Balkinization  

Monday, December 29, 2014

A Potential Workaround for Obamacare Subsidies

Gerard N. Magliocca

The Supreme Court will hear King v. Burwell in March, and I want to discuss a legal fiction that may become important for the case and for its aftermath if the Court rules against the Administration.

As readers of the blog know, King is about a section of the Affordable Care Act that says subsidies are available for health insurance only "through an Exchange established by the State."  The Court is being asked to assess if "the State" is unambiguous given what the rest of the statute provides.  If it is unambiguous, then insurance subsidies would be unavailable for people in the more than thirty states that have not set up an exchange and are instead relying on the federal exchange.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that "the State" is unambiguous.  The relevant language says that an exchange must be established by a state, not that the state must operate the exchange.  Thus, I would submit that a state could--consistent with the statute--establish an exchange and then delegate the authority to run that exchange to the federal government.

If I am correct, then willing states could respond to King by passing a one-page statute that does what I've said.  Problem solved.  What about unwilling states?  My thought is that they could not argue against setting up their own exchange due to its complexity or expense.  The only rationale for not setting up a state exchange along the lines that I am describing would be disagreement with the Act.  In that case, state elections would become the forum for deciding the issue, which would at least have the benefit of making that issue transparent.

My final observation is that accepting this "formal state exchange" argument would make it easier for the Court to rule against the Administration, though it probably shouldn't.  If states face no expense or burden to "establish" an exchange, then a congressional requirement that they do so for their citizens to get subsidies will not seem unreasonable.  This makes an opinion going against the Administration easier to write for those Justices so inclined.

Comments:

To establish means to found.

"Establishing" in the context of this statutory provision means a state building its own exchange, not a post hoc adoption of an exchange previously established by the federal government.

Nice try.
 

"Legal fiction" is an appropriate term in respect to this lawsuit, with apologies to Mssrs Adler et. al. Anyway, no need for it to be "one page" really. As to "state elections," the whole point here was to deal with a national problem via at least two enumerated powers in a way that wouldn't allow such a piecemeal approach. The "benefit" of transparency is noted.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Section 1321(c) says that if a State attempts to establish an Exchange but its Exchange is not "operational" by a certain date, it is HHS's duty to "establish and operate such Exchange within the State."

Section 1311(f)(3) says that a State may agree "with an eligible entity to carry out 1 or more responsibilities of the Exchange," but the Federal Government is not an eligible entity.
 

Mark,

The eligible entity selected by the state could delegate to the federal government.
 

Joe:

Obamacare was meant to enable the federal government to direct the health insurance industry to redistribute wealth - textbook German Zwangswirtschaft socialism. However, not all Democrats and a distinct minority of states are socialist.

Obamacare's creation of state exchanges was one of the compromises to get enough Senate Democrats on board to enact the legislation.

Obamcare's restriction of subsidies to state established exchanges was meant to blackmail the states (rather than the federal government) into building the newly legislated exchanges.

All the current spin trying to convince the courts that "state" does not mean state and now "established" does not mean established is a hopefully vain attempt correct this internal contradiction after the fact.
 

Note that 1311 says "establish and operate," which implies that establish does not include operate.
 

Sorry-1321 says "establish and operate."
 

I don't think this even qualifies as a "workaround", it's just a straightforward application of the statute. And, it doesn't compromise the straightforward point that the state legislature makes the decision whether or not to have an exchange "established by the state", not the federal government.

The states that don't have exchanges didn't accidentally neglect to establish one, or screw up somehow in doing so. They didn't establish one because they chose not to. They're likely not going to pass your one line statute, either.
 

The salivation of our Yodeler [I don't recall my most recent moniker for him] over the potential loss of medical benefits for many who happen to be poor - and white - will not be the salvation of the GOP for the next two years and especially in the 2016 presidential campaign. The good news is that a 5-4 Court decision striking down this aspect of Obamacare will lead to a single payer system, one that could have been adopted but for the GOP Obama absolute opposition from day 1 of his first term. This is an addled law suit. And such a decision will brand the Court's conservatives as more political than judgmental. [Let's give three cheers for Judge Posner!]

And it's always revealing that our Yodeler cites the dark ages of "German Zwangswirtschaft socialism" rather than modern textbook socialism - or anything modern for that matter. Keep in mind that our Yodeler still thinks that "The Gilded Age" were America's best days - perhaps for Koch-head tycoons and Koch-suckers like our Yodeler.
 

Obamacare is not perfect even where a state has established an exchange under it. See Abby Goodnough's NYTimes article "Success of Kentucky's Health Plan Comes With New Obstacles." It is heart-rendering at times.

But as my late high school/college buddy Joe used to quote his Italian grandfather, "Halitosis is better than no breath at all."

We do need a single payer system, with its simplicity and potential efficiencies. Senate leader-to-be Mitch McConnell should take Abby's article seriously and improve Obamacare - or come up with a single payer system that just might inspire the changing demographics to vote for Republican candidates in the future just as Social Security and Medicare enactments brought in votes for Democrats.
 

Shag:

Nationalized health insurance (not "singe payer") only works fiscally when the government rations care.

To have "Medicare for all" without rationing would require increasing the current federal tax burden of 23% of GDP by over half. Given that the top 20% of earners already pay over 80% of the tax burden, the new money would have to come by doubling or tripling the effective tax rates for the middle class.

Because a super majority of voters neither want the government rationing their care or massively increasing their taxes, good luck in getting Congress of either party to nationalize health insurance.

This is why deep blue Vermont considered and abandoned "single payer."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/12/21/6-reasons-why-vermonts-single-payer-health-plan-was-doomed-from-the-start/
 

I think a single payer system or at least a public option is the best path but to the degree there are problems, welcome to the real world. For the millions, e.g., who have insurance now that they didn't or couldn't have before, I'm sure they are saying "you know I don't want insurance when I break my arm so my limited funds will be eaten up, since you know, that website is annoying!"

The issue at hand is statutory interpretation. But, the rules are it has to be clearly wrong. The fact, e.g., Brett or some other people that annoy Shag less think it means "x" isn't enough. And, as shown by multiple posts on this blog alone, the Administration's interpretation is at least "reasonable."

So, one is left to believe that the merits (including those who find it unconstitutional) have something to do with it. As to striking it down leading to a single paying system, well, I think the Mets will go to the World Series too.

Might not be any time soon.
 

Gerard:

Note that [1321] says "establish and operate," which implies that establish does not include operate.

That is my point.

Even if you do not consider the simple phrase "through an Exchange established by the State" to be self explanatory, Section 1321 makes it unspinably clear that to "establish" a health insurance exchange means to create the entity.

States are not establishing a health exchange simply by adopting a health insurance exchange previously established by the federal government.

You appear to admit that reality above when you argue:

What about unwilling states? My thought is that they could not argue against setting up their own exchange due to its complexity or expense.

 

Single payer may come sooner than a World Series trip for the Metsa Mets.

Assuming that Medicare rations care, consider how rationed care has extended the lives of seniors since Medicare was enacted.
 

Shag:

Medicare does not ration care (or at least not until the new Obamacare IPAB "death panel" starts issuing decrees to cap spending in 2015).

That is why Medicare taxes no longer cover expenses and why the program is scheduled to slide into insolvency in less than a decade, even after the IPAB goes into effect.

Now imagine Medicare being quadrupled in size to create your desired "single payer" system.
 

Our Yodeler tries to revive the disavowed "death Panels" GOP talking point. Our Yodeler can mouth-to-mouth (of which he has plenty) in such revival efforts, like Benghazi all the time, and going nowhere. All Medicare will need is to raise the income ceiling on the tax funding Medicare. The 0.1% get enough tax breaks. (Of course our Yodeler would not have to pay any more as SUI (skiing under the influence) is not yet lucrative for the CO legal community, so it's the same old, same old alleged drunks in cars that our Yodeler relies upon.
 

Shag:

Tax breaks for the evil 1%? Are you kidding or merely ignorant?

The top 20% of earners pay nearly 70% of the federal tax burden, the top 1% nearly a quarter, both far in excess of their share of earnings. This is the most progressively punitive (sharpest increase in tax burden from bottom to top) tax system in the developed world.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf

When you factor in transfer payments, the top 20% of earners are the only net taxpayers. The second quintile of earners breaks even. Everyone else is living off the top 20%.

https://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2014/11/29/paying-our-fair-share/

Our progressive political economy presents the ultimate moral hazard for a democracy - the ability for a majority to vote themselves the money of a minority. In other words, government by theft.
 

Bart: "Obamcare's restriction of subsidies to state established exchanges was meant to blackmail the states (rather than the federal government) into building the newly legislated exchanges."

Not this again. Not one legislator said anything about this supposedly coercive scheme. Not one governor who refused to set up a state exchange expressed sorrow about giving up subsidies, but that was the price to be paid to battle oppressive federal overreach. Not one person opposing the governor tried to gain political points by pointing out that the absence of subsidies would deprive tens of thousands of state citizens of insurance. Not one person who supposedly voted for this supposedly coercive scheme said a thing when states that did not set up their own exchanges were not punished.

A threat is effective only if people know about it. The complete absence of any such communication should show that there was in fact no such threat. This isn't a case of a dog that didn't bark; it's several packs of dogs that didn't even whimper.
 

Bart: "Nationalized health insurance (not "singe payer") only works fiscally when the government rations care."

And private insurance only works fiscally when private entities ration care. They do so on ability to pay. If you can't afford the market price, or if you have a preexisting condition that makes you an actuarial risk that makes your premium unaffordable, you get rationed out of the system.

