EPTin actual news
http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2014/04/ama-loses-35-year-battle-keep-medicare-p
see how much medicare is paying doctors protected by the AMA cartel.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 989
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in actual news http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2014/04/ama-loses-35-year-battle-keep-medicare-p see how much medicare is paying doctors protected by the AMA cartel. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
On April 11 2014 23:00 oneofthem wrote: you can certainly pick on the theory laden stories they tell in econ 101 though. that stuff is just bad. in actual news http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2014/04/ama-loses-35-year-battle-keep-medicare-p see how much medicare is paying doctors protected by the AMA cartel. 'Both stories reported that 344 doctors took in at least $3 million each, for a total of $1.5 billion. And 151 ophthalmologists in that exclusive club earned a total of $658 million in Medicare payments. Eye doctors were the top earners. An annual take of $3 million or more per year breaks down to at least $60,000 a week, or $12,000 or more per day. How many pairs of glasses is that? Melgen made $84,000 a day.' I bet it was all totally legal too... | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 11 2014 20:44 oneofthem wrote: incentive based policy, or at the very least, policy with incentive considered, is pretty widespread and not wholesale bad. look at picketty's book for example. inherited wealth and rentseeking discourage working and enterprise. this is an example of disincentive. p.s. danglars lol you are not too good at this are you. if you actually read the thread whitedog basically ditched all kind of incentive concern in real policy. that's an empirical claim on the lack of incentive in the 'practical world.' this is a radical claim and a great overreaction. It's not incentive theory. You must make a distinction between an empirical analysis and "incentive". The idea of incentive is a modelization of human behavior, made to predict the reaction to specific change. And Piketty never said that in his book, I think you are mistaking Piketty for Stiglitz. I never ditched all kind of incentive concern in real policy, I said incentive theory by itself is weak, and real policy need a discussion between various models, and an adaptation of the model used to the context. Systematically using the same weak theory no matter the context is just ideology (like incentive work the same way for everybody, at every level, whatever the topic). For exemple, incentive theory is really important when talking about a possible substitution between taxations on firm and environmental taxations, but imperfect when talking about the substitution between labor and capital (like in anything Cobb Douglas), and just flat out dumb when used to study the possible substitution between work and leisure time. On April 11 2014 20:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Neoclassical economic models are about as useful to modern economics as astrology is to astronomy. Instead of getting left behind by the scientific movement it was unfortunately bolstered. If you are really interested in what science is telling us about economics (more especially the intensely flawed assumptions of neoclassical economic thought) this is a good place to start. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions https://www.ted.com/playlists/74/our_brains_predictably_irrati Neoclassical economy is interesting. It's easy to completly discard it if you don't know it to its core, but if you know it enough, it gives you both the tools to understand economy from a certain point of view and the tools to criticize your own biased point of view. By the way, economy is bigger than neoclassical economy - Smith was not a neoclassic (we was a classical economist, like K. Marx the one who find the name). I'm not sure ted talk and cognitives sciences hold the solution for me. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 11 2014 21:06 Danglars wrote: Nevertheless, I didn't see any models proposed by Jonny or others that assumed people would spend their discretionary income in some dispassionate utilitarian way. Hypotheses and models have their own scope that's limited in some aspects and expansive in others. Your presumption that the irrational aspects of advertising somehow defeats any consideration of rational actors in markets is overstepping your own example. Think of financial markets, foreign markets, education markets, housing markets, health care markets, and others. Are all of these dominated by ephemeral desires, such that we throw away any model of behavior "because advertising?" It borders on the assertion that everyone with choice will choose wrong; so its best to outsource choice to ivory towers. I would never say that everyone with choice will "choose wrong." Advertising is one example of irrationality, albeit an irrationality that is consciously exploited by those who actually work in markets. But perhaps I am overstating my case. I mean just look at how we've been able to avoid financial crises over the last 90 years or so. The housing market models were very useful back in 2007 in preventing catastrophe. