Monday, October 20, 2008

What is your most controversial belief?

Mine is that I don't support many seemingly innocent charitable causes. I'll give you three examples: cancer research, post-hurricane rebuilding, and faith based initiatives.

By asking for donations for cancer research, we are claiming that the price system is not sufficient. There are surely huge financial incentives to cure cancer (which I am told is a broad word for several different kinds of diseases). Even curing one kind of cancer would be extremely profitable. The market should be able to predict exactly how profitable, and put that much money into research every year. But remember, profit isn't the extra money greedy CEO's use to torture kittens. But they are an exact value that consumers place on a product. If you put more money into research than would come out in value, then you have done a disservice. That money could have been better spend elsewhere. Is there a valid reason to think that the market is undervaluing a cancer cure?

Another example is the large amount of resources being donated to help rebuild areas like New Orleans after huge hurricanes like Katrina. When money is given to these area, we are only subsidizing people to live dangerously below sea level. Why not do the same for houses near volcanoes or earthquakes (wait, we do that second one). That money would be better spent subsidizing their move to other, safer, parts of the country.

Barack Obama has stated that he favors these faith based initiatives. Here are his statements: "but they can also participate in federal programs as long as those are done in a way that is not encroaching on a separation of church and state, is open to the public and is not involved in proselytizing." I don't trust the government to produce many things, especially my religion. I strongly support the separation of church of state, for the benefit of the state and the church. A Christian charity that does not also preach the gospel of grace is hardly a Christian charity at all.

Now that I've confessed, what is your most controversial belief?

30 comments:

  1. I'm not a fan of the death penalty. I don't believe that any human should have the right to take anyone else's life. I've also heard that it's cheaper to give someone a life sentence than the death penalty. Is this true?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems to me the health care system makes a heck of a lot more money by people having cancer than not having it. What drug/healthcare company wants people to be cured and not need their treatment any more? This, by the way, is why people call corporations things like "evil" and "greedy."

    I like the idea of faith-based initiatives because I see them as much more effective than the usual types of aid government employs (ie, corrupt governments). So whether they're allowed to preach or not, whatever gets the money into the most effective hands I'm for.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought a little more about it, and this is the thing that gets me a lot when I read your blog and information by other economists who I feel present corporations as robots who automatically do whatever the market says they should do and don't deserve any blame for it.

    Now I'm a Republican (whatever that still means) and I believe in the free market, but that doesn't mean I think corporations are unable to be evil. For instance, in the 1950's Kodak dumped mercury into lake Managua in Nicaragua, the most polluted lake in the world. There are dirt-poor local people who still drink, bathe in, and eat fish out of that water because they have no other choice. They can't move, they can't survive otherwise. There are no other major water supplies. So regularly these people die and give birth to children with deformities and disabilities. This is evil, it's wrong, and it's greedy. Kodak could have spent more money to dispose of that material in a way that didn't hurt hundreds of people, but they chose money instead. I just don't believe that the market, by itself, could solve this problem. How would it do this? There is no Nicaraguan TV to splash it all over to get people to stop buying Kodak film. And even if there was, would people in the States really even care?

    So all this to say I think some CEO's do kill kittens - or people, more like it. I don't think it's a sentiment to be scoffed at.

    Now certainly we shouldn't go to the other extreme and say that a CEO making his market-defined salary of $50 million a year is robbery from the poor. But I think there is middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AF,

    Yeah you're right about the death penalty's cost:
    http://www.nyadp.org/main/faq#0
    And I think I'm with you on the questionable morality of taking someone's life. I also appreciate that it is hard for a government to oppress it's people if it can never kill them.

    Justin,

    "the health care system makes a heck of a lot more money by people having cancer than not having it"

    Yes that may be true, but isn't it also true of all diseases? In fact, isn't that true of most technologies (I'm sure train companies would have loved to keep the airline industry from starting or newspapers and their new dominating rival online news)? What keeps businesses from serving their profits instead of their customers? Competition. There is a huge profit incentive to cure caner, because if you don't, someone else will. Surely you don't think the entire health care system is somehow colluding?

