Clinton Outlines Broad Economic Vision

Yes, ajs. When it comes to political debate, "fairness" is a morally useless term in that every party to the debate argues for what it considers "fair" from its own perspective. It's an empty concept, the substance of which ranges from nebulous to nonexistent, which underscores its utility in the mouth of a politician.

The same argument can be used to deem "liberty", "justice", "patriot", and "support our troops" as vacuous rhetoric.

vas - I'm sympathetic with your point regarding the latter three terms you mention, especially "justice" because I'm a fan of Plato's struggle with the definition in "The Republic". But I think "liberty" is less open to interpretation, meaning as it does "freedom to" and "freedom from".

My tag line is usually "I prefer liberty to equality." In this instance, I'll make an exception:

I prefer liberty to fairness.

But isn't freedom subject to just as much relativism? For example, in a society based on exclusive private property with perpetual ownership, those who own property may feel that freedom is directly related to their right to do with the property as they please and their ability to pass it on to whomever they chose, while those without property may feel that they live under a tyranny of laws that is designed to favor the wealthy... that since another person born at the same time has a greater degree of freedom due only to circumstances of inherited wealth by virtue of private property laws, said laws are an artificial barrier and therefor represent a loss of freedom. The arbitrariness of inherited wealth is enforced via police force.

(I hope I'm making sense... I'm sure there's a much better way to express what I'm trying to express.)

Each and every "freedom to" has a corresponding "lack of freedom from" for any opposing party. I'd like the freedom to drive 100 mph, while others want the freedom from the hazards posed by fast drivers. Seems to me that any practical sense of freedom in unavoidable tied to a notion of fairness, which brings us full circle.

Fairness is society's responsibility to determine. If we don't do it as a people than other people are going to define it for us. It may not be what Hillary calls it, but that's where democracy comes in. We can play by the "he who makes the gold makes the rules" book or we can get input from across society. As it is, if society doesn't live up to its responsibility to wrestle with what's fair the rich are glad to do it for us.

Business as usual, more insipid platitudes. How about standing for something that isn't a nebulous conceptual mist?
I figure only those blind to the polarising curtain of Americas' political soap opera can see that both sides are united. There is no opposition, there is just contrasting rhetoric that achieves a common goal. More power to the elite, the corporations via the media marrionette.

vas - I think you're right. In the sense that you spell out, freedom is relative. I am guilty of imposing the limitations of my own personality upon the issue, by which I mean that I am mostly focused upon freedom "from". And I, as a white male of decent education, am mostly free "from" interference by the world as whole. While it is also true that I have very little "freedom to" in the way of significant material assets (take my word for it), because I aspire to very little along such lines I am mostly oblivious to such things.

I want very little in this world, to the extent that I am insensitive to leftist arguments against the outrageous salaries and bonuses "earned" by the top business people and others. Such things really don't matter much to me. As a 52 year old person who has never earned more than $34,000 in a year, it amazes me that anybody would want to earn a million or even a hundred thousand, but at the same time I don't begrudge them for doing so. Usually I just think of them as getting laid more than I do but nonetheless far more cursed by their relations with their wives, ex-wives, children, ex-children, lawyers, ex-lawyers, and all the rest. You get my point. The average wealthy life with all that it entails seems like a curse to me. Way too much striving and angst.

But I think you're right. Because I feel quite free to achieve my rather limited goals, I suppose I am oblivious to the limitations others might feel relative to goals of their own. I genuinely don't want much beyond unencumbered access to information, so I don't chafe against the idea that others have so much more in the way of material goods. But "freedom from" I feel sensitively, apparently more than most.

I want to be left alone, and I resent even the slightest imposition. I want a little space, a lot of time, and I go absolutely ape-@!$%# when anybody tells me what my moral obligations are toward anybody or any thing because I see that as encroachment upon my sense of myself as an autonomous person, upon even myself as an ontologically intellectual entity. I thank you for making me think about such things because you have helped me remember just how central is intellectual autonomy to my sense of identity.

Maybe that's why the Clintons and the Obamas and the Dems generally offend me in ways that the Bushes do not. Yes, the Bushes have their moral prescriptions and proscriptions, but for me their methods and goals are mostly water off my duck's back. I can ignore them, completely without consequence for both myself and every other decent citizen. But Hillary, well she and hers are a different matter. She would tax the hell out of everything, most especially what I enjoy but which she regards as vice, and all the while lording as though she possessed some core access to deeper truth. It would be one thing if she, and the average Viner, were simply metaphysically, and therefore morally, misguided. Stupidity is acceptable in isolation. But when it stomps out over onto my own rather limited, mostly ideological, turf and has in addition the audacity to declare itself as of the fount of truth and love, my claws and fangs are totally deployed. I hate to admit it but there can be no full appreciation for how much I loath much, even most, of what passes as the politico-moral norm on the Vine. It's one thing for folks to feel correct about what they believe, but quite another for them to feel entitled to ram it down the throats of others.

Thanks for the long reply, because it helps me better see where you are coming from.

I think freedom has a lot to do with luck (mainly of birth), and people with leftist inclinations like myself want to make it less about luck. I don't care that someone makes $100 million in and of itself -- like you, no skin off my back. What I do care about is the concentration of power that represents, and I, like you, have little trust of people with so much power. I think where we may differ is that the dangers you see in Big Government I also see in Big Business, Big Religion, the Military Industrial Complex, and many other "bigs" and "complexes". Actually, we may not differ on this point... but rather on whether some sort of "big" as unavoidable.

At heart I am an anarchist... but an anarchist who sees that naive anarchism leads to less freedom for more people... unless we reduce the population of this planet a hundred or thousand-fold. Government sucks because human groups just don't scale well, but we have no choice given the number and degree of proximity of people on this planet, the relative scarcity of space and resources, and the unavoidable impact we have on each other.

Any power vacuum will be filled -- I'd rather it be filled by a coop of the general population than by warlords that cunningly amass large personal armies. America has its warlords too, though they may not look like those in Afghanistan or Somalia. They just where a different garb and wield different "weapons". So where to you the Republicans are the lesser evil, to me it is the Democrats.

I certainly don't begrudge you your desire to be left alone. In fact, I admire your minimalism.

either that or communism ... depends on what the definition of "shared" is

What's even scarier than Clinton's plan for shared responsibility socialism is that people are buying into it.

@FDBryant3,

No, I think that we used to call it "society."

I think that we've proven that corporations on their own don't take care of everyday people's needs as much as they should. There's a balance between public and private, but we have lost all sense of that balance. I don't know that Hillary is the right person to restore that balance but I agree with her that we need to do so.

Where exactly does it say that corporations are beholden to taking care of the common persons needs?

Wow, shared responsibility, fairness? So now we're going to have "fairness" regulated by the government... Yeah, lets just scrap the constitution, free-trade, and personal responsibility.

Nice.

She lost any chance for my vote...

Seriously, I hope to god that the democrats don't screw up and nominate this idiot for president.

The idea of sharing in just unChristian.

Yes, the war on inequality, brought to you by the same people who brought you those blockbuster wars of the past: the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the war on terror.

Gee, I can hardly wait.

@beauray,

Corporations are technically "artificial persons" chartered by individual state governments. Originally they were monitored very closely by state legislatures and their charters were revoked fairly regularly if they were not operating in the public interest. That sense of public oversight has dissipated.

What's more interesting is why the question should be asked at all. If people have a responsibility to society, and corporations are "artificial persons," shouldn't we expect from corporations what we would expect from any other member of society?

@jblossom

I suppose we could go round and round debating Santa Clara V. Southern Pacific, but your argument is full of holes.

1. Corporations were not recognized as what you call "artificial persons" until late in the 19th century. Prior to that, they were watched very closely by the legislatures and the public and where regarded with a skeptical eye.

2. Corporations were given separate entity status to give them the right to enter into contracts, to negotiate, to sue and be sued and to be held accountable to the laws of the state and the republic.

3. Corporations, as you define them, are "artificial persons". The term artificial, as I'm sure you know, means to be like something, but not wholly the same. Corporations were given the above status as I described, however, corporations are not human. They are not a living breathing, sentient being. They are a conglomerate of many people working together for one purpose. Profit. Should we expect lawful and ethical behavior by the people who run a corporation? Yes. Should we expect moral behavior by those same people when it comes to society? Like I said before, I would hope so, however, I've never seen any where in the Constitution or other laws making it illegal to be "immoral" because morality is defined differently by different people.

You can't argue that they were closely regulated (fact) for not operating in the public interest (which does not mean whats good for the public or the consumer, but in reality what was good for the government -- i.e. roads, waterways, etc.) and then by the same flip of the coin argue their Constitutional protections as separate entities. Historically, those two do not go hand in hand because one was the effect of the priors cause.

CEO's have no such ethical or moral responsibility. They and their boards have a responsibility to maximize profits and efficiencies for their investors and their employees.

If a corporation squeezes or abuses its customers too much then they will lost those customers due to new choices that become available or due to new innovations in technology which make their product obsolete.

Do CEO's asa person (father, husband, life partner, whatever) have a personal moral obligation to work for the betterment of humanity. I'd like to think so, but who knows. You're right in saying we should all personally work for that and that government should keep its fat ham-handed ways out the economy.

The oil industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US. These results are not the fault of capitalism. Besides, even if there wasn't this much regulation and prices were this high it would be indicative of high demand and low supply. You do not have a right to cheap gas.