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Combined sales of legal recreational and medical marijuana in the United States is projected to reach more than $8 billion in 2018. That's according to a new report by Marijuana Business Daily citing data from the Marijuana Business Factbook, which forecasts that the 2018 retail marijuana industry could see an estimated $7.4 to $8.2 billion in sales. The projection is based on sales estimates from the state-legal medical and recreational marijuana markets that already exist, as well as 4-5 additional states that are expected to legalize recreational marijuana and 2-3 states expected to legalize medical marijuana by 2018. Currently, there are 20 states with legal medical marijuana. Colorado and Washington have both legalized recreational marijuana and about a dozen other states are expected to legalize marijuana in some form in the coming years. “This total is conservative –- the reality of retail sales could be larger,” Chris Walsh, editor of CannaBusiness Media, the publisher of both the Factbook and Marijuana Business Daily, said in a statement. “Nor does it include wholesale cannabis sales, or the billions of dollars in ancillary cannabusiness revenues such as growing equipment, real estate, legal fees, testing labs, paraphernalia, etc.” Walsh's suggestion that sales could exceed that $8 billion mark is supported by another recent study that projects that the U.S. marijuana industry could be worth $10 billion by 2018. Source | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Something tells me we might also be able to use some of this to reduce our trade deficit. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The National Security Agency says it did not know about a critical security bug until it became public earlier this month. The NSA was responding to a report from Bloomberg that the agency had known about the vulnerability known as "Heartbleed" for two years and instead of alerting the tech community, it exploited the bug to "gather critical intelligence." Just to catch you up: The Heartbleed bug has led tech experts to call on Internet users worldwide to change the passwords they use on popular and sensitive sites, like that of their bank or email provider. As NPR's Jeremy Bower explained, the bug allowed an attacker to receive the encryption keys used to transmit information like your username and password. In other words, the bug allowed access to the "crown jewels." Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:36 WhiteDog wrote: It's not incentive theory. You must make a distinction between an empirical analysis and "incentive". The idea of incentive is a modelization of human behavior, made to predict the reaction to specific change. And Piketty never said that in his book, I think you are mistaking Piketty for Stiglitz. I never ditched all kind of incentive concern in real policy, I said incentive theory by itself is weak, and real policy need a discussion between various models, and an adaptation of the model used to the context. Systematically using the same weak theory no matter the context is just ideology (like incentive work the same way for everybody, at every level, whatever the topic). For exemple, incentive theory is really important when talking about a possible substitution between taxations on firm and environmental taxations, but imperfect when talking about the substitution between labor and capital (like in anything Cobb Douglas), and just flat out dumb when used to study the possible substitution between work and leisure time. Neoclassical economy is interesting. It's easy to completly discard it if you don't know it to its core, but if you know it enough, it gives you both the tools to understand economy from a certain point of view and the tools to criticize your own biased point of view. By the way, economy is bigger than neoclassical economy - Smith was not a neoclassic (we was a classical economist, like K. Marx the one who find the name). I'm not sure ted talk and cognitives sciences hold the solution for me. I mean I know there are helpful discoveries and such within it like let's say Aristotle's physics. Some important ideas and concepts were touched but we wouldn't use Aristotle's physics to send a satellite into orbit, why would we use Neoclassical economics to understand our economy? The ted talk is just easier for lay people to wrap their head around the fact that people regularly behave in predictable, uncontrollable, irrational ways. Here's a couple papers that are more traditional if you are interested in understanding a bit more where I am coming from. http://fitelson.org/woodward/hoover.pdf http://public.econ.duke.edu/~kdh9/Source Materials/Research/Boianovsky-Hoover Introduction 1-29-09.pdf • Then there is Mirowski’s critique of Joseph Stiglitz and other attempts by many in the discipline to distance themselves from the now infamous Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH). These critiques, as Mirowski shows, are meaningless when looked at from a larger perspective. They are attempts to pick little holes in the edifice of the Great Equilibrator (The Market) and show where tiny little micro-irrationalities creep in. This insulates the economists from recognising that The Market might be inherently destabalising (think Minsky’s: ‘unstable economy’). Indeed, The Market may not even exist as a tangible entity, it may simply be a figment of the economists’ imaginations; a metaphysical/theological positing of equilibrium and harmony – a religious-like belief that somewhere out there is a Godlike Hidden Hand that ensures benevolence; in short: a primitive belief that real science did away with years ago. