|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 28 2019 17:08 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 16:39 Falling wrote:learn the economics Well then it's definitely a bad analogy. The point of an analogy is to take that which is unknown and explain it more simply by something that is known. But if you have to learn the unknown thing in order to understand the connection to the known thing and how it explains the unknown... there is literally no purpose to the analogy as an explanatory device. There is perhaps a rhetorical purpose: Ponzi scheme = bad. Inflationary policy = Ponzi scheme Therefore Inflationary policy = bad huh? I called the fed's monetary policy a ponzi scheme
I think everyone is trying to tell you that it makes absolutely 0 sense. It’s Rand Paul level of analysis.
|
On April 28 2019 16:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 16:38 PoulsenB wrote:All of your posts can be shortened to "printing new 'empty' money is bad for the economy", to which I believe everyone would agree, as history has showed time and again that it's a really bad idea. The whole ponzi scheme arguments and lenghty explanations only obfuscate the point you're trying to make. Moderate and responsible quantitative easing is a totally valid monetary tool and has never led to hyper inflation, anywhere, ever. Saying it leads to Zimbabwe is like saying that you should never take an aspirin because if you swallow 45 packs you will be in trouble. Expanding the monetary mass can be extremely useful, for example if inflation is too low (economists agree that a target of 2% is reasonable) or if deflation looms, which can be absolutely catastrophic. With all due respects, rants about « printing money » and « Ponzi schemes » are basically always a huge red flag that the person talking has leant his economics on Zeitgeist or some libertarian forum and has absolutely no clue about macroeconomics whatsoever. And of course it’s not about solving public finance problems by printing a lot of bank notes but about readjusting the monetary mass when it’s too low.
Nice strawman with your bit about zimbabwe
And, just because Central Banks tell the public that they aim for approx 2%, this 2% figure is their general target over a general period of time (meaning it can and does fluctuate around that number), and there is no consensus among economists that a target of 2% is "reasonable"
Central Banks prefer inflation because it makes it easier for them to distort the economy during any recession. IE, the fed can lower the federal funds rate easier
|
Just to dispel the myths that there is consensus among economists that "some inflation is a good thing" and "inflation targeting is good" and that 2% inflation is the magic bullet
Here is a quote from one of the US Federal Reserve's economists. Straight from the horse's mouth:
Jennifer Beatty: I have a couple of questions on inflation since we’re touching on it so specifically. The Fed’s current target is around 2 percent. It’s targeting around 2 percent inflation. Why? Why not target 0 percent? Why is targeting positive inflation and, you know, rising prices—why is that good?
David Wheelock: Well, let me say at the outset that economists disagree about this. Our former president before Jim Bullard, William Poole, he always said that the Fed’s target should be zero properly measured. And that properly measured is an important caveat because one reason that central banks like the Fed have tended to settle on a numerical target that’s above zero is that measuring inflation precisely is very difficult.
We use price indexes which are necessarily summaries involving baskets of goods, not necessarily all goods in the economy. And those indexes, although they’ve been improved a lot over the years, they do have some slight upward bias. So, when the observed rate of inflation is, say, 1 or 2 percent, that’s really—the true measure is actually probably lower than that, closer to zero. So just simply measurement bias would be one reason to target a positive rate.
Another reason that the Fed—and, again, there’s disagreement even within the Fed on this—but some people think that it’s better to have a positive rate because interest rates tend to be proportional to the rate of inflation. So the higher the rate of inflation, you tend to have a higher level of interest rates.
A higher level of interest rates gives the Fed a little more room to cut in the event of a recession. So it’s a bit of a cushion that allows monetary policy to operate a little more through its traditional interest rate channel than—if we were zero interest rates it would be lower. There would be less scope to cut, because you can’t cut the nominal rate below zero, or at least not much below zero.
Jennifer Beatty: You can’t, yeah.
David Wheelock: Some countries have experimented with negative rates, but that’s a different line. And then there are other reasons that some people—not necessarily anyone at the St. Louis Fed buy into—but some people think that the effect of deflation of a given size would be more harmful for the economy than a positive rate of inflation of the same number. So, in other words, the costs of a negative 2 percent inflation rate, or a 2 percent deflation rate, would be higher than the costs of a 2 percent positive inflation rate. So you want to err on the side of having a positive number.