Search for the following on google for a great article and explanation: "Foreign Policy, Monetary Policy, and Gas Prices"

Sadly, it can come back around to bite us in the ass like it is currently doing with gasoline prices.

How? Would you prefer the government controls gas prices? I suggest anyone who agrees with this article read Atlas Shrugged.

Would you prefer the government controls gas prices?

It doesn't? Before W., the price for a gallon of gas was ~$1.00, after W......

You have a strange view of Capitalism. I suggest reading Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.

Amen, brother! Testify!

Individuals have both rights and responsibilities in our society. If a person dumps a barrel of toxic waste in your pond you'd expect that person to be held accountable. Corporations should be held to the same standard as any one else.

And oh, BTW, if you wanted to bring that fellow who dumped toxic waste to court and there's nobody paying taxes, there's no court system to hear your trial. Oh, I forgot, you're just going to take out a gun and shoot the poor bugger. What an efficient system.

Individuals have both rights and responsibilities in our society. If a person dumps a barrel of toxic waste in your pond you'd expect that person to be held accountable. Corporations should be held to the same standard as any one else.

They are held to the laws which regulate such dumping of hypothetical wastes into ponds. The managers and others involved in the corporation or the ones involved in such a scenerio would and should be held accountable for the laws that were broken.

And oh, BTW, if you wanted to bring that fellow who dumped toxic waste to court and there's nobody paying taxes, there's no court system to hear your trial. Oh, I forgot, you're just going to take out a gun and shoot the poor bugger. What an efficient system.

I don't even know what this means!?!?

Fear, fear, fear. The chances of us turning into a Communist nation are slim to none. The chances of us turning into a pure fascist nation resembling today's Russian oligarchy with super-rich people floating above millions of serf-level people living in poverty and ignorance is far greater.

Neither of these extremes is desirable. What IS desirable is a fair playing field where people greasing the palms of their frat buddies is not the primary basis for rewarding people.

The ogliarchs in Russia are created in large part due to extremely restrictive government regulations which prevent fair competition. So are the masses of "serfs".

An open economy where entrepeneurial people can create wealth for themselves and others is the best system we have for overall fairness for all.

Have we forgotten the term "reep what you sew?"

Sure there are still glass ceilings and numerous biases that impeed the progress of some, but opposed to, oh, I don't know: the quasi-socialist/fascist Russia or Cuba (etc) we're pretty well off.

This fairness crap is almost laughable if it weren't so damn pitiful. What's more depressing is the fact that people are actually eating it up. It'd be interesting to see just how many of the people supporting this Deomcrat are also among the "oppressed" as opposed to the "favored".

What the system needs is some cleansing. Good old fashioned enema of sorts.

It's been clogged with the remnants of yesteryears political agendas, false hopes and promises, modern day "spin" and the general attempts for that claim to fame and power that politicians love to have.

@k_nyc,

LOL. The oligarchs have control because after the fall of the Soviet Union our brilliant GHW Bush-led government sent over Harvard MBAs who advised the Russians to engage in unrestrained capitalism. The oligarchs pushed aside the weak new Russian government and created a thug economy that represents capitalism at its worst.

As much as some business people like to think that unrestrained capitalism is the solution, history shows that unrestrained capitalism usually ELIMINATES fair competition. Open markets are a must for a successful economy, but without checks and balances on the power and influence of major corporations you don't have those checks and balances.

To underscore the point, when you open a Monopoly game set you don't see a set of instructions that say "do whatever you want to screw the other person." There are RULES to the game. I don't think that people like playing with people who don't like to play by the rules. I for one am tired of people who think that their willingness to walk over other people gives them insight that should exempt them from the rules of society. It doesn't take much in the way of brains or insight to treat people like animals.

So would all of you who speak so strongly in favor of freedom, personal responsibility, "an open economy where entrepreneurial people can create wealth for themselves and others" be in favor replacing private property inheritance with a system wherein upon death all one's property is distributed in equal share to every other living citizen? No money would remain with the government. The government would simply facilitate by auctioning off the property and distributing the capitol.

Wouldn't such an approach be truer to the ideals of capitalism and free market competition? Isn't an approach where the demand for a person's product rather than circumstance of birth determines that person's wealth? Isn't it the case that the more level the playing field, the freerer market? Doesn't inherited wealth run completely counter to the idea that one is rewarded for one's product, not one's social standing?

So would all of you who speak so strongly in favor of freedom, personal responsibility, "an open economy where entrepreneurial people can create wealth for themselves and others" be in favor replacing private property inheritance with a system wherein upon death all one's property is distributed in equal share to every other living citizen? No money would remain with the government. The government would simply facilitate by auctioning off the property and distributing the capitol

vas, No, most people would not be in favor of this because what you are describing is indeed a government system of taking all your private property (money) and distributing it to others. What you describe is closer to communism than capitalism.

@jblossom

LOL. The oligarchs have control because after the fall of the Soviet Union our brilliant GHW Bush-led government sent over Harvard MBAs who advised the Russians to engage in unrestrained capitalism. The oligarchs pushed aside the weak new Russian government and created a thug economy that represents capitalism at its worst.

Bush was president at the time of the fall of the Berlin wall, and the earliest stages of glasnost. The fall of communism is considered a good thing by most of the world, but perhaps not you. It was Clinton who was president for most of the 90s while capitalism was developing, so I'm not sure how you can attribute the development of the oligarchs to Bush, and not Clinton as well.

Since when does everything in life have to be fair??

Yes, we should help others BUT we should not be made to help others just because someone else thinks it is the right thing to do. Do you like being made to do something? I know I don't. Don't MAKE me help people, let me do it on my own violition. Yes, we should encourage people to help others more BUT we should also encourage more personal responsibility. Why is it OK for the rich to make it on their own but the poor need a helping hand? Aren't we enabling them? There are so many programs out there to help people that are less fortunate. And, if we REALLY want to be fair, is it fair to take from the wealthy and distribute it to those less fortunate?

vas, No, most people would not be in favor of this because what you are describing is indeed a government system of taking all your private property (money) and distributing it to others.

Um, aren't you dead when you get to the point that vas describes? I mean, it's the government that says you can give it to your survivors, but then they aren't earning it, it was earned by a dead person. The government is giving those survivors an unfair advantage based on an accident of birth. Under the plan that vas describes, they're not taking the money from anyone, really, because dead people can't own anything.

Now, if the government took your money before you died and distributed it equally, well, I'd see your point, but once you're dead you're dead, and the government is incapable of taking anything from you. From the standpoint of consistency of purpose (allowing citizens to achieve whatever they are capable of through their own hard work), it makes a lot more sense to redistribute that wealth than it does to allow it to be inherited.

Um, aren't you dead when you get to the point that vas describes? I mean, it's the government that says you can give it to your survivors, but then they aren't earning it, it was earned by a dead person. The government is giving those survivors an unfair advantage based on an accident of birth. Under the plan that vas describes, they're not taking the money from anyone, really, because dead people can't own anything.

Yes Brad, you are technically correct, but I was basing my statement on the commonly held assumption that heirs will inherit your estate upon your death (minus taxes and any debts outstanding). I think it's fair to say most people would have understood my point, and might even venture that vas didn't literally mean that the government should take the money after you die but upon your death.

No, k_nyc, it's not that I didn't understand you, it's that I don't agree with you. What I'm wondering about (and I think vas is as well) is the idea that the survivors inherit your wealth. Why should they? You worked for it, not them. If the government gives your wealth to them, then they are enforcing an unfair advantage based on an accident of birth (that is, the "accident" of you being born to particular parents). If, on the other hand, your wealth is redistributed, your survivors have no advantage derived either from their birth or your death - in other words, they are entitled only to what they earn, just like the rest of us.

Brad, in most cases, parents want their children to inherit their estates. And in most cases the children of wealthy people are already enjoying the wealth of their parents even before they die. And if you literally wanted the government to take the money from you when you died, people would circumvent that by giving money to their children before their death. So the idea of redistributing the wealth of people who die is not practical unless you just start taking money from them as soon as they earn it. Which is where my original communism comparison comes in again.

Brad, in most cases, parents want their children to inherit their estates. And in most cases the children of wealthy people are already enjoying the wealth of their parents even before they die.

Of course they do. Additionally, in most cases, people want to be wealthy. Not everyone can, though, so we agree in general that only people who earn wealth are entitled to it (except in the case of inheritance).

And if you literally wanted the government to take the money from you when you died, people would circumvent that by giving money to their children before their death.

Agreed, as a practical matter, such a plan would be quite hard to implement as a result of the efforts of dishonest scofflaws to circumvent its provisions. I certainly wouldn't question any assertion that people of means are likely to resort to extralegal measures in order to perpetuate their advantage, or to bestow the advantage that they have earned on their progeny. Its not so much a question of being practical, though, as it is being ethically and ideologically consistent. If the goal is to allow all members of a society to enjoy the benefit only of what they themselves earn, it's hard to imagine why society should allow some of its members to enjoy the benefit of someone else's earnings. Call it what you like. Turn your nose up at it if you will, but the act of inheritance is at its core a transfer of advantage from someone who has earned that advantage to someone who has not earned it.

Understand, I'm not proposing a new economic system here - I'm just going along with the thought exercise proposed by vas, and trying to see what effect having a consistent point of view wrt who is entitled to benefit from wealth might have, regardless of the practical matters.

Yup, Brad understands the point I was making, except that to me it isn't entirely a thought experiment. Capitalism wasn't considered practice before it was put into practice, and even then it required lots of tweaking over hundreds of years.