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/philip-mirowski-the-seekers-or-how-mainstream-economists-have-defended-their-discipline-since-2008-–-part-i.html | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
Injecting wastewater deep underground is the prime suspect, potentially widening earthquake worries linked to hydraulic fracturing http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ohio-earthquake-likely-caused-by-fracking/ Externalities much? I wonder if conservatives realize neoclassical economics concluded a long time ago that something like a 'carbon tax' is necessary to their models? Neoclassical economists long ago recognized that the inefficiencies associated with technical externalities constitute a form of “market failure.” Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective. These economists recommended government intervention to correct for the effects of externalities. In The Economics of Welfare, British economist Arthur Pigou suggested that governments tax polluters an amount equivalent to the cost of the harm to others. Such a tax would yield the market outcome that would have prevailed with adequate internalization of all costs by polluters. By the same logic, governments should subsidize those who generate positive externalities, in the amount that others benefit. Source | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 12 2014 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Ohio Earthquake Likely Caused by Fracking Wastewater: Injecting wastewater deep underground is the prime suspect, potentially widening earthquake worries linked to hydraulic fracturing http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ohio-earthquake-likely-caused-by-fracking/ Externalities much? I wonder if conservatives realize neoclassical economics concluded a long time ago that something like a 'carbon tax' is necessary to their models? Neoclassical economists long ago recognized that the inefficiencies associated with technical externalities constitute a form of “market failure.” Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective. These economists recommended government intervention to correct for the effects of externalities. In The Economics of Welfare, British economist Arthur Pigou suggested that governments tax polluters an amount equivalent to the cost of the harm to others. Such a tax would yield the market outcome that would have prevailed with adequate internalization of all costs by polluters. By the same logic, governments should subsidize those who generate positive externalities, in the amount that others benefit. Source It would be nice to have a basic carbon tax in lieu of the current regulatory / subsidy regime. Conservatives tend to not like the carbon tax part and liberals tend to not like the getting rid of the regulatory / subsidy parts. It's a tough sell politically. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On April 12 2014 07:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It would be nice to have a basic carbon tax in lieu of the current regulatory / subsidy regime. Conservatives tend to not like the carbon tax part and liberals tend to not like the getting rid of the regulatory / subsidy parts. It's a tough sell politically. Doesn't that end up as essentially "Do what you want, just pay for it"? Meaning in the end, companies will manage to spend insanely small amounts for polluting rivers and stuff? I'd much rather tell companies they need to find a way to not be horribly toxic. They always find a way. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
INDIANAPOLIS — School leaders are getting ready for a big change in school food service. The USDA’s Smart Snacks in School rules go into effect July 1, 2014. In short, all “junk food” in vending machines, a la carte lunch, student stores and fundraisers such as bake sales will be banned July 1. “I think that’s great!” said Betsy Hunsucker, a Brownsburg mother. “I think kids would love fruits and vegetables.” Fruits, vegetables, dairy, protein-rich foods and whole grain-rich foods are allowed. Water, milk and 100 percent fruit and vegetable juice is permitted. High school students can have caffeine and low-calorie carbonated drinks. There are also rules when it comes to nutritional values like calories, sodium, sugar and fat. “I’m afraid that parents have spoiled their children so much with the choices that they allow them to make at home that the kids will turn up their noses to the nutrition,” said Hunsucker. Some schools, like Brownsburg, have already started. They have been compliant with grades K-5 since Christmas break, and have been slowly introducing older students to items like baked chips. