This conversation is closed.

Print money to pay for healthcare. Money that does not need to be repaid.

Every government should be allowed to print free money to pay for healthcare.
Why should people pay for healthcare? Why should taxpayers pay for healthcare? Print free money to pay for healthcare. Print money to pay all expenses hospitals incur from maintenance to payrolls to medicines to equipment to everything. Money is printed and used to pay hospital bills. That money then circulates in the economy.

  • Jan 16 2014: The reality is, denying anyone life/health via the economic argument is passing culpability, a thinly veiled Nuremburg defense.

    The social structure needs to change, there needs to be a global John Donne approach..

    "any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.."

    Using superior orders to justify the continuance of Malaria, Aids, Cancer etc.. is a great failing of our species.

    The solution is tough, granted, but when we hold the economic votive as a shield from responsibility, who do we become?

    Can we try to formalize a theory as to what will work? Shifting focus from what will not.
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2014: Isn't the quote in reference to war or did I miss understand..
      But, I am confused, there has been no discussion of not curing disease or having medical solutions available for people... and your statement about some economic argument and Nuremberg is not really relevant... it's about medical treatment execution and who foot's the bill.
      Any ( medical ?) service has value and for value offered there is value received... it's ying and yang and all those other laws of nature. So, medical service has to be paid. The question is by who. Logically, it is by the person receiving the service..
      But, what if our sick person has no value to offer and will die without the medical service. Who is responsible to save this life. It should be no one, but morally all of us. So, I have no issue with contribution made by moral people to help their fellow man... it is noble.
      What I am hearing is that I will not be able to satisfy my moral obligations but my contributions will be demanded of me or my share of financial obligations to my government will be arbitrarily diverted for use without my consent. That is the question. Who do we become? I hope we don't became pawns that can be stripped of our resources at the whim of others for any reason however noble.
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2014: Mike, it's not "just" a moral obligation, it's an economic incentive as well.

        It costs to create a citizen, and every year someone works is money earned by the government. Now if that life is cut short you face the loss of income from that person.

        So the smart thing economically is to keep people alive and well, so that they may contribute to society and the good of all.
        • thumb
          Jan 17 2014: Jimmy,
          This is where we part ways. And you are not the only one with this idea that more citizens raises the tax base and the government "earns" more money. Governments are not supposed to raise money in my view. Governments are non profits to provide services requested by the citizens. Governments are not supposed to raise money and then look for ways to spend it. And that is what too many do.
          I would have to laugh at my own government if it wasn't so ridicules on how they create "problems" and then the taxes to fix it. Our Constitution clearly defines the responsibilities of our Federal Government.... however, bureaucrats have blown the lid off and are into everything. Now, I am not saying that there are not all kinds of problems, what I do say is my Federal Government is not capable of solving them.
          One example, in 1964, the government declared war on poverty.. Today, the US has more poverty then ever... When asked the Feds say, " we didn't collect enough taxes"; I am sorry, but, didn't some Chinese guy say something about not going to war unless you have the resources to win? You need 10,000 more examples of government going into places where angels fear to tread?

          PS, I am not the only one who questions our government and their abilities, President Truman (1945 - 1952) stated that the government is run by "C'" students....
      • Jan 17 2014: Hi Mike
        Do we have the right of consent on taxes spent?

        Good question, it does apply here to the Superior Orders doctrine, as I stated, above and you expanded on with your statement…

        ” my share of financial obligations to my government will be arbitrarily diverted for use without my consent.”

        Not in the context of an armed conflict of course but a moral conflict.

        The truth is we have an infinitesimal control via representation. Soldiers may not even have that in the doctrine so yes, I did take a tiny liberty in the statement, but effect was my goal and the applicability holds for the moral war.

        Transparency in the government as to health care spending might help.

        Allowing a portion of our taxes to be spent as we choose, say .01 percent on the dollar goes to what ever we wish.

        I would choose universal health care, for moral and economic reasons.