Jennifer Beatty: Yeah, that’s interesting. So why is that? I mean, as a consumer, wouldn’t I like it that a car is going to be cheaper down the road than it is today, or a house? So why is deflation worse?
David Wheelock: Absolutely. But the way you asked the question, it makes it clear that we need to distinguish between prices of individual goods and services and the general price level for the economy as a whole. So, sure, we’d all like cars to be cheaper, computers to be cheaper, coffees to be cheaper down the road. But when the general level of prices is falling, then it’s also pulling down incomes as well. And so you’re not going to have sustained lower prices for very long until you see incomes falling as well. So you really would be—
Jennifer Beatty: So you’d be making less.
David Wheelock: You’d be making less.
Jennifer Beatty: The money that you save for retirement would be worth less in the future.
David Wheelock: Well, that’s interesting. If you save money, if you’re a saver and have deflation, then the value of that money is actually going up, because it will buy more stuff in the future than it does today. So that’s why we say deflation in that sense tends to be good for people who have money in the bank, people who are lenders.
People who borrow money though suffer when there’s deflation, because most interest rates are fixed in nominal terms. You borrow money to buy a car loan, 10 percent, say, just to pick a number. If your income starts falling though, then the pain of having to repay that 10 percent interest rate loan is going up, and so that’s a consequence of deflation.
So deflation and inflation have distributional impacts. Generally, deflation harms people who borrow money more than savers, whereas inflation harms people who save more than deflation. But it’s more complicated than that.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/timely-topics/monetary-policy-minutes
As you can see, there is no consensus at all on this whole central bank inflation targeting concept. This idea is espoused by Keynesians, and politicians love Keynesian economic polices because it gives them an excuse to print more money, increase tax burden, lower the federal fund rate, and propagate a massive credit empire like the one in america that has so many debtors trapped.
Which goes back to how this discussion started - Trump is just another Keynesian as seen by what the Fed is doing under his adminstration.
|
I don’t think you understand at all the interview you quoted because it’s a lesson on why inflation is good:
Suppose you want to buy a really good book about economics (for example). And the book costs 100 dollars. You are VERY tight with your money, not because you are stingy but because spoiler alert, you are a metaphor for a big company. Anyway. There is an inflation rate of 2% that means next year the book will be 102 dollars. Your most rational behaviour is to not delay and buy it immediately.
Suppose that there is a deflation of 2%. Now the book will be 98 dollars. No way you buy it now; it’s much better to put your cash under your pillow and wait for a year or two. Hell you make a profit by not investing.
Now, here is the thing: there is strictly no downside to a small dose of inflation. As long as it’s not a runaway phenomenon, it just incentivize people to spend their money and invest and punishes sleeping money, which is great.
And that’s what the interview says: inflation is great for investment, deflation for savings. And in a capitalist economy you really don’t want people to save, you want them to invest and buy shit.
|
|
|
|
|
United States41470 Posts
On April 28 2019 15:25 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 11:16 Sermokala wrote:
I think Berzerk sword is confusing basic monetary policy intending to continue inflation at a steady rate as a grand conpiracy thats somehow a ponzi scam where no one gets scamed and everyone benifits. I am not Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:48 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If I'm understanding correctly, you think there is a conspiracy that would lead "the Fed" to kill Trump to stop him from stopping them.
When Trump survived this caused you to call your conspiracy theory into question because if "the Fed" were all powerful and in opposition to Trump then he would be dead. He was not dead which caused conflict with your original theory about a secret all powerful entity called "the Fed".
