[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Bryan

well I don't think we'll ever agree. I think government has a responsibility to look out for the consumer and and enact regulation to protect consumers, even from their own ignorance. Is consumer choice important? yes it is. Is consumer education important? Absolutely. This isn't a case of either/or, it is a case of both/and.

I understand the laissez-faire position more in the context of anarcho-capitalism. But if we trust the government to protect us from foreign/domestic aggression then why not X or Y or Z? I don't believe employees of the government are inherently more corrupt than employees of ExxonMobil.

[tlj009]

Easy. Read the comment again. It talks about the amount spent and it does not talk about per capita spending as your formula suggests. For example, if X=$500 and P=1000 as in your formula, the result would be $.50, NOT 100%. You have $ in your numerator and numbers in your denominator; you can only express the resulting unit value in monetary terms. Pure mathematical fact. I can see where you were going with this, but it would mean you have to make unsubstantiated assumptions.

Jerry is not wrong here, he just skips steps.

X = $500
P = 1000

In 1970 $500/1000people = $0.50/person

Today (2)$500/((1.5)(1000 people)) = $0.67/person

So we find that the per person cost today is 33% higher than it was in 1970. No matter what dollar figure or population that you use for 1970, as long as the 2 and 1.5 remain the same, it will always be 33% higher.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Jerry is not wrong here, he just skips steps.

X = $500
P = 1000

In 1970 $500/1000people = $0.50/person

Today (2)$500/((1.5)(1000 people)) = $0.67/person

So we find that the per person cost today is 33% higher than it was in 1970. No matter what dollar figure or population that you use for 1970, as long as the 2 and 1.5 remain the same, it will always be 33% higher.

Yes, the math teacher would have given him a 0 on the question for not proving his steps. I understand that's what he was trying to do. But, he made the assumption that we're measuring against population which is where his 50% figure comes in and in that case, it is a correct calculation. However, It may not be the growth factor to be used. For instance, I could just as well say that it's reasonable to assume they have measured the number of students since we're talking about education here. Could be less than a 50% increase, or more.

[Folk_guy]

There are some aspects of business where government oversight is a good thing. If it wasn't for the government putting limits on things like how much pollution a plant can spew into the air, or water, do you think manufacturers would have voluntarily put expensive filtration systems on their smoke stakes, and water discharges. Also how about things like child labor laws, and OSHA has done a great job of keeping American Workers safer. The government has a role in making industry an entity that doesn't destroy our environment, and protects us from unnecessary risk in the workplace. There are other areas that I'm less sure about wether or not the government should be involved, such as bailing out one company over another, or setting prices, etc.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Easy. Read the comment again. It talks about the amount spent and it does not talk about per capita spending as your formula suggests. For example, if X=$500 and P=1000 as in your formula, the result would be $.50, NOT 100%. You have $ in your numerator and numbers in your denominator; you can only express the resulting unit value in monetary terms. Pure mathematical fact. I can see where you were going with this, but it would mean you have to make unsubstantiated assumptions.

We spent 200 Jerrybills on education with a population of 200 million (1 JerryBill = whatever multiplier it takes to get the correct dollar value adjusted for inflation).

We now spend 400 Jerrybills on a population of 300 million.

To say that our costs have doubled, and use that as a bash on the education system, is to ignore that the population has increased by 50%. Spending per person (and presumably per student) is up only 33%,

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Yes, the math teacher would have given him a 0 on the question for not proving his steps. I understand that's what he was trying to do. But, he made the assumption that we're measuring against population which is where his 50% figure comes in and in that case, it is a correct calculation. However, It may not be the growth factor to be used. For instance, I could just as well say that it's reasonable to assume they have measured the number of students since we're talking about education here. Could be less than a 50% increase, or more.

Number of students would absolutely be better. I didn't have that number off the top of my head, and you have not introduced it.

[JerryLove]

Some more good self-regulation, and the government having to clean it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/us/14kansas.html

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Number of students would absolutely be better. I didn't have that number off the top of my head, and you have not introduced it.

At this time, neither was population, only the amount of spending was doubled. I will post it if I know.

In the meantime, is the FAA self-regulating or does the buck stop there? I'm posting this again as an example of how wonderful it is to put your trust in government.

"However, I was reading in USA Today about how badly the FAA messed up in the small airline crashes that caused the deaths of 249 people between 2003 and 2008. The NTSB discovered these mistakes, not the FAA which has oversite. I fly every other week and guess what, while there is a choice in which airline I use, there is no choice in who is responsible in watching over them. I use this as an example of how you can still have high levels of government regulation and how poor the record is."

