Healthcare Bill Passed

[viresh_amin]

Robert Wenzel gets death threats…http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/03/on-multiple-death-threats-i-have.html

"Dear Congresswoman Louise Slaughter,

I note media reports that you have received a death threat from an anonymous caller. It is unclear whether this whack job has the capability or desire to actually carry out the threat. I hope not. But, nevertheless, I can empathise. I have also recently been the subject of multiple death threats.

The threats have come not from anonymous callers, but from identifiable people here in the United States who have put their threats in writing, to be carried out by their minions. I believe these people are delusional. They actually think they have a right to kill me, “for my own good”. I am hoping you can provide some guidance on what precautions I should take to protect me from these people.

Here is the situation.

You see, I pretty much mind my own business.. Yet, these people some how think they should interfere in my life and force me to do things their way. Get this. They say they are going to force me to do things their way based on the Constitution. From what I understand, they have a tortured view of the commerce clause, which they think it gives them the right to interfere in my life and ultimately kill me.

Basically, these people have designed a medical system that has pushed medical prices out of control. Medical prices are going up much faster than the rate of inflation. They think they are going to fix this problem by forcing me to buy a new kind of medical insurance they have invented. I know it sounds insane. I know the best way to keep prices low is to have many competitors, with many different options. But they have so road blocked the system that their are few competitors. And now they are limiting my options even more by forcing me to buy insurance from one of the insurance companies they have designated. And, get this, I know it will be hard to believe, but in addition to forcing me to buy insurance from these companies, they are going to tell these insurance companies what can and can’t be in the coverage. This means there won’t even be competition on the types of coverage offered.

Now, I know the common sense advice would be to just ignore such crazed people, but they have IN WRITING stated that they will throw me in jail if I don’t pay up. I’m thinking of just staying in my house, but I have heard these people will come with something they call SWAT teams, breakdown my door and come after me. My friends tell me that, when the SWAT teams come, it could get very dangerous and I could get killed. He says it has happened before and he told me that they will consider me dangerous because I refuse to go to jail as a result of my not wanting their medical insurance. He told me to think Waco and Ruby Ridge. See how insane this is getting? And, honest, I did not provoke these people nor do I want to have anything to do with them. So I guess you can see my predicament. If I refuse them at any step of the way, there is no question they will use force and kill me if they think it is necessary.

Now, I’m thinking maybe I should just go along and buy the insurance from them, afterall, who needs such a death dagger hanging over ones head? But, these people really don’t stop. I mean they are obsessed with interfering in my life every step of the way.

I started looking at the insurance policies they offer, and get this, there are all kinds of restrictions on what doctors can earn and how much medicines can cost, which I guess most insurance plans have to a degree, but not this degree. Further, they want to stop, or make it very difficult, for anyone in the entire United States from paying more to health care professionals . This, I know, will limit incentives for doctors and other medical personnel from coming up with new drugs and treatments, so I am hoping that if I get ill in the future that I come down with something they already have a cure for, since innovation under their plans, I can tell, are going to be down tremendously. It will be another death sentence, a death threat carried out.

I know all this sounds terrible, but there is more.

I realize that even if there already is a treatment available for some diseases under their plans, they may disallow the treatment if they think the price is too high. They may even put price controls on treatments, that will severely limit the number of providers. So this could also limit the length of my life, even where known treatments exist. It’s another death threat.

I know all this sounds crazy that in a country where unregulated markets have developed everything from microwaves, iPods, flying planes, baseball and color television, that these people actually think it would be a better place if we throw away the creative free markets and replace it by decisions made by them and then they will kill us if we don’t listen, and maybe even if we do. I know it sounds crazy, but I swear it is true.

Since, you have been the victim of a death threat, you know how I feel.

I know I am not in your voting district, but you seem like a decent person, so I am hoping you can give me some advice on how to deal with these people who I SWEAR are very serious about their threats, probably even more so than the person that threatened you.

Sincerely,

Robert Wenzel"

[Esuric]

@DD5

I’m sorry. You may not agree with the argument, but I assure you, It is the argument put forward by Mises.

No, this is simply wrong. Mises could never say anything so absurd, and your gross over-simplification/confusion entirely misses his dramatic and revolutionary insight. But you’re too stubborn to talk to, so this is where I bow out.

[filc]

@DD5

That is Mises’ argument,

That is not the Mises position. The Mises position revolves around money, and the formation of meaningful prices. It’s that position which explains mechanically why various degrees of fascism and socialism have corresponding and similar detrimental effects to the economy.