Then you realized that there was actually a second conspiracy in which Trump had secretly been compromised by "the Fed" and therefore the fact that nothing had happened to Trump didn't disprove your first conspiracy theory but actually showed how powerful they were by forcing him to partake in the second conspiracy to secretly support the first conspiracy by making it look like there was no conspiracy at all. You're not understanding correctly. I'm just bringing up possibilities, rather than claiming to know the exact MO of the dep state. but i didn't write that well. I shouldn't have put that part in parentheses I do think that if trump went after the fed's monetary empire something would be done to make sure he's not in office. The fact that he is allowing a soft version of what Obama did makes me think he was compromised or he just reneged on his promises because it would make the stock market look bad/economy. That is the bottom line to me though - that he is keeping the ponzi scheme alive and well It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Every time someone gets paid in USD, he/she is investing in USD. Last time I checked Americans are paid in USD. You ignored when I said the situation in America is more nuanced and slow moving than a zimbabwe or venazuela type situation where pepole are wheelbarrowing around cash to by bread. Youre ignoring the factor of time and sequence that i described before. The basic principle is that people early in the sequence get enriched while the people at the end get impoverished. This happens in all degrees of inflation, just to a different extent depending on inflation rate. The people at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid - the people who do not have access to non-depreciating assets and who live paycheck to paycheck with maybe a small cash sum in their bank account continually get fucked over. As this goes on the people who are affected spreads to higher up the economic ladder. Decades ago a high school grad had a solid chance of working 40 hrs a week in a factory and trading his labor for USD capable of getting his family a house as well as resources to live. The middle class used to NEVER worry about things like health insurance. Decades are going by and now we have the most college educated generation stuck renting most of the time and a health insurance crisis that is even affecting the middle class. Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway. That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is. The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations). The point is that inflation only impacts cash and cash flows. If the purchasing power of cash goes down I don't give a shit because I don't have any cash and my fixed cash outflows (mortgage payments) are greater than my fixed cash inflows (possibly my rate of pay but that's not really fixed, it increases with cost of living). The idea that inflation is stealing wealth from the general population makes no sense. It's also not a Ponzi scheme, for what it's worth. Dude. It's good to hear that you are doing alright, but we are not talking about you, specifically.... And I explained in two ways (defining quantitative easing and your Mr Ponzi Adam, Bob, Charlie scenario) how inflation transfers wealth from the bottom to the top. As long as the general population gets paid in USD, inflation takes wealth from them.
I’ll try to explain it a different way.
Consider a car. In a period of inflation does it go slower? Is the mpg worse? Or is the utility provided by the car exactly the same? Because if it’s the same then the car can always be traded for whatever amount of currency represents that value, whether it’s ten thousand dollars or a million dollars, the value represented by each unit of currency does not impact the value of the car.
Now consider the car note. The bank wants 48 equal monthly payments of $300. In a period of inflation are those $300 payments easier to get or harder?
Inflation hurts people holding large amounts of cash and large amounts of fixed rate cash flows. Conversely it helps people who have assets and fixed rate debt payments.
|
I'm curious which measure of inflation people are using when they say "inflation"?
Because I'm referencing something sorta specific. Essentially that by not accurately reflecting inflation in policy wealth is transferred ("undercover") from those earning wages (which shrink) to those with real assets (beyond survival) which just gain monetary value as inflation rises.
The CPI doesn’t even meet the government’s definition of inflation
The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines inflation “as a process of continuously rising prices or equivalently, of a continuously falling value of money.”
As I outlined above, the CPI is not a measurement of rising prices, rather it tracks consumer spending patterns that change as prices change. The CPI doesn’t even touch the falling value of money. If it did the CPI would look much different.
The CPI doesn’t meet other government agency’s inflation measurements either
The most obvious is the Federal Reserve’s measure of monetary inflation. M2 measures the supply of US dollars, which includes cash, checking deposits, saving deposits, and money market mutual funds. The more money that’s created and put into circulation, the less valuable it becomes. And the Fed has created a lot of money recently. The Fed’s unprecedented bond buying program, Quantitative Easing, created $116 million an hour for the entire year last year. It doesn’t make sense that the BLS’s measurement of inflation was only 1.5% last year, while at the same time, monetary inflation grew 4.9%.*
Another example where the BLS doesn’t meet other agency’s inflation measurements is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. According to the BLS the average price of beef and veal increased 20 percent over the past five years. However, according to the USDA, beef prices have increased 26 percent over the past five years. I asked a statistician at the BLS about this discrepancy and he said “I would expect those numbers to be a little closer together.” When even the federal government gets different numbers on the same products, how could this possibly be an accurate measurement of inflation?
It’s important to have an accurate measure of inflation because consumers, especially those on fixed incomes, are negatively impacted by rising prices. Also, the federal government and the Federal Reserve use CPI trends to help set tax, monetary and fiscal policies, which affects economic growth. Given that the CPI is calculated secretly, is no where near comparable to monetary inflation, and doesn’t even meet its own definition of inflation, we should use our common sense to count the value of our cents, not the CPI.