And that's a very inefficient way to allocate health care. We spend about 50% more than anyone else (and about 100% more than some) and don't get any better results overall.
 

dsimon sets our Yodeler on his derriere on the latter's efforts (1) to suggest that "smart" Republicans in Congress (oxymoronish) knew of the "state exchange" loophole when Obamacare was enacted and (2) on single payer rationing.

And our Yodeler's latest screed on the wealthy being robbed shows his lack of what used to constitute tax policy (before he eked out a living as a lawyer defending alleged drunks charged with DUI), to wit, taxing unearned income at higher levels than income earned through labor. The policy changes start with the sainted Ronnie Reagan* with the icing on the wealthy's cake put on with the Bush/Cheney tax cuts just in time for two unpaid Bush/Cheney wars all of which contributed to the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession.

Before Reagan actively got into politics, he served as a GE spokes person lauding GE's "Progress is our most important product." Alas, Ronnie lost his way, captured by wealthy contributors into conservtive politics, just like Willie Sutton robbing banks because that's where the money was. As an antidote to this, check out Daily Kos for the progressive words of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. What Bernie lists would be progress, including restoring the former tax policy described above. Here's our Yodeler's attempt at a closing shot on progressives:

"Our progressive political economy presents the ultimate moral hazard for a democracy - the ability for a majority to vote themselves the money of a minority. In other words, government by theft."

How really, really is the alleged theft effective what with stats since the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession demonstrating the expanding** income/asset/inequality, a reminder of the Roaring Twenties "Ain't We Got Fun?" lyrics "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." But it ain't much fun for the latter. The Koch-head and Koch-sucker minorities continue their efforts with the tyranny of minority rule.

** The current expansion has taken place during Obama's presidency (Kenyan socialism?) as a result of the Republicans' say "NO!" to the N.O. from the beginning of this first term.
 

Bart: "Obamcare's restriction of subsidies to state established exchanges was meant to blackmail the states (rather than the federal government) into building the newly legislated exchanges."

dsimon said... Not one legislator said anything about this supposedly coercive scheme.


There is no particular legislative history concerning this provision because the Senate bill was largely drafted in secret by a tiny minority of the Democrat congressional leadership to keep it from a very unhappy electorate.

Here is a brief review of the imposition of Obamacare on that electorate.

The House published and enacted their bill in the summer of 2009, which created one national exchange. The backlash was almost immediate. In August, Tea Party voters started reading the bill and confronting their Democrat and a couple RINO Congress critters at town hall meetings, only to find out none of them had read the damned thing they enacted. On 9/12, three-quarters of a million demonstrators descended on DC.

The Democrat Senate refused to bring the House bill to a vote or offer one of their own that the Tea Party could attack. Instead, the White House and a handful of Democrat congressional leaders revised and massively expanded the bill in secret and released it three days before a midnight Christmas Eve vote when they figured almost no one was paying attention.

The authorization and subsidy of state exchanges was one of those revisions written behind closed doors.

Not one governor who refused to set up a state exchange expressed sorrow about giving up subsidies

This is one of the literally hundreds of miscalculations the drafters of Obamacare made in designing this mess. Socialist directions of the economy always contain internal contradictions. Obamacare has more than most because it was drafted in secret by politicians and academics who have no real idea how an insurance system works.

Not one person opposing the governor tried to gain political points by pointing out that the absence of subsidies would deprive tens of thousands of state citizens of insurance.

They did not have to. IRS illegally rewrote the legislation through a regulatory decree to provide subsidies to everyone.

Not one person who supposedly voted for this supposedly coercive scheme said a thing when states that did not set up their own exchanges were not punished.

Apart from maybe a handful of Democrat Congress critters in on the drafting, none of them were even aware of this provision because they never read the damned bill. Indeed, the Democrat Senate leadership did not provide their own caucus a copy of the 2,500 page monstrosity until 72 hours before the vote.

A threat is effective only if people know about it.

I never said the threat was effective.

Once again, in order to keep the provisions of Obamcare from the people, its Democrat architects had to keep it from their rank and file. The handful of Democrats who did know what was in the bill studiously avoided discussing any provisions but the ones they thought polled well.

Obamacare was imposed behind the scenes through the bureaucracy. Obaamcare technocrats like Jonathan Gruber were paid quite handsomely to brief state government technocrats concerning the details of the bill, including the restriction of subsidies to states who built their own exchanges. Gruber is certainly not the only technocrat the Obamacare bureaucracy sent forth, he is simply the only one for which we have video.

None of this is really relevant, however. The simple clause at issue is not in any way vague or ambiguous. Its effect and purpose could not be clearer. Thus, the intentional lack of congressional record and the Democrat leaderships post hoc revisions of their intent should not be an issue for the Court.


 

Bart: "Nationalized health insurance (not "singe payer") only works fiscally when the government rations care."

dsimon said...And private insurance only works fiscally when private entities ration care.


Agreed.

That is why I have repeatedly argued that health insurance should be limited to catastrophic medical problems against which nearly no one can save and all other medical care should be purchased by the consumer like any other good and service. Thus, the consumer makes their own cost benefit analysis and self rations.

I actually advocate a true single payer system where the government collects a sales tax which catches all consumers of health care and use the revenues to pay for a voucher to purchase private catastrophic health insurance and to fill a health savings account from which to purchase all other health care. That HSA money is yours and can be taken out of the account for living expenses after retirement. Those too lazy or disabled to participate in the management of their own health care would be placed in a capped Medicaid program.

The price of day to day medical care would collapse in a competitive market, there would be no more free riders, and the government's role in directing the health insurance industry would be limited to ensuring insurers had the necessary capital reserves and did not engage in fraud.

 

Shag:

We double tax investment (not "unearned") income with a corporate income tax of up to 35% and then a capital gains tax of up to 20%. This double tax is higher than any individual income tax rate. This is also the highest such double tax in the developed world, a third higher than socialist Sweden.

We are getting off topic. If you want to discuss taxes, come post on my blog.

https://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2014/11/29/paying-our-fair-share/
 

dsimon's comment is appreciated. It reminds me of the concurrence to the 4CA ruling on this question. The opinion of the court held the Administration's path was reasonable. The concurrence in effect went a step further & found the challenger's stance unreasonable.

The OP has a "crystal ball" comment on this case over at Concurring Opinions today (12/31/14).

Somewhat relevant, I would add a book recommendation: "Lest We Be Marshall'd," which covers an early dispute over judicial review. The issue here is different in that it is statutory interpretation, but as I said, it has a feel of being a bit more than that.

http://www.uakron.edu/uapress/browse-books/book-details/index.dot?id=1462753
 

I decline to break the "silence" at our Yodeler's blog in the context of the riddle whether a falling tree in a forest makes a noise if no one is there to hear it. I consider his suggestion as "spam."

Our Yodeler's suggestion of double taxation fails to pass the reality smell test of the history of tax policy. Few corporations actually pay close to the top corporate rate. 20% on long term capital gains is a significant tax benefit for no heavy lifting, especially when securities are inherited. Perhaps our Yodeler could describe the "labor" involved with the receipt of dividends (efforts in clipping coupons?) and recognition of capital gains (placing an order with a brokerage firm?). By any realistic measure these constitute unearned income.

And our Yodeler's response to dsimon on our Yodeler's concept of a single payer system is a "laffer" curveball that can't even reach the plate. And our Yodeler's closing:

"The price of day to day medical care would collapse in a competitive market, there would be no more free riders, and the government's role in directing the health insurance industry would be limited to ensuring insurers had the necessary capital reserves and did not engage in fraud." [Query: Would the limits on insurers require regulations and enforcement by the feral/state governments, regulations normally anathema to conservatives/libertarians?]

suggests the same "free market" that has failed health care needs. What about pre-existing conditions, etc? How about the "competitive market" of those actually delivering medical services? How would hospitals and doctors, etc, react?

But most absurd about our Yodeler's absurd single payer system proposal is its HSA funding proposal. (The CBO would surely fall down laughing in evaluating this.) Sales taxes are regressive unless the poor receive credits. Our Yodeler may have anticipate this with his:

"Those too lazy or disabled to participate in the management of their own health care would be placed in a capped Medicaid program."

The lazy? The poor uneducated (which includes more whites than balcks)? Would such a Medicaid program be capped by "death panels"?

Apparently the ganja revolution in our Yodeler's CO contributes to his high absurdity.
 

Shag:

The difference between salary and investment income is that investors run the risk of losing some or all of their principle, while the law enforces payment of salaries.

Deductions and credits in the calculation of income taxes are another wonderfully corrupt progressive invention employed by all developed countries, not just the US. Our effective rate of double taxation on investment income is still substantially higher than the effective rates in other countries, which is why our businesses are increasingly locating overseas.

Under my plan, if the federal government limits the amount of the health insurance voucher to the premium of a catastrophic health insurance policy, then that is what most insurers would sell. I would prohibit the use of HSA money to buy additional insurance. Thus, it would be economically irrational for someone to pay for additional insurance out of their remaining income when they have already paid the taxes to fund the HSA to buy the same non-catastrophic health care.

"Regressive" taxes are those where everyone pays the same absolute amount. A sales tax is a proportional tax where you pay based on what you consume.

Financing "single payer" with a Medicare-style capped flat income tax misses millions of free riders who evade or understate income earned in the gray and black markets. A sales tax captures everyone. Everyone pays in, everyone draws out.

I quite intentionally used the term "lazy" to refer to people who just blow off life's responsibilities and expect others to take care of them. Americans who fall under this category number in the tens of millions and tend to be the young and single of all races. Sorry, you can't play the race card here.

