Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 8:35:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Where's the liberty you speak of here in quantifying and compartmentalizing

> everyone into a product, a resource? Where is all of human experience that

> produces human behavior? What life experience not behaviors are involved to

> get " the " product, " the " resource? Not only is this shallow in process it's

> colder than the 40 below outside to " the " human experience. Are you

> comfortable being a line on a graph?

Wanita,

I'm not a line on a graph. That doesn't mean you can't plot my behavior on a

graph. If I walk from here to the apple tree just to pick an apple, or

because the sunset is pretty from that angle, you can still plot my displacement

on

a two-dimension coordinate system, even though the purpose of my movement was

gustatory or poetic.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Where's the liberty you speak of here in quantifying and compartmentalizing

everyone into a product, a resource? Where is all of human experience that

produces human behavior? What life experience not behaviors are involved to

get " the " product, " the " resource? Not only is this shallow in process it's

colder than the 40 below outside to " the " human experience. Are you

comfortable being a line on a graph?

> Economics deals with all human behavior. Microeconomics includes the

> decision not to work as well as the decision to work. More broadly

praxeology looks

> at all human behavior, which is essentially economics. The desire for

> leisure, for example, is used in micro to demonstrate opportunity costs.

The time

> people work is settled by an equilibria between their deisre for leisure

curve

> and their desire for money curve.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/16/04 1:43:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> First, I never posited a centrally planned economy. That remains a straw

> man argument.

But *I* raised the issue, and I wasn't talking to you, so what you posited is

irrelevant to its status as a straw man argument. If I respond to *Heidi*,

my arguments " straw man " status is dependent on what *she* posited. And,

again, I recognize she wasn't advocating a centrally planned economy, but I was

carrying out the implications of her analogy between the nervous system and

social organization.

> Second, your opposition to the idea of _any_ central management at all

> (which I did posit)

You posited it, but I never did. I don't oppose " central management " at all,

and never said so.

> >But it isn't

> >a straw man at all; it was a demonstrative device, to show why the dynamics

> >between a nervous system and a society are entirely different and why it

> >was not

> >a valid analogy.

>

> Fine, but as such it fails miserably. A society shares many traits with an

> organism (and in fact in some but not all ways IS an organism) whereas your

> whole conflict objection exclusively covers simplified theoretical

> constructs -- and in fact conflicts occur within organisms as well as

> between them, as when different organs and systems compete for scarce

> nutrients.

It succeeds quite well, in my opinion. Heidi posited the nervous system as

an analogue to the government, and the components of the body affected by it as

an analogue to people and other entites acting in a society.

The analogous economic organization is central planning. Commands originate

in the central authority (brain) and decisions are made based on feedback

loops from the various economic entities, and some decisions are made without

reverting to the highest central authority, but to lower authorities (spinal

chord.)

But the most successful human societies are ones in which humans pursue their

own interests. In capitalism, which is vastly more successful culturally,

morally, and economically, whatever it's faults, than central planning, each

individual, while obeying certain laws by the nervous system, pursues his OWN

interest.

If, in the body, all the various sarcomeres of the various myofibrils of the

various muscles were to pursue their own interest, while only staying within

loose boundaries dictated by the CNS, you would not have orderly movements of

muscles, but outright chaos.

Therefore, since the dynamics in human societies are not only fundamentally

different but essentially opposite from the dynamics between a nervous system

and an organism, Heidi's analogy is invalid.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Responses to Suze, Judith, Wanita, and Heidi.

_____

Suze,

> having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only

> poor

> folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford

> superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very

> stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite* building

> codes...)

I'm by far *not* the most intelligent and capable libertarian to argue here,

but I would say two things.

First, if the manufacturer of a product (a house or anything else) claims a

certain degree of safety and doesn't provide it, he can be subject to lawsuit.

Second, " poor " is relative. In a libertarians society, you would not have a

government using monetary policy to maintain a constant unemployment rate

sufficient to thwart the bargaining power of the working class. You would not

only have much higher growth rates, but the growth would be guaranteed to have

sufficient distribution among the lower classes, due to the dynamics of full

employment, which does not exist in our society almost solely because the

government deliberate prevents it from occurring (and, quite explicitly and

openly I

might add.)

_______

Judith wrote:

>How many people would have to die in earthquakes before others realized that

>the fault was a particular builders?

There's no reason there wouldn't be consumer organizations meant to supply

consumers with information. Such organizations not only provide an incentive

for suppliers to manufacture good products to get their good ratings, etc, but

provide information to customers so that they are educated enough to require

certain things in a contract.

Such organizations exist in our society today, despite the government's claim

to be taking care of everything. They exist as non-profit entities, but

there's also no reason a *for-profit* entity could not arise to do the job,

providing information to customers in exchange for membership fees or

whathaveyou.

In a Libertarian society, all business formations and voluntary associations

are allowed, and that includes consumer's unions and consumer advocate

agencies.

Chris

_______

Wanita wrote:

>What's the purpose of that two dimension coordinate graph if it does not and

>cannot show the human experience that created, accompanies and resulted in

>the behavior? Is not an entire process involved result. Behavior is a result

>of the processes of individual environment, experience and choice. Is

>uncomplete science if it's purpose is to define all it does to behavior,

>which is the process that precedes the action and neglects the many

>processes that precede the behavior.