        I will need to do some research, but do we have a right of consent to tax expenditures outside of representation?
  • thumb
    Jan 12 2014: Linda,

    Your proposal wont work, or this approach could be taken for anything, as Navad pointed out inflation comes into the picture when just printing money. many states have tried to solve their issues with simply printing money, it's always ended up with people taking a wheel-barrel of money to the shop to buy a loaf of bread.

    I think you should study economics a bit as this seems to interest you, but I can assure you that you're not the first to have this thought, I also had this thought a decade ago and then I started to actually study economic processes.

    But concerning healthcare, what you're looking for is something called "Universal Healthcare" most advanced countries except the US has this and we pay all our hospital bills through taxes.

    Here's a Wiki on inflation:
    And one on Universal health care:
    • Jan 13 2014: Has anyone ever tried to use tokens for health care? These then could be stamped at will for the nation and only health care providers could take and exchange them for money.

      But then again that is just Universal Health Care in disguise and some folks would get their feelings hurt.
      • thumb
        Jan 13 2014: As you said, this would just be creating another kind of money to circumvent the problem. Instead of tokens you could do this with Euro in the states then. Because those Tokens would have to have their worth if they are to be exchanged for money... The same goes for a foreign currency.
        • Jan 14 2014: On second thought maybe the tokens would work. Money has a perception of wealth and carries with it a very powerful social stigma, so if a token is brought into the lexicon as a tool......

          Could this system at least give the illusion that money is still intact and undamaged by the tokens?
      • thumb
        Jan 14 2014: What would you exchange those tokens for?
        • Jan 14 2014: That is the beauty of the system, the tokens are not exchanged for anything, just given at the hospital then recycled to the populace.

          Health workers are paid by the government through taxes, same as the defense budget.

          Since tokens have no value except health care, their worth is focused on health.
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2014: So who would get these tokens and for what? Would you get 1 or 5 per year or on a needs basis?

        Edit: What I'm getting at is that tokens would be completely useless for this, you might as well say that all rock are tokens and you can pay with rocks.

        But I fully support Universal health care, I just think that a token system would be really unnecessary.
        • Jan 16 2014: Your question is tough, My idea so far is to change the perception of health care as a budget item into a moral issue.

          As you pointed out tokens, would then be viewed as money and are useless.

          So back to the issue,. Let me try this first.

          So What care is free in society now and dictates moral responsibility.

          Kinship, We are connected to relatives extended families etc..
          I am still working out the details. Am I on the right track?
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2014: Joe,

        We have very different views on "society" you seem to think of US examples when I instead try to find the best examples from around the world. in this case you can't look at US literature to get the answers you need since it's never been implemented in the US.

        What you are looking for is Universal health care! The doctors and nurses have to make a living and the medicines have to be paid. This has to be paid by taxes to work best. Just explore how other countries are doing it for once, US is not the best example of everything and especially not healthcare!

        Sure, you could rely on family instead of society. But what happens if you don't have a family or if your extended family doesn't have that brain surgeon that you might need some day?
        • Jan 16 2014: We are in agreement, taxes will need to be used.
          I use the US examples because we are behind in health care, having traveled and used the systems abroad I long for what you have. In fact I am jealous.

          What I was trying to convey was a method for bringing morality into the discussion on socialized health care.

          Using the morality of kinship (which is accepted) to help show that it can be extended past our family circle.

          Could this conversation then reframe the discussion and make the tax base acceptable.

          example.. Major opponents to Universal care have no problem accepting military budgets, because the fear of losing family and home strikes a cord.

          Is this a possible tract to seeking common ground then moving forward?

          The opposition to anything comparative here in the US is great, with cries of, well their system is different, you cannot compare apples to oranges.

          I tried that on an income inequality debate and the uproar was deafening. In act I used Sweden as a comparative basis to the US.

          Remember we actually proposed banning French Fries here once because of France's opposition to the war. Freedom fries!
      • thumb
        Jan 16 2014: If there's one thing I've learned it's that there will always be roaring opponents, fear usually drives this. And some people are not worth the time to try to change their attitude. Better to convince 10 friends that are somewhat on board then trying to convince one that utterly opposes your proposal.

        but with time you can convince anyone of basically anything if you're cunning enough, softly leading them down a trail of thought.
        • Jan 16 2014: I lack the tact and finesse you discuss. Too much linear thinking in my work has led to black and white solutions being ingrained in me.