A capped Medicaid program is one where there is no entitlement. You get what Congress appropriates on a pro rata basis.


 

For a self-professed libertarian, our Yodeler seems to impact on what true libertarians consider limitations on their "liberties," such as the ability to buy more insurance for healthcare.

Assuming they have "principle," investors run the risk of losing "principal." And the poor who cannot afford healthcare via insurance or otherwise, run the risk of early death.

Imagine the regulatory process at both the federal and state levels to accommodate our Yodeler's proposal. Perhaps our Yodeler has a comprehensive plan that might compete in length with ACA. Bit I doubt it. Perhaps his proposal is not original with him. Is anything?

Under federalism, states have had basic involvement with insurance. ACA recognized the roles of states to a limited extent, with a prominent federal role. What our Yodeler offers is the federal level without addressing the state levels.

Our Yodeler references:

"The difference between salary and investment income ..." apparently finding it difficult to accept the terms labor and unearned income, which he fears may constitute socialist views. I can conced that not all "salary" income is in common parlance "earned" income, what with the increasing spread of wages since the sainted Ronnie Reagan of Iran/Contra and tax cuts fame between the salary of a CEO and workers of a corporation. Just think of Jamie Dimon. But there are many studies that demonstrate that high salaries of CEOs do not equate with well run, profitable companies. For most of these CEOs "earn" is a stretch.

And our Yodeler is ignorant concerning the realities of regressive sales taxes, just as he is ignorant of tax policy at least since WW II, following which there was immense growth economically.

As to his Humpty-Dumpty version of what he meant by lazy," he got caught and tries to wiggle out, picking on " ... the young and single of all races. Sorry, you can't play the race card here." Just what is "lazy" about young and single people of all races? Perhaps they are "lazy" about paying for, as they grow older, marry and have children, the mistakes of their elders who with the help SCOTUS voted in Bush/Cheney for two terms ending with the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession, not to mention the Bush/Cheney prior tax cuts and two unpaid for wars. Query: Don't libertarians consider it a "liberty" to blow off responsibility if they wish?
 

Shag:

For a self-professed libertarian, our Yodeler seems to impact on what true libertarians consider limitations on their "liberties," such as the ability to buy more insurance for healthcare.

My plan almost completely removes the government from directing the health insurance industry apart from ensuring adequate capital and preventing fraud. I never proposed any limits on people's ability to buy any insurance they wish. I simply said it would not be rational over-insure in a hybrid insurance/HSA system.

Imagine the regulatory process at both the federal and state levels to accommodate our Yodeler's proposal.

Good catch. My proposal would also prohibit state regulation of health insurance sold in interstate commerce beyond that permitted above concerning capital and fraud.

Perhaps our Yodeler has a comprehensive plan that might compete in length with ACA. Bit I doubt it..

You would be correct. The entire point of my plan is to get the government OUT of the business of misdirecting our health insurance industry and to restore some semblance of a free market to health care.

Our Yodeler references: "The difference between salary and investment income ..." apparently finding it difficult to accept the terms labor and unearned income, which he fears may constitute socialist views.

That is not a fear, that is a certainty. Socialists and progressives share the same propaganda terms concerning financial capital. Marx claimed that physical labor produced all wealth and the everyone else was either bourgeoisie (investors/big business owners) or petty bourgeoisie (white collar and small business owners) stealing that wealth. Thus, the "unearned" income slander.

In the real world, people associated into business create all real wealth - goods and services. The necessary elements of all businesses are intellectual capital, financial capital, management and labor. Contrary to the socialist fantasy, you cannot operate a business on labor alone. Indeed, part of what made Great Britain and then the United States so economically successful was their superb systems for delivering financial capital to businesses and their consumers.
 

Our Yodeler's " ... restore some semblance of a free market to health care." seems to concede that pure "free markets" don't work in healthcare (and I'd say elsewhere0. Perhaps our Yodeler's "some semblance" is sort of like my late high school and college classmate Joe's recital of his Italian grandfather's adage "Halitosis is better than no breath at all." With federalism's dual sovereignty, I don't think our Yodeler's "good catch" response addresses the issues that can vary from state to state. Perhaps CJ Roberts' disregarding of the commerce clause in his ACA opinion might be problematic, as each state may have different rules governing insurance companies that traditionally have been subject to state regulation in many regards; a federal requirement of capital structure and protection against fraud may not fit with the commerce clause per Roberts' rule. But perhaps somewhere in that pile that is our Yodeler's proposal there's the "pony" of a federal tax that Roberts pulled out of his [... hat ... ] (according to conservatives) in approving ACA (excepting the mandate).

Our Yodeler in his two closing paragraphs presents the Wall Street rentiers' creed (aka greed).that financial institutions employed that almost ruined the economy with that community's contribution to the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession. Consider the tooth and nail fight of Wall Street with Dodd-Frank financed in large part with the help of SCOTUS' five conservatives with Citizens [presumably wealthy ones] United. Capitalism is not the same as democracy. Labor deserves its fair share. In the real world, the federal government has provided, with taxpayers' money, subsidies to businesses for their growth, to benefit America as a whole. Since the sainted Ronnie Reagan became President, capital/business have embraced "trickle down economics," business' way of saying to labor, workers "piss on you," widening the ever expanding income/asset inequality gap.
 

Shag:

Our Yodeler's " ... restore some semblance of a free market to health care." seems to concede that pure "free markets" don't work in healthcare

Health insurance to mitigate risks for which people cannot reasonably save is a free market invention. The problem is that the irresponsible will forego voluntarily purchasing health insurance because it requires self sacrifice for an uncertain future problem. Then, when the fall injured or ill, the irresponsible rely upon the charity of others as free riders. So long as we as a society are unwilling to deny the irresponsible care and impose a penalty on failing to insure, there is no ready free market solution to this problem. My proposal is an attempt to eliminate the free rider problem by compelling people to join the pool of insured, but allow them to freely choose their insurance and health care.

I have no problem with states regulating insurance created and sold entirely within their jurisdiction. My federal bar on regulation was limited to policies sold in interstate commerce. Of course, state policies larded up with state government mandates will not be able to compete with free market interstate policies and no one will underwrite them.

Finally, banking regulators directed and subsidized the subprime home mortgage market, whose mass default in 2007 and 2008 caused the financial crisis and the recession. No private lender ever voluntarily accepted the risk of making subprime home mortgage loans prior to the Clinton-era lawsuits and other arm twisting to make subprime loans in minority communities and then the gutting of Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards in 1997 to allow them to buy up these loans from lenders and thus transfer the risk from the lenders to the taxpayers.
 

Speaking of free riders, what about the free ride the legal profession gets with courts? The public pays for the few that use - and sometimes distort - the system, not only the attorneys but the parties (which include DUI alleged drunks). Perhaps our Yodeler will come up with a plan to remedy this free rider issue of which he is (and I once was) a beneficiary. Even the wealthy are free riders what with tax benefits available to them. And energy companies are free riders in that they don' pay for what they leave behind to be cleaned up and paid for by the public, like the Koch-heads do and are cheered on by the Koch-suckers such as our Yodeler. Let's declare open season on all free riders. But free riding with health care saves lives. In fact, for male white collar criminals, let the punishment be castration rather than a slap on the wrist. Obamacare has demonstrated that people who couldn't afford health insurance improved once they got into the subsidized system. A healthy America will help it grow better and better, progress, increasing the productivity of workers. Perhaps the young and single won't be lazy - and thus free riders - if they didn't have to pick up tabs left by earlier generations.

And with our Yodeler's plan, we don't have details on exclusions from coverage such as were the case with the "free market" pre-ACA health insurance industry.

Our Yodeler still doesn't understand federalism's dual sovereignty as his plan may not constitutionally be able to limit states, like, say, Texas. Unless our Yodeler is prepared to accept Wickburn and its commerce clause expansion, and perhaps accept "necessary and proper" as an enumerated power.

As to Freddie and Fannie, that's the old Benghazi, Benghazi scandal that never stuck based on facts. The Freddie and Fannie affair did not beget the financial meltdown of the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession. Yes, the financial community was bailed out; even though it had no principle, it got principal - and used it for bonuses. Now it wants to weaken Dodd-Frank for those quick profits with little regulation but with the protection of FDIC again at taxpayer expense.

Our Yodeler was on deck with everything Bush/Cheney but like rats do abandoned that ship of state as their ineptness became obvious. (Who remembers WMD?)

I suspect our Yodeler has a new work of friction he's working on that will demonstrate he didn't even minor in economics (but tried to play one at this Blog in lock step with the Austrian school of economics - also has a thing for German socialism that pops up in his comments from time to time). Maybe we can expect some more client anecdotes on free riders who allegedly were drunk.

Note that our Yodeler has failed to take the bait on the ever increasing income/asset inequality gap despite alleged impositions on the liberties of the wealthy. Yes, the rich get richer, ....
 

"No private lender ever voluntarily accepted the risk of making subprime home mortgage loans prior to the Clinton-era lawsuits..."

This isn't 1984 with its memory holes. We all remember that for years before the crash firms were falling all over each other to make home loans not because of all this ad hoc Austrian reasoning but because everyone involved thought the housing market was going to keep going strong and they were making tons of money.

I will say I tend to agree with Bart about single payer. I don't see how those kind of things could work, once people in general realize how they can free ride there would be no way to keep costs down. The last thing we need is for consumers to be even more divorced from the actual cost of medical services.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I will say I tend to agree with Bart about single payer. I don't see how those kind of things could work, once people in general realize how they can free ride there would be no way to keep costs down. The last thing we need is for consumers to be even more divorced from the actual cost of medical services.