    "So whether they're allowed to preach or not, whatever gets the money into the most effective hands I'm for"

    Well I guess that's where you and I differ. I don't think The Church should be serving people in the name of kindness alone. They should be doing it to draw attention to Christ.

    "that doesn't mean I think corporations are unable to be evil"

    Me neither! Don't get me wrong, people are evil, corporations are made of people, ergo corporations can do evil. But that doesn't mean they can't do good. I'll let Adam Smith make my point from his classic Wealth of Nations:

    "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

    Corporations are certainly not righteous. But they clearly have done great things (for profit).

    "in the 1950's Kodak dumped mercury into lake Managua"

    Yes I have heard about this. It is really horrifying to me that people are still suffering 50 years later from this. But I would not necessarily put the bulk of the blame on the corporations. Unlike you I truly do see corporations as robots responding to incentives. My bet is that no one owned that part of the lake, or that everyone owned it (meaning the government). When there are no clear property rights, there is no one to ensure it's proper use. The solution is to assign property rights, not to get Kodak out of the country it is employing. Good markets need good governments.

    I don't think CEO's kill kittens, because there is no profit in it. But I do think there is a role of the government to ensure that if it does become profitable, it is taxed.

    By the way Justin, you didn't tell us, what is your most controversial belief?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cheryl7:33 PM

    You're anti-cancer research donations? Seriously? Personally, any decrease in market values resulting from donations that find cures, well, who cares? The "value" in cancer research is a lot more than the numbers crunched. Where's the prioritization? Dissing people for believing in and supporting a cause just so economic theories can hold? Give me a break! There's more to life.

    And if you insist on looking at an issue like this through an economic viewpoint, I don't understand how donations even go against the market. If people want to spend their money on a cause, isn't that the market at work? The consumer market force getting behind a priority/industry/product? They clearly think it's important enough to spend money on it. And our healthcare industry is not the same as other markets for goods. Other markets are all about consumer choice, right? How many people actually have the luxury to be able to afford to pick and choose their insurance coverage? Or pick and choose what drugs or treatments they have available through their crappy coverage? The market doesn't allow people to decide what drugs to buy - the research and the doctors don't even have that luxury in many cases! I know from experience - treatment is limited by your insurance. Where are the market results supposed to come from in a system like that? What are consumers then supposed to buy into to sway the market to produce the kind of research they want? More insurance? Drugs they don't need? Hiring personal researchers? I don't get it.

    As for your other points, natural disasters can hit anywhere. Statistically, some places are worse off than others, but when we're talking about people's homes, communities, and lives, statistics start to lose their meaning. And faith-based initiatives are not making a government religion nor are their intention to preach anything - just to take common beliefs that can make positive changes. I'm with Justin on this one - put the money in effective hands.

    In fact Justin - rock on man! Much more eloquently put then I've ever been able to express. Nice example.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cheryl,

    I understand your concern. Naming this post my most controversial belief means I know the argument is a little odd and unformed.

    However, I do think the value of cancer research is numbers crunched. Not a number calculated by economists or researchers, but one created by the preferences of aggregate consumers. The real value of a cure for cancer is certainly not infinite. So it doesn't make sense to say that we should do ALL WE CAN do cure it.

    Remember, every dollar spent on cancer research is a dollar not spent on education, global aid, etc. In fact, I have thought for a long time that charities compete with each other for funds. The average person has a certain amount of money they are willing donate. For example, if a panhandler coaxes money out of someone, they are less likely to donate to NPR. But this next sentence of yours got me thinking:

    "If people want to spend their money on a cause, isn't that the market at work?"

    Yeah I think you're right. I'd never thought of it that way. For example if someone has a family member with cancer, they have a personal interest in a cure, so they value it higher than the average person, so they will donate. That sounds like the market to me. Great point Cheryl.

    "What are consumers then supposed to buy into to sway the market to produce the kind of research they want?"

    I wonder, if instead of donating, why not have people invest. Take your money and invest it in the health care company you think can make the most progress. That way researches are more directly rewarded for being successful.