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:36 WhiteDog wrote: It's not incentive theory. You must make a distinction between an empirical analysis and "incentive". The idea of incentive is a modelization of human behavior, made to predict the reaction to specific change. And Piketty never said that in his book, I think you are mistaking Piketty for Stiglitz. I never ditched all kind of incentive concern in real policy, I said incentive theory by itself is weak, and real policy need a discussion between various models, and an adaptation of the model used to the context. Systematically using the same weak theory no matter the context is just ideology (like incentive work the same way for everybody, at every level, whatever the topic). For exemple, incentive theory is really important when talking about a possible substitution between taxations on firm and environmental taxations, but imperfect when talking about the substitution between labor and capital (like in anything Cobb Douglas), and just flat out dumb when used to study the possible substitution between work and leisure time. Neoclassical economy is interesting. It's easy to completly discard it if you don't know it to its core, but if you know it enough, it gives you both the tools to understand economy from a certain point of view and the tools to criticize your own biased point of view. By the way, economy is bigger than neoclassical economy - Smith was not a neoclassic (we was a classical economist, like K. Marx the one who find the name). I'm not sure ted talk and cognitives sciences hold the solution for me. ok that's more agreeable. usually incentives are misused when agency is misconstrued. for example, as you've said, in labor markets or leisure-work the constructed agents are too simple. a more egregious problem is in collective action problems where you see people go "country A has incentive to blah blah" , or 'corporation P has incentive to not do dumb thing Q" without realizing that these collective entities are ruled by minorities/management with their own interests. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2014 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Ohio Earthquake Likely Caused by Fracking Wastewater: Injecting wastewater deep underground is the prime suspect, potentially widening earthquake worries linked to hydraulic fracturing http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ohio-earthquake-likely-caused-by-fracking/ by all accounts fracking can cause small and shallow earthquakes. but those are not really very damaging. earthquake energy release is proportional to the amount of seismic moment getting "stuck" before a release, and fracking, while creating pressure and lubricating faults underground, doesn't hold that much energy back for one big release. i'd be more worried about groundwater contamination not only underground but from the transportation and storage of hydrocarbons. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
Yea, the assertion that they knew about the bug doesn't make a lot of sense. People are claiming that the NSA knew only days/weeks after 1.0.1 went live (in 2012). If mega companies that heavily rely on OpenSSL (like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook) didn't know about it until recently, I doubt the NSA would have had access to it as well. It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
On April 12 2014 08:42 aksfjh wrote: Yea, the assertion that they knew about the bug doesn't make a lot of sense. People are claiming that the NSA knew only days/weeks after 1.0.1 went live (in 2012). If mega companies that heavily rely on OpenSSL (like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook) didn't know about it until recently, I doubt the NSA would have had access to it as well. It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff. Well there was this. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/wild-heart-were-intelligence-agencies-using-heartbleed-november-2013 Not conclusive by far but enough to warrant further investigation The crawling and data mining potential of this hasn't really been mentioned at all in mainstream channels...? Just the 'reset your password' suggestion if even that, from most entities, which is suspicious to say the least. | ||
|
Erdrick
Canada7 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Plus, modern neoclassical economy (Weitzman, Price versus quantities) showed carbon tax is not always the best solution. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
On April 12 2014 15:32 WhiteDog wrote: Well, interesting to see GreenHorizons now talking about externalities and carbon taxation, while the entire idea of the carbon tax is based around the idea of equilibrium. Reading about carbon tax in detail made me realize how flawed it is (it is not a tool design to limit carbon emission, but a tool that prioritize the well being of the economy). Plus, modern neoclassical economy (Weitzman, Price versus quantities) showed carbon tax is not always the best solution. The point I was making was that the same people arguing against a carbon tax have an economic philosophy that advocates for it. | ||
| ||