I'm not following how this would occur exactly, including vis-a-vis the current system. The current system as compared to nations with single player has much higher costs. Single payer can cut down bureaucracy and other costs.

It will be paid by taxes and so forth so what "free riders" are we talking about? Without it, people can get guaranteed care in various ways such as at emergency rooms, even if they don't have the means to pay or pay in tiny little installments. With it, those with means pay and the costs are spread out.

There are various ways to hold down costs, just as there are ways that hold down Shag's court costs (e.g., frivolous litigation can bet you sanctioned ... frivolous dr. visits, will bring you bills). Preventive care and other things that will be encouraged now that its not expensive etc. will lower various costs too, just as the contraceptive mandate does in various respects.

Some fear rationing and talk of "death panels." But, health care is a limited expensive good. There is already some rationing though corporations often do it in a less equitable fashion.

Medicaid etc. would suggest a free rider possibility as is but how true is this in practice? Time restraints and other things limit this alone. Other restraints are imaginable.

"Single payer" to me also means various things, including the government as a sort of overall contractor with many subcontractors. Medicaid works this way -- various providers (such as Fidelis) provide Medicaid as well as fee service.

"Single payer" would thus for me include Medicaid, Medicare, vet service, care for Native Americans in tribal areas and many more. This covers a large subset of the population already.

Happy New Year ... in two hours.
 

The eligible entity selected by the state could delegate to the federal government. I am a china tour lover, You can learn more at China Tours and China Flights
 

To summarize Spam I Can's 5 comments, not all single-payer systems are the same. Check at this URL:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

for the Physicians for a National Health Program's "Single-Payer FAQ" for its proposal.
 

Check out PNHP's comments at:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2014/06/11/ahip-supports-catastrophic-plans-as-option/

for its critique of "AHIP supports catastrophic plan as option."

I plan to follow up AHIP's plan to see if it resembles our Yodeler's plan - or vice versa (if that's the way you prefer).
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Not really interested in services in Riyadh or China Tours. You seem mislaid. Go here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=36951752&postID=8168237277674688636
 

Dsimon: "And private insurance only works fiscally when private entities ration care. They do so on ability to pay. If you can't afford the market price, or if you have a preexisting condition that makes you an actuarial risk that makes your premium unaffordable, you get rationed out of the system."

And desire to make profits, and to increase those profits.

Acting rationally, an insurer should deny claims whenever the cost of the consequences of denial are less than the amount to be paid.
 

Shag:

The legal monopoly provided by government licensure of attorneys and others is yet another progressive invention. I have no problem eliminating it.

The government declining to take even more of your money in taxes hardly makes you a free rider.

The Fannie and Freddie scandal does resemble the Benghazi scandal in one respect - Democrat whitewashes and denials of their liability.

The problem with the subprime home mortgage market was government direction and subsidy of those mortgages. Dodd Frank did nothing to address that problem. Indeed, progressives have been pressuring Obama to appoint a czar to direct the now effectively nationalized Fannie and Freddie to start up the secondary subprime home mortgage market all over again. Progressives used the financial crisis their banking regulators created as an excuse to enact Dodd Frank to expand the powers of those same banking regulators.
 

BD: "No private lender ever voluntarily accepted the risk of making subprime home mortgage loans prior to the Clinton-era lawsuits..."

Mr. W: This isn't 1984 with its memory holes. We all remember that for years before the crash firms were falling all over each other to make home loans...


The subprime home mortgage market and the resulting housing price bubble created by this artificial demand both started in 1997, when Fannie and Freddie went into the business of buying up this trash and reselling it in financial instruments to banks and pensions.

http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/

Lenders had no problem making these loans WHEN they could offload the risk by reselling them. Prior to the government subsidy by creating a secondary market for subprime home mortgage loans, lenders never voluntarily made these loans because they refused to accept the risk. Now that Fannie and Freddie are out of this business, you cannot get a subprime home mortgage any longer.
 

Barry:

Non profit private insurers also have to ration care. You cannot buy unlimited care with a fixed premium and deductible.




 

Here's a doozy from our Yodeler:

"The Fannie and Freddie scandal does resemble the Benghazi scandal in one respect - Democrat whitewashes and denials of their liability. "

For some reason our Yodeler ignores The House committee controlled by Republicans that could not find the Benghazi scandal and reported that. Our Yodeler "Issa" fool.
 

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], AHIP = America's Health Insurance Plans, the national trade association representing the health insurance industry. Wikipedia has a file that may not please AHIP and its industry.
 

Lenders had plenty of principal but no principle in their involvement with subprime mortgages. Lenders' "defense" of "the government made us do it" won't fly. Lenders were driven by greed (must have a lot of libertarianism in their DNAs). And the SEC did a piss poor job in limited regulation of bundling subprimes and other marginal mortgages pre-subprimes (the latter going back in my experience to the 1980s).
 

BD: The Fannie and Freddie scandal does resemble the Benghazi scandal in one respect - Democrat whitewashes and denials of their liability.

Shag: For some reason our Yodeler ignores The House committee controlled by Republicans that could not find the Benghazi scandal and reported that. Our Yodeler "Issa" fool.


The GOP committee chair cut some sort of a deal with the Democrats. The rest of his caucus on the committee did not join the official white wash, which is in direct contradiction to the reports from the men on the ground and the previously leaked White House and State revisions of CIA's original Benghazi report of the al Qaeda terror attack.

As I noted above, whitewash is the preferred color of DC Democrats.
 

Our Yodeler's:

"The legal monopoly provided by government licensure of attorneys and others is yet another progressive invention. I have no problem eliminating it."

suggests anyone can be a lawyer, a doctor, or other professional currently regulated by states by merely claiming to be such? Sovereign states would lose their police powers in protecting the public from unqualified professionals?
 

Our Yodeler makes an accusation:

"The GOP committee chair cut some sort of a deal with the Democrats."

but comes up with no evidence. Yes, our Yodeler "Issa" fool indeed.
 

And to our Yodeler's:

"As I noted above, whitewash is the preferred color of DC Democrats."

consider the whitewash of House Whip Scalise's connection with David Duke by Speaker Bo(eh)ner and other House leaders. With this type of whitewash, the current Republican Party doesn't need sheets anymore. Scalise demonstrates the base of the Republican Party currently, a far cry from the once Republican Party of Lincoln. And our Yodeler is a willing member of that party.
 

For anyone who is at all curious as to the genesis of the subprime home mortgage market, I recommend the following:

Gretchen Morgenson's Reckless Endangerment. The book reads like a criminal indictment whose list of perps is straight from the social register of the DC and NY Democrat establishment.

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Financial/dp/B00B2RTQUU

Peter Wallison's dissent from the Obama financial crisis whitewash report. I could not believe that Obama actually appointed a conservative academic from the AEI and gave him the power to troll through the reams of government records. After Wallison issued his massively annotated dissent, I am sure that Obama could not believe he appointed Wallison.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Wallisondissent.pdf

And humbly Chapter 3 of my book Never Allow A Crisis To Go To Waste. I spend more time laying out how the community agitation community, led by ACORN with advisors from the Democratic Socialists of America, were permitted by the Democrat Congress to rewrite the Community Reinvestment Act in 1989 and 1993 legislation, enabling the banking regulators to gut the previous prime underwriting standards and then make millions as officers of Fannie and Freddie in the purchase and resale of this trash.

http://www.amazon.com/Never-Allow-Crisis-Waste-Evolution-ebook/dp/B006N0X5LM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1420140557
 

Our Yodeler is a myth maker, in the case the affair of Fannie and Freddie affair begetting the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession. Check out this URL:

http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-myth-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-barney-frank-the-housing-bubble-and-the-recession/

for "The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession." Yes, our Yodeler's "Myth" is more than a mile wide.

And note that on a post by Gerard our Yodeler touts his own work of friction* more than Gerard hypes his! That's CHUTZPAH in blogging circles.

*Available at remainder bins, but hurry before the recycling truck gets there.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Bart: "There is no particular legislative history concerning this provision..."

Actually, there is. There were two versions from different committees, one of which envisioned a federal-only exchange and one that let states set up their own exchanges. They were merged in a sloppy fashion. Such problems are usually worked out in conference committee, but when Republicans won back their ability to filibuster, the House had to pass the Senate bill as it was. So yet again Republicans complain about an issue they helped create.

In the absence of legislative history, it should help to look at how the various actors actually acted. As I related at length, none, absolutely none, of the actors behaved as if there was any such threat. Not anyone in the federal or state legislatures. Not any state governor. Not any of the supposedly secret cabal who supposedly intended this supposedly coercive scheme. None of them objected when the IRS interpreted the supposedly carefully crafted provision as it did.

"I never said the threat was effective."

As I wrote, a threat only exists if it's communicated to those to whom it applies. But no one talked about it at the time. No one. All we have is a statement by Gruber, who is not a legislator, long after the fact. So how can there be an attempt to coerce when no one subject to it knows anything about it? The whole concept is absurd and defies the actual history.

"The simple clause at issue is not in any way vague or ambiguous."

That would be an effective argument if that's how statutes were interpreted. But they are not. Even Scalia says that statutes are not interpreted clause by clause, but as a whole. So the clause by itself is not dispositive, as many judges have already concluded.

"Its effect and purpose could not be clearer."

It is very unclear when examined against the rest of the statute. When a phrase appears to defeat the apparent purposes of the statute, and when language is inconsistently applied in the statute, and when there's no actual behavior to justify the supposed literal interpretation, then it's perfectly reasonable to concluded that the "clear" phrase at issue is a mistake. Courts do this all the time.

