theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Apr 28, 2010 13:43:38 GMT -5
Studies conducted on the economic burden of noncompliance with seat belt use indicate that non seat belt wearers consumed more hospital resources, missed more time from work due to the greater severity of their injuries, cost insurance companies more money(though interestingly, were more likely to be uninsured or underinsured, leading to lower collection rates by hospitals) and died at twice the rate of seat belt wearers, thus removing more (theoretically) economically productive members from society. Is the greater economic benefit to society of seat belt laws or the health benefits of "salt laws" worth the intrusion of government into our lives? For me, an interesting but difficult question to answer. Despite the stance I took in the Goldman thread regarding the need for government intervention re: derivative markets, in general, I prefer that the market make such determinations, not the government. While I agree with the economic argument on the seat belt issue, I admit to conflict concerning salt. Where does one draw the line? As Boz said, I surely don't want anyone telling me how much beer I can drink. But beer is not an ingredient in food. I can choose to not consume beer. Excess salt, on the other hand, appears in far too many foods, making it quite difficult for some members of society to avoid over consumption. Excess salt consumption contributes mightily to hypertension, a scourge of low to moderate income black Americans. Will this policy lead to a reduction in hypertension in blacks? If so, great. Yet, I admit I shudder at the thought of the gov't mandating salt content. As I stated earlier, a difficult yet quite interesting question. This is from a while ago, but this first paragraph really annoys me. Smoking in restaurants has a negative effect on me, even if I don't smoke - it shortens my life and gives me negative consequences. I'm cool with limits on smoking. But seat belts for adults and salt .... there are a lot of dumb things that other people - and myself do - and they're not banned. It's a horrible slippery slope. What if they find that sports fans have increased risk of early death - is banning watching sports acceptable?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 28, 2010 16:15:19 GMT -5
And some of us hate it when people equate everyone who receives government benefits as perfectly healthy people completely able to work at a living wage but are too damn lazy to do it.
A significant number of welfare recipients are mentally or physically disabled, children, part-time workers with health problems, or simply living in an economic system with a natural unemployment rate of 2-3% where retraining for other jobs is difficult and expensive.
Is there fraud? Yes. Lazy people? Yes. But for a lot of these folks, it is there but for the grace of God go I...
My biggest problem with the Ayn Rand-viewpoint is the delusional aspect that you did it on your own. I'm willing to bet there's a higher correlation between economic success and parental economic success than economic success and work ethic. Just a thought.
I know a few people of that bent who actually have done it on their own, mostly. But I know a lot more who don't want anyone touching the money built on parents paying for a good schooling, protection, financial support, nutrition, and you know, that whole inheritance thing.
I don't really think my life turns out the same if I grow up in an abusive foster home. It's just a thought. Certainly people are in control of their destinies -- but circumstances affect you.
So the idea that our lives are 100% in our control is silly to me.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 28, 2010 16:23:10 GMT -5
And some of us hate it when people equate everyone who receives government benefits as perfectly healthy people completely able to work at a living wage but are too damn lazy to do it. A significant number of welfare recipients are mentally or physically disabled, children, part-time workers with health problems, or simply living in an economic system with a natural unemployment rate of 2-3% where retraining for other jobs is difficult and expensive. Is there fraud? Yes. Lazy people? Yes. But for a lot of these folks, it is there but for the grace of God go I... My biggest problem with the Ayn Rand-viewpoint is the delusional aspect that you did it on your own. I'm willing to bet there's a higher correlation between economic success and parental economic success than economic success and work ethic. Just a thought. I know a few people of that bent who actually have done it on their own, mostly. But I know a lot more who don't want anyone touching the money built on parents paying for a good schooling, protection, financial support, nutrition, and you know, that whole inheritance thing. I don't really think my life turns out the same if I grow up in an abusive foster home. It's just a thought. Certainly people are in control of their destinies -- but circumstances affect you. So the idea that our lives are 100% in our control is silly to me. I don't disagree with this or the need for safety nets. Just something about HoyainSpirit's crack about the Good Samaritan that got me going.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 28, 2010 16:33:04 GMT -5
Indeed. I get it, tbird.