So far the arguments against my idea are that the wealthy won't like it (neither did the nobles like the dismantling of the feudal system) or that it would be easy to get around (as there are with everything, including free markets, hence anti-trust mechanisms), but no one has really answered my points about whether inherited wealth runs counter to the idea of free markets, competition and personal responsibility.

The greed of corporate America does need to be addressed.

Why?

What needs to be addressed is big governments relationship with big business. I think what people fail to realize is, the average working American cannot pay for all of these programs that Sister Clinton is promising. For those, she needs to tap into corporate America's pocketbook. And, as they say, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Her big spending does nothing but give big corporations a seat at the table.

Because they haven't paid back in to America. They've been handed decades of tax breaks and all they've done is to screw Americans in the workplace. They want to have a capitalist paradise where nobody will restrain them from conducting business the way that they want but they won't pay for the infrastructure, education, medical services and social services necessary to have a healthy consumer society. Failed CEOs get golden parachutes worth tens of millions of dollars while telling their workers than they can't afford to fund their pensions. This is not about what corporations have earned but rather what they've ripped off from the American taxpayer. We've funded the global economy for decades on the back of the American taxpayer and we have very little to show for it except for trashy consumer goods made in Chinese sweatshops and millions of screwed middle class families.

The unfair business practices that hurt the individual are DUE to government intervention and giving big corporations those advantages based on the size of the lobby and the size of the donation or the voting bloc.

If there were little to no government intervention corporations would be more accountable by the people that matter.. Their consumers.

Interesting... big corporations exist because of our consumerist life-style. They do not force feed you their products, they provide a service at a rate that is conducive to our spending habits.

If you want to see big business hurt, how about you start spending more money at mom-and-pop shops that make products inefficiently and at a much higher cost. That will never happen.

Markets are a construct -- there is no "invisible hand." Capitalism is an economic system, not a religion. Economies and polities evolve, or they stagnate and die because they fail to meet the needs of those they were created to serve. Why does this woman and this set of topics ultimately polarize everyone and bring out the worst in people?

Um just to be clear, nobody is talking about a real life giant invisible hand. What the term refers to is very real though.

Many economists claim that the theory of the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to the entire community. The reason for this is that greed will drive actors to beneficial behavior. Efficient methods of production will be adopted in order to maximize profits. Low prices will be charged in order to undercut competitors. Investors will invest in those industries that are most urgently needed to maximize returns, and withdraw capital from those that are less efficient in creating value. Students will be guided to prepare for the most needed (and therefore most remunerative) careers. And all these effects will take place dynamically and automatically. Other economists, like Nobel Prize Joseph E. Stiglitz disagree: "Whenever there are externalities—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well."

It also works as a balancing mechanism. For example, the inhabitants of a poor country will be willing to work very cheaply. Capitalists can make great profits by building factories in poor countries. But since they increase the demand for labor, they will increase its price. And since the new producers will also become consumers, local businesses will have to hire more people in order to provide for them the things that they want to consume. As this process continues, the labor prices will eventually rise to the point at which there is no advantage for the foreign countries doing business in the formerly poor country. Overall, this mechanism will cause the local economy to function on its own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

People certainly do have a natural inclination to buy goods for low prices and prepare for well-compensated careers. If these always automatically benefit the community, that part is up to debate, principally in the matter of externalities, and in the case of lawyers.

Let's keep in mind that the States is a long way from a pure free market economy. We, too, have oligarchies (e.g., Exxon, Shell, BP) based on barriers (e.g., cost) to entry. And we have a number of industries that a regulated to one degree or another (e.g., banks, television stations, airlines, etc.)

Letting the "invisible hand" operate at will in that environment will not always result in such a clean, precise meeting of the Supply and Demand curve that we all learned about in Econ 101.

There are industries where it works, and generally speaking, everyone benefits. There are, however, a number of industries where the net result ends up favoring the Corporate hierarchy and stockholders (e.g., big tobacco) and a few, of course, where nobody wins.

Tobacco is a prime example of the problem of externalities being accounted for.

Tobacco is a prime example of the problem of externalities being accounted for.

Agreed.

Tobacco is a prime example of the problem of externalities being accounted for.

Brian, could you explain? I'm not disagreeing... just want to understand how so.

@smallfork

Why does this woman and this set of topics ultimately polarize everyone and bring out the worst in people?

Because she's the devil? :)

vas, when a tobacco company sells you a pack of cigarettes, they are then done with the transaction. The smoker is not. The smoker develops an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease. Who pays for those costs? Either their insurance does, or public funds do. In either case, some of the costs are borne by people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the original transaction. Now, there are lots of taxes on cigarettes, but very very little of that money has anything to do with providing funds to care for smoking induced disease. So we have tax money from other sources paying for health care for smokers, and we have insurance money paying for smoking induced disease. This raises everyone's cost of doing business and everyone's taxes by some amount. This is the external costs that are not accounted for in the price of cigarettes. So in a way, everybody else is subsidizing the profits of cigarette companies.

That's assuming that the cigarette companies are liable to pay for the costs of lung cancer. This snowballs into car manufacturers liable to pay for the costs of car accidents, fast food companies are liable for the costs of heart disease. People have the freedom to buy whatever they want and slowly kill themselves with it. It's their responsibility. They pay for it with increased life insurance premiums, health insurance premiums, and car insurance premiums.

They pay for it with increased life insurance premiums, health insurance premiums, and car insurance premiums.

I agree it's the smoker's moral responsibility. However, I had insurance through my work while I was a smoker. I didn't pay anything extra for it, though I assume my company did. Meaning my non-smoking coworkers were subsidizing me. Allowing me to have more money to buy smokes - so they were actually subsidizing the profits of the cigarette companies. Additionally, we do not allow hospitals (by law) to turn away people who are unable to pay for their own care. So if you show up at the emergency room with some bad lung cancer, they take you in and spend money on you, and if you don't have funds to cover it they then charge everyone else more to make up for that. So it is our health laws and our insurance system that made this an externality, but it is one now. Plus there's always second-hand smoke, though in my view the research on that is pretty unclear.

Pollution is another common example of externality, that doesn't have that aspect. If a company is able to undercut their competition by simply dumping a toxic byproduct in the river instead of disposing of it safely and expensively, they are rewarded by the market because all the market sees is the cost of the item, not the effects of the pollution, which may end up being cleaned up as a Superfund site on the public dime later on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality:

An externality occurs when a decision causes costs or benefits to third parties (stakeholders), often, though not necessarily, from the use of a public good (for example, production which causes pollution may impose costs on others, making use of the public good air). In other words, the participants do not bear all of the costs or reap all of the gains from the transaction. As a result, in a competitive market too much or too little of the good may be produced and consumed from the point of view of society, depending on incentives at the margin and strategic behavior. If third parties benefit substantially, such as in areas of education or safety, then the good will be under-provided (or under-consumed); if costs to "the public" exceed costs to the individual(s) making the choice in areas such as pollution then the good will be over-provided, from society's point of view. The "point of view" is specified as the greatest collective economic utility for society.

Brian (9.13), that was my understanding. The confusion has to do with a typo in that line of yours I quoted. A mission "not". :)

Ah, I should have said "problem of accounting for externalities".

I think you have this perspective because you have an atomistic model of existence.

vas - That is a clever and deep reply, but I will not be baited :-), in part because to be so would be way off-topic but mostly because the relationship of wholes and parts is a heavy topic and I can't be up/down for it right now. But you're correct: I've never been big on that old saw "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" because I think it gives short shrift to the part. I do think the whole, meaning the society, would be much better off if individuals accepted more responsibility for their own affairs.

My own goal as an entity on this rock is to leave it no worse than I found it. I admit that it's a minimal goal, but I leave it to everyone to contrast the summed outcomes of those aspiring towards it with those who set loftier sights on "improving the lot of mankind" or "making the world a better place". Suffice to say, I think almost all the responsibility for the world's ills falls on the shoulders of well-intentioned optimists who thought they were making the world a better place.

I can see why you called yourself pseudonihilist:

Suffice to say, I think almost all the responsibility for the world's ills falls on the shoulders of well-intentioned optimists who thought they were making the world a better place

Are you suggesting that optimists ought share the responsibility for the state of the world?

Oh, this is a good one:

I think almost all the responsibility for the world's ills falls on the shoulders of well-intentioned optimists who thought they were making the world a better place.

Hmm, let's see, the world's ills fall on the shoulders of:

- Jonas Salk? Yeah, you're right, that polio vaccine was pretty lame. Why can't people who are sick just crawl into a hole and die like in the good old days?

- Mahatma Gandhi? Yeah, what a freakin' liberal. Too bad he couldn't have been like Osama bin Laden and blown up some people real good. Instead what does he do? He gets a nation of 300 million people to throw off colonial rule and to create the world's largest democracy without one shot in anger at his opponents.

- Tim Berners-Lee? What a do-gooder - a worldwide database of information that anyone can add to and access for free. What was he thinking? Heck, we could still be on Compuserve and paying every month for hundreds of sources like we do on cable.

- Thomas Jefferson? Talk about your head in the clouds - a Bill of Rights? Look, I'm going to get what I want and if you don't think that it's right - try to take it away from me. I dare you.