But to apply this basic reasoning, one has to give up speculative post-hoc theories which are not even backed up by actual post-hoc behavior. And if the later statements by Democrats aren't relevant, then neither are Gruber's statements.
 

Bart: "There is no particular legislative history concerning this provision..."

dsimon: Actually, there is. There were two versions from different committees, one of which envisioned a federal-only exchange and one that let states set up their own exchanges.


That is not legislative history of the Senate legislation which created and subsidized the state exchanges.

"BD: The simple clause at issue is not in any way vague or ambiguous."

dsimon: That would be an effective argument if that's how statutes were interpreted. But they are not. Even Scalia says that statutes are not interpreted clause by clause, but as a whole. So the clause by itself is not dispositive, as many judges have already concluded.


The clause does not conflict with any other provision of the bill. Instead, this carrot is just one of many carrots and sticks Obamacare offers to compel states and individuals to participate.

The limitation of federal subsidies to states who build their own exchanges is the same as the limitation of federal subsidies to states who expand Medicaid.

On the individual level, Obamacare both redistributes money to people who buy insurance off the exchanges and not the private market and also fines them if they do not obtain government approved insurance.

The only problem here is that our socialist planners miscalculated the power of their incentives, not that their intent is in any way unclear.

Now our planners are demanding the courts rewrite their legislation because the Democrat Congress who rammed through this monstrosity has been fired by the voters.
 

Our Yodeler historically (aka hysterically) overuses the word "simple" in a complex world. In other words, he is a textualist simple-tonian when it suits his purpose.
 

Shag:

You are correct that simple socialist directions of a complex economy do not and cannot ever work.

Back in 1945, Frederick Hayek explained how knowledge works to self regulate a free economy in a way that cannot be duplicated by the government.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

The world could have avoided a great deal of lost wealth, poverty and misery if progressive governments had listened.
 

Our Yodeler's:

"You are correct that simple socialist directions of a complex economy do not and cannot ever work."

is not a response to my my comment on his "simple"-mindedness. Rather, my comment was specifically aimed at his focus (in his exchange with dsimon) regarding our Yodeler's:

"The simple clause at issue is not in any way vague or ambiguous."

which disregards the entirety of the almost 2,000 page ACA. Obviously statutory interpretation/construction is "simply" not our Yodeler's forte. And just what are the " ... simple socialist directions of a complex economy ... " he - not I - claims? Economics is not a science, nor is it static. Which leads to this by our Yodeler:

"Back in 1945, Frederick Hayek explained how knowledge works to self regulate a free economy in a way that cannot be duplicated by the government."

That explanation may have fit the circumstances Hayek observed in 1945 in his part of Europe. But Hayek's explanation was not universal. Self-regulation in a "free economy" (aka "free markets") is oxymoronic. Keynesian economics have not remained static as changes have taken place in America's and the World's economy, adapting thereto. Consider the EU austerity programs, many based on Hayek's views in 1945 and prior. Compare the EU situation with America since the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession.

Keep in mind that our Yodeler still thinks that "The Gilded Age" were America's best days. Back then it was not a "free economy/market" that benefitted the oligarchs. But as least our Yodeler in beyond the late 19th Century and with Hayek in the middle of the 20th Century. That's progress, at least in time. But this is the 21st Century post the devastating 8 years of Bush/Cheney. Those who suffer today from chronic "Hayek" should try NyQuil - or get new texts on economics that reflect upon post-1945 Hayek explanation.
 

dsimon spends more effort than should be necessary since the test is reasonableness of the Administration not some heightened rule to defeat the reasonableness of some other interpretation.

But, there is a thumb on the scales here, so we need extra work. The OP's academic exercise of sorts is appreciated & as an academic appropriate. All the same, as noted by Linda Greenhouse et. al., this goes beyond that to basic legitimacy of the courts. It is not ultimately appropriate for us all to merely see this as some sort of academic exercising, shrugging at an absurd result.

Finishing "Lest We Marshall'ed" ... not a fan of being "Robert'd" either.

http://www.booksmith.com/book/9781931968010
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag from Brookline said...Our Yodeler is a myth maker, in the case the affair of Fannie and Freddie affair begetting the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession. Check out this URL: http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-myth-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-barney-frank-the-housing-bubble-and-the-recession/

The linked blog post repeats much of the Democrat CYA misdirection and outright lies:

1) No one claims that Fannie and Freddie either "made" or "backed" subprime home mortgage loans. Congress created and subsidized these entities to buy home mortgages and resell them as mortgage backed securities to keep capital flowing into the home mortgage market.

Once again, HUD gutted F&F's underwriting standards for buying these loans from private lenders in 1997. Then and only then did private lenders started voluntarily making subprime loans to sell them to F&F. NO ONE outside of F&F would buy this trash.

2) Blaming the GOP House and then later Bush for the subprime home mortgage market is a slander. A Democrat Congress in 1989 and 1993 passed the legislation enabling the banking regulators to use subprime loans to meet CRA goals. The banking regulators imposed all the other directions to create the subprime home mortgage market.

3) The entire Democrat caucus (not just Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) opposed reighning in Fannie and Freddie. That and the average Congress critter's ignorance that a subprime home mortgage market even existed stopped the reforms occasionally discussed during the Bush administration.

4) The fact that F&F did not create all mortgage backed securities is a misdirection. They were the ones buying up the subprime home mortgages to meet banking regulator CRA goals and bundling or having third party banks bundle this trash in with prime home mortgages. The second part of the financial crisis after the mass default of the subprime home mortgage borrowers was the fact that no one could tell which mortgage backed securities had trash bundled into them and thus investors had to assume they all did.

5) Finally, F&F were not the only problems. The Clinton administration's Fed, Justice Department and HUD were all strong arming lenders to make these loans, starting with the Boston Fed's 1993 manual called Closing the Gap, which provided detailed guidance on how to gut prime underwriting standards to make subprime loans and then threatened law suits of the lenders did not make the directed changes.

http://www.thebrokenwindow.net/papers/c/closingt.pdf

There are far, far more moving parts to this scandal than we can discuss here. Scroll back up the timeline and read the books and reports to which I linked.
 

Notice how our Yodeler in his screeds of late attacks Democrats and the Clinton Administration for the myth of the Fannie and Freddie affair begetting the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession whitewashing* the Bush/Cheney 8 disastrous years (which our Yodeler finally abandoned late like a rat a sinking ship). Our Yodeler's work of friction is CRAP IN, CRAP OUT. Scrolling back that he suggests will take us back to "The Gilded Age," America's best days in the late 19th Century. He screeds eek-onomics. Rather than going back so far in time, scroll the troll that is our Yodeler through the archives of this Blog from the beginning of the Bush/Cheney to its 2007-8 Great Recession end with bailouts to understand what a troll our Yodeler is.

*Note reports of David Duke's response in an interview regarding GOP House Whip Scalise's brouhahahaha with Duke's threatening to out (bi-partisanly) both Democrats and Republicans who have supported him ... KKKouldn't happen at a more opportune time with Republicans in control of Congress in a couple of days. So ironically Scalise's ace-in-the-hole for his self-described misstep to remain as Whip regarding his speech at an event of a Duke organization is former Grand Dragon Duke, if Speaker Bo(eh)ner wants to continue as Speaker. It bears repeating, the current Republican Party is not the Republican Party of Lincoln of yore. Duke and his ilk are the base of the current Republican Party, a Party our Yodeler wholeheartedly supports.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], did our Yodeler take my advice and get NyQuil for his chronic "Hayek"?
 

This is my problem with Austrian economics, it just seems too much like post hoc cherrypicking of a few events one ideologically opposed which were long past and blaming present conditions on them.

I don't get that financial institutions were falling over themselves to make loans and trades involving mortgages in 2005, 6, 7 or what have you, because of a law passed in 1989 or 1993 (btw, if the 1993 law caused the 2009 crash did it also cause all those boom years before it?). It seems much more likely they did for the reasons everyone remembers being talked about: everyone was convinced housing prices would keep increasing and that virtually anyone could repay any mortgage from the ever rising resale price of the home.
 

Joe, the free riding I'm talking about (perhaps I used a term poorly) is the idea that when medical care is 'already paid for' by, say, the government, there is no incentive for people to care about prices when they seek care.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Joe, the free riding I'm talking about (perhaps I used a term poorly) is the idea that when medical care is 'already paid for' by, say, the government, there is no incentive for people to care about prices when they seek care.

This to me is both misleading and not shown. All medical care would not be "already paid for" -- we see this in the various types of people (the poor and elderly would be ready examples) that already are covered by a type of single payer. They are guaranteed a certain quantum of care.

This would be the amount that roughly is shown to be best for overall well being. More than this is not covered or require some funds from the consumer. This provides an incentive to worry about prices. This is putting aside other incentives like concerns about the time and effort of unnecessary medical care (such as hours waiting and traveling, missing work etc.). Likewise, single payer can work the same basic way as insurance generally does -- e.g., there can be deductibles for various types of care. There will also be incentives on the supply side to control costs and so forth.

And, single payer has been shown in various ways to reduce costs. This would provide a balance to a concern about lack of consumer restraint.
 

Mr: W: This is my problem with Austrian economics, it just seems too much like post hoc cherrypicking of a few events one ideologically opposed which were long past and blaming present conditions on them.

So far as I know, Austrian economics does not have a position per se on the subprime home mortgage market. No school of economics should find this regulatory failure to be acceptable.