Wanita,

There are different levels of analysis. That's like saying " What's the use

of knowing how hydrogen bonds are involved in forming ice crystals if you can't

explain why ice diminishes the pain of a burn wound or swollen body part? "

It depends what you're looking at. If I'm trying to explain the taste of an

apple or what makes a sunset beautiful, I don't defer to two-d coordinate

systems. If I'm trying to talk about movement and it's relationship to

velocity,

I need to plot it on a graph.

Likewise, if I want to talk about the joys of leisure, I do not need a graph.

But while on the microlevel of analysis, there are many different joys that

cause me to desire leisure, and on the chemical level we might explain how

that joy is registered in the brain, on a more macrolevel the effect is that I

desire a certain amount of leisure, and acting on that value as a premise, I

make a rational decision to work a certain amount of hours. *That* is what

concerns economics-- that I value a marginal increase in leisure to a different

degree than a marginal increase in income, and at the point where a certain

increase in leisure will represent a greater opportunity cost than working that

hour, and the reverse is also true, I've reached an equilibrium and will work

that many hours.

There area all sorts of questions to ask about human behavior. Asking one

doesn't devalue another, and vice versa.

Chris

_____

Heidi wrote:

>Well, in countries WITHOUT enforced building codes, thousands of people

>die in every earthquake. So apparently people do buy inferior

>products. Further, some of the buildings were new and built by

>corrupt builders using cheap cement who " forgot " to put in the rebar.

Countries without building codes are less developed in a variety of other

ways. Increased wealth provides a variety of luxuries, including social,

environmental, and safety concern. There are lots of folks who can and do look

out

for consumers besides governments, and those who do are generally more

effective than government, and don't contribute to housing shortages and

economic

stagnancy due to whimsical bureacratic spiderweb-like entanglements in

unnecessary

and confusing laws.

Chris

______

[Guest guest]

>I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is

>another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real estate

>businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them

>have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety regulations,

>but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because even

>though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance costs,

>reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate businessman

>objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced are

>other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much, much

>smaller) reduction in his profits.

>

>-

>>>>Here here! As a person who has easily survived several major

earthquakes, I'm

always glad when the house starts rocking that someone had to meet code.

--------->but, if i understand the libertarian perspective correctly, in a

world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely still

be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of business

because nobody would buy her/his inferior product.

having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only poor

folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford

superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very

stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite* building

codes...)

and having said *that* i'm wagering there is some intelligent libertarian

refutation of that point..? <g>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>That's a very funny and very tempting idea, but as a real policy proposal I

>object to it for two reasons: it's dishonest,

It's only dishonest if it is secret ... the policy of having pen

names for characters that are obviously fake is an old one

and often done with a good sense of humor. Back in school

we had a kind of off-the-wall " dear Abby " type column with

anonymous folk taking the part of " Abby " .

> and I strongly believe in

>openness and honesty in public systems, and second, whether it's " Black

>Bart " or me (or other moderators) being mean and nasty and dictatorial, the

>result is still that the list (or forum, or community, or whatever) is

>being run by a mean, nasty dictator, which I think is a very bad

>idea. Still, you gave me a good laugh -- thanks!

The " laugh " part is the main thing. A " Black Bart " CAN be humorously

dictatorial, not seriously nasty (which I wouldn't actually suggest).

Think " Miss Manners " .

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

How many people would have to die in earthquakes before others realized that

the fault was a particular builders?

(I'll keep my Michigan tornados, thank you.)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

>I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is

>another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real estate

>businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them

>have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety regulations,

>but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because even

>though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance costs,

>reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate businessman

>objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced are

>other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much, much

>smaller) reduction in his profits.

>

>-

>>>>Here here! As a person who has easily survived several major

earthquakes, I'm

always glad when the house starts rocking that someone had to meet code.

--------->but, if i understand the libertarian perspective correctly, in a

world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely still

be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of business

because nobody would buy her/his inferior product.

having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only poor

folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford

superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very

stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite* building

codes...)

and having said *that* i'm wagering there is some intelligent libertarian

refutation of that point..? <g>

Suze Fisher

[Guest guest]

Responses to , , and Wanita

In a message dated 1/16/04 3:04:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> I've got to defend here. He is right, economics is about human

> behavior. But it is not behavior on an individual basis, it is behavior of

> masses of people. Behavior for 1000's to millions of people cannot be

> defined on an individual basis but it can and is done with groups. Rarely

> would one person equal exactly what the group in total would do. Economists

> use accounting and math to analyze past behaviors in markets so to predict

> future behaviors. I find it fascinating. Even with mass groups, there are

> tons of variables involved as there are with individuals.

,

I actually disagree on one point. That's macroeconomics; microeconomics

deals with the decisions of a given individual or business. Math is used just

the

same.

Granted, microeconomics is not such a perfect science as macro, because the

individual has many values that can't be objectively judged and quantified by

an outsider.