Yeah, you're right, we're much better off just leaving the world to its own devices. Take care of your family and your friends and screw the rest. Thanks for the advice.

pseudonihilist - I agree quite a bit with your sentiment that "society, would be much better off if individuals accepted more responsibility for their own affairs." For example, with respect to racism and other social ills, the number one thing that each person can do is not be racist, or at least be more self-aware of one's own prejudices and make earnest efforts to correct, and to create greater goodwill. I'm fine with people who want to stop there. But what if I wanted to do more? What if I was unwilling to wait for everyone else to get this right because there are people suffering from racism right now, and I cared to make a difference? What if I were on the receiving end of racism? Is it wrong for me to become an activist? Would you, for example, count Martin Luther King in the group of "well-intentioned optimists who thought they were making the world a better place"? Where would we be without the MLKs of our world.

Note that I don't see Hillary Clinton as anywhere near an MLK. I'm not much of a fan of the messenger, but that doesn't take away from my belief in the idea.

@jblossom

- Thomas Jefferson? Talk about your head in the clouds - a Bill of Rights? Look, I'm going to get what I want and if you don't think that it's right - try to take it away from me. I dare you.

To be historically accurate. Jefferson opposed the Bill of Rights.

jblossom - I guess I walked into that one. Good for you and thanks for the well-deserved self-depracating laugh. Actually, a person could probably argue credibly against each of your examples, especially Gandhi, but that's a different matter. I willing to concede your point(s).

But I intended my case as whole, from Hitler down through every bad father. All were optimists in that they thought they were doing good and therefore waled away upon humanity. On the whole it would have been better had they been passive, even if that meant humanity forewent its Salks and Jeffersons. Generally speaking, pessimists have not been guilty of much, and mostly they've been guilty of cleaning up after their optimistic cousins.

I'm a big believer that without hope almost anything is bearable. "Progress" is mostly an illusion in that expectation seems to skip along just slightly ahead of fulfillment. I honestly don't think that life is better or people are happier now that we live to eighty as opposed to forty, have access to seventy channels over four, or think the world is round vs. flat. The sky is still blue, the grass is still green, and most of us still dream of ourselves as nineteen. On the whole I'd prefer to have been born as a gazelle.

I should be depressed by your comments, pseudo, but you have somehow managed to drain me of the will to be depressed.

@pseudonihilist,

Thanks for your comments - the point was made well enough. The flip side of people who try to do well is people who think that they're doing well but don't do so through a balance of faith and reason. Bush is convinced utterly that he's saving humanity from itself. Folks who tout the greatness of genetically modified foods without thinking, hmm, what about all those bees that are dying, are not necessarily doing us much of a favor. And you're quite right - the world economy is in large part based on companies trying to deliver products and services that we really don't need - but that we're persuaded to want.

That said, on balance I think that trying to do good in the world is better than not trying to do good in the world. We seem to be devolving into a "Sopranos" culture, where we wind up trying to kill the ones we love as well as the ones that we don't love. Somehow I think that we can do better. More on this here.

As they say, in the long run we're all dead anyway, but on balance I'd like to be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem.

@beauray,

Thanks for the correction, James Madison authored the original draft of the Bill of Rights, though Jefferson did urge Madison that such a concept was very needed. Link.

I honestly don't think that life is better or people are happier now that we live to eighty as opposed to forty, have access to seventy channels over four, or think the world is round vs. flat. The sky is still blue, the grass is still green, and most of us still dream of ourselves as nineteen. On the whole I'd prefer to have been born as a gazelle.

pseudonihilist, I might agree with you... Have you ever read Galapagos by Vonnegut?

No, not "Galapagos". My Vonnegut reading stopped in the seventies. When I think of him these days it's mostly about his short story "Harrison Bergeron" or "Slaughterhouse-Five". Why?

The book essentially makes your point. Except instead of gazelles Vonnegut chose fur seals. In fact, the whole book is an exploration of your point, using of course, Vonnegut's brand of humor. The main obstacle to human happiness, according to the narrator, is our having "big brains". It's a quick read, and since you haven't read him in so long, might be worth checking out.

"Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

I have nothing to say but hahahaha.

Hillary is all over this "shared" stuff - it's just her nice way of trying to sell european socialism to the American people.

I think most of you are missing the point...

Society, like nature, takes all parts sharing equally from one another. Providing balance.

Big Business takes advantage of everything. People study demographics rigorously to figure what they can sell to the consumer. They advertise products in such a way so to "create" a need for a person to purchase a product, they all to often don't need. Leading to wastefulness. Then they ship jobs overseas, that were needed in US, to lower cost. Further throwing the balance of the beast off to one side. There is a "bad side" to maximizing profits.

Quit using "free enterprise" to justify servitude. That is what it is turning into for the low skilled worker these days.

Big Business takes advantage of everything. People study demographics rigorously to figure what they can sell to the consumer. They advertise products in such a way so to "create" a need for a person to purchase a product, they all to often don't need.

Um, we consumers could, oh, I don't know, maybe NOT buy it? We have a choice, to buy or not to buy. But we buy and make these companies richer. Or some of us do. Big businesses do not hold guns to our heads. We buy of our free will. People need to stop blaming others for their bad habits. This is another axample of lack of personal responsibility.

There is an underlying psychological game that corporations play with consumers minds through advertising. Specifically advertising to children and pharmaceuticals. They manipulate people into thinking they have a disorder and should go "talk" (suggest) to their doctor they need this medication. The doctor, in many cases, is also receiving money (in the form of dinners, consultations etc) from the pharmaceutical company to sell their product. Advertising to children has a similar effect on the parent/ child relationship...

We are all effected by with out realizing it. I am not trying to take personal responsibility out of the game here, but loot at gas prices... I don't buy gas because I want too, I buy gas because I have to. I have to work to buy more gas. I need to buy gas to get to work.

I don't buy gas because I want too, I buy gas because I have to. I have to work to buy more gas. I need to buy gas to get to work.

Either move closer to work so you don't have to commute or use public transit.

There is an underlying psychological game that corporations play with consumers minds through advertising. Specifically advertising to children and pharmaceuticals.

People need to become more responsible for the choices they make. The government is increasingly becoming a babysitter. I want to be able to decide what is good for me and what isn't and act accordingly, if I choose. If I want to hurt myself (as I do with smoking) than it should be my right to.

I agree Jon, but they ban smoking in public because it is bad for the public... Really simple actually. I am a smoker as well. As much as I hate restricting areas for smokers, I don't blame non-smokers for pushing such acts.

As far as "moving closer to work", I would if I lived in "Lala Land". You act as though I have some choice as to who hires me, where I was born, controlling urban sprawl or funds to live anywhere I wish. Sadly, that is not the reality I live in.

Pretending we as people are truly free to do whatever we want, and be as successful as we want is delusional. Sure, there are plenty of choices I make, that have a positive of negative impact on myself and people around me, but to suggest I don't need to buy gas because I can move (not a possibility), use mass transit (doesn't exist out where I live) and then blaming the average working American for the problems of the economy, the surplus of labor etc. is crazy.

Policy shapes the economy as much as choice. When people are struggling to get by pay check to pay check, do you really think they can afford a luxury like American made goods, organic foods, or alternative fuels? The consumer is partially responsible for this situation, I can't argue with that, but giving government a free pass for not enforcing anti-trust laws that were passed almost a century ago is pathetic and dangerous.

Google the Robertson-Pattman Act...

It's fair to the person who provides services worth more than $21,000 a year.

To make it a mental exercise imagine what is fair about me not working and making $50,000 a year and you working 50 hours a week making $50,000 a year? When you move the numbers further apart the idea is more obvious. Putting them closer together doesn't suddenly make theft a good idea.

I've always dreamed (well maybe not) about being a cooper. Unfortunately for me it's been about 120 years since society had much use for coopers and today a person trying to make a living making barrels has a hard time making ends meet. Is it wrong that society isn't paying more for coopers? I would work 40 hours a week, maybe even 50 like I do now and still not get paid a 'living' wage. Instead I work in IT because crazy people today value a reliable EMR product in their doctors hands more than a barrel that is tarred and watertight.

The main thing not fair about our system is in unequal opportunity, not in unequal outcomes. Our government is rife with policies to foment unequal opportunity. Taking from the valued and supporting the unvalued isn't the answer, giving the unvalued an opportunity (not force them) to become valued is the answer.

Explain to me why you are only making $21,000 a year and I'll probably be able to explain why it is fair.

I have lived comfortably over the past twenty-one months, paying rent on a two bedroom apartment in Reno, Nevada, not an inexpensive place, for less than $29,000 total, which makes for $16,571 a year. Over that period I have bought about four new CDs a month, smoked a carton of Marlboros a week, drunk more beer than hopefully you can imagine, and made two concert roadtrips to San Francisco. Though my 2002 automobile has long been paid for, I have maintained it, along with auto and renter's insurance. I pay about $70 a month combined for cable TV and DSL, along with monthly bills for utilities and telephone.

But I don't care whether that's fair or not because I don't expect or want anybody to do a damn thing for me.

I've been there and I've done it. Its possible, its a matter of what choices you're willing to make.

Whats fair is that opportunities are out there. Its a matter of finding them.

Wow. Anyone posting here try to make ends meet, in the States, on $21,000 a year?

Someone, please explain to me how that's fair. To anyone.

If you explain why it's fair for me or anyone else to be compelled by rule of law to subsidize your lifestyle?

Wow. Anyone posting here try to make ends meet, in the States, on $21,000 a year?

Someone, please explain to me how that's fair. To anyone.

