Obama funding plan for health insurance losses is a bailout

Aug 12, 2014 23:39:09 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your deification of "local business owners" ignores an important fact: Local businesses (i.e. mom-and-pop businesses) are dinosaurs nowadays.  Since they do not purchase in massive quantity, they cannot negotiate with their distributors for the lowest possible price; and they must therefore pass along these higher prices to consumers--most of whom would prefer to shop at the mega-stores that do sell for much less.   

Four facts you are apparently unaware of:

1. Publically traded corporations only represent about 5% of all enterprises in the United States.

2. Large corporations typically seek about an 8% net profit margin on gross sales.

3. Sole proprietorships typically pay double the federal taxes (or more) when compared to corporations.

4. Some of the largest corporations revolve around small franchise (mom-and-pop) businesses such as many insurance companies, real estate companies, insurance companies, fast food chains, etc. and the owners of these businesses are not seeking massive profits.  

Aug 13, 2014 23:24:50 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The first three of your observations, above, are entirely unrelated to my own observation as regarding the anachronistic nature of mom-and-pop businesses, due to their (necessarily) higher pricing.

As to the fourth, I find it difficult to believe that Walmart, kmart, or Target (among mass merchandisers); Staples, Office Max, or Office Depot (among office-supply  chains); Kroger, Publix, or Safeway (among supermarkets); or Home Depot, Ace Hardware, or Lowe's (among hardware chains) are dependent upon mom-and-pop stores for their success. 

It is somewhat strange, based upon my experience, to believe that "mom-and-pop" enterprises have higher prices. Boeing, that I've worked for, out-sourced much of its work (e.g. machining operations) to "mom-and-pop" enterprises because they could do the work for less cost than Boeing. The same is true for Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, and GE Aerospace all of which I've worked for. They've all out-sourced work to small "mom-and-pop" enterprises that could provide the products then needed for less cost than they could produce them for.  

Yes, there are numerous major corporations that don't depend upon franchises as well as many that do. For example GM, Ford, Chrysler and most if not all automotive manufactures depend upon "franchises" to sell their products. The same is true for the large oil companies that depend upon independently owned service stations in the distribution of their products. You don't really believe that Shell gas station down the street is owned by the Shell Oil Company or the local Chevrolet dealership is owned by Chevrolet, or that the local Papa Murphy's is owned by Papa Murphy's do you?    

BTW Anecdotally we have a privately owned small (mom-and-pop) burger chain here in the Seattle area that competes with McDonalds, Wendy's, and Burger King and it has better hamburgers at a lower cost than all of the major chains. We should also note the following from Wikipedia: 

"Dick's has offered best-in-industry employee benefits such as a matched 401(k), 100% employer-paid medical insurance, and a $22,000 college tuition scholarship after six months of work."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick%27s_Drive-In

Aug 16, 2014 3:46:50 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I believe you may be confusing franchises with mom-and-pop businesses.  (Yes, of course Papa John's, McDonald's, Shell, et al. are franchise operations; but they are hardly to be confused with mom-and-pop stores.)

When your local burger joint begins to make more money than McDonals's (worldwide) does--or Burger King, for that matter--please let me know.

If the folks in charge at Dick's Sporting Goods believe that their business model is best suited for them, I am all in favor of it.  What I am not in favor of, however, is our pretending that it should be an example that all other large businesses should follow; and that any recalcitrance in this regard is an indication of moral deficiency. 

In the meantime, I rather doubt that Walmart--or any other retailing behemoth, for that matter--is only a few years away from insolvency.

By the way--and I mean this sincerely; it is not intended as a cheap shot--I would highly recommend Thomas Sowell's 2007 book, Basic Economics:  A Common Sense Guide to the Economy:  www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0465002609/ref=sr_1_2_up_1_main_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=1-2&condition=used 

Although the book is lengthy (over 600 pages), it is far from being dry or boring.  

Corporate Papa John's, McDonald's, Shell, et al. are not small enterprises but their franchise retail outlets are. The corporations make their money by providing the supply chain for the franchise while the franchise benefits from the corporate advertising and brand. The consumer does not benefit from this as the retail pricing is virtually the same as what a person can obtain the same goods for from the mom-and-pop retail. In fact, a close friend of mine was a franchise owner and complained that he could purchase a superior product for less that what he was being charged (but he wouldn't have had the brand name or advertising).

I may or may not have time to read Sowell's book but I have read Hayek, Keynes, Rothbard, and numerous opinions from the Ludwig von Mises Institute so I'm fairly well informed on the topic of economic philosophy. Sowell, as a free market economist, is likely to be just restating the Austrian School of economic philosophy which simply doesn't work even in theory much less in practice. 

BTW Free Market economists oppose immigration restrictions. Goods and labor must freely cross international borders under free market capitalism. You are aware of that, aren't you? Free market capitalists oppose protectionism.