______

wrote:

>The problem with

>the theory is that it's in the house-builders' interest to eliminate

>transparency -- to pretend their houses are better and safer than they are

>-- and there's simply no way to completely unmask their deception and thus

>restore transparency and accuracy to the market.  I know people are going

>to argue that without the government there'd be no means of imposing

>opacity, but that's simply not true at all.  The means of imposing opacity,

>of lying successfully, are legion, and misusing government is just one of

them.

I don't know what kind of rational person would make that argument; the

incentives are not necessarily as you say they are though: it isn't in the

builder's interest to get sued for lying. Furthermore, consumer watchdog groups

could

provide information and ratings on particular builders, providing further

incentive to allow inspections and to live up to standards of a good product.

Only you avoid the whimsical changes in mandatory building codes that hurt the

industry so much.

What is a " fiscal libertarian " ? The only meaningful definition I can think

of is one who advicates minimal government spending, so I don't see what that

has to do with housing codes, and I would argue that you can't be a libertarian

in only certain senses. That's like saying " I'm an authoritarian on gun

control but a libertarian on abortion " -- a senseless use of the term.

Chris

______

>But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the

>plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her

>cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for

>huge sums.

This isn't an opinion on the justice of the court case, but I just want to

point out that the coffee was SCALDING, not HOT, 40 degrees above the normal

temperature of coffee, and she was in the hospital for 21 days.

Chris

______

Wanita wrote:

>It's use is only applicable to the last few hundreds of

>years of human history because prior to that most humans only required and

>desired the dignities of life, not the excesses.

No, they didn't. Humans in virtually every culture across all time and space

have maximized their possible exploitation of their environment to increase

their ease of life and quality of life. And humans have caused environmental

damage even in prehistory. Besides, good housing and the ability to maintain

moderate temperatures-- is that an excess?

Saying, " Do you want to be known as a curve on a graph " is somewhat like you

talking about insulin and me saying, " Do you want to be known as a chain of

amino acids " ?

For personal interaction there is a certain level of analysis we use. For

learning about how people behave, there is another. Microeconomics is part of

the science of how people behave and why. If nothing else, it's an interesting

topic. And it applies to hunter gatherers as much as it applies to citizens

of an industrial society.

Chris

_____

wrote:

>First, punitive damages can only apply in

>certain very restricted classes of lawsuits, so they don't encourage very

>many people to sue, which means that to the degree we do actually have an

>excess of lawsuits nowadays, that excess is fed to only a minimal degree by

>punitive damages

According to Ralph Nader

, there are less lawsuits per year now than in the 19th century.

Chris

_____

[Guest guest]

> > Where's the liberty you speak of here in quantifying and

compartmentalizing

> > everyone into a product, a resource? Where is all of human experience

that

> > produces human behavior? What life experience not behaviors are involved

to

> > get " the " product, " the " resource? Not only is this shallow in process

it's

> > colder than the 40 below outside to " the " human experience. Are you

> > comfortable being a line on a graph?

>

> Wanita,

>

> I'm not a line on a graph. That doesn't mean you can't plot my behavior

on a

> graph. If I walk from here to the apple tree just to pick an apple, or

> because the sunset is pretty from that angle, you can still plot my

displacement on

> a two-dimension coordinate system, even though the purpose of my movement

was

> gustatory or poetic.

>

> Chris

What's the purpose of that two dimension coordinate graph if it does not and

cannot show the human experience that created, accompanies and resulted in

the behavior? Is not an entire process involved result. Behavior is a result

of the processes of individual environment, experience and choice. Is

uncomplete science if it's purpose is to define all it does to behavior,

which is the process that precedes the action and neglects the many

processes that precede the behavior.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>--------->but, if i understand the libertarian perspective correctly, in a

>world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely still

>be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of business

>because nobody would buy her/his inferior product.

Suze:

Well, in countries WITHOUT enforced building codes, thousands of people

die in every earthquake. So apparently people do buy inferior

products. Further, some of the buildings were new and built by

corrupt builders using cheap cement who " forgot " to put in the rebar.

Now if the builders were required by gummint intervention

to put a sign on each building: " This building is not built

to withstand earthquakes " then perhaps the buyers could make

an informed decision?

>having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only poor

>folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford

>superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very

>stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite* building

>codes...)

Actually the REALLY poor housing is pretty earthquake proof. Stick and

straw buildings don't kill you as much as falling bricks and concrete.

I watched Fast Runner last night and I think falling hides wouldn't

be a problem either (though I don't know how earthquake proof

an igloo is ...).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

can you name those societies Chris?

TIA

Dedy

<<But there are hunter-gatherer societies who maintained somewhat vicious rules,

such as giving death to adulterers or those engaging

in pre-marital sex, who have survived for thousands of years. Are they

justified based on their survival?>>

[Guest guest]

One detail is the significant legislation this past year regarding medical

liability malpractice limits of awards in lawsuits. That is a counterbalance

in our system that some want to eliminate.

Re: Re: money and health

buying or not buying a product would not be only way of modifying a

producers behavior. There is also litigation or suing because a promise was

not fulfilled. An individual would also likely need to have insurance for

the product to minimize risk of catastrophic loss, which would mean the

insurance company would have standards to meet, and potentially an

inspector. Granted , you would not need to have insurance if one was wealthy

enough to self insure,,but then one would thik a wealthy person would be

more likely to hire an inspector to be sure the investment was sound.

