, theft unless that contract is signed under duress. But the presence of threats or intimidation would mean that the contract is not voluntary. That is a different subject. I support the market and the division of labor instead of State intervention primarily BECAUSE I care about the masses of the people. It is the average person who needs the benefits of mass production, not the very wealthy. jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:50
|
|