It was easy enough when I did it right after school. I lived with between 1 and 3 roommates to increase my discretionary spending at the time. When I was ready for a more grown up lifestyle I stopped delivering pizzas and got a more grown up job to pay for it.

FD Bryant3,

Explain to me why you are only making $21,000 a year and I'll probably be able to explain why it is fair.

I don't make 21, 000. I know s couple who has a combined income somewhere around there, and I help when I can.

I'd rather you explained this. Viva la free market? A talent for kissing ass? Compensation for making the difficult decisions, like who to lay off and who to rip off?

If you actually read Adam Smith, and his moral treatises in addition to the Cliff Notes about mercantile economy, I think you would be very surprised.

I'd rather you explained this.

It's right in the text, though it is buried towards the end. Here, have a good look, then read it again.

Exxon defends Raymond's compensation, pointing out that during the 12 years he ran the company, Exxon became the largest oil company in the world and that the stock price went up 500 percent.

KyleN,

To make it a mental exercise imagine what is fair about me not working and making $50,000 a year and you working 50 hours a week making $50,000 a year? When you move the numbers further apart the idea is more obvious. Putting them closer together doesn't suddenly make theft a good idea.

Your definition of theft and mine are clearly quite different. If you think that using any social service is a form a theft, I suggest you try it for one day.

More, your "thought exercise" is far and away from what anyone I know (as well as Mrs. Clinton) is advocating. There is a distinctive difference between a middle class lifestyle of around 50 grand....and a basic standard of living, like say the ability to buy gas, so you can get to your menial job or the ability to buy food, or the ability to afford healthcare when the cost-saving steps you've taken in your diet begin to adversely affect your health.

smallfork,

If you actually read Adam Smith, and his moral treatises in addition to the Cliff Notes about mercantile economy, I think you would be very surprised.

I'm assuming this was aimed at me....correct me if I'm wrong.

But you bring up a good point. Adam Smith wrote about a mercantile economy--not a global corporate based economy where the sole motive of most companies is to make more profit than they did the year before.

beauray,

I've been there and I've done it. Its possible, its a matter of what choices you're willing to make.

Whats fair is that opportunities are out there. Its a matter of finding them.

That's true, but keep in mind that the same opportunities aren't available to you when your credit is such that you can't get a bank account, when you worry about whether you or your children eat, when you have to bus for an hour and half on a ride that would take 30 minutes in a car, of you could afford a car.

Salary: approximately $14,000-$16,000/yr ($4,000 is in stafford student loans).

-I go to a College that costs about $155per credit hour (including lab and facility fees) for 16cr-hrs a week.
-Books cost about $1,000-$1,500 (I get it for less though, my friend and I have similair schedules so we "share" some books). -I "own" a one bedroom apartment, no roommate.
-I own a 2000 Subaru Impreza 4-Door Sedan, with little more than liability insurance.
-I have highspeed Internet and a Cellphone (no land line or Television).
-I upgrade my computer about every 6 months.
-I eat out fairly frequently.
-I own a drumset that I have to replace heads and sticks fairly frequently, and cymbals everynow and then, probably adds up to just over $100/mo.
-Attend 25-50 dollar concerts about once a month, and go to many 5-10 dollar live-show clubs once or twice a week.
-I have a girlfriend (we don't live together, we don't share bills or cars or phones), we all know that that adds some additional costs at the end of the day.

Plus some additional misc items and I make ends meet. Granted its a tight budget, and I've had to get some "family loans" from time to time, but I've never been late on a bill, and am able to payback any loan (except for the gov/school loans) I take out within 2 weeks.

It's not too difficult. It is possible, and I have plenty of friends in the same situation.

Now, there's the argument that I'll be ~$20,000 in debt when I get out of college. Consider that I'm making $10-12k/yr only working during the summer/at the school labs less than 15/hrs a week and that really wont be any problem to pay off, even if I didnt have all the extra opportunities that the diploma will open up to me considering how much more time I'll have to be able to work and make money.

All,

If you knew that everyone could eat properly, everyone could see a doctor when they caught a cold, and everyone could receive as much education as they wanted without racking up enormous debts, would you sacrifice 10 bucks each week from your paycheck?

20? 30? 100?

More, if that was true, what would happen to the crime rate? Would we feel safer?

If you knew that everyone could eat properly

Our nation is full of people eating too much, not people starving.

everyone could see a doctor when they caught a cold,

For the vast majority of colds, a doctor can literally do absolutely nothing. Huge waste of resources.

everyone could receive as much education as they wanted without racking up enormous debts,

If that was possible I would go back to school and be a permanent student. School was fun. Work is not. So, how it be possible to support my desire for infinite education?

Tell you what I want to see. Everyone should have a flying car. How much will you give out of your paycheck so that everyone can have a flying car?

Our nation is full of people eating too much

True, but that does not mean that there aren't people who are hungry. In fact, their are.

For the vast majority of colds, a doctor can literally do absolutely nothing. Huge waste of resources.

True. A poor example. How about strep throat? Chicken pox? An abscessed tooth?

Or, do you think it better that the poor wait in very long lines to use emergency room resources? And that hospitals then have to write off the expense as bad debt?

If that was possible I would go back to school and be a permanent student. School was fun. Work is not. So, how it be possible to support my desire for infinite education?

I agree. School is fun. Regardless, I don't think this objection undermines the notion of allowing students to obtain a single BA without racking up debt.

Tell you what I want to see. Everyone should have a flying car. How much will you give out of your paycheck so that everyone can have a flying car?

I'm still mad we don't have flying cars. And perhaps you're right...my notions may be as pie-in-the sky as a flying car. Nevertheless, a number of other Western nations have proven that it's possible for government to be an agent in social responsibility without quelling creativity or individuality. Whereas here, our priorities are such that we'll spend millions upon millions of dollars on the Army marching band.

Go figure.

Brooding Poet,

No, because even if given the opportunity to eat properly, see a doctor and receive a good education there are too many people that would still waste it away. And there will still be someone crying how unfair their world and that they can't succeed because they are being held back by something.

Why shouldn't people with drive and ambition be allowed to achieve more, be more?

There has been case after case of people who have climbed out of poverty and lives where everything was against them to become something. Life is what you make of it.

And anything worth having is worth working for. If everything is given to everyone, nobody will appreciate what they have.

I don't make 21, 000. I know s couple who has a combined income somewhere around there, and I help when I can.

All right - minimum wage is around $12,000 a year. For two people that would be $24k a year. Your couple is making around $10k a year a piece.

My question would have to be:

1) What choices have they made in the past they are making less than minimum wage?
2) What choices are they making keeping them there?
3) What are they doing to improve their situation?

Now I am presuming that we are talking about two healthy normal people. I'm also not really interested in the answers. However, I think if you looked at those questions you'll find that it was choices in the past that have lead them to be where they are and that there are choices they can make now to improve their lot in life if they try.

BroodingPoet, I am not opposed to universal health care, but given how stupid so many Americans are about health, diet, and exercise I am quite aware of the fact that there will be vast amounts of money wasted on pointless trips to the doctor, and that much vaster amounts will be spent trying to cure things that could have been easily prevented up front if people just took better care of themselves.

Brian,

Although I'm a huge fan of misanthropy:

but given how stupid so many Americans are about health, diet, and exercise

I have to quibble with you here:

I am quite aware of the fact that there will be vast amounts of money wasted on pointless trips to the doctor, and that much vaster amounts will be spent trying to cure things that could have been easily prevented up front if people just took better care of themselves.

For many American's basic healthcare (e.g., the checkups you and I take for granted), would actually decrease costs. Yes, there would be waste. What do you expect?

But consider the cost of an untreated illness that progresses to the point of hospitilization. Proper preventive medicine could actually eliminate thousands of costly procedures and keep people out of hospital beds. For example, say what if you're uninsured and you step on a nail? What do you do? Simply hope you don't get tetnus?

Now then, what would you do if you could go to the doctor?

Which would cost more? The vaccination or the treatment?

I was specifically referring to going to the doctor when you have a cold. There is no cure for the common cold. Everybody knows this. Some companies insist on a doctor's note for sick days. Fine when it is a cost borne by the companies insurance or the employee. But a matter of public concern when the trip is paid for with tax funds.

There are actually many studies questioning the effectiveness of the practice of yearly checkups for people without any significant risk factor.

What do I expect? That there will be more waste when this service is free. That's simply human behavior.

I agree with you about the costs of untreated illnesses. When JAMA concluded that America as a whole would spend less on medicine and have a higher standard of care by insuring everyone I was sold. That's a matter of economics and shared risk. The issue for many people is the costs associated with a health condition that is caused entirely by eating bad food and not exercising. I still have issues with that myself. Removing the consequences from a matter of personal choice is always something I'm wary of.

Brooding,

How exactly to you see "basic healthcare for all" to decrease costs? Just because those checkups we take for granted are available doesn't mean everyone will go. Many people don't go to the doctor unless they're sick or, in the case of children, a vaccination is required by an institution (public education). You actually agreed with Brian on this point, so therefore isn't it neglect, not inopportunity, that relates more directly to those who are not vaccinated and as a result need treatment?

And through the Universal Healthcare system, the responsibility of paying the bills of those that neglect themselves accrue fall on my shoulders. Not something I'm to interested in doing.

Here's the kicker: About those unfortunate ones who cannot afford a doctor for regular checkup, and end up in the hospital because of it: am I not already paying (at least part of) their bills -the ones they can't pay - through taxes?