    "our healthcare industry is not the same as other markets for goods"

    I'm always skeptical when I hear this. Whether it's energy, agriculture, education, steel, airlines, drugs, or medicine, it seems to me these industries are just like any other. I think everyone has the choice to pick and choose their health care. It may not be the ideal care, but that's true in all products. In fact, right now I have chosen to not have any health insurance. Now I could get rid of one of my cars, move into a smaller apartment, or pay off my student loans slower, but I have made what I think to be a rational choice. I am young, healthy, and for a short time I will probably be better taking my money elsewhere.

    BUT, you're right about how employer provided health insurance does skew the market. This old system is left over from the wage controls of the Great Depression. Businesses used health insurance as a way to legally compete for workers. Now that trend is continued through government tax incentives. If you want this problem solved, it sounds like you support John McCain's health care plan:

    "Companies can deduct money spent on employee compensation as a business expense whether it takes the form of wages or health benefits. But since the government does not treat employer-provided health insurance as taxable income, there's an artificial incentive for employees to prefer compensation in that form, rather than the cash equivalent. If both kinds of compensation were treated the same, most employees presumably would prefer the money; employers would respond by ditching health benefits and offering higher wages instead."
    http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126267.html

    "natural disasters can hit anywhere"

    Yes, but they are much more likely to hit in certain areas. And when you help people rebuild in the same destroyed area, you are subsidizing them to live in dangerous areas. This became apparent to me when New Orleans was evacuated again for hurricanes this year.

    As for faith-based initiatives, I think the three of us just disagree on what we think the Church should be doing and how it should do it.

    And yes, Justin does rock. Thanks for your thoughts Cheryl.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Way to go, Cheryl!

    I know I've told you about the Nicaragua thing before, I'm sorry to repeat myself. I just wanted to put it up here to add to this discussion.

    Certainly I agree not all corporations are evil, and some are good. I in fact would say most are good, which is partly why I lean right instead of left I think. Certainly I've heard of Adam Smith and I'm familiar with his ideas. Trouble is though, when you say "CEO's don't kill kittens" it implies to me that you think people who say that CEO's hurt people are wrong across the board, and I don't agree.

    I don't think the entire health care system is colluding. But when you've got a cure that's very, very hard to come by, and it appears your competition isn't any closer than you are to reaching it, and you're making money off of the people with disease, I think there is plenty of incentive to undervalue a cure. Certainly every year they don't find a cure they spend less money the next year on finding one. At the end of the day though, I think looking at it from that "economic viewpoint" as Cheryl calls it is kindof silly. Like Cheryl said, there's more to cancer research than number-crunching, and more to life than criticizing people for giving to a cause we can all agree is worthy.

    Back on the Nicaragua thing - honestly, property rights? You don't think the company has any personal, moral responsibility not to kill people? You don't think the board of directors could have said "hey, maybe we shouldn't poison these people's waters supply?" If that's not evil, I don't know what is.

    "Good markets need good governments" - sounds to me like the market can't solve everything :)

    On the faith-based thing, I find it hard to believe that a Christian handing someone a loaf of bread does nothing towards helping that person come closer to knowing Christ. I agree the ideal situation would be the church being able to help and preach. But I also believe the government should not mandate religion. So if a church has an option between helping someone and not preaching and not helping them and preaching to them, I think they should choose the former. Unfortunately, in the past, they have historically chosen the latter. Which in my opinion has been one of the greatest, if not the greatest, downfalls of the church - preaching to people without helping them.

    So again, I'd much rather the government give money to my church, who will use effectively albeit without preaching, than some corrupt government, who will use it to continue to oppress their people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and I haven't thought a lot about it, but my most controversial belief is probably that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "implies to me that you think people who say that CEO's hurt people are wrong across the board"

    I'm sorry if that what I said, that is not what I meant. I do think what Kodak did was morally corrupt, but I think the solution is through property rights, not regulation. I think I was thinking solution and you were thinking blame. Yes, they deserve blame, morally. But if there was no law against pollution, I'm not sure if you can charge an ex post facto law against them, legally. I'm thinking morally and legally are different.

    "'Good markets need good governments' - sounds to me like the market can't solve everything :)"

    I agree. But I'm willing to bet people greatly underestimate what markets can do.

