|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Pollution affects everyone, polluter included. If you work at a coal plant, your health and productivity will be affected by the pollution. That's not privatizing the losses though is it? There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society. Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know.
External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply.
If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about 
|
On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:
[quote]
That's not privatizing the losses though is it? There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society. Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about
And why is that relevant to the question at hand ? P&L are comptability tools... Do you think all the "loss" made by the crisis in 2007 were present in the P&L of the banks the state saved ? Don't you think countries still pay for the price of this crisis through all the welfare state, having to face higher unemployment ? It's also part of the loss, altho it is indirectly linked to the banks who took part in the crisis, and certainly not present in their P&L today.
You're mistaking the economic way to measure socialized loss and reality.
|
odd...
CNN analysis: No Obamacare subsidy for some low-income Americans
Washington (CNN) -- One of the basic tenets of Obamacare is that the government will help lower-income Americans -- anyone making less than about $45,900 a year -- pay for the health insurance everyone is now mandated to have.
But a CNN analysis shows that in the largest city in nearly every state, many low-income younger Americans won't get any subsidy at all. Administration officials said the reason so many Americans won't receive a subsidy is that the cost of insurance is lower than the government initially expected. Subsidies are calculated using a complicated formula based on the cost of insurance premiums, which can vary drastically from state to state, and even county to county.
That doesn't change the fact that in Chicago, a 27-year old will receive no subsidy to help offset premiums of more than $165 a month if he makes more than $27,400 a year.
In Portland, Oregon, subsidies for individuals making just $28,725 a year phase out for those younger than 35 years old. ...
Back in April, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a congressional subcommittee that any individual making under that $45,960 threshold -- or four times the poverty level of $11,490 for an individual -- would qualify for "an upfront tax subsidy."
"Somebody who's making $25,500 would definitely qualify for a subsidy if he or she is purchasing coverage in the individual market," Sebelius added.
Despite the secretary's assurance, a 25-year-old living in Nashville, Tennessee, making $25,500 will not qualify for a subsidy, for example. ... Link
|
On November 24 2013 03:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:odd... Show nested quote +CNN analysis: No Obamacare subsidy for some low-income Americans
Washington (CNN) -- One of the basic tenets of Obamacare is that the government will help lower-income Americans -- anyone making less than about $45,900 a year -- pay for the health insurance everyone is now mandated to have.
But a CNN analysis shows that in the largest city in nearly every state, many low-income younger Americans won't get any subsidy at all. Administration officials said the reason so many Americans won't receive a subsidy is that the cost of insurance is lower than the government initially expected. Subsidies are calculated using a complicated formula based on the cost of insurance premiums, which can vary drastically from state to state, and even county to county.
That doesn't change the fact that in Chicago, a 27-year old will receive no subsidy to help offset premiums of more than $165 a month if he makes more than $27,400 a year.
In Portland, Oregon, subsidies for individuals making just $28,725 a year phase out for those younger than 35 years old. ...
Back in April, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a congressional subcommittee that any individual making under that $45,960 threshold -- or four times the poverty level of $11,490 for an individual -- would qualify for "an upfront tax subsidy."
"Somebody who's making $25,500 would definitely qualify for a subsidy if he or she is purchasing coverage in the individual market," Sebelius added.
Despite the secretary's assurance, a 25-year-old living in Nashville, Tennessee, making $25,500 will not qualify for a subsidy, for example. ... Link
Assuming this is the full story then it is indeed distressing. Wonder why this is happening.
|
On November 24 2013 03:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society. Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about And why is that relevant to the question at hand ? P&L are comptability tools... Do you think all the "loss" made by the crisis in 2007 were present in the P&L of the banks the state saved ? Don't you think countries still pay for the price of this crisis through all the welfare state, having to face higher unemployment ? It's also part of the loss, altho it is indirectly linked to the banks who took part in the crisis, and certainly not present in their P&L today. You're mistaking the economic way to measure socialized loss and reality.
Lol, no, just no. Higher unemployment has nothing to do with this discussion. If you think it does, you don't know what we're discussing!
|
On November 24 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 03:12 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about And why is that relevant to the question at hand ? P&L are comptability tools... Do you think all the "loss" made by the crisis in 2007 were present in the P&L of the banks the state saved ? Don't you think countries still pay for the price of this crisis through all the welfare state, having to face higher unemployment ? It's also part of the loss, altho it is indirectly linked to the banks who took part in the crisis, and certainly not present in their P&L today. You're mistaking the economic way to measure socialized loss and reality. Lol, no, just no. Higher unemployment has nothing to do with this discussion. If you think it does, you don't know what we're discussing!