Libertarians sometimes get all worked up in semantics of things...like

" government " etc., not wanting to admit that these things have evolved into

place for good reasons. Granted, sometimes when too many layers of

" government " are created, the usefulness may deminish...but thats a problem

of details, not the system itself.

RE: Re: money and health

>I forgot to make my main point, which is that one person's excessive is

>another person's life-saving. There's a strong incentive for real

estate

>businesses to object to ALL codes, and to lie and say that none of them

>have value. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have any safety

regulations,

>but the real estate businessman objects to those regulations because

even

>though they may save society money overall (by reducing insurance

costs,

>reconstruction costs, health care costs, etc.) the real estate

businessman

>objects to the regulations because those costs that are being reduced

are

>other people's costs, and they're being reduced by means of a (much,

much

>smaller) reduction in his profits.

>

>-

>>>>Here here! As a person who has easily survived several major

earthquakes, I'm

always glad when the house starts rocking that someone had to meet code.

--------->but, if i understand the libertarian perspective correctly, in

a

world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely

still

be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of

business

because nobody would buy her/his inferior product.

having said that, the opposition could argue that in such a world, only

poor

folk would live in unsafe houses because they may not be able to afford

superior (more costly) housing, thus housing (and safety) might be very

stratified based on income. (which it actually already is *despite*

building

codes...)

and having said *that* i'm wagering there is some intelligent

libertarian

refutation of that point..? <g>

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our

times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

I've got to defend here. He is right, economics is about human

behavior. But it is not behavior on an individual basis, it is behavior of

masses of people. Behavior for 1000's to millions of people cannot be

defined on an individual basis but it can and is done with groups. Rarely

would one person equal exactly what the group in total would do. Economists

use accounting and math to analyze past behaviors in markets so to predict

future behaviors. I find it fascinating. Even with mass groups, there are

tons of variables involved as there are with individuals.

Re: Re: money and health

In a message dated 1/16/04 8:35:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Where's the liberty you speak of here in quantifying and

compartmentalizing

> everyone into a product, a resource? Where is all of human experience

that

> produces human behavior? What life experience not behaviors are involved

to

> get " the " product, " the " resource? Not only is this shallow in process

it's

> colder than the 40 below outside to " the " human experience. Are you

> comfortable being a line on a graph?

Wanita,

I'm not a line on a graph. That doesn't mean you can't plot my behavior

on a

graph. If I walk from here to the apple tree just to pick an apple, or

because the sunset is pretty from that angle, you can still plot my

displacement on

a two-dimension coordinate system, even though the purpose of my movement

was

gustatory or poetic.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>in a

>world where there were no gov't imposed building codes, you'd likely still

>be safe because any builder who built unsafe houses would go out of business

>because nobody would buy her/his inferior product.

To the degree this is the fiscal libertarian assumption, it relies on

transparency. IOW, people have to KNOW that unsafe houses are unsafe in

order to correctly value such houses on the market. (I only say " to the

degree " because fiscal libertarians would probably say that if some people

knowingly choose unsafe houses, that's cool, and there probably would be

such people, so such builders would stay in business.) The problem with

the theory is that it's in the house-builders' interest to eliminate

transparency -- to pretend their houses are better and safer than they are

-- and there's simply no way to completely unmask their deception and thus

restore transparency and accuracy to the market. I know people are going

to argue that without the government there'd be no means of imposing

opacity, but that's simply not true at all. The means of imposing opacity,

of lying successfully, are legion, and misusing government is just one of them.

-

[Guest guest]

If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of

the court costs.

And many lawsuits are frivolous. Some years ago here in Michigan a college

golf game was cancelled because of thunder storms. Some of the students

decided to stay on the golf course. One was hit by lightening and seriously

messed up for the rest of his life.

In a tone that said the young man should have collected damages, the news

story I read said that the courts threw his case out.

And well they should have! The school fulfilled its obligation by canceling

the match, it did not force that young man into an act of stupidity that got

him hit by lightening.

But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the

plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her

cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for

huge sums.

Doctor shortages may not be all bad. When surgeons have gone on strike the

death rate at that hospital goes down. This has happened several times. The

doctors did only emergency surgeries.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

As you say it is one counter balance, but unfortunately LIFE is

verycomplicated and not simple. Its also not perfect. :-(

Lets look at the counter balance... if mal practice insurance goes too high,

medical folk will change carreers and go into less dangerous occupations.

This means less doctors. Shortages in resources usually result in higher

charges.

For the relatively small percentage of mistakes by a small percentage of

doctors, the complications and consequences may be out of balance. How to

artificially bring them back in line to a level that is acceptable to the

masses, which the government actually represent (indirectly or what ever)

sigh... what can one do? The government supposedly is the power of the

people united. Supposedly the people elect representatives to do their

bidding,,,and those representatives are supposedly smart enough tofigure out

what he bottom line desire is and the manipulate the system to please the

greatest amount... Thats where it gets REALLY tricky...trying to figure that

out...at times it might even seem that doing the greater good might be going

against what may appear to be the greatest good at the moment.