I don't get that financial institutions were falling over themselves to make loans and trades involving mortgages in 2005, 6, 7 or what have you, because of a law passed in 1989 or 1993

Here is how it went.

1) Banking regulators both directed (lawsuits and regulatory pressure) and subsidized (Fannie and Freddie buying) a subprime home mortgage market which never existed before.

2) Lenders made subprime home mortgages and offloaded the risk by selling them to Fannie and Freddie.

3) Political operatives and banking regulators appointed to F&F made millions reselling this junk and actively solicited ever greater production of subprime loans. The Clintonistas in charge of Fannie were completely in bed with Countrywide and the Clinton administration openly celebrated the Countrywide CEO for his work expanding minority mortgages.

4) The resulting artificial demand creates a housing bubble. I linked to a chart of this bubble back in the thread.

5) The prospect of housing prices rising by near double digits every year brings in more demand from investors and flippers.

6) The subprime borrowers get ever more overextended borrowing to cover insanely overpriced houses and they start to default en masse in the summer of 2006.

NONE of this would have happened absent the government creation of the subprime home mortgage market back in the 1990s. Real estate was considered a AAA rated investment because the loan standards were the highest in consumer finance.

(btw, if the 1993 law caused the 2009 crash did it also cause all those boom years before it?).

In part, yes.
 

Consider our Yodeler's response to Mr. W:


Mr. W: "(btw, if the 1993 law caused the 2009 crash did it also cause all those boom years before it?)."

Yodeler: "In part, yes."

First off, let's correct Mr. W: the "crash" was the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession, not 2009 .

Our Yodeler's response brings to mind a portion of my comment at a 2/2/07 post by Jack Balkin (yes, Jack allowed comments on his posts back then), to wit:

"In the Middle Ages a man came into an inn on a cold day, blowing into his hands. He was asked why he was doing that and replied, 'Why, to warm my cold hands.' Then he sat down at the dinner table with other guests and a hot bowl of soup. As he ate, he would blow on his spoon laden with soup. He was asked why he was doing that and replied, 'Why, to cool my hot soup.' The questioner then screamed, 'He must be the devil himself, he blows both hot and cold!'"
# posted by Blogger Shag from Brookline : 8:12 AM"

Our Yodeler continues with Myth-directions, committing Myth-demeanor after Myth-demeanor, earning him the new moniker "Mr. Myth." [Please note for future reference.]
 

By the Bybee [the Senate summary report serves as a reminder of the nasty], Gerard has a really interesting post at his home field Concurring Opinions with the intriguing title "A Supreme Court Hack" posted 1/2/15. Perhaps Gerard should consider a cross-post here that might cause a traffic jam of comments.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

Here is the crash timeline:

1) Mass subprime defaults in 2006.

2) When the banks start to foreclose on the defaults in 2007, housing prices start falling.

3) Falling housing prices caused more subprime defaults, the strategic prime defaults when the prices of homes went below mortgage balances, which caused yet more house price declines.

4) Unemployment was rising through 2008, causing the newly unemployed to default on their mortgages, accelerating the bubble collapse

5) The financial crisis hits in the summer of 2008, when short term lenders found out that some mortgage backed securities several banks used as collateral to borrow operating cash included defaulting subprime loans. Since there was no way to tell which MBS's included this trash, lenders declined to take any of them as collateral and banks faced a liquidity crisis.

NONE of this had to do with the policies enacted by either the GOP president or the Dem Congress in power at the time.
 

Our own Mr. Myth (fka Yodeler, etc) cherry-picks to support his myths. Perhaps a trip to Wikipedia's "Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission" post:

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

will reveal more causes of the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession. And those really interested in greater details that may be more reliable than those of our Mr. Myth can go to the Commission's report, including dissents. Our Mr. Myth provides his nutshell version with very few nuts - and no bolts. Note in particular his closing sentence:

"NONE of this had to do with the policies enacted by either the GOP president or the Dem Congress in power at the time."

So was it Clinton's fault (his term ended in Jan., '01 and he left a surplus for Bush/Cheney)? Was it daddy George H.W.'s fault (his term ended in Jan., '93 but he did co-begrt George W.)? Was it Ronnie Reagan (who was out of sorts before his term ended in Jan., '89 as evidence by Iran/Contra)?

No, our Mr. Myth is trying to get Bush/Cheney off the hook on their 8 years ending in their 2007-8 Great Recession. Let's count the ways, starting with the tax cuts, two unapid for wars, etc, etc, etc, etc (almost ad infinitum).


 

Shag:

I offer you sourced books and reports and you are offering Wikipedia? Really?
 

Really. I question our Mr. Myth's allegedly sourced books, including, humbly, his own work of friction. But Wikipedia was merely the tease, with a summary of the report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Here's a website at Stanford with links to information about the Commission, its members, its inquiry, its conclusions, etc.:

http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/

Our Mr. Myth is full of himself. If he thinks Wikipedia is fluff, it has more detail and narrative than he provides on the issue of the crisis. The inquiry came about as a result of a federal statute.

True to form at this Blog, our Mr. Myth attempts to whitewash the Bush/Cheney Administration from any contribution to their 2007-8 Great Recession in the closing years of their two terms. At least Hoover could say that the '29 Crash was only several months into his term, which I believe back then started in March of '29; that the preceding 8 years of Republicans Harding and Coolidge surely were to blame. Bush/Cheney started two wars, unfunded. The Iraq war was one of choice, based upon fraudulent claims by the Bush/Cheney Administration. Don't forget the two tax cuts. And don't forget the torture. And don't forget the bailouts of Wall Street - of course Wall Street needed profits to fund Bush/Cheney campaigns and those of supporting Republicans in Congress.

Mr. Myth focuses on the bursting housing bubble as the main cause of the crisis . There were many other causes, as set forth in the Commission's conclusions. Let's talk about Alan Greenspan's role as Chair of the Fed and his mea culpa about what he did not see for so many years that he should have. Free markets as efficient is a myth.
 

Shag:

Wikipedia on political figures and topics is very often propaganda written by the subjects themselves. Your link reads like a DNC press release followed by the usual NY Times echo chamber.

When you decide to get off the spin cycle and get serious about the subject, get back to me.
 

Spam I Can II informs us that Alan Greenspan, an accomplished sax man in his youth, lost his embouchure not only with the sax but in economics as well; that Alan's "so-lows" [sic] while band leader at the Fed were often off-key. (Probably forgot to use the spit valve.)
 

Mr. Myth ignores the Commission's conclusions. As I noted, the Wikipedia was a tease for the work of the Commission (which includes Mr. Myth's omissions from his "crash timeline" which provides no sources. (Did our Mr. Myth interview witnesses under oath in compiling his CRAP in CRAP out work of friction?)

As to Wikipedia, it is subject to editing. So perhaps our Mr. Myth should consider editing its website on the Commission with his sources - and his humble objectivity. But as to the Commission, it was created pursuant to federal law. Our Mr. Myth's screeds were not. Perhaps second-hand DUI has had an impact on him.

Query: Who have cited our Mr. Myth's work of friction as an authoritative source on any subject but particularly the screeds on the 2007-8 Bush/Cheney Great Recession?
 

A good read at the NYTimes today is Naomi Oreskes' "Playing Dumb on Climate Change." But my off-topic is not aimed at climate change but a comparison of science with originalism. Here are a few excerpts from the article:

"Science is conservative, and new claims of knowledge are greeted with high degrees of skepticism. {Then a reference to Copernicus.] In the 18th and 19th centuries, this conservatism generally took the form of a demand for a large amount of evidence; in the 20th century, it took on the form of a demand for statistical significance."

***

"But the 95 percent [confidence] level [in science] has no actual basis in nature. It is a convention, a value judgment."

***

"Nowadays scientists do not live monastic lives, but they do practice a form of self-denial, denying themselves the right to believe anything that has not passed very high intellectual hurdles."

No, the article does not make a comparison with law (although there is some comparison of science and religion). But I thought of the continuing evolution in the legal community on originalism that began as a reaction to the Warren Court (and at least indirectly that Court's foundational Brown v. Bd. of Educ. and the civil rights movement that followed). Are the standards of those in the legal community theorizing on various forms of originalism comparable to such scientific standards or are they based upon ideological adversary, running dashes rather than high hurdles? Just asking.
 

Off-topic for this post, but relevant to many of the streams of comments, are two book reviews in the NYTimes Sunday Book Review:

1. Jonathan Rauch's review of "To Make Men Free," by Heather Cox Richardson. The review starts:
"America does not have a broken political system. It has a broken political party: the Republicans." Rauch quarrels with some of the author's history of the Republican Party and fills in some of the gaps, although no reference is made to the shift in the base of the current Republican Party post-Brown v. Bd. of Educ. and the civil rights movement that followed with the deep South converting former Democrats to Republicans.

2. Adam Hochschild's review of "Empire of Cotton," by Sven Beckert, which focuses on America but also has a broader global perspective. The author stresses how violence, including by governments, has contributed to what he refers to as the "military-cotton complex."

Each of these reviews provided for me gaps in my knowledge of history, particularly in America. I can just hear the lyrics of Dixie in both reviews that start with "Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton ...." How can we forget?
 

BREAKING NEWS (or merely WIND?):

House Speaker Bo(eh)ner faces a challenge for 2015 from not only Ted Yoho but also from Louie Go(h)mer(t). Hopefully on his return tomorrow, Jon Stewart will provide details.

Maybe this will inspire Sen. Ted Cruz to challenge Sen. Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader.

Go(h)mer(t) and Cruz would make a dynamic Texas duo. But that might result in an 'inversion-secession" by the other 49 states.
 