It was an exemple, the crisis forced government to save too big to fail banks, but it also had negative impact on our society through various way - increase in unemployment for exemple - who had negative budgetary impact (socialized loss).
|
On November 24 2013 04:09 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 03:12 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: [quote] Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about And why is that relevant to the question at hand ? P&L are comptability tools... Do you think all the "loss" made by the crisis in 2007 were present in the P&L of the banks the state saved ? Don't you think countries still pay for the price of this crisis through all the welfare state, having to face higher unemployment ? It's also part of the loss, altho it is indirectly linked to the banks who took part in the crisis, and certainly not present in their P&L today. You're mistaking the economic way to measure socialized loss and reality. Lol, no, just no. Higher unemployment has nothing to do with this discussion. If you think it does, you don't know what we're discussing! It was an exemple, the crisis forced government to save too big to fail banks, but it also had negative impact on our society through various way - increase in unemployment for exemple - who had negative budgetary impact (socialized loss).
There are certainly all kinds of external costs and benefits from all sorts of activities. That's not the issue here.
|
On November 24 2013 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 04:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 03:12 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss.
Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about And why is that relevant to the question at hand ? P&L are comptability tools... Do you think all the "loss" made by the crisis in 2007 were present in the P&L of the banks the state saved ? Don't you think countries still pay for the price of this crisis through all the welfare state, having to face higher unemployment ? It's also part of the loss, altho it is indirectly linked to the banks who took part in the crisis, and certainly not present in their P&L today. You're mistaking the economic way to measure socialized loss and reality. Lol, no, just no. Higher unemployment has nothing to do with this discussion. If you think it does, you don't know what we're discussing! It was an exemple, the crisis forced government to save too big to fail banks, but it also had negative impact on our society through various way - increase in unemployment for exemple - who had negative budgetary impact (socialized loss). There are certainly all kinds of external costs and benefits from all sorts of activities. That's not the issue here.
Yes it is.
|
On November 24 2013 05:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 04:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 03:12 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about And why is that relevant to the question at hand ? P&L are comptability tools... Do you think all the "loss" made by the crisis in 2007 were present in the P&L of the banks the state saved ? Don't you think countries still pay for the price of this crisis through all the welfare state, having to face higher unemployment ? It's also part of the loss, altho it is indirectly linked to the banks who took part in the crisis, and certainly not present in their P&L today. You're mistaking the economic way to measure socialized loss and reality. Lol, no, just no. Higher unemployment has nothing to do with this discussion. If you think it does, you don't know what we're discussing! It was an exemple, the crisis forced government to save too big to fail banks, but it also had negative impact on our society through various way - increase in unemployment for exemple - who had negative budgetary impact (socialized loss). There are certainly all kinds of external costs and benefits from all sorts of activities. That's not the issue here. Yes it is.
Cite a source.
|
One needn't cite a source in order to suggest that the narrow modality of contemporary business/financial thought is highly detrimental when it comes to getting an accurate picture of how the economy/industry really works in society. The notion that, because a P&L statement brings with it strict connotations insofar as the words loss and profit are concerned, we are unable to expand upon the concept of privatizing profits and socializing losses as it pertains to the external effects of industry such as pollution is pedantic and silly.
|
On November 24 2013 06:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 05:47 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 05:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 04:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 03:12 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes.
I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period.
Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about And why is that relevant to the question at hand ? P&L are comptability tools... Do you think all the "loss" made by the crisis in 2007 were present in the P&L of the banks the state saved ? Don't you think countries still pay for the price of this crisis through all the welfare state, having to face higher unemployment ? It's also part of the loss, altho it is indirectly linked to the banks who took part in the crisis, and certainly not present in their P&L today. You're mistaking the economic way to measure socialized loss and reality. Lol, no, just no. Higher unemployment has nothing to do with this discussion. If you think it does, you don't know what we're discussing! It was an exemple, the crisis forced government to save too big to fail banks, but it also had negative impact on our society through various way - increase in unemployment for exemple - who had negative budgetary impact (socialized loss). There are certainly all kinds of external costs and benefits from all sorts of activities. That's not the issue here. Yes it is. Cite a source.
I think you already proved that there are things not included in P/L.
edit: why does he need to cite a source for what the issue is in the forum thread? that would be weird...
|
On November 24 2013 06:45 farvacola wrote:
One needn't cite a source in order to suggest that the narrow modality of contemporary business/financial thought is highly detrimental when it comes to getting an accurate picture of how the economy/industry really works in society. The notion that, because a P&L statement brings with it strict connotations insofar as the words loss and profit are concerned, we are unable to expand upon the concept of privatizing profits and socializing losses as it pertains to the external effects of industry such as pollution is pedantic and silly.
My contention was that the saying "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" uses those strict connotations. It also has some negativity associated to it, which can *ahem* pollute the discussion.