Aug 16, 2014 23:34:19 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Thomas Sowell, I should probably note, is not an economist; and he is not with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. (I believe he remains a fellow, however, at the Hoover Institution.)

I would suggest that it is not the Austrian school of economics that fails--or even the Chicago school (to which the late Milton Friedman was attached--but that it is Keynesian economics that is mere pie-in-the-sky.

By the way, I am certainly not a protectionist.  At least, not in the usual sense of the term (in which the euphemism for protectionism is "fair trade").  But I am also not an anarcho-capitalist. 

If memory serves me correctly I believe that Thomas Sowell has an economics degree from Harvard and is considered to be an economist. You can double-check me on that as I'm working from memory.

The United States has never followed the economic philosophy of Keynes paraphrased in it's simpliest form was to "save up during the good times to spend on infrastructure during the bad times" but instead we just spend, spend spend without every saving up during the good times.

Where the "free market" advocates fail is on a few counts. First of all the criteria for a "free market" is equality of opportunity for all individuals and that condition does not exist. Next is that it is based upon "Statutory Ownership of Property" as opposed to the "Natural Right of Property" and our statutory laws of ownership all too often violate the natural right of property of the person. It also ignores inherent coercion in the market where market forces create conditions where informed voluntary consent become impossible. Next it favors corporatism over individual ownership enterprise which is reflective of crony capitalism. 

I am a laizze-faire caplitalist but understand that a fundamental principle of laizze-faire capitalism is that it must have regulations that protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person. That would, for example, prohibit the destruction of the ecology and environment of the planet as no one has a Right to Pollute or a Right to Destroy Nature. That is not to imply that pollution and destruction cannot exist at all but it must be based upon compelling arguments and to the least possible extent based upon the arguments. By way of example I can see absolutely no reason to allow coal fired powerplants to operate without using clean coal technology (advocated by the coal industry itself) that would reduce pollution by up to 40%. The fact that it would raise one of the lowest cost forms of electrical production a very small amount is not a valid argument for the pollution. AGW arguments aside the coal industry does not have a Right to Pollute and it's creating unnecessary pollution. The coal industry is violating mankind's Right to Clean Air with unnecessary pollution.

Strange, you support immigration limitations which are a form of protectionism (I previously furnished the definition) and then claim you're not a protectionist. At best you can say "In most cases not a protectionist" but you certainly can't say you don't support protectionism in some cases.       

Aug 18, 2014 1:29:17 GMT pjohns1873 said:

You are correct as concerning Mr. Sowell's having a degree in economics:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell 

To assert that you are a "laissez-faire capitalist" who believes in "regulations" sounds a bit like saying that one is an atheist who believes in God.

As for your assertion that a fundamental change in the coal industry (which President Obama has attempted to destroy) would result merely in "a very small" price increase to consumers, it is necessary to buy the arguments of the political left, as concerning the projected increase. And it utterly ignores, in any case, those for whom the increase--whether incremental or exponential--might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back, as they are already struggling just to make ends meet. It is exactly the sort of ivory-tower argument that may be advanced by those who are currently quite comfortable, in a Save the Planet crusade, while cavalierly dismissing the concerns of those who are already close to financial insolvency.  

As for protectionism, Dictionary.com defines it thus:



I am certainly not a "protectionist" in this (dictionary) sense of the word. 

Starting with "protectionism" we have imposed a quota related to immigration where those supporting it state explicitly it's about "protecting American jobs" and that is economic protectionism under the definition you provide. If there is a quota it's protectionism.

As for the price of electricity from coal from what I've read the use of clean coal technology it raises the price of that specific form of electrical production by 15%. Coal is the second least expensive form of electrical production (natural gas is cheaper) but when we address the cost of electricity it's based upon the median costs of all forms of electrical production that contribute to the power grid. Building more solar-thermal powerplants, for example, increases the average cost of electricity far more than clean coal technology and replacing coal fired powerplants with natural gas powerplants reduces the cost of electricity nationally. Because of the numerous sources of electrical production that are far more expensive than low-cost coal production and the ability of us to use natural gas, that we have in abundance, a 15% increase in the cost of coal is insignificant to the consumer. As noted if the cost of conversion to clean coal technology actually results in coal fired powerplants converting to natural gas our electrical costs actually go down.

Yes, I refer to myself as a laizze-faire capitalist but this is also based upon the political idology of classic liberalism. Let us look at the exact dictionary definition of laizze-faire capitalism to begin with.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laissez-faire

As I've noted in other discussion we often confuse "statutory ownership of property based upon title" (Statutory Ownership) with the "natural (inalienable) right of property" (Right of Property) because it's the status quo. When it came to land and natural resources the founders of America retained the statutory ownership of property and natural resources that existed under the Divide Right of Kings. Blame that on the "conservative" founders of America that never truly embraced an understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person that was the expressed political ideological foundation for our nation.