*Footnote: On 01/07/2013 M2 was $10.452 trillion. On 01/06/2014 M2 grew to $10.962 trillion. That’s a 4.9% increase in the monetary base in just one year. Conversely, a 4.9% decrease in the value of the US dollar.
www.forbes.com
EDIT: This is also a good way to lift people out of poverty. Keep the number of dollars it takes not to be poor growing at a rate slower than the value of those dollars shrinks. So you can statistically lift someone out of poverty while making them poorer in the real world.
|
One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation.
The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors.
And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify).
Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal.
I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go.
(We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.)
Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp
|
Warren’s policy stuff has been substantively the strongest among Democrats; at a minimum, I expect (hope) that her platform pushes the rest of the field in the right direction even if she ends up dropping out.
|
On April 29 2019 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation. The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors. And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify). Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal. I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go. (We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.) Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp
Large drivers I've seen identified are c-sections because they are faster and more profitable for hospitals, but far more dangerous, rushing births with induction, and ignoring Black mothers concerns during and immediately after birthing.
While a "small" number of maternal deaths are being talked about it's also important to remind US citizens we have the worst rate in the developed world.
Sometimes the US feels like how I've seen the USSR portrayed where people in the US were told people in the USSR were being tricked into believing they were on par with the rest of the developed world.
|
On April 29 2019 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation. The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors. And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify). Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal. I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go. (We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.) Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp Yeah, I don't think tying things to performance for a hospital is a good idea. Its much much better to investigate why hospitals are performing worse then others and see what the actual reasons are.
As for maternal mortality, without any further knowledge about it my initial thoughts go to, as always, the state of health insurance in the US.
High deductibles and non mandatory coverage means people are less healthy when going into child birth, probably have less doctor/hospital visits during pregnancy and are less likely to go to a hospital afterwards if they feel something is wrong with themselves.
To find out what is the actual problem is you would have to compare what is the causes of death are for all these 'extra' unneeded deaths.
|
On April 29 2019 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation. The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors. And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify). Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal. I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go. (We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.) Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp Large drivers I've seen identified are c-sections because they are faster and more profitable for hospitals, but far more dangerous, rushing births with induction, and ignoring Black mothers concerns during and immediately after birthing. While a "small" number of maternal deaths are being talked about it's also important to remind US citizens we have the worst rate in the developed world. Sometimes the US feels like how I've seen the USSR portrayed where people in the US were told people in the USSR were being tricked into believing they were on par with the rest of the developed world.
Why must you always compare the US and other countires? Specifically NK, USSR, Venezuela? I don't see how anything you say in regards to this specific post helps drive the discussion. You just wanted to take a shot at the US for no other reasons than your seemingly growing hatred for the place.
|
On April 29 2019 00:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2019 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation. The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors. And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify). Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal. I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go. (We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.) Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp Large drivers I've seen identified are c-sections because they are faster and more profitable for hospitals, but far more dangerous, rushing births with induction, and ignoring Black mothers concerns during and immediately after birthing. While a "small" number of maternal deaths are being talked about it's also important to remind US citizens we have the worst rate in the developed world. Sometimes the US feels like how I've seen the USSR portrayed where people in the US were told people in the USSR were being tricked into believing they were on par with the rest of the developed world. Why must you always compare the US and other countires? Specifically NK, USSR, Venezuela? I don't see how anything you say in regards to this specific post helps drive the discussion. You just wanted to take a shot at the US for no other reasons than your seemingly growing hatred for the place.
No, it was a specific critique. That most people are familiar with the story that the people of the USSR, NK, Venezuela are being tricked into believing their country/government/performance compared to peers are far better than they are and I was noting that the US fits that narrative nowadays.