On the immigration thing, looks like a lot of Republicans are coming out against it. Tom Tancredo, Jeb Bush, etc., don't seem to be fans of it.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 28, 2010 16:34:15 GMT -5
I think this food stamp discussion basically boils down to philosophy as to how resources should be distributed. For example, I hate that my tax money goes to fund the Iraq War, which I did not support, but I acknowledge that we have to fund the troops now. My point is only that we should have never been there, so there would not have been a need for funding in the first instance. I endeavored as best I could to not accept any money for personal benefit received from the tax cut bailout initiatives because I didn't think I or others similarly or better situated should have been a focus of those policies, particularly in a time of 2 wars. I don't like some of the redistributions in earmarks but I suspect others do or are at least supportive enough that they're willing to allow society at large to support them through taxes.* The question then becomes one of how people distinguish between initiatives, like earmarks, that serve individuals in need in some cases as much as food stamps (assume federal food stamps) do and food stamps and related initiatives. I am not seeing the distinction yet if there is one. It may be based on who needs help and maybe the need for earmark assistance is more pressing than food stamps, and I accept that but I think it has to be put out there. Maybe it is that earmarks are for discrete projects, and those should be supported. Otherwise, I am not sure what privileges one set of initiatives over another except based on an analysis of what one agrees with and otherwise. Admittedly, I have been confused by recent rhetoric that suggests government should only pay for what certain parties or groups support and everything else can go to hell as far as government assistance is concerned, and I think that might be where we're going in this discussion. On edit - www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/pima-county-sheriff-calls_n_555895.htmlThe sheriff in Pima County (on the border) is declining to enforce the statute because of concerns with racism, among other things. * I am supportive of funding activism. Find something that you disagree with and don't accept the benefit. If you're a Republican and don't support Social Security, send the checks back. I know people who have done it and respect them for it. Believe me, they could have used the money.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Apr 28, 2010 17:50:23 GMT -5
Back to whole food thing ...
... this country has to solve the outrageous agribusiness subsidy regime that primarily benefits three major, major companies at the direct expense of small farmers and the food-buying public.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 28, 2010 18:06:50 GMT -5
Back to whole food thing ... ... this country has to solve the outrageous agribusiness subsidy regime that primarily benefits three major, major companies at the direct expense of small farmers and the food-buying public. I can agree with you on that (though we may disagree on the alternatives to existing policy). For a good example of not only that type of awful federal legislation, but also the really, really bad variety of earmarks (to address Ambassdor's previous post), see Farm Bill, 2008. And 100 Republicans in the House, and I think about 25 in the Senate, backed that nonsense. But hey, that was only about $300 billion of a complete waste. Farm policy, although it's complex, can be explained. What it can't be is believed. No cheating spouse, no teen with a wrecked family car, no mayor of Washington, DC, videotaped in flagrante delicto has ever come up with anything as farfetched as U.S. farm policy. -- PJ O'Rourke
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 28, 2010 18:12:41 GMT -5
I think the agribusiness problem is primarily a demand issue - why people buy the stuff that factory farms churn out is beyond me, but perhaps it is unavoidable, particularly for low income folks. I am not sure what you can do about that on the demand side, particularly now.
