[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-29, 08:00, said:

However, it would be equally valid to hypothesize: "It takes a lot of time and effort to care for a dog, therefore sickly people are rarely dog owners."

Well, serious scientists try to take that into account when doing statistical modelling and developing sampling strategies. Some have made serious efforts to identify causal links.

I concede that it is no-where near bullet-proof since you can't make controlled experiments (like randomizing the trial patients into two groups, one of which get real pets while the other gets placebo pets).

But I think the biggest problem is simply lack of data. Which is surprising since the data should be easy to get.

[awm]

Placebo pets!

Perhaps we should start a company with this name that sells stuffed animals.

There is substantial scientific evidence that placebo is essentially a cure-all. In experiment after experiment, patients who are given a placebo (sugar pill) fare better than patients who are given no medication. Apparently this is phenomenon is highly statistically significant, and may apply even if the patients are told they are being given a placebo (although possibly they do not know what that means in any case). Possibly we could improve US health care outcomes by providing placebos to patients, but in that case some company would obtain exclusive rights and jack up the price of placebo to a few hundred dollars a dose.

[kenberg]

I think that my insurance will only cover the cost of generic placebos.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on 2011-April-30, 03:43, said:

I think that my insurance will only cover the cost of generic placebos.

lol... placebos have no generics, they're a tier 4 fake drug, meaning the copay would be higher

[Winstonm]

awm, on 2011-April-30, 03:31, said:

Placebo pets!

Perhaps we should start a company with this name that sells stuffed animals.

There is substantial scientific evidence that placebo is essentially a cure-all. In experiment after experiment, patients who are given a placebo (sugar pill) fare better than patients who are given no medication. Apparently this is phenomenon is highly statistically significant, and may apply even if the patients are told they are being given a placebo (although possibly they do not know what that means in any case). Possibly we could improve US health care outcomes by providing placebos to patients, but in that case some company would obtain exclusive rights and jack up the price of placebo to a few hundred dollars a dose.

Although there is common belief (even among professionals) that a placebo effect is real, researchers studying the effect have found no convincing evidence - in fact, what they have found is mostly poorly-designed studies and biased reporting.
http://www.scienceba...ine.org/?p=4304
(emphasis added)

Quote

Existing evidence strongly suggests that placebo effects are mostly comprised of bias in reporting and observation and non-specific effects. There is no measurable physiological benefit from placebo interventions for any objective outcome. There is a measured benefit for some subjective outcomes (mostly pain, nausea, asthma, and phobias), but the wide variation in effect size suggests this is due to trial design (and therefore bias) rather than a real effect.

At the same time, there is overwhelming evidence of one thing: that we, as humans, have an inordinate amount of enthusiasm for belief in magic and magical solutions.

[y66]

It's funny how effective a calm, reassuring voice from a trusted source can be when you're freaking out semi-needlessly as we are now over the budget.

We should have cloned Walter Cronkite.

[y66]

ATB ... from Krugman

Quote

These days Americans get constant lectures about the need to reduce the budget deficit. That focus in itself represents distorted priorities, since our immediate concern should be job creation. But suppose we restrict ourselves to talking about the deficit, and ask: What happened to the budget surplus the federal government had in 2000?

Spoiler

The answer is, three main things. First, there were the Bush tax cuts, which added roughly $2 trillion to the national debt over the last decade. Second, there were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which added an additional $1.1 trillion or so. And third was the Great Recession, which led both to a collapse in revenue and to a sharp rise in spending on unemployment insurance and other safety-net programs.

So who was responsible for these budget busters?

Spoiler

President George W. Bush cut taxes in the service of his party’s ideology, not in response to a groundswell of popular demand — and the bulk of the cuts went to a small, affluent minority.

Similarly, Mr. Bush chose to invade Iraq because that was something he and his advisers wanted to do, not because Americans were clamoring for war against a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, it took a highly deceptive sales campaign to get Americans to support the invasion, and even so, voters were never as solidly behind the war as America’s political and pundit elite.

Finally, the Great Recession was brought on by a runaway financial sector, empowered by reckless deregulation. And who was responsible for that deregulation? Powerful people in Washington with close ties to the financial industry, that’s who. Let me give a particular shout-out to Alan Greenspan, who played a crucial role both in financial deregulation and in the passage of the Bush tax cuts — and who is now, of course, among those hectoring us about the deficit.

So it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America’s deficit.

Does any of this matter? Why should we be concerned about the effort to shift the blame for bad policies onto the general public?

Spoiler

One answer is simple accountability. People who advocated budget-busting policies during the Bush years shouldn’t be allowed to pass themselves off as deficit hawks; people who praised Ireland as a role model shouldn’t be giving lectures on responsible government.