[DD5]

@Esuric

@DD5

I’m sorry. You may not agree with the argument, but I assure you, It is the argument put forward by Mises.

No, this is simply wrong. Mises could never say anything so absurd, and your gross over-simplification/confusion entirely misses his dramatic and revolutionary insight. But you’re too stubborn to talk to, so this is where I bow out.

Ensuric, your method of debate by trying to discredit your opponents with character attacks may make you a good future politician.

Your tractor example showed that you are no so familiar with the argument yourself so spare me from your hostility.

[DD5]

@filc

why various degrees of fascism and socialism …

It’s not about “degrees” of anything. It’s about a pure socialist commonwealth, period. Such a system cannot resort to economic calculation and therefore cannot develop beyond primitive barter.

@filc

have corresponding and similar detrimental effects to the economy.

There is no economy at all! Nothing beyond the small scale primitive barter. Could Mises have spelled it out more clearly?

You are either confusing the Interventionism critique with the calculation debate or you are confusing your personal knowledge about the inefficiencies of the alleged socialist economies of the Eastern block.

I asked you to provide me with an example. Where is it?

[filc]

@DD5

Ensuric, your method of debate by trying to discredit your opponents with character attacks may make you a good future politician.

So calling Esuric a great candidate as a politician(Which on this forum can be seen as antagonistic) makes you so much more righteous? The truth is Esuric is probably far more competent on the matter then both of us. And he is correct, you are being stubborn on the matter. When you make snide comments about who would be a good politician it deflects us from wanting to even make an attempt at an argument. What does that say about your genuine concern for finding a truth? It seems to me you are more concerned with simply being right, and saying “I told you so”.

DD5 when I read your posts I often times feel that you are making an effort to find an argument, rather then genuinely attempting to seek a conclusion. Calling Esuric a great candidate as a politician is a clear testament to being disingenuous.

@DD5

It’s not about “degrees” of anything. It’s about a pure socialist commonwealth, period.

Again you missed the point, it’s ABOUT MONEY.

@DD5

There is no economy at all!

That statement is in direct contridiction with your following statement

@DD5

Nothing beyond the small scale primitive barter.

There is always an economy.

@DD5

You are either confusing the Interventionism critique with the calculation debate or you are confusing your personal knowledge about the inefficiencies of the alleged socialist economies of the Eastern block.

I asked you to provide me with an example. Where is it?

I am not confusing anything, I am simply re-asserting the Misesian Economic Calculation problem. It revolves entirely around meaningful prices and money.

The Economic calculation is NOT just about a Socialist Commonwealth alone! IT refutes numerous fallacious economic theory’s like the neutrality of money, or evenly rotating economy’s ect…

The Econ Calc problem is a problem that addresses many issues, not just one.

@DD5

I asked you to provide me with an example. Where is it?

This is a red herring, even if I originally brought it up. The historical examples are irrelevant to the fact that economic calculation is about money.

[DD5]

@filc

That statement is in direct contridiction with your following statement

This is not my statement. It’s Mises’!

Your comments are curious. Ensuric hasn’‘t made a single valid point to show why I am misrepresenting Mises’ argument except a bad tractor example and calling me stubborn. And frankly, neither have you. I am using many of Mises’ own words.

@filc

This is a red herring, even if I originally brought it up. The historical examples are irrelevant to the fact that economic calculation is about money.

So I challenge you on your own assertion about history refuting my argument (which I claim is Mises’ argument) and you now bail out on it. Very convenient for you.

@filc

The Economic calculation is NOT just about a Socialist Commonwealth alone! IT refutes numerous fallacious economic theory’s like the neutrality of money, or evenly rotating economy’s ect…

I don’t want to argue anymore about what the argument is about. If you come out and say that a modern warship can be built in a socialist commonwealth, then you do not understand the argument and certainly not its conclusions.

I get it I am the one who is misunderstanding the issue. Here I just responded for you. We can end it there.

[Esuric]

@DD5

Your comments are curious. Ensuric hasn’‘t made a single valid point to show why I am misrepresenting Mises’ argument except a bad tractor example and calling me stubborn. And frankly, neither have you. I am using many of Mises’ own words.

Why? It’s not like you’d actually listen. I’ve been down this path with you before, and it takes us nowhere. If you want to rape and vulgarize Mises’ argument, then by all means, go ahead. The tractor example, which is a real and empirical fact, elucidates Mises’ actual argument (heterogeneity and complementarity of capital).