          Maybe this would be good conversation, tact and understanding in ideological arguments.
  • Jan 10 2014: Have you heard of a little something called inflation, by any chance?
  • thumb
    Jan 17 2014: Joe,
    As I said to Jimmy, I am not saying there are not problems out there that need to be addressed, including healthcare. What I am saying is our Federal Government is not the entity to do address those problems.
    How many failed programs do I have to list before you understand ...
    The war on drugs, the war on poverty, civil rights, to name a few.. Are there any less illegal drugs in America? Fewer poor people? and do minorities shout about their new found rights? And now you want them to provide healthcare for all.... are you trying to kill us ?
    Our Constitution defined the tasks to be provided by the Federal Government, and those tasks have been relatively done well. Every time they have take on tasks out side the Constitution, ones they make up to "solve" problems....well, you can see the results.
    Do I have solutions to the myriad of problems facing society? Of course not. I don't even fully understand the problems... but I know what doesn't work. How can I make that statement with such surety?
    I must confess, I was a Federal Employee for 47 years.
    • Jan 17 2014: I see some points, but can we clarify one, civil rights

      Government intervention was to prevent aggression towards its citizens.
      Are you claiming that it was wrong and “strange fruit” could have resolved itself!?
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2014: OK,
        I am claiming that what the Government did in trying to resolve the problem was not well done... as in all the other "programs". There were already laws in place to address criminal and civil injustices to individuals. But the civil rights laws passed addressed groups, not individuals. I read our constitution and it addresses the rights of individuals. OK, so how did it work with groups? Where do I start?
        I don't know about "strange fruit" but I have seen both success and failure in individuals sense of awareness in "civil rights".
    • thumb
      Jan 17 2014: So what you're saying Mike is that a "war on health care" would fail... I agree...

      Mike, maybe you should try to look at how other countries have done it, we're way more successful then the US is.
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2014: There is no war on healthcare, I was speaking of the US Federal Government's attempt to provide "health insurance" for most of the citizenship. It is an empty gesture. It does not provide healthcare only a means to pay for it. We have a great need for better healthcare services, we are short of thousand of doctors, facilities and other medical services to meet the health care needs. This programs will send more money and limited services which would imply inflation at the highest order.
  • thumb
    Jan 15 2014: Hi Linda,
    A great idea, but not without some serious side effects. Some have already been noted,.. inflation, etc.. But on a more individual point, I am wondering why you believe people should not pay for their healthcare as you have implied. I understand that you don't want taxpayers to pay. As I understand it, you can use new money for healthcare, but once it goes into circulation, it is used as is all other money and that is what effects the macro economics of the country..
    Historically, there have been governments that printed money to meet needs of the people, I can't find one incident where it proved successful. Here in the USA, our government has attempted to use... tax money to provide a number of needs of the people: food, shelter and other supplemental payments. Now, there is a law to use tax money to provide health insurance... to help pay for healthcare. Of course, not well thought out as it doesn't really provide healthcare... just insurance.... money. Doctors, hospitals, medical care professionals provide healthcare, some say they will not provide additional services that could be needed.. So, it becomes basic economics, too much money chasing too little goods and services. Since insurance money is not earned, but supported by premiums, the economic impact gets even more convoluted and can only fall back onto taxpayers.
  • Jan 13 2014: Ok so the easyest way to explain this is to look at a dollar bill. What it says on the bill is federal reserve note or something like that. Effectively we don't even own our own money. We have to ask the banks for a loan to print more money. Our actual currency stopped being backed by gold or any mineral for that matter decades ago.
  • Jan 13 2014: I think Linda has a grasp on economics, a very fundamental grasp that is lacking in most economic discussions.

    Phrasing of her question may have tickled the funny bones of the Chicago School, but her question is valid.