But the larger answer, I’d argue, is that by making up stories about our current predicament that absolve the people who put us here there, we cut off any chance to learn from the crisis. We need to place the blame where it belongs, to chasten our policy elites. Otherwise, they’ll do even more damage in the years ahead.

[PassedOut]

y66, on 2011-May-09, 05:33, said:

ATB ... from Krugman

Yes, that's what happened, and it's been disastrous.

But neither the general public nor the democrats are off the hook. The US reelected Bush in 2004 even though everyone with common sense then understood that both the tax cuts and the Iraq war were monumental blunders. And many democrats in congress had voted for those very blunders.

Now Obama pushes to let those irresponsible tax cuts expire -- but only for those in the higher brackets.

[blackshoe]

Tax cuts don't add to debt. Deficit spending adds to debt.

As for the rest, this Krugman is clearly not an unbiased observer. He's not entirely wrong, but he's not exactly right, either.

[kenberg]

Krugman's second paragraph:

Quote

Well, what I’ve been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it’s mostly the public’s fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate’s foolishness.

This can be an all-purpose explanation for many issues, used by conservative and by liberals It's quite wrong, I think. People who set policy should be expected to understand the likely consequences of the policy. Watching a plan crash and then announcing that the policy was fine, it's just that the people didn't behave properly, is really to announce that you haven't a clue about what you are doing. The liberal side of our republic is repeatedly stunned to find that parents are not willing to let their kids get bussed to crummy schools where they are unwelcome. People are just so unpredictable. The conservatives are amazed that if there is lax regulation then savvy folks make a fortune and leave the mess for the rest of us to clean up. Who wouldda thought?

A little realism from all quarters would be very welcome. As I see the current economic scene, a Democrat is someone who wants to raise someone else's taxes, not his own, and a Republican is someone who wants to cur someone else's benefits or subsidy, not his own.

[y66]

Which of Krugman's 3 arguments for assigning the blame to zombie elites is not right?

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-09, 07:31, said:

Tax cuts don't add to debt. Deficit spending adds to debt.

Tax cuts add to debt whenever they are not matched by spending cuts. US citizens who oppose letting those irresponsible tax cuts expire now are themselves irresponsible free lunchers.

When and if the spending cuts occur (I'm not holding my breath), the taxes can come down accordingly. Those who argue the contrary advocate stealing from future generations to avoid taking personal responsibility now. They disgust me.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps the idea behind the tax cuts was to induce the spendthrifts to stop spending. Granted it didn't work, that doesn't mean it isn't the spending that's the problem.

You will no doubt argue that spending cuts should come first. I don't think it matters which comes first. What matters is that they both happen — and they haven't because there are too many spendthrifts in the halls of power.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-09, 13:06, said:

Perhaps the idea behind the tax cuts was to induce the spendthrifts to stop spending. Granted it didn't work, that doesn't mean it isn't the spending that's the problem.

According to Stockman - who should know - the purpose of the Reagan tax cuts was to drive the country into insolvency to help dismantle the New Deal...

It's VERY clear that budget deficits are a deliberate design goal for the right...
(Regardless of what gets spun to the great unwashed)

[kenberg]

Quote

Perhaps the idea behind the tax cuts was to induce the spendthrifts to stop spending. Granted it didn't work, that doesn't mean it isn't the spending that's the problem.

Only if the proponent of this idea is totally divorced from reality. I doubt that it was the idea, but if it was then of course it didn't work. They were thinking that a farmer would say "Since the government has cut taxes I'll call my lobbyist and tell him I no longer want subsidies"? Or that the Congressman would tell the lobbyist "I no longer can accept your campaign contribution since I have to vote to stop subsidizing your client?" This was the plan? Someone might like to pretend that this was the plan, but it wasn't. Or if it was, we are governed by thoroughly naive people.

I understand why rich people want to have low taxes for the rich. I don't approve, but I understand. I have more trouble understanding how they get people with more modest incomes to support this idea.

[awm]

Some interesting statistics about taxes and spending...

Here is a list of countries with total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The important thing to notice is that the United States has a lower tax revenue (at 24% of GDP) than almost all of the reasonably wealthy OECD nations on the list. The tax burden in the US is much less than European countries, Australia, Canada, etc. This suggests that increasing taxes in the USA might not be unreasonable. Of course, Americans might think this is because "all those other countries" are socialist or whatever and our way is better...