So essentially the only benefit of paying more into the system is, as you and Brian agreed upon, having the extra funds available to be "wasted on pointless trips to the doctor".

How exactly to you see "basic healthcare for all" to decrease costs?

See Brian's post above. He answers that question.

It's essentially that preventative care is cheaper than emergency intervention. That's a fact. By providing more people with appropriate preventative care, you can avoid more costly expenses (e.g., surgeries, er visits, ambulance rides, etc). You can also catch more illnesses (a good example might be diabetes) at a point when maintenance is much easier than the drastic steps that might need to be taken if the disease were left untreated.

Here's the kicker: About those unfortunate ones who cannot afford a doctor for regular checkup, and end up in the hospital because of it: am I not already paying (at least part of) their bills -the ones they can't pay - through taxes?

No. You aren't. Most hospitals write it off as a loss, I believe.

Well, not only thought taxes but also through higher costs associated with Dr. visits and the hospitals to try to make up for the losses on the other side.

Our insurance company is charged more, thus they charge us more.

Our insurance company is charged more, thus they charge us more.

Umm....no. They don't have insurance.

through higher costs associated with Dr. visits and the hospitals to try to make up for the losses on the other side.

This, I'd assume, is correct. However, as Brian and I have pointed out, these costs would actually be decreased by universal healthcare. So again, beauray, what precisely is your objection? That hospitals would run more efficiently with universal healthcare?

@BroodingPoet

That's true, but keep in mind that the same opportunities aren't available to you when your credit is such that you can't get a bank account, when you worry about whether you or your children eat, when you have to bus for an hour and half on a ride that would take 30 minutes in a car, of you could afford a car.

I won't bore you too much with the details of my life and my struggles, but I've had more than my fair share and still continue to look forward. There are a plethora of ways for people to succeed.

If you want to go to school, there's always a way. IF you want a new job, there's always a new job out there somewhere. It depends on the sacrificies you're willing to make or the assistance you're willing to seek out and accept (not necessarily welfare, but access to low interest loans for schooling, etc.)

If you want to go to school, there's always a way. IF you want a new job, there's always a new job out there somewhere. It depends on the sacrificies you're willing to make or the assistance you're willing to seek out and accept (not necessarily welfare, but access to low interest loans for schooling, etc.)

This is quite simply, not always true. Would that we truly were all equal, perhaps it would be.

But the notion of pulling one's self up from the gutters and alleys of our ghettos to succeed at the highest levels of our society (i.e., where you can make 262 times the pay of your average worker) is, by and large, a myth. There are, of course, exceptions--particularly in the realm of sports entertainment where the labor market has essentially been perfected for the "workers"--but those exceptions are often the result of extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary skill.

I, personally, went to one of the best universities in the country (not Ivy good, but kind of close), but from my perspective now, that was largely a matter of luck...luck in having parents who read a great deal despite their class, luck in doing well on an IQ test in the 2nd grade, luck in being selected for the public school's gifted program, luck in simply having the expectation of going to college for my entire life--which I'm still not sure I understand.

By contrast, the friends I had with a similar socioeconomic background ended up a)working as an electrician b) working in an insulation factory c) joining the military and d) going to prison.

I doubt attending a private university with a total cost over six figures ever occurred to any of them. Not because they were intellectually less capable of such an undertaking, but because, in our society, they were never given the encouragement to do so....

More, at least in our country, the economics of poverty serve rather well to keep one in poverty. Payday loans that charge more than 300 percent interest. High risk credit cards with astronomical rates. High risk mortgages with variable rates.

More, you do realize, don't you, that since I attended college (and this will date me), making that leap has become more difficult, not less. A number of federal programs like Pell grants and Perkins loans have been weakened (or eliminated). More, upper-tier universities have started to use aid packages as lures to get better qualified students, and oddly enough, if you come from an upper middle class background with all of its associated benefits (like being able to attend a Princeton Review course before your SAT), you end up looking like a better candidate for admission.

That is what I see as the result of Compassionate Conservatism.

The gap between the upper class and the middle class widens (as Mrs. Clinton points out) and the gap between the working class and the middle class becomes more difficult to bridge.

I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that many of the people on this thread who advocate smaller governments and the operation (unless it involves a writ of habeus corpus for a resident alien?) have only seen a "bad" neighborhood through the windows of their passing cars.

I, personally, think that the way our society treats the unluckiest among us speaks volumes about the nature of our society and the kind of people we are. I 've lived in Berkeley, CA, once considered a center of "liberal" thought in our country and seen how, even there, they've built new park benches along the streets with built in armrests to discourage the homeless from sleeping there. And it sickens me.

While there are a numerous great organizations that do amazing work to help those less fortunate, I also know (personally) millionaires who consider donations to other millionaires in the Republican party a better use of their disposable income than, say, helping out a family member who lost the genetic lottery and has spent years in and out of mental institutions and can no longer hold down a job because of the effects of those decades.

I've said my piece. I'll watch and try to learn, because frankly, I honestly don't understand how people can approach their world and its problems with an attitude of blatant selfism. All I ask is that you be honest with yourself. Don't couch what you believe in theories you've read about the role of the state, myths of "social darwinism", or the perceived elegance of a "market economy." Be true to yourself. Admit that it's convenient to have an underclass so someone can clean your house, someone can sling your hamburgers, someone can work with the factory machinery, risking their hands, so that you don't have too.

I was specifically referring to going to the doctor when you have a cold. There is no cure for the common cold. Everybody knows this. Some companies insist on a doctor's note for sick days. Fine when it is a cost borne by the companies insurance or the employee. But a matter of public concern when the trip is paid for with tax funds.

There's a tremendous focus right now on controlling costs by reducing "needless" expenditures. But it's completely misguided. For starters, people don't necessarily know when they have a cold versus something more serious. (When I have a question like that, I take a middle route - I call someone to ask if I should come in.) But more importantly, one of the best predictors of life expectancy is the time you spend with your doctor. Even though there are not cures for the common cold (and likely never will be), the time and resources are not necessarily wasted. It's an opportunity for your doctor to get to know you better and to help you learn more about your own health. One of the reasons France has a system widely recognized for quality is because they pay doctors for time spent with patients rather than per visit. By contrast, in the US, your doctor has so many forms to fill out if she wants to spend more than 15 minutes with you that she'll almost never do that no matter how much attention you need. Another reason France has good healthcare, btw, is that they pay women for prenatal visits. Imagine that! And it works, and it keeps costs down.

We already have a system for keeping people from unecessary doctors visits. It's called HMOs, and they work terribly. Copays keep people away from necessary visits every bit as much as they keep people away from unecessary ones. And the restrictions your insurance places on your doctor (which you'll never even hear about because it's specifically on the doctor, not on you) severely limit the quality of your care.

Why is it that, in the early 20th Century, it was acceptable to move between economic classes over generations, and now it is considered a demandable right by many to jump several rungs up the economic ladder in one lifetime?

So what if a guy has to flip burgers in the morning and stack boxes in the evening to feed his kids. I didn't have the children, my dad didn't, and neither did my sister or my best friend. The only reason I am not working several jobs is because my father did. Now Ms. Clinton is telling me I need to spend more of my money helping people I don't care about? Here I thought it would be my opportunity to repay my parents by helping them out. Instead I am wasting my money on all of these schemes to move people out of poverty.

Quite frankly I don't care if most poor people never move out of their socio-economic condition. There are means to do so, but it takes a tremendous amount of work, vision, and perseverance. There is a CEO of a multi-million dollar clothing firm (I think it was Patagonia) that lived under a bridge eating cat food he was so poor. He made, why can't other poor people? Perhaps because they do not have it in them.

All a person is entitled to is protection from violence and fraud. If the interest rate on a payday loan is make explicitly clear, then there is no fraud. If the lender adjusts rates on a whim and threatens violence, then you have cause for complaint. It happens all the time. Instead of focusing more resources on combatting malfeasance, people are suggesting we spend more money on redistributing the ill gotten gains. Way to pile more garbage on a broken truck.

Poverty sucks. It's meant to suck in order to serve as a disincentive. People can escape poverty by either a) working hard over the course of a lifetime to help their children nudge up the ladder, or b) remain childless and move up themselves. Very few can do both. For many of us here, it took our families 2-3 generations to escape poverty. None of us should have to subsidize another family's quick trip out of poverty.

@ignoblus, I have known people who demanded anti-biotics from the doctor when they had a common cold and got them. Of course, they did absolutely nothing because the cold was viral, and the doctor knew this. There really is such a thing as wasted care. It is not the biggest concern in the universe, no. But it is real. And in the case of over-prescribing anti-biotics it is not only wasted but actually dangerous to the public. Way too many people are just woefully lacking in knowledge of basics like the health effects of the food they eat or the exercise they don't do or the difference between viral and bacterial infections. Lacking basic knowledge, it is impossible to make good judgments. I think people need to educate themselves more on these subjects, but I have no idea how to get them interested in doing so. The HMO approach did not work.

Our insurance company is charged more, thus they charge us more.

Umm....no. They don't have insurance.

This is totally false. Reinsurance companies insure insurance companies. I used to work for one. And reinsurance companies are insured as well. And they all took a huge hit between 9/11 and lawsuite thus a lot of prices went up.

Wow. Anyone posting here try to make ends meet, in the States, on $21,000 a year?

