So what if subprime blows up? (July 16, 2007)
youtube.com
youtube.com
Jim Cramer has a lot of both.
Too Big to Fail-- not just for firms, but for people and ideas as well.
What differentiates the intelligent is that they're able and willing to question their assumptions. Such people tend to be more liberal, which is why the left is much less cohesive (and in a two-party system, much weaker) than the right. Ask any liberal about Obama and you'll hear 10 different disagreements and criticisms, whereas Palin can do no wrong among her fan base.
"Corporations" have done pretty okay, insasmuch as they are still capable of spending less than they take in.
Private health insurance is still very exciting to, e.g., Canadian politicians. A health care system in which costs are not paid by a) the physician, or b) the patient, is necessarily going to have high prices, shortages, or both.
But regarding "Too Big to Fail," in Influence, Robert Cialdini writes about a cult that predicted apocalypse on a particular date. Before the apocalypse, they were insular; after they missed their deadline, many members became aggressive recruiters--they had to invest more in the cult, so they wouldn't admit to themselves that it was a sham.
Fair point. Both parties had a hand in the subprime mess. For the record, I'm not a fan of the Democratic party at all.
On the other hand, it's Republicans (and some spineless Democrats who followed them) who led the way in passing tax cuts for the rich while getting us into an extremely expensive, unnecessary, immoral and arguably illegal war.
Private health insurance is still very exciting to, e.g., Canadian politicians. A health care system in which costs are not paid by a) the physician, or b) the patient, is necessarily going to have high prices, shortages, or both.
That's why Canada pays the largest percentage of GDP on healthcare expenses, has 6- to 12-hour ER waits as a matter of course, 3-month waits to see specialists in most of the country, so much bureaucracy that most medical practices have to hire someone full time to deal with it, and has life expectancy, infant mortality, and preventable death rates that are terrible by OECD standards. Oh wait... sorry, I got that wrong; that's us.
It's the misguided legislation like tax benefits for employers providing healthcare that causes things to break down.
Here's an excellent article (I think I found it here) about how health care could be done right:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2009/09/how-americ...
*Edited thanks to mcantor.
If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)
I see Autoadmit has arrived.
Private health insurance done correctly (much like auto insurance) would be an excellent solution.
I can't take this seriously. You've got to be kidding. From any reasonable ethical standpoint, how is it a "solution", rather than a severe indignity, to accept a regime that requires people to buy insurance policies on their own bodies? That's fucking morbid.
Car insurance is fair and generally works because people have the right to choose how much insurance they need. If you don't want to pay or can't afford premiums to insure your $250,000 Ferrari, then don't buy one. On the other hand, no one chooses how much health care he or she needs; we'd obviously like it best to need none.
I'm having a hard time seeing the outrage. We "require" people to buy food and shelter and clothes for their own bodies, all of which are even more necessary than health care.
Wait. So raising taxes to let your government take care of you is fine, but telling people they have to buy insurance to pay for their healthcare is egregious? Your objection makes no sense. They are on the same side of the coin.
The only difference is that in a functioning marketplace there is competition to reduce costs.
So this is like saying "So what if an Archduke gets shot?" in early June, 1914.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUkbdjetlY8
I really thought his Daily Show appearance would be the beginning of the end for him, but obviously I overestimated the long-term memory of the average CNBC viewer.
He said something to the effect that brokerage accounts at Bear Sterns were safe, not that the firm, its stockholders or bondholders were safe.
That's what "don't take your money out" means, vs. "don't sell your Bear Sterns stock or bonds".
A very different thing, and from what I've heard in the worst case he still would have been right. And you'll note that he called the subsequent buyout correctly ... and that very statement shows that he's not saying the firm "is fine".