My take is that we need to do a better job restricting land development and preserving open space so that farmers have more incentives to stay in business. At least in NJ, developers have been able to buy land from farmers and still turn a profit on the resulting development. Maybe the idea is to tax those transactions to death - I don't know, but please fix. In any event, maybe you can get a more robust supply of fresh food out of it.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 28, 2010 20:00:57 GMT -5
I think the agribusiness problem is primarily a demand issue - why people buy the stuff that factory farms churn out is beyond me, but perhaps it is unavoidable, particularly for low income folks. I am not sure what you can do about that on the demand side, particularly now. My take is that we need to do a better job restricting land development and preserving open space so that farmers have more incentives to stay in business. At least in NJ, developers have been able to buy land from farmers and still turn a profit on the resulting development. Maybe the idea is to tax those transactions to death - I don't know, but please fix. In any event, maybe you can get a more robust supply of fresh food out of it. I think the problem lies in the subsidies, especially for corn (and, ugh, ethanol). They're supposed to help w/ family farms but are going to huge agro-business and we're getting crazy amounts of corn. And when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you have a lot of corn, you get a lot of high fructose corn syrup.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 28, 2010 22:17:28 GMT -5
While i dont want to derail the conversation yet again but I just want respond quickly to SF. If you ask me not to "punish" those who are born less fortunate, you can justify punishing me for being born into a middle class house with loving parents. No one chooses what class or circumstances they are born into and therefor should not be judged on that criteria- it is their actions that should be judged as those most accurately depict the moral character of a man.
Additionally there are a great many people with physical and mental disabilities as well as psychological disorders that lead very productive self sustaining lives. A number of which are employed by this university.
As for Farm policy, dont get me started. As i went on for for quite a while in another thread, 99.9% of government regulations create massive inefficiencies in the market and only lead to economic suffering in the future.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 28, 2010 22:24:33 GMT -5
Derail this conversation? Hasn't happened yet.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 29, 2010 9:48:58 GMT -5
While i dont want to derail the conversation yet again but I just want respond quickly to SF. If you ask me not to "punish" those who are born less fortunate, you can justify punishing me for being born into a middle class house with loving parents. No one chooses what class or circumstances they are born into and therefor should not be judged on that criteria- it is their actions that should be judged as those most accurately depict the moral character of a man. Sure, but I fully believe that circumstances affect your character and actions. Not 100%, but there's a blend there. Note that I'm not specifically offering a solution; I just think one of the underlying assumptions made is wrong. Sure, and most of them did so with some kind of support. If you don't have a safety net, the division is almost always that those with caring and capable families lead productive lives and those without end up on the street. We are in agreement here. Not only is it creating market inefficiency, but it isn't even accomplishing the political goal it set out to do.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Apr 29, 2010 10:47:50 GMT -5
What did jgalt's hero Ms. Rand have to say about helping people? Ayn had a big heart, didn't she? Never bothered to read her books... You should read her books... if you like overwrought prose that atttempts to convey an 'ism' that has very little real world application.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 29, 2010 16:22:17 GMT -5
While i dont want to derail the conversation yet again but I just want respond quickly to SF. If you ask me not to "punish" those who are born less fortunate, you can justify punishing me for being born into a middle class house with loving parents. No one chooses what class or circumstances they are born into and therefor should not be judged on that criteria- it is their actions that should be judged as those most accurately depict the moral character of a man. Additionally there are a great many people with physical and mental disabilities as well as psychological disorders that lead very productive self sustaining lives. A number of which are employed by this university. As for Farm policy, dont get me started. As i went on for for quite a while in another thread, 99.9% of government regulations create massive inefficiencies in the market and only lead to economic suffering in the future. At least this thread hasn't derailed into whether or not blacks are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent: gawker.com/5527355/meet-stephanie-grace-the-harvard-law-student-who-started-a-racist-email-war
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 29, 2010 17:51:09 GMT -5