Having the worst maternal mortality in the developed world is obvious to me on it's face why it's an important part of a discussion about why the wealthiest country on the planet performs so poorly. The USSR part is to demonstrate that US citizens aren't immune to be manipulated into believing propaganda about their country being the best at everything.
|
On April 29 2019 00:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2019 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation. The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors. And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify). Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal. I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go. (We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.) Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp Large drivers I've seen identified are c-sections because they are faster and more profitable for hospitals, but far more dangerous, rushing births with induction, and ignoring Black mothers concerns during and immediately after birthing. While a "small" number of maternal deaths are being talked about it's also important to remind US citizens we have the worst rate in the developed world. Sometimes the US feels like how I've seen the USSR portrayed where people in the US were told people in the USSR were being tricked into believing they were on par with the rest of the developed world. Why must you always compare the US and other countires? Specifically NK, USSR, Venezuela? I don't see how anything you say in regards to this specific post helps drive the discussion. You just wanted to take a shot at the US for no other reasons than your seemingly growing hatred for the place.
Was gonna say the same thing, literally every post in which GH criticizes the US would be stronger and more persuasive if they did not contain these stilted comparisons.
|
On April 29 2019 00:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 00:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2019 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2019 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation. The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors. And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify). Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal. I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go. (We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.) Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp Large drivers I've seen identified are c-sections because they are faster and more profitable for hospitals, but far more dangerous, rushing births with induction, and ignoring Black mothers concerns during and immediately after birthing. While a "small" number of maternal deaths are being talked about it's also important to remind US citizens we have the worst rate in the developed world. Sometimes the US feels like how I've seen the USSR portrayed where people in the US were told people in the USSR were being tricked into believing they were on par with the rest of the developed world. Why must you always compare the US and other countires? Specifically NK, USSR, Venezuela? I don't see how anything you say in regards to this specific post helps drive the discussion. You just wanted to take a shot at the US for no other reasons than your seemingly growing hatred for the place. Was gonna say the same thing, literally every post in which GH criticizes the US would be stronger and more persuasive if they did not contain these stilted comparisons.
To me people are more offended at being compared to nations they view theirs as superior to than the fact that the US performs so poorly with minimal critique.
|
Right, so instead of encouraging folks to engage with the substance of the wide variety of valid critiques of the US, you’re baiting people into taking offense to tangential comparisons instead. Grats I guess.
|
On April 29 2019 01:00 farvacola wrote:
Right, so instead of encouraging folks to engage with the substance of the wide variety of valid critiques of the US, you’re baiting people into taking offense to tangential comparisons instead. Grats I guess.
It's not my fault if people choose to focus on the tangential. Your getting angry at me for others not being able to maintain both the "substance" as you see it and comparative analysis.
Why must you always compare the US and other countires?
Can we just sit on how remarkable of a question this is?
|
On April 29 2019 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 00:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2019 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2019 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation. The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors. And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify). Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal. I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go. (We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.) Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp Large drivers I've seen identified are c-sections because they are faster and more profitable for hospitals, but far more dangerous, rushing births with induction, and ignoring Black mothers concerns during and immediately after birthing. While a "small" number of maternal deaths are being talked about it's also important to remind US citizens we have the worst rate in the developed world. Sometimes the US feels like how I've seen the USSR portrayed where people in the US were told people in the USSR were being tricked into believing they were on par with the rest of the developed world. Why must you always compare the US and other countires? Specifically NK, USSR, Venezuela? I don't see how anything you say in regards to this specific post helps drive the discussion. You just wanted to take a shot at the US for no other reasons than your seemingly growing hatred for the place. No, it was a specific critique. That most people are familiar with the story that the people of the USSR, NK, Venezuela are being tricked into believing their country/government/performance compared to peers are far better than they are and I was noting that the US fits that narrative nowadays. Having the worst maternal mortality in the developed world is obvious to me on it's face why it's an important part of a discussion about why the wealthiest country on the planet performs so poorly. The USSR part is to demonstrate that US citizens aren't immune to be manipulated into believing propaganda about their country being the best at everything.
I feel if you would restrict your arguments to the people here in this thread and understand our collective knowledge about the US and its many failings are more than likely higher than the average citizen, it would help us to not take what you say as just vitriol towards the US.
Thank you for expanding upon the previous post, fwiw. At the end of the day, the doctors get paid on how many operations they perform and they want to expedite that, so to speak. That the US continues to fall short of the rest of the "developed" world is a direct reflection of capitalism and the deteriorating healthcare coverage/benefits. Would you agree?