So when I address laizze-faire capitalism the first thing I address are the minimum necessary regulations necessary based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" which conflicts with the "statutory ownership of property based upon title" under the laws which we currently operate. As I've noted there are numerous problems because of the difference between the Right of Property and Statutory Ownership not all of which I have a solution for yet. I'm aware of the conflict so that's a start but I don't have all the answers.

It is a problem that the laizze-faire capitalist is challenged to resolve.

Next is the issue of contract which is a fundamental requirement of laizze-faire capitalism where the Law of Contract prohibits coercion in the contract regardless of source. Any coercion can nullify the contract and the "free market" can and does create coercion in the labor contract. The value of the person's labor is not based upon their "sweat equity" (the foundation for the Right of Property) in what they produce but instead is generally dictated by the market and is, in tens of millions of cases, less than their "sweat equity" in that which they produce. Once again this is a problem I've identified but I don't have a solution for it.

It is a problem that the laizze-faire capitalist is challenged to resolve.    

So yes, I refer to the fact that I'm a laizze-faire capitalist because I understand that at least two fundamental problems exist that we're challenged to resolve if we seek the necessary regulations to protect our Right of Property and Contract Law that are fundamental necessities in a laizze-faire capitalistic system. Just because I don't have all of the answers doesn't diminish my dedication to or belief in laizze-faire capitalism. The fact that I address problems related to laizze-faire capitalism reinforces my dedication and belief in laizze-faire capitalism. I would suggest that those that don't address the above issues really aren't dedicated to, or believers in, laizze-faire capitalism.

Going back to the beginning I've addressed coal fired powerplants this isn't even an issue because no one has a Right to Pollute or a Right to Destroy Nature based upon a Right of Property. We might consent as a society to minimal pollution but only based upon a very compelling argument and only to the least extent possible based upon the compelling argument. "Dirty coal" technology is obsolete and is no longer justifiable based upon any compelling argument today. The technology exists and is even being promoted by the coal industry itself today.

Aug 19, 2014 0:19:04 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I would imagine that much of what is "being promoted by the coal industry today" is in response to the most anti-coal president America has ever had.  In San Francisco--where else?--in 2008, then-Sen. Obama proudly declared that under his plan, electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket." Oh, here is a link to a story about that plan's recent fulfillment: townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-new-plans-forcing-electricity-rates-to-skyrocket-n1846418

Of course there is a quota for immigrants to the US--just as there is a quota to immigrants to any other country.  Are you asserting, therefore, that all of the countries in the world must be "protectionist"?

You continue to sound the trumpet that property rights are (supposedly) based upon the medieval theory of "the Divine Right of Kings." Well, most Americans--including me--strongly support the basic concept of property rights; and we do not especially wish to be lectured that our thinking is rooted in medieval ideas.   

If memory serves me I believe that the coal industry began addressing clean coal technology about 50 years ago and has been promoting it for the last 20 years or more when it first developed the actual technology to dramatically reduce coal emissions. If you perhaps recall the clean coal technology wasn't originally about CO2 emissions but instead was about SO2 and NO2 emissions from burning coal that cause acid rain that was destroying the forests and ecology in the Eastern United States. It was acid rain, long before any concerns about AGW surfaced, that initiated the research into clean coal technology.

I can't make a blanket statement that "all" countries engage in economic protectionism but certainly most do and if one doesn't then I'm unaware of it. Perhaps Hong Kong at one time had the least protectionist policies which is why it thrived economically for so long (before it was returned to Chinese authority). The belief is that protectionism benefits the economy while the skeptics point out that, in fact, it harms the economy in the long run. Let me provide an example.

A country may impose a tariff to protect prices of domestically produced goods. The tariff only benefits the nations workers produce the same goods that are imported at a lower base price. This results two adverse. First the consumers have to pay more for the same goods that would be less expensive without the tariff so many sufffer higher costs for the benefit of a limited number of workers.  Next is that the country that has a tariff imposed on their goods with recepricate with a tariff reducing exports to that country which costs jobs for those that produce the goods that would be exported.

Labor it no different than goods. The immigrant laborer pays more in taxes than they receive in benefits. This is based upon studies done during the Bush Adminstration where, in 2007, his Council of Economic Advisors concluded that immigrant workers provide a positive net tax revenue as well as a study done in Texas where "illegal" immigrants alone resulted in a net revenue of $425 million in 2006. In addition to being a postive tax revenue source immigrant workers also create more jobs for the American work force than they fill. More American Jobs and More Net Tax Revenue argues against a protectionist immigration policy with quotas. Yes, the quotas may provide some Americans with jobs but it costs us far more American jobs plus a sacrifice in net tax revenues just to benefit a few American workers. A small benefit at a huge cost.