[JerryLove]

"The price doubled" may be true. the inference you made "the efficiency halved" is false

Originally Posted by Hopeful

"However, I was reading in USA Today about how badly the FAA messed up in the small airline crashes that caused the deaths of 249 people between 2003 and 2008. The NTSB discovered these mistakes, not the FAA which has oversite. I fly every other week and guess what, while there is a choice in which airline I use, there is no choice in who is responsible in watching over them. I use this as an example of how you can still have high levels of government regulation and how poor the record is."

So even with government regulation the industry has a poor record. How do you think it would be better without even what little regulation there is?

What shall we compare it to in order to decide it's bad? Deaths by medical mistake? Plane deaths per mile flied in less regulated places?

There are a lot of problems with the FAA. Self-regulating industry is worse (and at least I have a mechanism to try to reform the FAA... elections).

[Hopeful]

Jerry, are you trying to say there is an excuse for 249 deaths? Or that tolerance for deaths within certain limits is acceptable? I'm not sure that's what you're trying to say... Anyway, I'm just pointing out to everyone why I don't have a warm and fuzzy with government (in answer to the question). You feel differently, after all, the hospital almost killed you - and I can accept that.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

Jerry, are you trying to say there is an excuse for 249 deaths? Or that tolerance for deaths within certain limits is acceptable? I'm not sure that's what you're trying to say...

That governmental regulation has been superior to a lack of governmental regulation. What other message could possibly be reasonably taken?

Anyway, I'm just pointing out to everyone why I don't have a warm and fuzzy with government (in answer to the question). You feel differently, after all, the hospital almost killed you - and I can accept that.

Because it might not be perfect you oppose it?

Isn't the real question: which option is better?

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Because it might not be perfect you oppose it?

Isn't the real question: which option is better?

I already gave my answer and my reasons. You have your reasons why you believe differently. Has anything changed? No!

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

I already gave my answer and my reasons.

Because it's not perfect?

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Because it's not perfect?

No, because it is dangerous. But industry self regulation is not perfect either. But, in my opinion, I prefer it better than having the government in more areas than it already is.

Anyway, it is just one example and you have my answer. I will never be able to satisfy you because you have this penchant for discounting any reasons I might have. I have worked decades in private industry. I now work as a contractor for the Federal government and see how inefficient and wasteful they are. I also see that in most areas, the brightest people are usually hired by private industry because they will pay them better. The paper waste generated alone should alarm any ecologist, and that's not counting printing money! It's for covering up their behinds. Why do they have to cover their behinds? Because they screw up all the time. Like I said, I understand why you feel about healthcare the way you do. My experience has been different - my eyes see things in a way you don't and maybe never will. We are not all the same.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

No, because it is dangerous. But industry self regulation is not perfect either. But, in my opinion, I prefer it better than having the government in more areas than it already is.

So you believe that the self-regulation of (say) manufacturing in the 19th century was better than OSHA in the 20th? You believe that aircraft have better safety records in countries with no federal regulation? You believe that the air is cleaning, the water safer, and the food better where there's no EPA or FDA-like entity?

I disagree completely.

Anyway, it is just one example and you have my answer. I will never be able to satisfy you because you have this penchant for discounting any reasons I might have.

Have you considered the possibility that this is because you are wrong?

I have worked decades in private industry. I now work as a contractor for the Federal government and see how inefficient and wasteful they are. I also see that in most areas, the brightest people are usually hired by private industry because they will pay them better.

Are the brightest people the ones put in charge? If not, it's likely irrelevant.

The paper waste generated alone should alarm any ecologist, and that's not counting printing money! It's for covering up their behinds. Why do they have to cover their behinds? Because they screw up all the time. Like I said, I understand why you feel about healthcare the way you do. My experience has been different - my eyes see things in a way you don't and maybe never will. We are not all the same.

No. You think you do. You fail to appreciate that I work for a healthcare provider, that I date a nurse, whose father is a doctor. You don't notice that I've worked for a half-dozen fortune-50 companies.

You seem to be making an ad hominem argument.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I disagree completely.

Have you considered the possibility that this is because you are wrong?

And I disagree with you - completely.

Have you considered the possibility that it is you who might be wrong?

And Jerry, I also mentioned that I can appreciate your opinion and perspective based on your experience. Mine has been different, so is my opinion. The question has been asked and I answered the best I know how, which includes all my years working and being a consumer in private and public industry.