[wilderness]

The matter assertion - ’ who and who doesn’t have the real Mises argument ’ doesn’t seem to be working for anybody in this discussion. humbly thought I’d let everybody in the discussion know. hope nobody takes offense to me interjecting this point.

[DD5]

@Esuric

The tractor example, which is a real and empirical fact, elucidates Mises’ actual argument.

I know it does, but precisely to elucidate the opposite of what you claimed. That is, to show that the only reason the tractor can be built is because they could still resort to prices abroad. They could still calculate.

Mises is essentially replying to your claim of: here is a socialist commonwealth, they can build tractors, so don’t say that economic planning is impossible without prices…

Mises is saying that this sort of criticism mises completely the point. That those socialist commonwealths are not pure socialist systems, they still resort to economic calculations with prices.

You still haven’t made the case to as why I am “raping” his argument. If you don’t have anything of substance, stop wasting my time.

[Esuric]

@wilderness

The matter assertion - ’ who and who doesn’t have the real Mises argument ’ doesn’t seem to be working for anybody in this discussion. humbly thought I’d let everybody in the discussion know. hope nobody takes offense to me interjecting this point.

Simple reason tells you that DD5’s understanding of Mises’ argument is in fact a confusion. Does Mises believe that all forms of planning (different from rational economic calculation/planning) are impossible without a price mechanism? Does this make sense to anyone? It seems more likely that Mises is saying that in complex societies, where there are an infinite amount of relevant variables, which are in continuous flux, rational economic calculation is impossible without a price mechanism relaying such information and coordinating production. Some of the relevant variables are, of course, efficient and even feasible capital combination’s (varying degrees of heterogeneity), time preference (which structures capital at an abstract level), ever changing consumer demand, changes in money demand, population growth, ect, ect.

And that, if the whole world were to embrace communism (the destruction of the economy), there would be a regression in the division of labor and capital, which would bring humanity back to feudal levels. There would be misery, and starvation. But the commissars would, at least for a while, enjoy a pretty satisfactory standard of living.

[DD5]

@Esuric

Does Mises believe that all forms of planning (different from rational economic calculation/planning) is impossible without a price mechanism?

Don’t misrepresent what I said. I said nothing beyond the primitive barter economy. Nothing that can employ modern methods of production. Such a system cannot produce a warship or even the bolts and paint that it would require.

Such a system can build a raft. yes, a small tribe can certainly build some small fishing boats for itself without money prices. I said that from the beginning.

[Esuric]

@DD5

Mises is essentially replying to your claim of: here is a socialist commonwealth, they can build tractors, so don’t say that economic planning is impossible without prices…

No, Mises would say: it is true that they can build tractors, but where is the fuel to power such tractors? And why are the millions starving in the streets, if they are able to build such impressive tractors? The answer, of course, is that rational economic planning is impossible without a functional price mechanism.

Mises is rejecting the traditional argument made by the classical’s and neo classical’s, namely that socialism can work, but that it’s less efficient relative to capitalism. The argument is essentially that economies need capital markets in order to efficiently allocate scarce resources, and that production functions cannot establish the correct “recipe” in dynamic (inter-temporal) and uncertain conditions (the real world). But Mises doesn’t literally mean impossible, in that, it cannot be done or even attempted in anyway whatever. You can create your socialist commonwealth, but the standard of living will continuously deteriorate (not sustainable).

Socialism, therefore, is not an alternative economic system, it is the destruction of the economic system.

[DD5]

@Esuric

No, Mises would say: it is true that they can build tractors, but where is the fuel to power such tractors? And why are the millions starving in the streets, if they are able to build such impressive tractors? The answer, of course, is that rational economic planning is impossible without a functional price mechanism.

Mises would certainly say that about the alleged modern socialist commonwealths, such as the Soviet Union. But because it is obvious that as close to socialism as these commonwealths were, they were not pure socialist commonwealths. In the pure socialist commonwealth, they could not build tractors. The division of labor could not extend beyond anything that can facilitate such complex projects.

Ensuric, you are obviously arguing from the point of view of what you think the argument is or what you would like it to be. Go back and read his argument.

[DD5]

Also,

@Esuric

No, Mises would say: it is true that they can build tractors,

Don’t tell me what Mises would say. Here is what Mises says. You have the link for the full context.

An apparent verification of these errors was seen in the experience of the

socialist governments of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. People do not

realize that these were not isolated socialist systems. They were operation

in an environment in which the price system still worked. They could resort

to economic calculation on the ground of the prices established abroad.