But whatever. If you kids really want to use the phase freely go ahead. I'll just start using it weirdly too
|
On November 24 2013 07:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 06:45 farvacola wrote:
One needn't cite a source in order to suggest that the narrow modality of contemporary business/financial thought is highly detrimental when it comes to getting an accurate picture of how the economy/industry really works in society. The notion that, because a P&L statement brings with it strict connotations insofar as the words loss and profit are concerned, we are unable to expand upon the concept of privatizing profits and socializing losses as it pertains to the external effects of industry such as pollution is pedantic and silly. My contention was that the saying "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" uses those strict connotations. It also has some negativity associated to it, which can *ahem* pollute the discussion. But whatever. If you kids really want to use the phase freely go ahead. I'll just start using it weirdly too
Define privatize in common language ;
Then define socialize in common language ;
Then define profit in common language ;
Then define loss in common language ;
Understand the sentence to its fullest.
I've lost my credit card, but since I didn't pay for a new one, it's not really a loss right ?
|
On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:30 Roe wrote:
[quote]
That's not privatizing the losses though is it? There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society. Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about
Translation: Negative externalities don't exist unless they're on an accounting statement.
|
On November 24 2013 10:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There are no "losses" to privatize or socialize. We're already stretching the phrase just to discuss it. The producer will be affected by the pollution, along with the rest of society. The producer will be affected by lower prices, along with the rest of society. Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about Translation: Negative externalities don't exist unless they're on an accounting statement.
Lol, no. Learn to read. I said the phrase refers to only costs on the accounting statement, not that all costs are on the accounting statement. But like I said, use it as you want.
|
On November 24 2013 10:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 10:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 06:50 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Do you understand the word losses ? You think a lower life expectancy in specific city because of the pollution is not a loss ? And the banks are not affected by the crisis like the rest of the society ? Your second point doesn't mean anything. Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about Translation: Negative externalities don't exist unless they're on an accounting statement. Lol, no. Learn to read. I said the phrase refers to only costs on the accounting statement, not that all costs are on the accounting statement. But like I said, use it as you want.
These are just semantics and you haven't been arguing any real point. Do you agree or not that there are costs to society (both consumers and non-consumers) done by business, that are not reconciled by gains to society at large (both consumers and non-consumers of the industry/product), but that those gains are kept in the hands of private enterprise?
|
On November 24 2013 10:16 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 10:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 10:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On November 24 2013 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 24 2013 01:53 WhiteDog wrote:On November 24 2013 01:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 21:01 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 08:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 07:44 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Loss means net loss on a P&L statement. Loss =/= cost. "Privatize the gains / socialize the losses" means a private entity turning a profit, and keeping it, or running at a loss and being covered by the public. The phrase does not refer to a public subsidy. Edit: [quote] Link And as I said, if the situation was perfect, or even if the industrials were responsible for the impact of the pollution on people, they would have to pay them, which would represent a loss. Since they don't, the population has to pay for the impact of the said pollution on health through welfare state, social security, etc. So yeah, loss gain and all. It's all semantic, like always with you. And here you go again playing extremely loose with definitions for ideological purposes. And here you go again, focussing on minor reality for ideological purposes. I'm talking facts, it is not good for industrial profit to care for environment and health, period. Don't refute the arguments, refute the choice of words right ? The discussion is over whether or not the phrase "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" is apt for this discussion. You could call pollution an implicit subsidy or an external cost and be fine. The only thing we're discussing is word choice. What's the relevance of your fact? How do those external costs matter when the phrase refers to internal costs that produce losses? Why is it that externality that produces loss for the society should not be taken into consideration ? You have no ground to refute this idea, it's just that for some reason you refuse to see what "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses" means by itself, outside of its usual utilization (too big to fail, etc.). In my country, people use the sentence "it's always the same who pay", and even if from a pure objective point of view it's not "the same who pay", well everybody understands the sentence you know. External costs, by definition, never show up on a P&L and so never can produce an accounting loss to be socialized. You would have to put the external cost on the P&L and have any resulting loss covered by society for the phrase to apply. If you really want to use the phrase creatively, you can obviously do so... but your use isn't in line with the phrase's normal use and definition. Maybe agree to disagree at this point? Like you said, this is a small potatoes thing to be arguing about Translation: Negative externalities don't exist unless they're on an accounting statement. Lol, no. Learn to read. I said the phrase refers to only costs on the accounting statement, not that all costs are on the accounting statement. But like I said, use it as you want. These are just semantics and you haven't been arguing any real point. Do you agree or not that there are costs to society (both consumers and non-consumers) done by business, that are not reconciled by gains to society at large (both consumers and non-consumers of the industry/product), but that those gains are kept in the hands of private enterprise?
Yeah, here's an earlier post:
On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well.
|
|
|
How about something in between.
|
Breaking: Iran and P5 + 1 have reached a deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