We don't need such complex theories which seem like efforts in cherrypicking. All we need to know is that housing prices rose a lot and everyone started to think they would keep doing so. That right there explains why people started making riskier and riskier mortgage loans (because they were secured by the resalable homes which were going to keep skyrocketing in price). And that explains why people would buy these mortages as securities. Lots of private entities bought them up, some that later went out of business. Their behavior is simply explained by the fact that they were making money off it all when the housing market was taking off. So no wonder the subprime market gets going right when the housing market takes off. It all fits.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mista Whiskas said...We don't need such complex theories which seem like efforts in cherrypicking. All we need to know is that housing prices rose a lot and everyone started to think they would keep doing so. That right there explains why people started making riskier and riskier mortgage loans (because they were secured by the resalable homes which were going to keep skyrocketing in price).

Subprime loans were by definition risky from the outset.

Banks were not making and keeping subprime loans with the hope that rising home prices would provide a hedge against foreclosure losses because those losses are too high. Foreclosure sales only bring in a fraction of the value of the home.
 

Shag: A good read at the NYTimes today is Naomi Oreskes' "Playing Dumb on Climate Change."..."But the 95 percent [confidence] level [in science] has no actual basis in nature. It is a convention, a value judgment."

Given that 100% failure of AGW climate models to explain past and predict future atmospheric temperature, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the AGW faith community started attacking basic statistical standards.

When considering the AGW hypothesis, the problem is not the level of statistical confidence necessary to prove that correlation equals causation, but rather the complete lack of correlation between exponentially increasing human GHG emissions and the rising AND falling atmospheric temperature over the past century.
 

Is either Rush or George Will ghost comment-blogging for our Mr. Myth, who as noted in an earlier comment blows both hot and cold? I assume our Mr. Myth has already sent the NYTimes editor a letter. Most Republicans on climate change state: "I am not a scientist, but .. " in questioning climate change. This is politics versus science, not the soft or social sciences. Perhaps our Mr. Myth is a scientist, in addition to being the top notch DUI defense counsel in his small mountaintop community, a constitutional scholar, an economist, a historian, an intellect, a jack of all myths.

Of course, our Mr. Myth ignores the issue I raised with my comment on "Playing Dumb on Climate Change." Rther, Mr. Myth acts out the title.
 

Predicting the future is always difficult. But for originalism its's difficult predicting the past. As with libertarianism and libertarians, there are many varieties of originalism and originalists and with conflicting views. Just check out the Originalism Blog (which I do a couple of times a day) for links to the many articles on its subject matter both pro and con (a great feature of that Blog). One of that Blog's editors, Mr. Ramsey, seems to point out in subtle terms from time to time that "I am not Rappaport," an elder editor who somewhat still clings to the original original intent originalism, whereas Ramsey seems to evolve (somewhat) as originalism evolves. Hindsight is said to be 20-20, but originalism needs glasses badly.
 

now we have spam removing comments for errors -- evolution!

We found out over at Dorf on Law that Shag is a robot. He had this cry from the heart:

"First the blogs came for the trolls, but I did not speak up because I am not a troll. Then they came for for the spammers, but again I did not speak up as I was not a spammer. Now they come for me. Will Net Neutrality be next? Perhaps not with this robotic poetic license: SWISH! Nothing but net ... neutrality To asure Internet equality."

One more day of Christmas left! Get those trash bags ready!

 

Reports at several newspapers today state that a Republican agenda item for the new Congress is to challenge net neutrality. Joe's comment includes my concern with this:

"Will Net Neutrality be next? Perhaps not with this robotic poetic license:

SWISH!
Nothing but net ... neutrality
To assure Internet equality."

Viewers should feel free to spread "SWISH" in response to Republican efforts to do away with net neutrality. And let's "get the net" out for those loony Republicans. While my effort at verse may not be as effective as Joyce Kilmer's "Trees," it just might attract basketball fans to dunk Republicans.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], the lights on my tree continue to shine through tomorrow for sentimental secular reasons.
 

Meanwhile, back to the off-topic originalism, I thought of the methods of originalists' "predicting the past" as I read these columns from today's NYTimes:

1. Roger Cohen's "Trying to Remember"

2. David Brooks' "The Problem With Meaning"

The points raised in these columns apply not only to us in the present but also those in the past (e.g., Founders, Framers, Ratifiers) that originalists rely upon as "evidence."

Keep in mind that memory is the second thing to go, if you get my meaning.
 

An instructive post. People to really know who they want to reach and why or else, they'll have no way to know what they're trying to achieve. People need to hear this and have it drilled in their brains..
Thanks for sharing this great article.
Wish to Get a visit on toronto best seo for more latest seo tips and solution.
 

I noted this in an earlier off-topic comment on originalism:

"Predicting the future is always difficult. But for originalism its's difficult predicting the past. As with libertarianism and libertarians, there are many varieties of originalism and originalists and with conflicting views. Just check out the Originalism Blog (which I do a couple of times a day) for links to the many articles on its subject matter both pro and con (a great feature of that Blog)."

Regarding libertarianism and libertarians, check out Matt Zwolinski's "A Libertarian Case for the Moral Limits of Markets." A link is provided at Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog with a Solum "Recommended." The article is a fairly quick read as it is double/triple spaced in 24 pages of text. There is also a valuable 1.3 single spaced pages of References to further explore both pro and con on Libertarianism. I plan to keep this article handy in trying to understand what type of libertarian a self-proclaimed libertarian may be. But I am quizzical about the author's statement in Part II. "What Libertarians Believe" (that begins at page 3) at page 6:

"Finally, and partially in virtue of their individualism, libertarians are cosmopolitans who deny the moral significance of natural boundaries, racial and sexual divisions, etc. All humankind is one, united in its possession of natural right against forceful aggression by others."

If I ever meet such a libertarian, the cosmopolitans are on me.
 

Shag:

"Finally, and partially in virtue of their individualism, libertarians are cosmopolitans who deny the moral significance of natural boundaries, racial and sexual divisions, etc. All humankind is one, united in its possession of natural right against forceful aggression by others."

Zwolinski (or more likely his student researchers) do not appear to have done any primary source research on classical liberalism/libertarianism.

The passage appear to be referring to (without actually being cognizant of) John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which basically argues that we all enjoy a natural right to the liberty to act as we wish so long as we do not cause others harm.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/John_Stuart_Mill.html

Yes, this is the basic principle of both classical liberalism and modern libertarianism.

The rest of the passage is off. Its not that libertarians do not recognize social boundaries, but rather we believe that such boundaries are none of the government's business unless they are being used to cause others actual and substantial harm.
 

Shag has a sense of humor, but he might have serious competition:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mitch-mcconnell-economy-114th-congress
 

Yes, Joe, the Robot (Shag) faces HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA competition from the Turtle (McConnell). (Let's see if Jon Stewart picks this up on The Daily Show tonight.)

As to our Mr. Myth's response to the quote I provided from Mr. Z's article, I had left out footnote 16 (for convenience of eyesight limitations for a touch typist who gets touchy at times):

"16. This cosmopolitanism manifests itself in the libertarian opposition to protectionism (Bastiat, 1964), to immigration restrictions (Huemer, 2010), and to war (Palmer, 2013)."

From the References:

Bastiat, R. (1964) Economic Sophism. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education"

Huemer, M. (2010). Is There A Right To Immigration? Social Theory and Practice, 36(3).

Palmer, T. (2014). Peace, Love , & Liberty: War Is Not Inevitable. Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books.

But it's clear that our Mr. Myth gets no cosmopolitans from me as he is a libertarian only in "principal."

Our Mr. Myth takes this shot at author Z:

"Zwolinski (or more likely his student researchers) do not appear to have done any primary source research on classical liberalism/libertarianism."

This suggests to me that our Mr. Myth did not carefully peruse the 1.3 single spaced pages of References, with five (5) references to Hayek, F.A., one (1) for Nozick, R., and three (3) for Rothbard, M. N. (And of course in the text of the article many references are made to Locke; I do not recall any for Mill.)

Perhaps our Mr. Myth suffers from "student researchers envy" based upon his own work of friction's reliance upon his solo [so low?] CRAP in CRAP out research.
 

Over at TPM there is a feature on Media Matters for America's award of "MISINFORMER OF THE YEAR" to George Will.

Our own Mr. Myth deserves dishonorable mention for his political multi-myths at this Blog.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

The works cited to support your quoted passage (which was all I commented on) are applications of the Mill's harm principle to various government created problems from immigration restrictions to war. It is helpful to know the source material in order to understand the applications. As you note, the author does not cite Mill once. (I did the same search before posting).

If you want to discuss other parts of the article to continue your education on classical liberalism/libertarianism, I would be glad to help. It is never too late to reeducate old dogs.


 

While unintended by our Mr. Myth, his:

" It is never too late to reeducate old dogs."

points to the fact that old dead dogs, e.g., Locke and Mills, are not available to educate regarding changes since their philosophical utterances centuries ago, changes that many current libertarians have adapted to for their allegiances to Locke and/or Mill. As I do not speak for all (if any other) liberals/progressives, our Mr. Myth surely does not speak for all (if any other than himself) libertarians of today. Even Hayek had to recognize change.

What I don't understand is our Mr. Myth's focus on Mill rather than Locke, who seems to have had greater influence on some of the Founders/Framers/Ratifiers than Mill. Perhaps Mill was an anarchic libertarian, suggesting that is why our Mr. Myth seems to rest his libertarian "principal" down by the old Mill stream - but he's all wet.