Does this make any sense? This has come about through evolution and from the

desire to have minimal change, cause change usually upsets everyone... so

imagine the strife of those representatives to do GREAT good and change for

the better when that very change is usually contrary to what most people

really want.

Case in point: oil. No one wants to knowingly oppress other people or

countries. But they still want the bennies that cheap oil produces. Its what

we know. Changing that is unknown; scarey....SO we tell the representatives

to do the right thing (wink wink) but be sure to maintain the staus quo of

our lives....Gee what a confusing place to be for a represenative...they

know we just want them to get the job done and not burden us with the

details...allow us maximum deniabiliy of being " bad people " even though our

consumerism depends on cheap oil at all cost, and cheap labor to provide

sneakers, computer chips, etc.

Its a complicated mess it is and Libbies or others need to recognize that it

is what it is. Its a long evolutionary process to get where we are...it aint

gonna change over night and anarchist speaches aint gonna do it.

:-(

[Guest guest]

Judith-

>But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the

>plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her

>cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for

>huge sums.

As usual, the whole story is much more complex than that. First, the huge

reward you always hear about in that case was never paid; it was cut to

something like a third of its original size. IIRC one of the grounds for

the reduction was her contributory liability in holding the cup between her

legs in her car. Second, the the woman got awarded so much money in the

first place because of punitive damages, NOT because she was deemed to be

personally deserving of that amount. Punitive damages were awarded because

during discovery, memos came to light proving that Mcs KNEW that

their extremely hot coffee was regularly burning people very badly, and

that they'd done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that based on the

percentage of people who sued after being burned, it was more profitable to

keep making superheated coffee and serving it in flimsy, easy-to-spill

containers as long as they settled with those people who actually did sue

and paid part or sometimes all of their medical expenses.

That's exactly the kind of scenario punitive damages are designed to

discourage.

-

[Guest guest]

,

It's fine for anyone who finds value in it. I've done accounting for a good

part of my life and see no purpose to putting numerical value to humans on

the basis of their buying behaviors. Sure there's tons of variables. The

differences between a single mother working a second job to keep a roof over

her children's head and the CEO off on a free vacation given by someone who

hopes to do business with him there. This group with children entering high

school. Hit them with the consume bug. Increase manufacturing got to have

that name jeans. It's use is only applicable to the last few hundreds of

years of human history because prior to that most humans only required and

desired the dignities of life, not the excesses.

Wanita

> Wanita,

>

> I've got to defend here. He is right, economics is about human

> behavior. But it is not behavior on an individual basis, it is behavior

of

> masses of people. Behavior for 1000's to millions of people cannot be

> defined on an individual basis but it can and is done with groups. Rarely

> would one person equal exactly what the group in total would do.

Economists

> use accounting and math to analyze past behaviors in markets so to predict

> future behaviors. I find it fascinating. Even with mass groups, there

are

> tons of variables involved as there are with individuals.

>

>

> Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> In a message dated 1/16/04 8:35:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> wanitawa@... writes:

>

> > Where's the liberty you speak of here in quantifying and

> compartmentalizing

> > everyone into a product, a resource? Where is all of human experience

> that

> > produces human behavior? What life experience not behaviors are

involved

> to

> > get " the " product, " the " resource? Not only is this shallow in process

> it's

> > colder than the 40 below outside to " the " human experience. Are you

> > comfortable being a line on a graph?

>

> Wanita,

>

> I'm not a line on a graph. That doesn't mean you can't plot my behavior

> on a

> graph. If I walk from here to the apple tree just to pick an apple, or

> because the sunset is pretty from that angle, you can still plot my

> displacement on

> a two-dimension coordinate system, even though the purpose of my

movement

> was

> gustatory or poetic.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Think about this also:

There were no deaths from failed optional surgery. The urgent surgeries were

performed. The ones not really needed were not.

I will disagree with you slightly about doctors being one of the largest

causes of death. Prescription drugs, when prescribed and taken as

recommended, are one of the leading causes of death. Many, if not most,

doctors sincerely want to help their patients. But they are trapped in that

they get their training about drugs from the manufacturers and for a double

whammy, they stand to lose their licenses if they use " unapproved "

treatments that work inexpensively.

Judith Alta

Re: Re: money and health

review the stats...

the people were sent home...death doesnt happen instantly.

3rd cause of death in USA is doctors...haha.

Granted the AMA style health care in the USA needs a bunch...but then again

people dont want whats common sense,,,they want a quick fix...hence the

health care as it is... whats the name of this list again? nutrition?

;-)

RE: Re: money and health

If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of

the court costs.

And many lawsuits are frivolous. Some years ago here in Michigan a college

golf game was cancelled because of thunder storms. Some of the students

decided to stay on the golf course. One was hit by lightening and

seriously

messed up for the rest of his life.

In a tone that said the young man should have collected damages, the news

story I read said that the courts threw his case out.

And well they should have! The school fulfilled its obligation by

canceling

the match, it did not force that young man into an act of stupidity that

got

him hit by lightening.

But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the

plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her

cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for

huge sums.

Doctor shortages may not be all bad. When surgeons have gone on strike the

death rate at that hospital goes down. This has happened several times.