Without the aid of these prices their actions would have been aimless and

planless. Only because they were able to refer to these foreign prices were they

able to calculate, to keep books, and to prepare their much talked about plans. (Mises, Human Action)

[Esuric]

@DD5

Ensuric, you are obviously arguing from the point of view of what you think the argument is or what you would like it to be. Go back and read his argument.

Uh huh.

@DD5

Don’t tell me what Mises would say. Here is what Mises says. You have the link for the full context.

An apparent verification of these errors was seen in the experience of the

socialist governments of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. People do not

realize that these were not isolated socialist systems. They were operation

in an environment in which the price system still worked. They could resort

to economic calculation on the ground of the prices established abroad.

Without the aid of these prices their actions would have been aimless and

planless. Only because they were able to refer to these foreign prices were they

able to calculate, to keep books, and to prepare their much talked about plans. (Mises, Human Action)

He’s explaining why they lasted for so long. He’s not saying that once a society completely takes over the means of production, and eliminates money and money prices, that they will suddenly forget how to build a car, or a warship. The Soviet system actually had rational calculation for a while, and precisely because they were not isolated, as Mises mentions. But we have to distinguish between rational economic calculation/planning, and just planning. You completely misunderstand this position, and many others, I’m afraid.

[DD5]

@Esuric

He’s explaining why they lasted for so long. He’s not saying that once a society completely takes over the means of production, and eliminates money and money prices, that they will suddenly forget how to build a car, or a warship. You completely misunderstand this position, and many others, I’m afraid.

No, you obviously misunderstand his position. he continues:

We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely upon of the preceding age of capitalism. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 19890 derive from the knowledge of the prices of 1949? (Mises)

So yes, they can use the old structure of production created by the preceding age of Capitalism. They are still resorting to economic calculations. I have said that 1000 times already! They won’t forget how to build a tractor the following day.

But again, it’s only because they can rely on what Capitalism has left them. As time goes by and conditions change, they will no longer be able to build their tractors.

I’m afraid, that you have jumped on this issue way too quickly. Especially regarding my position on the matter.

[DD5]

Mises position on why the socialists can last for so long is simple: They still resort to economic calculation. You have completely missed this critical point.

[Esuric]

@DD5

We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely upon of the preceding age of capitalism. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 19890 derive from the knowledge of the prices of 1949? (Mises)

Exactly. The conditions will deteriorate, because tacit knowledge is no longer revealed, which will eventually lead to famine and systemic collapse. That’s all he’s saying. Again, he’s not saying that they will suddenly forget how to build things (they will build the same things, but in inefficient ways, which will take vital and scarce resources away from other, more warranted productions, which has exponential negative ramifications). The economic importance of scientific knowledge is practically insignificant when compared to tacit knowledge.

@DD5

As time goes by and conditions change, they will no longer be able to build their tractors.

It is true that if, for whatever reason, such a condition is allowed to persist, then society could deteriorate to the point where they don’t have enough resources to build a single tractor. But again, the point is that in socialist systems they don’t know if they should build a tractor, and they don’t know how to efficiently build a tractor (which recipe to use, if any). They may allocate scarce resources to the production of tractors at the expense of wheat. They may produce too many tanks which take away fuel from those tractors, ect, ect.

The argument is very nuanced, and I’m going to bed.

[filc]

@wilderness

The matter assertion - ’ who and who doesn’t have the real Mises argument ’ doesn’t seem to be working for anybody in this discussion. humbly thought I’d let everybody in the discussion know. hope nobody takes offense to me interjecting this point.

I plan on providing a books worth of quotes on Sunday if this doesn’t get resolved. My own HA textbook has over 400 annotations and notes in it. I have read and re-read relevant passages concerning money and calculation. I would have posted something sooner but I won’t be at home until Sunday. This may get resolved before then(I hope).

At any rate to properly understand the Econ Calc problem one needs to invest in a great amount of time of reading, learning, and thinking. I haven’t much motivation to make an effort to help DD5 considering his sarcastic tone and disingenuous aditude. He has shown a genuine lack of consideration for the points raised in above posts. Still considering there are others who read these posts I’ll try and pull some material on Sunday. I won’t invest too much time though.

I have already provided DD5 with my post where I explained why market prices are the fundamental principle to a healthy economy. He seemed un-interested and I don’t think he read it. Thanks for the kind words on that though!