    "if a church has an option between helping someone and not preaching and not helping them and preaching to them, I think they should choose the former"

    I agree, but I don't think that's the choice. Why not get rid of faith based initiatives, lower taxes, and let the people donate their money to whatever they want. Then the church is free to act without government restrictions.

    "been one of the greatest, if not the greatest, downfalls of the church - preaching to people without helping them."

    Great point.

    "the Bible is the inerrant word of God."

    That makes you a fundamentalist! Ha ha ha.

    ReplyDelete
  10. How can you believe what they did is not "morally corrupt" but they "deserve blame, morally?" That doesn't make sense to me.

    Of course I understand the difference between legality and morality. Words like "greedy" and "evil" are moral judgments, not legal ones, obviously. I haven't really been talking about what the solution is during this discussion. I sure do agree with taxation over regulation in most cases. The only point I'm trying to make here is sometimes CEO's do kill kittens. And people. When they shouldn't. And "the market said it was ok" to me is no excuse, and I don't think it is to a lot of people.

    "Why not get rid of faith based initiatives, lower taxes, and let the people donate their money to whatever they want." YES! I agree. But if the government is going to take my money and use it for aide, I'd rather they give it to my church than the Zimbabwe government. Which I would guess you agree with.

    I'm not sure I now what "fundamentalist" means. And I've been taking a look at just what "inerrant" means, too...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I said "I do think what Kodak did was morally corrupt" and that "yes, they deserve blame, morally".

    But it is yes clear whether they should be held legally responsible (which I think you would agree).

    "The only point I'm trying to make here is sometimes CEO's do kill kittens. And people. When they shouldn't. And 'the market said it was ok' to me is no excuse, and I don't think it is to a lot of people."

    See I don't think the market says it's ok. I think the law said it was ok. If you don't want pollution like that we need better laws (or in this case better defined property rights, which are laws).

    "But if the government is going to take my money and use it for aide, I'd rather they give it to my church than the Zimbabwe government. Which I would guess you agree with."

    Sure, but that's not the choice we should have to make. It's our money after all.

    "I'm not sure I now what "fundamentalist" means. And I've been taking a look at just what "inerrant" means, too..."

    Looking forward to that blog post!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cheryl7:36 PM

    "The real value of a cure for cancer is certainly not infinite. So it doesn't make sense to say that we should do ALL WE CAN do cure it."

    I hope that you never ever have to experience having a loved one with cancer. Or any long-term illness. I have. Plus the insanity we've been going through with Chris. I can say from experience, when put in that position, people can and will do anything they can and there is no price they wouldn't pay. Perhaps there is only so much money and so many resources available. But I'm an idealist. I believe we can always do more and we can always do better.

    "Take your money and invest it in the health care company you think can make the most progress."

    Problem with this is labs work on different things. We still don't know what can and will work best. (I have a friend working in cancer research - his work is soooo specific, it's amazing really) So donating to non-profits who disburse among many researchers actually provides more opportunities to find success.

    Nice plug, but I absolutely despise McCain's plan. Now, if he could first hugely decrease healthcare costs and insurance costs, then I could see its potential. But the way it stands, I feel like his plan would encourage employers to drop benefits. And then I fell like that will cause that many more people to run around without insurance increasing healthcare costs and thus the insurance costs to those who still have insurance. I don't think Obama's plan is as great as he makes it out to be. But I do think it has the potential to decrease the number of uninsured and it would definitely rattle the insurance industry by essentially adding competition through the availability of a different type of insurance. And from what I hear, competition is typically pretty good in an industry.

    From your response to Justin:
    "See I don't think the market says it's ok. I think the law said it was ok. If you don't want pollution like that we need better laws (or in this case better defined property rights, which are laws)."

    Wouldn't laws be, dare I say it, regulation on what a business can or can't do? You socialist! Completely and totally kidding, but I have to give you a hard time. So property rights solves pollution? What about air pollution? Who gets to own the air? I think pollution and environmental issues should be looked at using the Bill of Rights - I'd like to plead the 9th: "Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights." I have the right to breath clean air and drink clean water, thank you very much.