Here is some data on historical USA federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. The important thing to notice is that total tax receipts (14.9% of GDP last year, predicted 14.4% for this coming year) are at their lowest level since 1950, which was prior to medicare and when the percentage of Americans eligible for social security was much lower than it is today. The predicted receipts go up substantially in 2012 and 2013, but this is predicated on current tax policy, which assumes the expiration of all the Bush-era tax cuts and the failure to extend alternative minimum tax "fixes" which are almost inevitably extended to protect the middle class. Again, this suggests that increasing taxes in the USA might not be unreasonable.

Our government is currently taking in less money (as a percentage of the economy) than it has at any point in recent history, and also takes in less money than virtually any other country we'd want to be compared with. Obviously the government needs to have some revenue (even the staunchest conservatives want the government to do a bit for the national defense and so forth). The above facts suggest that raising taxes in some form should be part of a solution. Note that we have major companies making billions in US profit (GE, Chevron, etc) and paying virtually nothing in taxes. We also have a system where super-wealthy individuals (i.e. Warren Buffet) whose income is mostly capital gains pay a lower rate (roughly 15%) than the middle class... and the Republicans seem to want to cut Mr. Buffet's taxes to zero (eliminating capital gains tax) while also cutting programs like Medicare that middle class Americans depend on for their very survival in their retirement. Raising taxes on the wealthiest companies and individuals such that they pay closer to the statutory marginal rate (35% currently) or at least closer to the percentage that typical upper middle class wage earners pay seems altogether reasonable.

Here is a pdf report from the OECD about health care costs. The important observation is that the USA spends a larger percentage of GDP on health care than any other country. This includes both public (government) and private (insurance company) expenditures. There is also discussion of health care outcomes (life expectancy, etc) suggesting that the US is not doing particularly better than other wealthy countries. The numbers suggest that if our health care system were more like that of other countries (i.e. single-payer), we could give everyone full health care coverage for roughly what we spend in the public sector (on medicare/medicaid) today.

Here is a list of countries by military spending. Note that the USA spends something like 42% of the world's combined moneys on military spending, far more than all our "enemies" combined. Also note that we spend more than other western countries as a percentage of GDP (although not as much as some middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia or Israel).

This article discusses the growth in US military spending over time. Note that military spending increased at an average rate of 9% per year from 2000 through today, a much faster rate than GDP. These suggest that reducing military spending should be a priority when it comes to spending cuts.

Republicans say things about how "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" but that is just political oversimplification. Compared to historical US figures or to other countries, we clearly have both a revenue problem and a spending problem. The Republicans deny the existence of the revenue problem and refuse to address it, even as part of a compromise with Democrats which would cut spending as well. As to the spending problem, the biggest part of it is health care (where the Republican solution seems to be "get the government out of health care" which is exactly the opposite of what other countries and our own experience have proven to work) and military spending (where Republicans refuse to permit cuts, even to programs that the Pentagon itself wants eliminated).

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2011-May-09, 13:51, said:

I understand why rich people want to have low taxes for the rich. I don't approve, but I understand. I have more trouble understanding how they get people with more modest incomes to support this idea.

Yes, that's remarkable.

Seems to me that a lot of folks fall for utterly stupid arguments (as the "starve the beast" argument most certainly is) when they see personal gains to be had. Mix some wishful thinking with that ("maybe I'll win the lottery"), plus a "me generation" narcissism that outweighs any concern about the burden being placed on the young, and you've found a formidable base of voters. A minority to be sure, but a group to be reckoned with.

And then there is the small group who have made out like bandits from three decades of class warfare in the US. They bankroll the massive propaganda machine that promotes class warfare in the US and that smears the names of all who oppose it.

[PassedOut]

awm, on 2011-May-09, 14:45, said:

Republicans say things about how "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" but that is just political oversimplification. Compared to historical US figures or to other countries, we clearly have both a revenue problem and a spending problem.

Yes. And your whole post is right on the mark -- but only convincing to people who make decisions based on facts and evidence. We've got to focus on enlarging that group.

[Winstonm]

Medicare and Social Security are not "benefits" in the sense of health benefits provided by a private business, which can certainly be changed or even canceled at the whims of the business that provides them.

I think there is a strong argument that SS and Medicare are contractual obligations of the government, and any changes made can only affect payers who begin paying after a change is made - the government has a fiduciary repsonibility to adhere to the contractual obligations that were in place when I first began paying into the system. I would think a case could be made that the government cannot say, oh, gee, I have to cut your SS payments because I'd rather bomb Iraq than pay you.

The three biggests costs are SS, medicare, and all defense/security/national security. The first two are owed. The latter is discretionary spending.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-09, 13:06, said:

Perhaps the idea behind the tax cuts was to induce the spendthrifts to stop spending.

The people who proposed and voted in the Bush tax cuts were (and are) themselves spendthrifts. What a tremendous shock that they didn't cut the spending!