I do make a little more than that, about $30,000. And I am a single mom that hasn't seen child support in over a year. You know what I do when I need help? I get a second job (what a concept!). There was one time I had 3 jobs to support my daughter and myself. You know what, it can be done, if someone wants it bad enough and people get off their butts and work for it. I also went back to school while working full time and taking care of my daughter and grandfather. And I have a mortgage, a child with asthma and various allergies, and student loans. And I donate money to good causes.

I do make a little more than that, about $30,000. And I am a single mom that hasn't seen child support in over a year. You know what I do when I need help? I get a second job (what a concept!). There was one time I had 3 jobs to support my daughter and myself. You know what, it can be done, if someone wants it bad enough and people get off their butts and work for it. I also went back to school while working full time and taking care of my daughter and grandfather. And I have a mortgage, a child with asthma and various allergies, and student loans. And I donate money to good causes.

That's an awesome story! I applaud your efforts, genuinely appreciate your honesty, and deeply admire the sacrifice you made to support your daughter and your self.

My point is, that with the vast amount of wealth our nation has, there's absolutely no reason for you to have had to endure those hardships. More, to my mind, someone who works that hard, like yourself, has done far, far more to deserve a multi-million dollar lifestyle than the majority of CEOs have ever done.

Finally, although you've made something of a success for yourself, there are, often enough, barriers to working that hard for some people. And lack of ambition is not necessarily the only barrier as so many on this thread seem to believe.

Thank you. I was just trying to make the point that it can be done. Actually, I could make a lot more money if I would have stuck with college, but I was sacrificing my family and I refuse to do that. So I make due with what I have and I help others where I can.

My point is, that with the vast amount of wealth our nation has, there's absolutely no reason for you to have had to endure those hardships.

While I understand your point, I believe that I made my bed, I now have to lie in it. I have to do what needs to be done, no one else should have to pay for my carelessness. I understand barriers; my family wasn't in town to help and my daughter's father's family didn't help all that much. I have friends that are single mothers as well that struggle every day. But we all do what needs to be done without help.

Maybe my vision is warped but here in Milwaukee there are so many advantages for those trying to better themselves. There is so much help for working moms that can't afford day care and rent (I make too much to avail myself) here. I have seen people use these services then go and buy Nikes or Coach or other brand name products while they live somewhere it isn't safe for their kids to live and drive cars that cost more than I make a year. Or they only work part time so they can get these benefits even though they are capable to working full time. Or they do what they can to screw the system because they feel someone "owes" them. And not everyone is like that I know.

I guess my point to all of this is we need take care of ourselves and not rely on others to take care of us. Help is great but there are too many out there that use the help as a crutch and think it is their "right". They keep using the help and make no effort to better themselves. That is the frustrating part and I feel no need to help those that won't help themselves. And I do not like the thought of "being forced" to help others. And that's what I feel she is doing, forcing us to help others.

My point is, that with the vast amount of wealth our nation has, there's absolutely no reason for you to have had to endure those hardships. More, to my mind, someone who works that hard, like yourself, has done far, far more to deserve a multi-million dollar lifestyle than the majority of CEOs have ever done.

Do you know the personal stories of many CEOs? I think this is the biggest problem we have, no one really understands what it takes, for the average CEO, to get to where s/he is at. The average CEO doesn't get to where they are at by working 20, 30, 40, or even 50 hours a week. Hell, the average professor works 52 hours per week.

People deserve what they earn based on what the market determines, not someone with a mission to instill fairness in society.

Yes BroodingPoet, it is indeed quite good that I was able to exercise enough self-restraint to put a condom on my penis. Seriously, I have no sympathy for people who fail to take basic precautions before engaging in risky activities. If the protection fails that's a different story, but that's less than 5% of the people. If you choose to have unprotected sex, then you choose all the consequences. Period.

Yes BroodingPoet, it is indeed quite good that I was able to exercise enough self-restraint to put a condom on my penis. Seriously, I have no sympathy for people who fail to take basic precautions before engaging in risky activities. If the protection fails that's a different story, but that's less than 5% of the people. If you choose to have unprotected sex, then you choose all the consequences. Period.

But the child, alas, can't make that choice.

Brooding,

And your point is?

The child only comes into the equation if A) you pulled a dumbass, or B) you fall in the unlucky 5 percentile.

In either case its unfortunate for both parties, including the baby, but as he said, by willingly indulging in risky activities you willingly accept any and all consequences that come your way, regardless of precautions.

Best option really is to get your stuff together in the 9th month "buffer" that you have (which isn't really a buffer at all considering all the hospital bills and hormones and what not that you have to deal with), and do the best you can to raise it - in other words, accept the consequence and adapt accordingly.

Or, adopt it out to someone better suited to care for him/her.

There is the abortion option but thats not really a "Best option" in most peoples minds, even those who are "pro-choice," and ultimately, like it or not, the decision boils down to that of the couple. Lets avoid the abortion debate though, hmm?

Best option really is to get your stuff together in the 9th month "buffer" that you have (which isn't really a buffer at all considering all the hospital bills and hormones and what not that you have to deal with), and do the best you can to raise it - in other words, accept the consequence and adapt accordingly.

Or, adopt it out to someone better suited to care for him/her.

There is the abortion option but thats not really a "Best option" in most peoples minds, even those who are "pro-choice," and ultimately, like it or not, the decision boils down to that of the couple. Lets avoid the abortion debate though, hmm?

Wow.

So, your argument is that, unless your economically lucky (as most, but not all Americans are), you ought not to have children? Ever?

So, your argument is that, unless your economically lucky (as most, but not all Americans are), you ought not to have children? Ever?

If you aren't able to raise a child the responsible thing is to not give birth to one.

If you aren't able to raise a child the responsible thing is to not give birth to one.

You mean, if, for example, you were so devoted to your job that you worked 80-90 hours a week and would feel compelled to attempt to buy your children's love?

You mean, if, for example, you were so devoted to your job that you worked 80-90 hours a week and would feel compelled to attempt to buy your children's love?

Is this the reason why you are the way you are?? I'm only teasing, this thread was getting way too serious. Still friends?

nope....just a counterexample....I came from the working class.

My point is that having someone else decide who is able to raise a child, as Jon Nagelmakers suggests is irresponsible.

I don't want to decide who should be able to raise a child. I want everyone to make decisions for themselves and reap the complete reward, or as it may be take responsibility for the problems. If a low-class family wants to have a child, they should be able to do so. However, it is not my responsibility (through taxes) to make sure this child is clothed and fed.

It's called capitalism.

Yes, but the communities that comprise it would not support it, due to certain elements of human nature defined by late 1800's social Darwinism.

By limiting your scope to such a narrow sample and then making such broad accusations towards a system that encompasses far more than you took into account (in that statement) is - to put it lightly - not good form. It does raise moral questions, but what's the value of the labor that these prisoners, that we spend 30 something thousand each a year on cost? Why doesn't anyone look at that number?

The effectiveness of the US military does not lie in the budget. Have you looked at the budget lately? What do we spend more on than anything else? Defense. It's political intervention and general bureaucratic nonsense that strangles the effectiveness of our military.

However, I do agree that Corporate-Government relations have gotten a bit to0 intimate lately and
needs to be resolved.

Hilary Clinton doesn't fit the bill as the person to do that though, not in my eyes. Not even close.

smallfork,

Thanks for the clarification. Your call for further erudition (read Adam Smith!) is greatly appreciated.

I'd also recommend that people read the work of Herbert Simon , who won a Nobel for integrating notions of group dynamics and psychology into our beloved supply and demand curve.

Also, I'd recommend that folks who are actually interested enough in economics actually read Marx. Although many of his ideas did not come to fruition, he did point out that he who controls the means of production (e.g., land, equipment, oil) controls the wealth. More, he also pointed out that politics, at base, is economic--everything else is huffing and puffing.

Finally, I'll give anyone who can successfully integrate the work of the three theorists a cookie. (And the Nobel folks probably will too).

There's no shame in earning a working wage - done it for a good part of my life - but there's no shame in helping one another either. God help us if we have to give up our addictions long enough to have to feel the pain that's out there.

Well said! And there is a great tradition in this country of doing just that. I'd hope that continues.

I, personally, have yet to see the economic results of Bush's "compassionate conservatism."

I find it interesting that so often the folks advocating the "We're independent Americans" point of view seem to foster addictive habits. There's no shame in earning a working wage - done it for a good part of my life - but there's no shame in helping one another either. God help us if we have to give up our addictions long enough to have to feel the pain that's out there.

Fine -- give to your heart's content. Just don't force your giving upon others, because at that point, what was once a noble act becomes one the one hand theft by a third party, and turns something that should be done for its intrinsic moral value into a drudgery.

You're being ripped off anyway by the corporations who pick your pocket every time that you fill up at the pump, down a soft drink filled with high fructose corn syrup, a substance that fosters addiction to sweets, pay your taxes to subsidize a war machine that's more interested in graft and cronyism than world peace. In other words, do you want to have a government that watches out for your own interests or a government that does? You're going to have a government no matter what, so you may as well have one that tries to help the average Joe live a decent life. Take way such a government and all you get is despots on the top and serfs on the bottom. And we can live that way if you want, but I think that we've done better than that in this country.

Correcting

In other words, do you want to have a government that watches out for your own interests or a government that does?

to

In other words, do you want to have a government that watches out for your own interests or a government that does'nt?