The

doctors did only emergency surgeries.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

As you say it is one counter balance, but unfortunately LIFE is

verycomplicated and not simple. Its also not perfect. :-(

Lets look at the counter balance... if mal practice insurance goes too

high,

medical folk will change carreers and go into less dangerous occupations.

This means less doctors. Shortages in resources usually result in higher

charges.

For the relatively small percentage of mistakes by a small percentage of

doctors, the complications and consequences may be out of balance. How to

artificially bring them back in line to a level that is acceptable to the

masses, which the government actually represent (indirectly or what ever)

sigh... what can one do? The government supposedly is the power of the

people united. Supposedly the people elect representatives to do their

bidding,,,and those representatives are supposedly smart enough tofigure

out

what he bottom line desire is and the manipulate the system to please the

greatest amount... Thats where it gets REALLY tricky...trying to figure

that

out...at times it might even seem that doing the greater good might be

going

against what may appear to be the greatest good at the moment.

Does this make any sense? This has come about through evolution and from

the

desire to have minimal change, cause change usually upsets everyone... so

imagine the strife of those representatives to do GREAT good and change

for

the better when that very change is usually contrary to what most people

really want.

Case in point: oil. No one wants to knowingly oppress other people or

countries. But they still want the bennies that cheap oil produces. Its

what

we know. Changing that is unknown; scarey....SO we tell the

representatives

to do the right thing (wink wink) but be sure to maintain the staus quo of

our lives....Gee what a confusing place to be for a represenative...they

know we just want them to get the job done and not burden us with the

details...allow us maximum deniabiliy of being " bad people " even though

our

consumerism depends on cheap oil at all cost, and cheap labor to provide

sneakers, computer chips, etc.

Its a complicated mess it is and Libbies or others need to recognize that

it

is what it is. Its a long evolutionary process to get where we are...it

aint

gonna change over night and anarchist speaches aint gonna do it.

:-(

[Guest guest]

The carrot of punitive damages can also encourage people to sue.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Judith-

>But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the

>plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her

>cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for

>huge sums.

As usual, the whole story is much more complex than that. First, the huge

reward you always hear about in that case was never paid; it was cut to

something like a third of its original size. IIRC one of the grounds for

the reduction was her contributory liability in holding the cup between her

legs in her car. Second, the the woman got awarded so much money in the

first place because of punitive damages, NOT because she was deemed to be

personally deserving of that amount. Punitive damages were awarded because

during discovery, memos came to light proving that Mcs KNEW that

their extremely hot coffee was regularly burning people very badly, and

that they'd done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that based on the

percentage of people who sued after being burned, it was more profitable to

keep making superheated coffee and serving it in flimsy, easy-to-spill

containers as long as they settled with those people who actually did sue

and paid part or sometimes all of their medical expenses.

That's exactly the kind of scenario punitive damages are designed to

discourage.

-

[Guest guest]

Judith-

>The carrot of punitive damages can also encourage people to sue.

Certainly, but what of it? First, punitive damages can only apply in

certain very restricted classes of lawsuits, so they don't encourage very

many people to sue, which means that to the degree we do actually have an

excess of lawsuits nowadays, that excess is fed to only a minimal degree by

punitive damages. And second, the legal system is actually very good at

dismissing suits that have no merit. Sure, in any enormous and complex

system there are bound to be errors, and opponents of punitive damages

(i.e. those who want to keep getting away with Mcs-style business

decisions) will seize on any and all errors, will exaggerate their

frequency and will even make stories up entirely, but on the whole, the

system is effective. Judges have very little patience for lawyers who

bring garbage before them. Furthermore, the congestion in the courts

actually heightens the filtering effect, since it's very costly and

time-consuming to bring one of those suits. Contrary to popular opinion,

there's not a huge supply of fools willing to spend tens or hundreds of

thousands of dollars on doomed lawsuits.

-

[Guest guest]

You forgot all the return visits required by the bad effects of the

prescribed drugs.

Patch Adam would probably be great for most of us.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Its all screwed up.... doctors need to see many patients to be able to cover

cost of medical school and start up practice and of course insurance...the

more people they see, the more chance they have of missing stuff, not

getting complete picture (like other meds that the patient is taking but

doent think of telling doctor) ...the more stuff they miss, the greater

chance of mistakes and wrongful procedures to the detriment of the

patient... which creates dissatisfaction and law suits...which means higher

doctor costs which means more patients need to be seen...agghhh! There is

no ending the cycle once it starts...

:-(

So ya get a new paradigm like Patch Adam practicing medicne for free with

all the time needed to do diagnoses...of course no big car, country club

etc....but it works for some people...

:-)

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Responses to , , and Wanita

These compound responses are, frankly, rather annoying. In an unthreaded

environment like this list, compounding responses to one single individual

makes some sense, but compounding responses to multiple people just

confuses issues and makes dealing with lengthy posts that much more

irritating, so I'd appreciate it if you'd switch compounding styles.

>I don't know what kind of rational person would make that argument; the

>incentives are not necessarily as you say they are though: it isn't in the

>builder's interest to get sued for lying.

