• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rubio's plan to "pay off" our "horrible" "debt."

Only way to drive down costs is to regulate the market so that the private sector does not exploit the market for too much profit.

...no. The way to drive down costs, as has been shown, is to re-introduce competition along with price-sensitive purchasing and transparency of costs.

This happens when there is actual competition. Hence no barriers for insurance companies, and links between the insurance companies and the healthcare providers. Right now, most Americans cant choose what hospital they want to go to.. because their insurance company has a "deal" with specific hospitals and a deal on what to charge (often far more than needed).

Exactly. That's what you call "not competition".

yes but costs on drugs, doctors and so on are all driven by the private healthcare system which is out of control.

No they are not. Medicare declares what the prices of those things will be in its reimbursement schedule, and Medicaid does the same. That is why access is becoming a problem for many of the people who depend on those programs - the reimbursement rates are too low to make it profitable to provide services. Or, sometimes, providers make up the difference by charging private sector customers more, causing prices to rise for the rest of us.

Horse****. Your whole system is built up around private for profit system...

No. Half of our system is government, and the other half is heavily regulated by government at both the state and federal levels.

a system that is totally unregulated and allowed to create monopolies and worse in geographic areas that drive up prices even more.

.... do you.... do you know anything about the US Healthcare Industry? That isn't meant to be mocking, it's meant as an honest question.

Those state monopolies are the result of regulation. They are caused by state governments restricting competition in order to benefit large corporations that purchase enough local politicians. The healthcare industry in America is one of the most heavily regulated industries that we have.

On top of that the insurance industry is in cahoots with the medical industry and the one getting screwed is the consumer.

You forgot that - thanks to heavy regulatory agency overbearance, they are also in bed with the government. But you are right that the consumer gets screwed.

Of course, the consumer also screws himself. Because, in our model, costs are socialized, but benefits are individually realized, everyone has a strong incentive to screw their neighbor by overusing medical resources. Because our tax system encourages purchasing socialized-pre-payment models rather than actual insurance models*, most consumers drive up insurance premium prices for each other over time. Instead of exerting downward pressure on medical prices and upward pressure on quality, our system is designed to produce upward pressure on premiums with little pressure either way on quality.





*Insurance is the transfer of risk of catastrophic events. So, for example, your auto insurance will pay for you to get a new car if your current one gets totaled, but will not fill up your gas tank. In the US, because of preferential tax treatment, the models that dominate the market are health insurance plans that pay for the medical equivalent of filling up your gas tank. This is a socialized pre-payment model. For example, I know that I am going to get an annual checkup. If I demand that my insurance policy cover the cost, then really what I am doing is pre-paying for my checkups through my premium (which will be higher), but I am doing so along with everyone else in the insurance pool. So now my incentive is to maybe get two checkups a year, or four. After all, it doesn't cost me any more to do so. The result is that everyone always buys the healthcare equivalent of Premium gas, because they aren't paying for it - everyone else is - and so the costs skyrocket as everyone tries to beggar their neighbor.


Of course it does, but it also kills debt.. which is what this discussion is about :)

Yeah. And your claim that others' solutions might be bad for retirees is non-credible when you admit that your solution would be disastrous for them.
 
You can increase the money supply by 66% in 8 years and only get 12% inflation! There is no linear relationship between the money supply and the price level; you must also consider output and velocity.

To add to this, we still have so many untapped resources. Our infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, clean energy expanded, so many people are still unemployed/"underemployed." We won't have any massive problems until we reach "full output" as I like to call it.
 
And keep in mind, we still have so many untapped resources. Our infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, clean energy expanded, so many people are still unemployed/"underemployed."

IMO, structural unemployment will continue to worsen.



This could be the end of manual labor as we know it.
 
You can increase the money supply by 66% in 8 years and only get 12% inflation! There is no linear relationship between the money supply and the price level; you must also consider output and velocity.

He's not talking about a 66% increase in the middle of a massive private sector deleveraging. He's talking about a 613% increase, and taking interest rates back to ~10%. Stagflation, on a massive scale.
 
IMO, structural unemployment will continue to worsen.



This could be the end of manual labor as we know it.


In that case, we can simply flirt with a basic income to make sure demand doesn't decrease. Even if structural unemployment increases, which it will, we still have the ability to tap resources and build. Of course, there is a limit.
 
He's not talking about a 66% increase in the middle of a massive private sector deleveraging. He's talking about a 613% increase, and taking interest rates back to ~10%. Stagflation, on a massive scale.

Well of course a 613% increase will be bad, but that's never going to happen.
 
He's not talking about a 66% increase in the middle of a massive private sector deleveraging. He's talking about a 613% increase, and taking interest rates back to ~10%. Stagflation, on a massive scale.