    I like how you didn't ask for my controversial belief ; ) Well, here's one that you probably wouldn't expect: I don't think people should have kids if at least one parent isn't going to be around to raise them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I can say from experience, when put in that position, people can and will do anything they can and there is no price they wouldn't pay."

    I'm sorry Cheryl. I really have no idea what kind of heartbreak that would entail. I have never been directly affected like this. But to clarify what I was saying, we should not suppose to put an infinite amount of resources toward curing cancer, or anything for that matter. There is scarcity and we have to make priorities. And I'm sure you would agree with that.

    "I believe we can always do more and we can always do better."

    I agree, but better can mean a lot of different things. It may not mean convincing people to donate millions of dollars to that cause. It may mean we shift spending to a different area of research. And I think the market is better at knowing where to allocate resources than philanthropists and governments (grants).

    "So donating to non-profits who disburse among many researchers actually provides more opportunities to find success."

    That is a great point. There is surely a huge information gap between laymen donations and research labs. So it does make sense to give your money to someone who knows what best to do with it. My only worry was how do you know if your money will give results? I don't know the answer to that and I have expressed in the past it's a reason I'm often too selfish with my money.


    "Nice plug, but I absolutely despise McCain's plan."

    Trust me I am by no means McCain supporter.

    "I feel like his plan would encourage employers to drop benefits."

    Yes that's the idea. Then instead of paying employees through benefits they would pay them with cash. Employers would take that extra cash and spend it on the health care of their choice.

    "essentially adding competition through the availability of a different type of insurance"

    I'm not sure about adding competition, but I do think Obama's plan has merit. If I understand it correctly, he plans on forcing people to have health insurance (like car insurance) which would get rid of the signal that sick people get health insurance, which would lower the price for sick people. I probably favor McCain's plan because there is less government intervention (and so less unintended consequences), but they both seem logical.

    "Wouldn't laws be, dare I say it, regulation"

    In a way yes, but there is definitely a difference from assigning ownership rights to someone (and backing it up in the courts) and regulating how, how much, and when an industry can pollute.

    "What about air pollution? Who gets to own the air?"

    Well that is harder to assign, but not impossible. We could tax air pollution (to the point preferred), then give that money to the owners of the air (say taxpayers in the area).

    "I don't think people should have kids if at least one parent isn't going to be around to raise them."

    Sorry I forgot to ask about your belief. That is a good one. I've often supported government supported sterilization or long term birth control implants (I'm not totally up to date on the technology).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Harrison you said "Yes that's the idea. Then instead of paying employees through benefits they would pay them with cash. Employers would take that extra cash and spend it on the health care of their choice."

    Would employers be forced to spend it on health insurance or was that a typo and you meant employees? If employees, would they be forced to have health insurance? If not, then wouldn't that lead to more of the same problems that Cheryl mentioned referencing McCain's plan: "...many more people to run around without insurance increasing healthcare costs and thus the insurance costs to those who still have insurance."

    Government supported sterilization...interesting. When I first read that, I thought you meant government mandated sterilization. YIKES!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I've often supported government supported sterilization"

    WHAT?! Why in the world would we want government involved in such a thing?

    Harrison, I really think you've argued yourself into a corner on this cancer-research thing. People want a cure for cancer. Researchers and Scientists want to find it, so they ask for donations. People who have had family members with cancer (like Cheryl and I) or have some other vested interest in a cancer cure respond to those calls with donations. As Cheryl pointed out and you agreed, this is the market at work. If you don't think cancer research is worth your money, that's fine. I've never given any money to it - perhaps Cheryl hasn't either. But to argue that people shouldn't give money simply because it upsets the market-defined price of a cancer cure - I'm sorry, that just seems unreasonable and invalid to me. You don't want to give money to it, fine. But I don't see a good logical argument here for why people in general should not.

    Obama's healthcare plan only mandates coverage for children. Hillary's did mandate coverage for everyone - that was their big difference.

    I see the government plan decreasing competition instead of increasing it, because it's funded by the government, while private plans are not.