 

Shag:

What I don't understand is our Mr. Myth's focus on Mill rather than Locke, who seems to have had greater influence on some of the Founders/Framers/Ratifiers than Mill.

Far greater, I would think, since Mill published On Liberty in 1859.

Mill did not invent classical liberalism, he attempted to distill its essence.

Try reading the links to which I post before commenting on things about which you are plainly ignorant.
 

I stand (actually seated) corrected by our Mr. Myth with respect to Mill who was post-Founders/Framers/Ratifiers. But our Mr. Myth's:

"Mill did not invent classical liberalism, he attempted to distill its essence."

suggests that perhaps Mill improved the "proof" of classical liberalism with his distillation, the same manner as perhaps post-Mill libertarians further distilled libertarianism, suggesting that change is recognized by libertarians, even to the current day. So it seems fair to say that classical libertarianism has evolved, and continues to evolve.

But Mill's distillation does not seem to fit with the Founders/Framers/Ratifiers who may have followed Locke's philosophy with the Constitution. And further research suggests that Mill is an outlier with current day libertarians, despite our Mr. Myth's adulation, but perhaps such distillation led to our Mr. Myth's expertise as a DUI legal defense expertise, or is that the wrong "proof"?
 

Meanwhile, nice to see Prof. Levinson still is active.


 

Shag:

Locke and Mill worked on the same basic proposition.

Locke argued that we have a natural right to "life, health, liberty, or possessions."

Mill argued that our liberty includes everything but harming others.

Peas from the same pod.
 

Our Mr. Myth on Locke and Mill as:

"Peas from the same pod."

They are goober peas compared to some modern day American libertarians who seem to limit libertarianism in isolationist fashion and not in a universal sense.

I'll be checking out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's "Libertarianism" originally published in 2002, with substantive revisions to July 1, 2014. Perhaps this will be more objective than our Mr. Myth's libertarian views.

By the Bybee (expletives deleted despite Senate Committee report on torture), Matt Zwolinski (among others) is thanked "For helpful comments."
 

Sandy is expanding well beyond his talk at Arkansas Law School on nullification and secession under American law with this new symposium, with greater emphasis internationally. Frankly, I find international secession scarier than American style.

I had commented on the earlier symposium at Arkansas Lllaw School on another thread. Since then I have not been hearing that much on American style secession, perhaps because Republicans now control Congress, although one never knows what the Tea Party and its associated anarcho libertarians may come up with what with the House Speaker race brouhaha. Or maybe Democrats will take up secession.

I trust papers at the U. of T Law School symposium will be available via the Internet.
 

Shag:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on libertarianism is a good summary of the general philosophy, but weaker on the specifics of the political economy, as one would expect from someone of the author's obviously progressive world view.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#AnaMinSta

The way you can tell that a progressive is attempting to describe classical liberalism/libertarianism is because they habitually mistake liberty for anarchy. Progressives and socialists simply cannot conceive of a world where people live their lives without the direction of a beneficent government. See, for example, the following passage from the Stanford article: "Given that so much of modern life seems to require a state, libertarianism's anarchist stance is a powerful objection against it."

 

Yes, there are left-libertarians as well as right-libertarians. And various categories of each in between the extremes. With respect to our Mr. Myth's quote from the Sanford "Libertarianism":

"Given that so much of modern life seems to require a state, libertarianism's anarchist stance is a powerful objection against it."

Life was a tad different in both Locke's and Mill's days regarding the state. Imagine a state-less world today.

By the Bybee (expletives deleted), would anarcho libertarians even object to a secession that resulted in a state? Would anarcho libertarians be prepared to govern? Going state-less is witless.
 

Shag:

You are Exhibit 2 to my observation that: "Progressives and socialists simply cannot conceive of a world where people live their lives without the direction of a beneficent government."

Libertarians are not arguing for a society without government (anarchy), but rather a government which limits its use of the police power to preventing people from causing one another actual harm (Mill).

To the extent that people have come up with new ways to harm one another since the time of Locke and then Mill, then government can change with the times to prevent those harms. However, the harm principle remains the same. Nothing about "modern society" compels government direct our economic or social lives.
 

Our Mr. Myth is my Exhibit 1 regarding the sensitivity of self-proclaimed libertarians when it is pointed out that there are varieties of libertarianism, especially in this modern world, as there is no "universal" form/definition of libertarianism (whether limited to America or to the world at large). This variety is pointed out in Mr. Z's article as well as in the Stanford paper. (Googling willl provide more articles on this.) Here at this Blog we have heard from a self-proclaimed anarcho libertarian (Brett) and from our Mr. Myth who is in my view a mugwump anarcho libertarian (sort of on the fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other) as suits his purpose from time to time. Some libertarians, perhaps many, who adhere to Mill's view may not understand what might constitute harm to another, one who claims to be harmed by the exercise of an alleged liberty by a libertarian. What was not harm in Mill's day may be considered harm today. Perhaps both liberty and harm are in the eye of the beholder.

Our Mr. Myth's closing sentence:

"Nothing about 'modern society' compels government direct our economic or social lives."

ignores that government is "permitted" under the social contract and duly enacted laws to do so, especially in a modern society, both in a democracy and a republican form of governance. Many of us can and do live lives with the guidance of a beneficent government that is duly elected and responsive to the public's well being.

Query: what might a nation-state controlled by libertarians look like?

 

Query: what might a nation-state controlled by libertarians look like?

# posted by Blogger Shag from Brookline : 5:27 PM


Afghanistan
 

Shag:

Defining harm is indeed the challenge of Mill's harm principle. Mill spent a great deal of time doing just that in On Liberty and his intellectual heirs have continued that work. I heartily recommend their work for your reading.

Anarchy is not classical liberalism or libertarianism. You cannot have anarco-libertarianism any more than you can have state capitalism. These are self contradictory terms. Regardless of how you self identify, if you believe in an almost complete absence of government, you are an anarchist, not a libertarian. Brett is hardly an anarchist.

Social contract theory is all over the map.

Locke proposed a social contract in the form of a constitution which limited government power and guaranteed natural rights to liberty and the property created by the exercise of that liberty. The primary role of government was to ensure individual liberty. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were attempts to put Locke's social contract theory into practice.

Rousseau proposed a radically different social contract where the individual agreed to subsume his or her individual liberty to the "collective will" expressed by the government. Socialism and progressivism subscribe to this social contract theory.

Query: what might a nation-state controlled by libertarians look like?

The United States through the 1920s for white men and then white women is the closest an actual political economy came to the theory. Twentieth century America came close to the civil rights ideal of the theory. My dream is to combine the two in the twenty-first century.
 

Our Mr. Myth takes the Roaring Twenties of Republicans Harding and Coolidge (for white men and women), ignores the 1929 market crash early in Republican Hoover's term and how it led to the Great Depression, ignores WW II, then jumps to the civil rights movement triggered by Brown v. Bd. of Educ. leading to the Civil Rights Acts of the mid 1960s, with all the tumult that followed through the rest of the 20th century, resulting in his "I Have a Dream" merger for the 21st century, achieving a libertarian ideal (as he sees it). Our Mr. Myth ignores how that civil rights movement in the latter part of the 20th century resulted in a shift of the former slave states Democrats conversion to what has become the current Republican Party base, a base to which our Mr. Myth ascribes. As to the 21st century, our Mr. Myth ignores the reaction of that Republican Party and its former slave states base augmented by the Tea Party to the election of America's first African-Aamerican President Barack Obama in 2008, and the efforts of Republicans in Congress to thwart any and all action taken by Obama; that despite Obama's reelection in 2012, the Republican Party and its former slave states base continued to say "NO" to the N.O. And with the Republican Party and its former slave states base now in control of Congress for the remaining two years of Obama's second term (lame duck) there seem to be no signs of our Mr. Myth's dream emerging, as the GOP controlled Congress seeks to undo what Obama has accomplished through laws passed by Congress earlier and by certain Executive actions under laws passed by Congress some going far back in time.

I know a tad about mergers in the corporate world and fully realize political philosophy mergers are different. Perhaps our Mr. Myth's dream has details on how the dream might be fulfilled. I await details. But Our Mr. Myth surely is aware that the current Republican Party base of former slave states may thwart such a dream merger as it did following Brown and the civil rights movement to date. I assume that our Mr. Myth's "I Have a Dream" from his idyllic CO mountaintop community is not an effort to capitalize on that of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream that he did not see fulfilled during his lifetime that ended with his assassination, an assassination that his killer thought would stop the civil rights movement. As our Mr. Myth seems to recognize, King's dream has yet to be realized. As King said it:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Is this part of our Mr. Myth's dream/merger for the 21st century?

[Note: As to white women in the Roaring Twenties, keep in mind that the current Republican Party with its former slave states base has been a tad reluctant on equality for women of all races, including in pay, control of their own bodies, etc. That may be a subject for a separate thread. However, as to white men in the Roaring Twenties, consider the lives of immigrants with the low wages and lack of healthful and economic regulations under Harding and Coolidge making the Twenties Roaring for those with capital living their libertarian dreams at the expense of workers that included the many immigrants fueling the economy without fairly sharing in it. But at least our Mr. MYth has advanced from his late 19th century passion for The Gilded Age as America's best days into the early 20th century.]


 

Baghdad Bart is delusional. The real result of his dream society of fundamentalist religious nuts, small government, and lots of guns is a country like Afghanistan.
 

Your place is valueble for me. Thanks!… Ringjacker.com Familykingdomrocks.com Avoquai.com
 

We are really grateful for your blog post. You will find a lot of approaches after visiting your post. Great work.
contact form, snapchat emoji
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home