As far as I'm concerned, all wealth obtained in any remotely moral way (not outright theft, for example), is ultimately derived from the benefits provided by a stable and functioning society. And everyone in such a society has a debt to that society that cannot be repaid. When people talk about wealth redistribution as "theft," it pisses me off, because that wealth doesn't really belong to anyone in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned, all wealth obtained in any remotely moral way (not outright theft, for example), is ultimately derived from the benefits provided by a stable and functioning society. And everyone in such a society has a debt to that society that cannot be repaid. When people talk about wealth redistribution as "theft," it pisses me off, because that wealth doesn't really belong to anyone in the first place.

*Insert Nozick's theory of Distributive Justice here*

When people talk about wealth redistribution as "theft," it pisses me off, because that wealth doesn't really belong to anyone in the first place.

Really? You could have fooled me. I was pretty sure you could point to the owners pretty easily. How else would the government tax it away?

You're wrong by the way. Somalia, which had no functioning government at all, also saw the rise of many successful companies that competed in a pure free market. I wouldn't have wanted to live there, but the companies that built themselves up in that environment don't seem to me to be beholden to a stable and functioning society. They built wealth despite the complete lack of a functional society, simply by providing valuable goods and services to their customers. The two things seem orthogonal to me.

@Brian

You're wrong by the way. Somalia, which had no functioning government at all, also saw the rise of many successful companies that competed in a pure free market. I wouldn't have wanted to live there, but the companies that built themselves up in that environment don't seem to me to be beholden to a stable and functioning society. They built wealth despite the complete lack of a functional society, simply by providing valuable goods and services to their customers. The two things seem orthogonal to me.

Could you point to a source for this? I'm intrigued.

Also note above that ignoblus said "in any remotely moral way (not outright theft, for example)". I have difficulty believing that any corporation in the milieu of Somalia operated morally. It seems to me that such an environment would be the perfect place to exercise a bit of "might makes right" ideology in your everyday business practices. Wouldn't it be easier (from a purely economic standpoint) to plant a bomb in a basement if someone came along with a better product at a better price?

Again, if you have sources, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

@BroodingPoet, there were certainly armed groups of thugs roaming around and extorting money, some of which were associated with various political or religious factions, some of which were just thugs. That was their response to the lack of law. At the same time, the telecom market was booming. The phone companies only kept customers if they provided value and service, and if they started to mess up others were only too happy to take their business away.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm:

A host of mobile phone masts testifies to the telecommunications revolution which has taken place despite the absence of any functioning national government since 1991.

Three phone companies are engaged in fierce competition for both mobile and landline customers, while new internet cafes are being set up across the city and the entire country.

It takes just three days for a landline to be installed - compared with waiting-lists of many years in neighbouring Kenya, where there is a stable, democratic government.

And once installed, local calls are free for a monthly fee of just $10.

International calls cost 50 US cents a minute, while surfing the web is charged at 50 US cents an hour - "the cheapest rate in Africa" according to the manager of one internet cafe.

But how do you establish a phone company in a country where there is no government?

No monopoly

In some respects, it is actually easier. ...... more

Like I said, not a place I would ever want to live. But it is an example of people working and making money sans law and order - this is just something we do automatically, and I believe the money we generate is owned by us.

I agree, I prefer the orginal article.

I do wonder why they make the changes that they do and that they should probably provide an article last updated line.

I do wonder why they make the changes that they do and that they should probably provide an article last updated line.

True, but it is a wire service. Their aim is, simply, to distribute what they deem news as quickly as possible.

Yes, but I have seen articles re-written to say the complete opposite of what they originally said. It makes the debate on the article seem like utter nonsense when suddenly 90% of the text including the headline is now opposite of what it was. Since I mainly comment on political stories that makes it seem extra suspicious, particularly when an article about Bush is just re-written.

Free markets are based on competition. Competition is based on "on your own". I am all for equal oppotunity. Everyone should have an opportunity to overcome adversity, take risks, and benefit from the rewards. I am not in favor of giving people rewards when they've never taken a risk. I just see imbalance in her statements.

Domestic companies that are not taking advantage of global markets for production and new revenue opportunities should be pruned. They are non-competitive and sub-par. China doesn't care about protecting US industry. Other globalized firms will kill off domestic firms with no vision for the globalized economy. It's just the way it is, and our regulations can't fully protect anyone. It's just policy that delay's the inevitable. The solution is to help companies grow and compete globally. Get out of their way.

I am not in favor of giving people rewards when they've never taken a risk.

You don't mean "risk" here. You can't. For surely, such people face more risk and more adversity every single day than those of us on this thread will ever take.

You don't think it's a risk to walk home from school in a neighborhood where there is no ADT? You don't think it's a risk to contemplate skipping a meal, so your kids can eat? You don't think it's a risk to not go to the doctor because there's no way you can pay for the cost of a simple office visit?

I think, actually, you're talking about capital risk. And lo and behold you actually have to have capital before you can risk losing it.

And any idiot who starts with a million dollars should be able to make millions more (e.g., Paris Hilton).

Now tell me, anyone, how is it fair that Paris Hilton, whom I imagine we all can agree has done absolutely nothing for the advancement of our culture, industry, or society, can be worth that much money. Now, there's someone who won the genetic lottery.

I am not in favor of giving people rewards when they've never taken a risk. I just see imbalance in her statements.

Thanks for writing BroodingP. Yea, I think we're talking about different risks. The risk you are referring to above was addressed in this statement:
blockquote>I am all for equal oppotunity. Everyone should have an opportunity to overcome adversity, take risks, and benefit from the rewards.

I want us to protect people that live in a dangerous situation so that they have the freedom to take economic risks.

I am not just talking about Capital risk in the sense you use it. There is human capital, something we can all invest. Whether you have 1 million or just enough to eat, you can invest your time and life into activities that improve your socio-economic situation.

In the end, I have very little faith in government to solve problems relating to socio-economic disparity. I don't think that institutionalized education has a shot to reform our country either. It's grass roots, organic mentoring and community building that will change things. There is a huge difference between education and mentoring. Social entrepreneurs are getting in the trenches and equipping one person at a time. Like the old sayind, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats forever." Fishing is tricky these days and it takes one-to-one, community based mentoring to make a change. See The Post-Institutional Release.

I am not just talking about Capital risk in the sense you use it. There is human capital, something we can all invest. Whether you have 1 million or just enough to eat, you can invest your time and life into activities that improve your socio-economic situation

Keep in mind that the perceived, and hence economic, value of human capital varies widely. The human capital that many working class people are able to offer is not as highly valued as the "intellectual capital" that comes with a college degree.

It's grass roots, organic mentoring and community building that will change things. There is a huge difference between education and mentoring. Social entrepreneurs are getting in the trenches and equipping one person at a time. Like the old sayind, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats forever." Fishing is tricky these days and it takes one-to-one, community based mentoring to make a change

I actually agree with this comment. However, as many people in this thread have suggested, there is a disturbing tendency to shirk one's "grassroots" responsibilities. I, personally, think that the government can (and has to certain degree) play a role in that.

I see absolutely no reason why anyone in this country should have to live below the poverty line. Ever. And I don't see that being corrected without government intervention. There simply aren't enough people doing that kind of work, and there are simply too many variables that can make a person unsuitable for a highly skilled position like those the bulk of American's enjoy.

As for the super wealthy, isn't there a point at which you don't actually need that much money? How many freaking bathrooms does one person need for heaven's sake? Why not force those people to end poverty? Throughout the world?

Why not force those people to end poverty? Throughout the world?

I agree with you that it is a shameful thing to accumulate so much when there are a billion people starving. We can't force them though. That tears the fabric of freedom.

It's really is a shame that Americans die of obesity while huge chunks of the world starve. We have to encourage people not to shirk their grassroots responsibilities. I think it's cheaper for me to sell a friend on why he/she should donate to one.org than pass legislation to force them to donate.

I see absolutely no reason why anyone in this country should have to live below the poverty line. Ever. And I don't see that being corrected without government intervention.

And I don't see it being corrected with government intervention. Two questions. 1) Has there ever been a society at any point in history without poverty? 2) How does poverty in America compare to poverty in the rest of the world?

This is a good link on the subject:

Human Development Trends 2005

How is it that we manage to provide health care for 300 million people then? I mean, this is something that already happens today. The problem that I see is that people without insurance tend to go to the emergency room with a very serious condition which ends up costing a lot more to correct than it would have earlier - major surgery versus pills for instance. Society is already paying for these people's care, and is doing so in a very inefficient manner. If I'm going to be forced to pay for someone else's health care (which we all are already today), then I would at least prefer that I pay less for it, and that they experience less suffering. Now, should I be forced to? That's a different question, for sure. But I think you're wrong about the infrastructure. Hospitals today are not allowed to turn people away due to lack of ability to pay. And JAMA did a major study several years ago (which they unfortunately made available online to subscribers only after it being initially public) where they concluded that if America provided everyone with insurance, the total national spending on health care would actually go down - due to it being so much cheaper to treat problems early.

I'll look for that article. I am interested to see how granular their data were.

And we do not have the infrastructure. Lines in emergency rooms, particularly in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, are notoriously long. I will grant you that we have the highest level of MDs per 100,000 people than we have ever had. I still have to wait for an appointment, and I am middle class. What would happen if you threw 40-60 million more people into the mix, all looking for routine health care and preventive treatments?

You are looking at it as if they were never seeking health care now. But they are - at the emergency room. So what would happen? Emergency rooms would become less crowded and doctor's offices would become more crowded. Hospital visits would cost less, doctor's visits would cost more. I don't know the full details, but a lot of the changes would simply shift costs and delays around.