He was talking about inflating away the debt, which of course would require well-above-average economic growth. With long term inflation expectations anchored to record lows, it's a bit of a fantasy.
 
In that case, we can simply flirt with a basic income to make sure demand doesn't decrease. Even if structural unemployment increases, which it will, we still have the ability to tap resources and build. Of course, there is a limit.

BIG will essential in the post-labor world.
 
BIG will essential in the post-labor world.

How many farriers, blacksmiths, and stablehands are still out of work due to the mass-introduction of the automobile?
 
BIG will essential in the post-labor world.

The biggest challenge will be getting people who believe that jobs are infinite and available if people just "try hard enough" to understand that structural unemployment is going to continue to increase. And to make them understand that manufacturing jobs aren't ever coming back. If they do, it'll be automated.
 
He was talking about inflating away the debt, which of course would require well-above-average economic growth. With long term inflation expectations anchored to record lows, it's a bit of a fantasy.

Actually no, he was just talking about trying to print your way out of debt. What are the long-term inflation expectations in a universe where we announce (explicitly or implicitly) our intent to print more than 6 times our M1 supply in a "handful" of years, but without doing anything to address the structural deficits stemming from non-discretionary spending?
 
How many farriers, blacksmiths, and stablehands are still out of work due to the mass-introduction of the automobile?

His point went WAAAAY over your head.
Keep in mind that the type of automation we're seeing now can't be compared to the past. In the past, people had to operate the machines, they required constant maintenance, people still assembled them. Now, we have automated assembly, self repair by other machines.. It's completely different. You only need a couple of programmers to program something that will be ran by thousands of robots.
 
How many farriers, blacksmiths, and stablehands are still out of work due to the mass-introduction of the automobile?

A robot that can perform tasks without breaks, pay, benefits, etc... will replace those that do.

c7943d8b7b.PNG
 
Actually no, he was just talking about trying to print your way out of debt. What are the long-term inflation expectations in a universe where we announce (explicitly or implicitly) our intent to print more than 6 times our M1 supply in a "handful" of years, but without doing anything to address the structural deficits stemming from non-discretionary spending?

What about 15% a year for 40 years?
 
A robot that can perform tasks without breaks, pay, benefits, etc... will replace those that do.

c7943d8b7b.PNG

Cars that can replace horse-drawn carraiges, will. So what happened to all those farriers, blacksmiths, and stablehands?
 
Cars that can replace horse-drawn carraiges, will. So what happened to all those farriers, blacksmiths, and stablehands?

Some managed to find new jobs, some became unemployed for life, unfortunately for you, will, we're now seeing automation that doesn't even require people to operate the robots.
 
What about 15% a year for 40 years?

Leaves the exact same problem of not dealing with the structural deficits built into our non-discretionary spending, and still sends the signal that we intend to inflate our way out of the debt, increasing interest rates, and causing us to chase the goal further away the faster we run towards it.

Nor was he talking about "40" years. He was talking about a handful.
 
Leaves the exact same problem of not dealing with the structural deficits built into our non-discretionary spending, and still sends the signal that we intend to inflate our way out of the debt, increasing interest rates, and causing us to chase the goal further away the faster we run towards it.

Nor was he talking about "40" years. He was talking about a handful.

Leaves the exact same problem of not dealing with the structural deficits built into our non-discretionary spending
What's the problem?
 
Some managed to find new jobs, some became unemployed for life, unfortunately for you, will, we're now seeing automation that doesn't even require people to operate the robots.

That's a fascinating claim.

A) Can you demonstrate it
B) So what happened to their children?
 
That's a fascinating claim.

A) Can you demonstrate it
B) So what happened to their children?

Can you provide your evidence for what happened to them? I'm making an educated guess, it's your turn.
Their children probably grew up fine, well, if they didn't get shoved into a factory to scrape by.
I want you to now address the second part of that post.
 
It's unsustainable. That's a technical word which means "It will not be sustained".

What makes you think its unsustainable? :lol:
People scream every year that we're going to have to "slash and burn" spending or suffer from the horrific government bonds. :lamo
Yeah, the 'debt' from world war 2 is going to kill us any day now.
 
Cars that can replace horse-drawn carraiges, will. So what happened to all those farriers, blacksmiths, and stablehands?

The same thing that is about to happen to bus-drivers, taxi-drivers, and truckers. Once we have competing teams of full-stack engineers working on optimizing robotics, low-skill labor will be a hobby.
 
Leaves the exact same problem of not dealing with the structural deficits built into our non-discretionary spending, and still sends the signal that we intend to inflate our way out of the debt, increasing interest rates, and causing us to chase the goal further away the faster we run towards it.

Your response is based on heroism.

Nor was he talking about "40" years. He was talking about a handful.

I brought up 15/40, because that is a little less than double the current growth rate. We have 1% inflation with 8% money supply growth.
 
Back
Top Bottom