You're making two assumptions. First, that builders will always do what's

in their long-term best interest even if it's against their short-term best

interest. This simply doesn't square with human nature. We evolved in

unpredictable, unstable environments, which led us to have a strong

tendency to plan and act for the short term and damn the long

term. (_Blank Slate_ will get into this at some point.) The short-term

incentive of heightened profit will inevitably lead some people to

lie. Second, that the builders will still be around to be sued once things

go wrong. A serious earthquake might not hit for decades, for

example. But more to the point, real estate development companies are

formed, create a bunch of developments and then disappear all the time, and

often enough it's because they're engaging in fraudulent, deceptive

practices. They're corporations of convenience. Pure capitalism does

nothing to remove those incentives. But even developers which don't act in

bad faith can't be counted on to be around to be sued for any length of

time. Pure capitalism is highly unstable and highly destructive, and even

aside from the fact that developers could factor the unlikelihood that

they'd be around to be sued in the future into their decisions on building

safety, developers can make honest mistakes for which they ought to be

liable but then disappear before those mistakes show themselves and have

damaging consequences.

Building safety codes exist for a very, very good reason: while it is in

the developer's short-term interest to cut all kinds of corners and pretend

to features that have not actually been implemented, the eventual cost to

society of unsafe construction is often gargantuan. In fact, if you look

at the total damage that people, cities and entire economies used to

sustain on a regular if imperfectly predictable basis due to unsafe

buildings (I'm thinking especially of earthquakes, but there are plenty of

other types of cases) it becomes clear that lawsuits could virtually NEVER

recover more than a tiny fraction of the actual damage, because developers

virtually NEVER have deep enough pockets. That only makes the case for

anti-capitalist codes even more incontrovertible, because the argument for

eliminating regulations and switching to pure capitalism is that pure

capitalism will achieve safety more economically, entirely through market

pricing and liability. But if that liability is often meaningless, and it

would be, the argument fails. Pure capitalism would simply impose the

vast, almost incalculable cost on everyone in exchange for making

developers richer in the short term.

>Only you avoid the whimsical changes in mandatory building codes that hurt

>the

>industry so much.

Whimsical changes? How about some examples. (This charge is consistent

with the pattern Heidi's already called you on of making statements without

providing factual support while demanding that your opponents in the

argument adhere to a much higher evidentiary standard.) At any rate, this

is an almost completely bogus charge cooked up by real estate developers

who don't want to meet periodically increasing safety standards. Any

change they don't like is " whimsical " , " unjustified " , etc. Developers have

an incentive to object to ALL codes that save other people money at their

expense. That incentive won't magically disappear. And since developers

have a substantial degree of lobbying power, the tension between renters'

and buyers' desire for safer buildings and developers' desire for more

profits inevitably blunts safety initiatives. The idea that reality is the

other way around, that society is successfully imposing draconian and

unnecessary regulation on developers, relies on (among other bases) the

notion that everyday people have more influence over government than big

business, which isn't true now and hasn't been true for quite awhile.

>What is a " fiscal libertarian " ?

I'm contrasting fiscal libertarians with civil libertarians. I'm a civil

libertarian but not much of a fiscal libertarian, at least not by

comparison to you gummint-haters.

-

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> No, they didn't. Humans in virtually every culture across all time and

space

> have maximized their possible exploitation of their environment to

increase

> their ease of life and quality of life. And humans have caused

environmental

> damage even in prehistory. Besides, good housing and the ability to

maintain

> moderate temperatures-- is that an excess?

Don't buy it! People always weren't a tool of manipulation to obtain desired

results. Communities and tribes don't work that way.

>

> Saying, " Do you want to be known as a curve on a graph " is somewhat like

you

> talking about insulin and me saying, " Do you want to be known as a chain

of

> amino acids " ?

It's all linear thought.

>

> For personal interaction there is a certain level of analysis we use. For

> learning about how people behave, there is another. Microeconomics is

part of

> the science of how people behave and why. If nothing else, it's an

interesting

> topic. And it applies to hunter gatherers as much as it applies to

citizens

> of an industrial society.

Reminds me of a house I clean where the husband is a retired economic

development professor.Wonderful people, am like family.Asked him about their

different car.He had quite a lengthy reason why they had it. His wife after,

blushing, smiling with her hands up in the air said " Hey, He's an

economist. "

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Good question.

The new push for low-carb eating that is showing up, if done properly, could

crash our economy.

People eating more healthy foods need fewer doctors and drugs.

People are surfing the internet and finding the truth about the " Pyramid

Diet " and the drugs it necessitates. And the time lapse between fact finding

and availability is much shorter than with books and paper magazines.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

yea... but how many bright people will be willing to take on all that

medical school debt, the extra years, the residency crap and be satisfied to

get a chicken for dinner

? and still have some crackpot with a lawyer try and exploit an honest

mistake?

ya gotta start over... eating right, which of course is totally against the

food industry, the work ethic, etc etc

sigh

:-(

ya gotta trash the whole thin as a bad evolutionary outcome and star

different...but howmany would be willing to give up the status quo for that?

RE: Re: money and health

You forgot all the return visits required by the bad effects of the

prescribed drugs.