Finally I really do understand the opposition to having someone challenge your beliefs by claiming something you've long believed in is wrong. Trust me, I'm as pigheaded as most and I'm very reluctant to ever admit I was wrong. For example for many years I truly believed that Federal Reserve notes were unconstitutional and thought anyone that claimed they were was a nutcase. That is until I read the Supreme Court decision in Juilliard v Greenman. It was only then that I understood why Federal Reserve notes were Constitutional and then realized that it was the failure of our goverment to actually comply with the principle and precedent established by the Supreme Court decision that was the problem and not whether "legal tender notes" were Constitutional.

So I personally had a long held belief that was simply wrong but I was open to learning why I was wrong. So I challenge your long held understand of ownership of property by claiming it is statutory ownership as opposed to being a natural right of property. The real question is are you're willing to address the fact that you just might be wrong? Trust me, I once believed exactly what you believed and I was personally shocked to find out I was wrong. While I was pigheaded in my beliefs I was willing to learn and the learning changed my beliefs. It was shocking because it turned my view of the world completely upside down.

Perhaps the only differnce between you and I is that I didn't have someone telling my I was wrong in my long held beliefs related to property. I accidently stumbled upon it in my routine investigations into the natural (inalienable) rights of the person. I didn't have someone saying "2+2=4" but instead I learned on my own that "2+2=4" based upon my own research. It really was an epiphany as after accumulating a lot of knowledge and understanding over many years it suddenly dawned on me that our understanding of "property rights" wasn't based upon the "right of property" at all.

No one on Earth has ever been more shocked than I was the day that happened.

Aug 19, 2014 23:49:10 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The coal industry may, indeed, have been "promoting" cleam-coal technology "for the last 20 years"; but its sense of urgency has surely been increased--exponentially--due to the hostility of our current administration in Washington. It is my understanding, in fact, that the current rules and regulations make it entirely prohibitive for any new coal plants to begin, as they could not possibly be profitable--even marginally. 

Your lecture as regarding the evils of protectionism is a classic example of preaching to the choir.  Yes, I agree--100 percent--that tariffs serve to (1) increase the retail costs to consumers; and (2) invite retalliation by those countries negatively affected.

However, this in no way makes for a substantial argument in favor of illegal immigration--more properly described as the illegal invasion of the southwest.  

Even if one were to take your number as indisputable fact--i.e. that illegal immigration to the US resulted in "a net revenue of $425 million in 2006"--that would not change anything one iota, as I see it.  Not everything is measurable according to the (rather simplistic) metric of dollars and cents.  If we were to multiply that number by 10, and assume that illegals accounted for $4.25 billion in net revenue to the US in 2013, it would still not vitiate the fact that illegal immigration is a serious affront to our national sovereignty; and no amount of money might possibly compensate for that loss. 

And I am far more "willing to address the fact" that I just might be right than I am to do a mea culpa, for no good reason.   

Why do you suggest that the current administration is "hostile" towards coal-fired electrical power production when all it is seeking to do is to clean-up the emissions with the technology the coal industry advocates? The coal industry hasn't even stopped creating acid rain that's still destroying the Eastern states' ecology yet. It's reduced it but not stopped it and acid rain is still killing the forests and streams. You continue to argue that the coal industry has a "Right to Pollute" but no one has a right to pollute. You argue that under the emission standards that it would be unfeasible to build new coal powerplants but the argument fails on two counts. First of all coal meeting the emission standards would still be less expensive than other forms of electrical production that don't produce pollution. Next is the fact that we're only really hanging in there for the next 20-40 years until nuclear fusion becomes commercially viable and nuclear fusion makes all other forms of electrical production obsolete. It reminds me of Standard Oil's historical opposition to electricity in the first place because it would make kerosine lamps, the primary revenue of Standard Oil at the time, obsolete.

I do not argue for "illegal immigration" that is a result of the quota system based upon economic protectionism. I argue for no quota legal immigration that eliminates the protectionism. When it comes to the existing "illegal" immigrants my postion is simple. Provide them with the visas that would be given to someone new entering the country as an immgrant and provide them with the same legal process to become citizens as a new immigrant entering the country. If there is no quota then they are treated identically when compared to a new immigrant. There is no "back of the line" because there is no line at all.

When it comes to the difference between "statutory ownership of property" and the "natural right of property" I don't ask you to simply accept anything but would ask if you're willing to open-mindedly address the differences. It requires assuming the position of, "I think I'm right but I really want to know if I'm wrong" as opposed to simpy rejecting any considerations of the fact you might be wrong. It's about entering a discussion as an inquisitive skeptic as opposed to simply being a bigot that refuses to consider new ideas or knowledge. I don't believe you to be a bigot but don't know if this is something you're willing to consider.