On April 29 2019 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 01:00 farvacola wrote:
Right, so instead of encouraging folks to engage with the substance of the wide variety of valid critiques of the US, you’re baiting people into taking offense to tangential comparisons instead. Grats I guess. It's not my fault if people choose to focus on the tangential. Your getting angry at me for others not being able to maintain both the "substance" as you see it and comparative analysis. Can we just sit on how remarkable of a question this is?
Leaving out the next question is cherry picking. You're going to have to include all of that line if you want a proper response.
|
On April 29 2019 01:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2019 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2019 00:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2019 00:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2019 00:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:One of Elizabeth Warren's many goals and plans as president of the United States is to address maternity mortality rate. Maternity mortality rate is the percentage of women who die during or shortly after childbirth. I strongly agree with her identification of the problem, but I'm wary of her response to the situation. The maternity mortality rate in the United States is .000264, which is higher than in many other first-world countries. In other words, .0264% - or about 1 in 3,788 - of American women die during childbirth or shortly after giving birth. That's obviously an incredibly low number (99.97% of American women live through childbirth), but the CDC has already made a statement saying that 60% of these deaths are preventable. We need to make a concerted effort to minimize these risk factors. And Warren points out another important fact as well: After controlling for socioeconomic status and several other variables, it appears that black women are significantly more likely to die during child birth than white women (although, again, this is in the scope of a fraction of 1%). Warren then asserts that the reason for this is due to prejudice (which might be true, or it might be partially true, but it might also be hard to justify and rectify). Warren then proposes a reward-punishment system: those hospitals that lower their maternal mortality rate will be rewarded with more money, while those hospitals who don't lower their rate will slowly become defunded and drained of resources. The article's video clip of Warren does a pretty good job of explaining her reasoning to this proposal. I worry that this proposal glosses over the hard work and tough decisions that nurses and doctors make daily, and can force the adverse effect of medical professionals turning away high-risk pregnant patients in case they end up being a a casualty that loses the hospital money. This can quickly become a numbers game and an unhealthy competition, rather than a proper medical and moral focus on patient care. I think something needs to be done about our maternity mortality rate, and we also need to figure out why minority women are a different statistic than white women, but I don't think Warren's plan is the way to go. (We've already seen this play out negatively in the fields of insurance and education: insurance companies would love to turn away clients who have pre-existing conditions to pad their numbers and profits, and tying school funding to how well students perform on standardized tests has been a recipe for disaster and shadiness.) Source, which includes the video clip of Warren's explanation and proposal: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440629-warren-unveils-plan-to-reward-hospitals-that-make-childbirth-safer-for?amp Large drivers I've seen identified are c-sections because they are faster and more profitable for hospitals, but far more dangerous, rushing births with induction, and ignoring Black mothers concerns during and immediately after birthing. While a "small" number of maternal deaths are being talked about it's also important to remind US citizens we have the worst rate in the developed world. Sometimes the US feels like how I've seen the USSR portrayed where people in the US were told people in the USSR were being tricked into believing they were on par with the rest of the developed world. Why must you always compare the US and other countires? Specifically NK, USSR, Venezuela? I don't see how anything you say in regards to this specific post helps drive the discussion. You just wanted to take a shot at the US for no other reasons than your seemingly growing hatred for the place. No, it was a specific critique. That most people are familiar with the story that the people of the USSR, NK, Venezuela are being tricked into believing their country/government/performance compared to peers are far better than they are and I was noting that the US fits that narrative nowadays. Having the worst maternal mortality in the developed world is obvious to me on it's face why it's an important part of a discussion about why the wealthiest country on the planet performs so poorly. The USSR part is to demonstrate that US citizens aren't immune to be manipulated into believing propaganda about their country being the best at everything. I feel if you would restrict your arguments to the people here in this thread and understand our collective knowledge about the US and its many failings are more than likely higher than the average citizen, it would help us to not take what you say as just vitriol towards the US. Thank you for expanding upon the previous post, fwiw. At the end of the day, the doctors get paid on how many operations they perform and they want to expedite that, so to speak. That the US continues to fall short of the rest of the "developed" world is a direct reflection of capitalism and the deteriorating healthcare costs. Would you agree?
Perhaps the US deserves far more vitriol than I could ever hope to deliver?
I'd add some racism in there but absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
37984
6623
182
27
14
EPT