Patch Adam would probably be great for most of us.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Its all screwed up.... doctors need to see many patients to be able to

cover

cost of medical school and start up practice and of course insurance...the

more people they see, the more chance they have of missing stuff, not

getting complete picture (like other meds that the patient is taking but

doent think of telling doctor) ...the more stuff they miss, the greater

chance of mistakes and wrongful procedures to the detriment of the

patient... which creates dissatisfaction and law suits...which means

higher

doctor costs which means more patients need to be seen...agghhh! There

is

no ending the cycle once it starts...

:-(

So ya get a new paradigm like Patch Adam practicing medicne for free with

all the time needed to do diagnoses...of course no big car, country club

etc....but it works for some people...

:-)

[Guest guest]

,

Good point on macro versus micro, but while micro is about singular

behavior, that is still derived on average typical behavior of a set group.

I don't see it as personal nigation, psychology and sociology are for that.

Yes, it is an attempt to quantify a human being but it is about

buying/selling behaviors in an economic market, not spiritual dissection.

Math is about as nonpersonal as you can get but the fascinating thing is

that personal values in many ways can be measured mathmatically and are

reflected in spending habits. A person's checkbook can reveal much more

about them than spending time with them. We all have fascades, depth and

dimensions, even delusions we believe about ourselves, we are different in

different environments. But how and where they spend their money is

incredibly revealing about the inner person. For example, if the checkbook

reflects daily expenditures at the liquor store or bar located on the corner

of their street, that says a lot. Where they shop can reflect values,

hobbies are revealed which reflects individuality, they may go to church but

do they contribute to the church - reflects level of commitment and again a

value. Tithing at church Sunday morning and then spending at the porno

movies Sunday evenings reflects dimensions that would rarely both be

revealed to one person.

Re: Re: money and health

Responses to , , and Wanita

In a message dated 1/16/04 3:04:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> I've got to defend here. He is right, economics is about human

> behavior. But it is not behavior on an individual basis, it is behavior

of

> masses of people. Behavior for 1000's to millions of people cannot be

> defined on an individual basis but it can and is done with groups.

Rarely

> would one person equal exactly what the group in total would do.

Economists

> use accounting and math to analyze past behaviors in markets so to

predict

> future behaviors. I find it fascinating. Even with mass groups, there

are

> tons of variables involved as there are with individuals.

,

I actually disagree on one point. That's macroeconomics; microeconomics

deals with the decisions of a given individual or business. Math is used

just the

same.

Granted, microeconomics is not such a perfect science as macro, because

the

individual has many values that can't be objectively judged and quantified

by

an outsider.

______

wrote:

>The problem with

>the theory is that it's in the house-builders' interest to eliminate

>transparency -- to pretend their houses are better and safer than they

are

>-- and there's simply no way to completely unmask their deception and

thus

>restore transparency and accuracy to the market. I know people are going

>to argue that without the government there'd be no means of imposing

>opacity, but that's simply not true at all. The means of imposing

opacity,

>of lying successfully, are legion, and misusing government is just one of

them.

I don't know what kind of rational person would make that argument; the

incentives are not necessarily as you say they are though: it isn't in the

builder's interest to get sued for lying. Furthermore, consumer watchdog

groups could

provide information and ratings on particular builders, providing further

incentive to allow inspections and to live up to standards of a good

product.

Only you avoid the whimsical changes in mandatory building codes that hurt

the

industry so much.

What is a " fiscal libertarian " ? The only meaningful definition I can

think

of is one who advicates minimal government spending, so I don't see what

that

has to do with housing codes, and I would argue that you can't be a

libertarian

in only certain senses. That's like saying " I'm an authoritarian on gun

control but a libertarian on abortion " -- a senseless use of the term.

Chris

______

>But I have known of many cases with no more merit than this one where the

>plaintiff collected huge sums of money. Like the stupid woman who put her

>cup of HOT coffee between her legs in her car and then sued Mcs for

>huge sums.

This isn't an opinion on the justice of the court case, but I just want to

point out that the coffee was SCALDING, not HOT, 40 degrees above the

normal

temperature of coffee, and she was in the hospital for 21 days.

Chris

______

Wanita wrote:

>It's use is only applicable to the last few hundreds of

>years of human history because prior to that most humans only required

and

>desired the dignities of life, not the excesses.

No, they didn't. Humans in virtually every culture across all time and

space

have maximized their possible exploitation of their environment to

increase

their ease of life and quality of life. And humans have caused

environmental

damage even in prehistory. Besides, good housing and the ability to

maintain

moderate temperatures-- is that an excess?

Saying, " Do you want to be known as a curve on a graph " is somewhat like

you

talking about insulin and me saying, " Do you want to be known as a chain

of

amino acids " ?

For personal interaction there is a certain level of analysis we use. For

learning about how people behave, there is another. Microeconomics is

part of

the science of how people behave and why. If nothing else, it's an

interesting

topic. And it applies to hunter gatherers as much as it applies to

citizens

of an industrial society.

Chris

_____

wrote:

>First, punitive damages can only apply in

>certain very restricted classes of lawsuits, so they don't encourage very

>many people to sue, which means that to the degree we do actually have an

>excess of lawsuits nowadays, that excess is fed to only a minimal degree

by

>punitive damages

According to Ralph Nader

, there are less lawsuits per year now than in the 19th century.

Chris

_____