    In essence why do we allow a perceived value to hold court over an individual’s health and life?
    When the value is solely created by individuals not directly involved in that person’s life.

    How much value do you place on your health?
    Does it match with the current economic systems value of your life? I would wager, it does not.
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2014: How much value do you place on your health?

      That is a good question, and not to hijack this conversation.
      But do you value your health enough to pay the cost of eating right, staying active, and out of danger?
      And should the taxpayers or the magic money tree pay for those who don’t live healthily?

      I’m not intending to start a debate, just trying the state that there is a massive amount of factors with healthcare. I have to question the premises we tend to have about this healthcare, not long ago eastern medicine was considered rubbish in the west. And feel we should question the premise we all need health-insurance.
      • Jan 14 2014: Don
        I am afraid you confuse risk with true illness or injury . You juxtapose risk, life style etc… to the aftermath of a visit to the doctor.

        They are far from the same, the conversation is describing the reality of illness or injury and the lack of health care due to economic structures.

        If we talk about actuary principals then your words hold merit, but to the cancer stricken or the slow crawl of MS I feel you are being callous without merit. Those and many more diagnosis have no place in lifestyle conversations
        • thumb
          Jan 14 2014: Actually I know first-hand the cost of healthcare and the quality of life cost when it is not paid.
          It is funny you referred to “the slow crawl of MS”, for I was Dx with RRMS in eleven years ago.
          For many years I only paid/did the western medicine and my health suffered as a result.
          For years now I have been also paying the daily cost of staying active, controlling stress and eating right and these things have a direct effect on my health and not just effecting risk.
          I would enjoy setting on the couch drinking soda and eating nachos, but I’m willing to pay the cost of not doing that for my health.

          Just because you have car-insurance, does not mean you don’t have to get oil changes or that it is OK to drink and drive. How would you feel if your car-insurance went up because the government force car-insurance-companies pay for new cars when people when too lazy to get oil-changes?

          FYI: commonly MS is more of a roller-coaster ride, a then a slow crawl. (With good days and months and bad ones.)
      • Jan 15 2014: Hi Don

        From my perspective, I help develop adaptive devices, I have only seen the slow crawl of MS. Thank you for the real perspective.

        Western medicine has many flaws, MRSA et al can attest to that.

        When this approach is hyped as the best and surrounds us, do we have an excuse for failing to seek different methods, for that matter can we? I am struggling to think of a holistic hospital covered by insurance.

        As to the economics of health, do you think that the value of human life should place health under the umbrella of societal gains and should have the same status as defense?
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: Joe, big thanks for your helping in develop adaptive devices.
          Currently I don’t need one, but did use a Telescopic Trekking Pole part time, 4-5 years ago. So know first-hand how adaptive device can effect a person quality of life.
          (I need to add something I hear a lot from mobility device users, it that the devices are boring gray. So to that I suggest offering a style customization kit.)

          I wish health insurance realize it would be in their own best interest to cover holistic hospital and medicines. For example: CoQ10 can help prevent several costly health issues, and thus save them money. So it would be a win/win.

          Personally I don’t think any government should be in the management of anything, government management only leads to stagnation.
          The government is great a creating, so the government should have created a nation online health system, one single form all insurance companies to use, a holistic lab to test and OK non-western treatments, etc.
          So its more a matter of How and not How Much.
      • Jan 16 2014: Hi Don
        I passed your request on in a meeting, it met with approval. Time will tell.

        May I ask what level of government creation is acceptable in health care?

        Would a regulatory structure be acceptable or even needed? For example in maintaining a basic level of standards.
        • thumb
          Jan 16 2014: I’m happy to hear it met with approval. :)

          The best way for me to answer is by giving an example; with the growing number of sites and Apps offering 24/7 talk to a doctor program, the government could start certifying the companies and doctors. And keep an eye on the Drs. FeelGood to make sure they are not proscribing codeine 99% of the time.

          Plus build Online doctor stations in front of ERs, at rest stops, and poor areas, and if drug store chains wanted to place one in store it could get certified and maybe even earn a 4-star rating.
          Currently with online doctors the doctors can see your rash, hear your babies cough and proscribe meds.
          Soon doctor will also be able to see your vitals (BP, respirations, etc.) and in the future (with government help near future) doctors will be able to see much more.