    McCain's plan is definitely bad. It will basically eliminate employer-based health insurance and give a tax-credit that will pay about half of the average American's healthcare cost. I don't like either of their plans, and I don't think either will make it through Congress - although Obama's is slightly more likely, especially if the Democrats win huge majorities.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AF:

    Yes that was a typo, thanks for catching that. It was suppose to be employees both times. However, I actually think there would be less people running "around without insurance". Currently there are many people, like me, who don't have health insurance because it is not worth the cost when you are not fully employed. But if I were to get a full time job that came with cheaper health benefits (cheaper because of the tax break) then I will purchase it. Give me that tax break now, as an individual, and I would have health insurance now. I suspect McCain's plan would increase the amount insured.

    But, it is possible that people would take the money and spend it elsewhere. But when it is them making the decision, who's to say that's a bad one?

    AF/Justin:

    HOLY CRAP!?! That was a huge misunderstanding. I definitely didn't mean government mandatory sterilization. I promise that was another mistype. I was definitely implying government subsidized. To go along with Cheryl's most controversial belief, I think a major problem in America is parentless (or bad single parented) kids. For this reason I think it would be cost effective to make sterilization free for anyone. This is not to say people are not rational and need the government to help them. Instead I see it as a negative externality. Poor people have kids and then get on Medicare, which is a financial burden they do bare alone. Let me repeat, I would NEVER support anything other than voluntary sterilization or long term birth control.

    Justin:

    "But to argue that people shouldn't give money simply because it upsets the market-defined price of a cancer cure - I'm sorry, that just seems unreasonable and invalid to me."

    But you still haven't given me a reason to believe that the private industry cannot predict the future value of a cure and put the appropriate money into research. I still hold that even if there was never a dollar donated to cancer research, there would still be massive effort to cure it. And my fear is that the public over awareness of cancer takes funds from other important research areas. But I will admit that personal donations may be a way the market accounts for personal lives being affected. Remember, I'm well aware that this idea is controversial.

    Oh and AF, we didn't hear your most controversial belief?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cheryl7:37 PM

    Wow. Ok. My controversial belief has NOTHING to do with sterilization. I apparently I worded it poorly. What I meant, is that I think it is ridiculous that people have kids and then immediately ship them off to day care or have nannies or send them to boarding school or whatever. I think if people bother to have kids, at least in a couple, one of the parents should be around a majority of the time to care for them. (Obviously, that can't happen in a single-parent home so I'm not hating on that situation) Don't get me wrong - women should be in the workplace and all that jazz. Hey, a dad could stay home to be the caregiver or parents can coordinate their work schedules. But people complain about a decrease in family values (blame that "liberal media" right?). I think it's a general decrease in family as the priority. Having 2 incomes seems to be more important for most. But if your children are your priority, you can give up a few luxuries that a second income affords to be there for them when they get home from school. If you don't want to raise them yourself, then why bother having children? (though there's no need for anyone to get sterilized, geez!)

    Talk about class discrimination - "Oh you're poor. Can I interest you in some free sterilization?" That's just lovely.

    And going back to the insurance thing: "But, it is possible that people would take the money and spend it elsewhere. But when it is them making the decision, who's to say that's a bad one?"

    Me. Quite frankly, I think you're dumb for not having at least the bare minimum catastrophic emergency health insurance. If you end up in an accident (God forbid), then you're the reason healthcare expenses are so high. And thus everyone else's insurance is so high. And why you can't afford insurance in the first place! And who's to say you're as healthy as you say you are? Nobody plans ahead of time to get cancer or have a stroke. If you give people an option to spend money or to buy health insurance, people will have the same belief that you do "Oh, I'm young. I'm healthy. I don't have to worry about it." Yes well, tell that to my brother. Be thankful he's covered or else he'd be adding to the mess that is making it too expensive for you to buy coverage. Speaking of which: http://www.gradmed.com/av3/index.asp
    Good short-term cheap coverage that I used between jobs and grad school. Do us all a favor.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm not sure if I need to say this again or not, but I also DO NOT support government sterilizations. Cheryl I think you would agree that subsidized contraception would benefit a lot people. I think the poor don't calculate the burden they place on the taxpayers when they have children they cannot support. I specifically point out the poor because anyone else cannot receive Medicaid. Cheryl, we both agree on the importance of parent involvement in the raising of a child. That's why I made the comparison.