At least the judge she's clerking for should be able to give her some tips on how to handle image catastrophes.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 30, 2010 6:48:05 GMT -5
What a dope! She must have believed that garbage in The Bell Curve. Also, Lupica wants to move the 2011 MLB All Star game because of that stupid, racist, AZ law. tinyurl.com/26z5jrj
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2010 9:54:31 GMT -5
Studies conducted on the economic burden of noncompliance with seat belt use indicate that non seat belt wearers consumed more hospital resources, missed more time from work due to the greater severity of their injuries, cost insurance companies more money(though interestingly, were more likely to be uninsured or underinsured, leading to lower collection rates by hospitals) and died at twice the rate of seat belt wearers, thus removing more (theoretically) economically productive members from society. Is the greater economic benefit to society of seat belt laws or the health benefits of "salt laws" worth the intrusion of government into our lives? For me, an interesting but difficult question to answer. Despite the stance I took in the Goldman thread regarding the need for government intervention re: derivative markets, in general, I prefer that the market make such determinations, not the government. While I agree with the economic argument on the seat belt issue, I admit to conflict concerning salt. Where does one draw the line? As Boz said, I surely don't want anyone telling me how much beer I can drink. But beer is not an ingredient in food. I can choose to not consume beer. Excess salt, on the other hand, appears in far too many foods, making it quite difficult for some members of society to avoid over consumption. Excess salt consumption contributes mightily to hypertension, a scourge of low to moderate income black Americans. Will this policy lead to a reduction in hypertension in blacks? If so, great. Yet, I admit I shudder at the thought of the gov't mandating salt content. As I stated earlier, a difficult yet quite interesting question. This is from a while ago, but this first paragraph really annoys me. Smoking in restaurants has a negative effect on me, even if I don't smoke - it shortens my life and gives me negative consequences. I'm cool with limits on smoking. But seat belts for adults and salt .... there are a lot of dumb things that other people - and myself do - and they're not banned. It's a horrible slippery slope. What if they find that sports fans have increased risk of early death - is banning watching sports acceptable? Ahhh...the ol' slippery slope - tried and true, logically sound. An old standby, really. By the way, have any of the states that legalized gay marriage started working on legalizing polygamy yet?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 30, 2010 9:58:47 GMT -5
No, but in the states that have legalized gay marriage, there's been a massive amount of straight divorces as no one feels there's a real bond there. Apparently, they all thought they loved each other, but it turns out it was just an odious religious contract and now it's meaningless.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 30, 2010 11:45:02 GMT -5
But seat belts for adults and salt .... there are a lot of dumb things that other people - and myself do - and they're not banned. It's a horrible slippery slope. What if they find that sports fans have increased risk of early death - is banning watching sports acceptable? Ahhh...the ol' slippery slope - tried and true, logically sound. An old standby, really. [/quote] So, you're saying you don't have an answer to the question? If the FDA can just go ahead and declare salt an "unsafe" substance, thereby giving themselves the authority to regulate it, what can't they declare unsafe? It's pretty well established that grilling food is carcinogenic. Should the FDA establish limits on that? Or how about sugar? It's GRAS, but why should it be? It can and does cause obesity, diabetes and many other diseases and maladies. If you have an answer, I'm all ears. If not, your mocking of the slippery slope warning rings a little hollow.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 30, 2010 12:18:54 GMT -5
But seat belts for adults and salt .... there are a lot of dumb things that other people - and myself do - and they're not banned. It's a horrible slippery slope. What if they find that sports fans have increased risk of early death - is banning watching sports acceptable? Ahhh...the ol' slippery slope - tried and true, logically sound. An old standby, really. So, you're saying you don't have an answer to the question? If the FDA can just go ahead and declare salt an "unsafe" substance, thereby giving themselves the authority to regulate it, what can't they declare unsafe? It's pretty well established that grilling food is carcinogenic. Should the FDA establish limits on that? Or how about sugar? It's GRAS, but why should it be? It can and does cause obesity, diabetes and many other diseases and maladies. If you have an answer, I'm all ears. If not, your mocking of the slippery slope warning rings a little hollow. [/quote] And even more so, ANY thing, even water, is dangerous at high levels. The only thing that may not be is Fiber, but with too much youll be ting for days. Anyone can hurt them selves with ANYTHING if they really want to. The more you make it ok for the government to decide what i can do to my self and what i cant the more freedom you give up and soon they control every part of your life- slippery slope? yes it is.
|
|