    "then you're the reason healthcare expenses are so high."

    Why? Because I go to the emergency room and can't pay my bills? That is a perfect example of how when the government picks up the tab for anything, voters start to care about and want to control the personal decisions of others. Mark my words, if we get universal health care, the government will want to step in and keep people from tanning, smoking, driving fast, etc.

    I appreciate the suggestion Cheryl and my non-health insurance is only super short term, but at the end of the day don't you agree that we should let people make their own decisions? Isn't it my choice to spend my money on what I want?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "But you still haven't given me a reason to believe that the private industry cannot predict the future value of a cure and put the appropriate money into research. I still hold that even if there was never a dollar donated to cancer research, there would still be massive effort to cure it. And my fear is that the public over awareness of cancer takes funds from other important research areas. But I will admit that personal donations may be a way the market accounts for personal lives being affected."

    I've given you plenty of reasons why companies might not be as interested as I am in finding a cure for cancer.

    How in the world would there be a "massive effort to cure cancer" WITHOUT researchers asking for donations? Do you expect companies finding a cure not to ask for the goodwill of those who want a cure found? You expect them to say "well, there are other more important research areas out there, we won't ask for money so people will donate to them?" And why do you not trust people to give to the causes they find the most important? How can there be "over-awareness?" Isn't awareness defined by the market for advertising, and again, the large amount of people out there who desire a cure?

    If you admit that people donating to a cause is the market at work, why is there still an argument here?

    I knew you were talking about voluntary sterilization and I still think that's crazy. "Cheryl I think you would agree that subsidized contraception would benefit a lot people." There's a hell of a difference in contraception and sterilization. You (an economic conservative and social liberal, I might add) are suggesting the government give money to poor people for sterilizations. What if these people one day realize the American dream and change their minds and want to have kids? Besides that, it sounds like class discrimination to me. Besides that, it sounds like Brave New World. Government performing permanent medical procedures on uneducated, low-income people so they won't reproduce. That's as scary as hell, and I don't care if they did ask for it. People ask for a lot of things government shouldn't provide.

    It is absolutely your choice, Harrison, but I agree with Cheryl that you are taking an unwise risk by not having some form of catastrophic health insurance. Especially since you say you will never take medicare. If you fall asleep at the wheel, slam yourself into a tree, and spend a few days in a coma, weeks in the ER, and months in physical therapy like a friend of mine did two months ago, you are going to be in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

    And yes, even though you believe the government should not step in to help you, the majority of Americans want to live in a society where the government want. They want a society where some of their money is taken to prevent that type of thing from happening. Now I know all the arguments against it, so you don't have to go through them, but the truth is this is the system we have, and because of it, our health care costs will rise because of people who choose not to have insurance.

    We have a super-cheap policy on Erin right now from these guys: www.ehealthinsurance.com

    By the way Cheryl, the more you type the more I agree. Your arguments for kids to have two-parents with one of them (which gender is irrelevant) spending the majority of their time with the kids are damn straight.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "the majority of Americans want to live in a society where the government want."

    That should be

    "the majority of Americans want to live in a society where the government will."

    ReplyDelete
  21. By the way, I know we've move passed this, but the market did say it was ok for Kodak to dump that mercury. It cost them less to dump it than it did to dispose of it safely, so that's what they did. It made perfect market sense. And to me, this does not mean it wasn't evil, greedy, and wrong. Which is essentially what you're saying by calling it "morally corrupt." So it sounds like we agree that corporations can be evil and some CEO's kill kittens. And government is sometimes necessary to prevent it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I've given you plenty of reasons why companies might not be as interested as I am in finding a cure for cancer."

    Yes there are many reasons why companies may not work as hard as YOU want them to, but I think they will work as hard as WE ALL want them do. How will they know how much research we all want? By the amount we are willing to pay when they do cure it. What you have not told me is why the cure for cancer is any different than any other product. I don't think the yogurt industry is investing enough in their packaging. Every time I open mine it splatters a little bit from the pressure. But can you imagine me donating my money to Dannon? Now you may think the difference is cancer is life threatening and yogurt is not. But what I see is Dannon realizing how much it would cost to fix that problem and knowing I wouldn't be willing to pay that amount. So I get splattered. I hope I'm not trivializing the severity and heartbreak surrounding cancer, I'm just trying to explain my point. If people want to donate to cancer research to show their personal preference for extra effort then go for it. But there is no reason to think there wouldn't be a massive effort to cure this disease out of selfish profit. I don't think the production of a cure for cancer is any different than the production of yogurt.

    "the majority of Americans want to live in a society where the government will."

    But you make a good point about peoples preference for government. Most voters do want some kind of safety net. I think the there can easily be a private safety net (with things like health insurance) if people want them. But you can't get too mad when the government gives people what they asked for.

    On a side note: this discussion has reached over 7,000 words! Thanks for the comments guys!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "So it sounds like we agree that corporations can be evil and some CEO's kill kittens. And government is sometimes necessary to prevent it."

    Yeah I definitely agree with that. There was no clear owner of the lake so the price signal pushed Kodak to pollute, that is clearly true. But that is a problem with the government not doing one of its main jobs, defining and protecting property rights. The government structured the market poorly. Wal-mart hires employees but forces some to stop working at 39 hours a week (so they don't have to give them health insurance). That is Wal-mart acting within the market set up by the government's laws. The solution is to get rid of that bad law so people can work as much as they want, not punish Wal-mart.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Seriously Harrison. Yogurt? Let's take a step back here for a minute:

    You said: "I don't support many seemingly innocent charitable causes. I'll give you three examples: cancer research, post-hurricane rebuilding, and faith based initiatives. By asking for donations for cancer research, we are claiming that the price system is not sufficient. [...] If you put more money into research than would come out in value, then you have done a disservice. That money could have been better spend elsewhere. Is there a valid reason to think that the market is undervaluing a cancer cure?"

    If you don't want to support cancer research, fine. I don't give any money to it currently, but let's say I did. I would be giving because I (yes me, not "we") value cancer research more than the market does at this point. If I think the value of a cancer cure is high enough FOR ME to give MY money to it, I am not doing anyone a disservice. I'm not doing aids victims a disservice because I care more about a cancer cure than I do about an aids cure. It's MY money. This is the market you keep talking about. It sounds like you want me and cancer researchers to decide if we think the market is undervaluing cancer before we ask for money or give it. Why in the world would we do such a thing? If my mom's cancer had not been treatable and she was dying from it now, my value of a cancer cure would be much higher than everyone else's, and I would give money accordingly. (If my dad had been killed by slipping on splattered yogurt, I'd feel the same way about it, although that example is a little insensitive and a lot silly.) Either way, my value would be close to infinitely high, and I would put my money where my desires are. It would be impossible for me to put more money in than would come out in value, because my value is almost infinite!

    Do you see my point? I understand that my value is higher than the market value for a cancer cure if I give my money. But why the heck should I care? This is the market at work! I am helping shift the nation-wide market-determined value of a cancer cure up!

    I think I've said everything I have to say about three different ways now, so I'll be bowing out soon. It's been real, ya'll!

    ReplyDelete
  25. On the Walmart thing - I'm not talking about a solution and I don't disagree with the solutions you suggest. I'm just trying to get the point across that corporations can be greedy and evil, and this is a bad thing which shouldn't be glossed over or excused by it being market-defined. But I think I've gotten that point across, so I'm gonna let it drop.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I am helping shift the nation-wide market-determined value of a cancer cure up!"

    I have no problem with people donating to cancer research if that is what they want to do with their money. I was just trying to make the point that a cure will still be found and an efficient level of research will be done without that donation. You want to donate to cancer research, go for it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow. A lot of posting happened yesterday. Harrison - my controversial belief was the first response to the post. Good points made by all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. For the record, I was convinced donating to medical research is a way for supply and demand to meet individual preferences. Thanks readers.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous9:41 PM

    I liked reading the exchanges, the fact that they remained civil, and the openness to other people's arguments. Thanks -- MM in Wisconsin

    ReplyDelete

You are the reason why I do not write privately. I would love to hear your thoughts, whether you agree or not.