          There will be a need to place limits on it, for example NSA need limits in place from the start, plus a time limit on how long the government can control it. Say after 20-years it is handed over to the private sector.

          Hmmm? Maybe online-doctors could need to do an internship at the public online-doctor agency.
      • Jan 17 2014: Don! I like the way you think.

        I see many advantages and solutions in your comments.

        Allowing greater access to health care in poor areas, rest stops, pharmacies etc.. is brilliant yet subtle .

        It allows the pricing schemes in hospitals, which are now very secretive to the purchasing public, to be brought out in the open.

        It makes health care part of our daily life’s, instead of on an as needed basis.

        A kiosk could even take the insurance companies out of the equation for minor ailments.

        You have made my day!
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2014: it is very easy to demonstrate that yes, people value things more than health, or even their lives. we need to observe real life choices. we know exactly that driving a car is a risky business. yet, people drive to the movie theater to watch the newest adventures of bilbo baggins. this is certainly not a necessity. it is also not true that people don't know the danger, it is on the local every day. but people choose bilbo over a million to one chance of getting into an accident. because a life without bilbo is a life not worth having.

      only the individual can choose between joys and health. it is a balance, and both extremes are less than optimal to us. and even if you think some people choose unwisely, it is not your business, and you have no say in the matter.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2014: Hi Linda

    So basically it is an I.O.U. note (financial obligation) signed and dated by the US government, and can be exchange for its value in gold or some other goods of value.

    The government has limited amount of gold and other goods, printing extra promissory notes decrease their value. AI, if you have one piece of gold per dollar, then the dollar is worth one piece of gold, you print 1,000 dollars per piece of gold then each dollar is worth 1/1000th of a piece of gold.

    Ask yourself should people provide healthcare for free, or for a worthless IOU.
  • Jan 13 2014: Sorry Linda only people who "have" money can print more free money like banks! That should be pretty clear by now after the 2008 debacle. Jimmy is right we in America do not live in the "real" world. In the real world universal health care makes perfect sense. Why should only rich people get health care for free, vactions for free and all their expenses paid for free because they are in the club (corporation)?
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2014: What's funny is that not even the most right-winged party in Europe would dare to propose that we remove Universal health care, while your democrats wouldn't dare to propose Universal health care.
  • Jan 10 2014: Someone sets the value of money. I don't sit at home looking at my money and telling myself that today my dollar is only worth 50 cents but tomorrow when I get paid it will be worth $1.50. Whoever sets the value of money needs to take into consideration that money being printed to pay for healthcare is not to be considered to devalue its worth.
    • Jan 13 2014: The value of money is a complicated mess of a topic, but the gist of it is supply and demand, not the decisions of any one person or regulating body.

      You'd be amazed how many crucial things and concepts have no one group in charge of them. Some even work better for it.
    • thumb
      Jan 13 2014: you said somewhere else that the value of money is in our heads. now you say someone sets it. can i conclude that someone sets the state of our minds? how?
  • Jan 10 2014: Who is setting the value of money? The ones setting the value of money need to take into consideration that printing money to pay for healthcare will not take away its value.
  • Jan 10 2014: The value of money is based on our perception of its worth.
    We need to perceive money printed for the purpose of paying for healthcare as having value, as having worth.
    • Jan 10 2014: On a philosophical level, maybe.
      On a practical one however, printing money reduces its value, and healthcare in the US already has enough opposition without it increasing inflation.

      If you make "free money" to pay for healthcare, what's to stop you from printing the same "free money" to pay for anything else?
      Its in quotations because printing money isn't actually free. Printing costs aside (negligible), by printing more currency, you're de-valuing all the currency you've already got. The economy would break otherwise--if everyone has as much money as they want, what's the money good for? No one would want to trade for it.
    • thumb
      Jan 10 2014: and what our perception is based on?
      • Jan 14 2014: In response to below, by the way I loved your Bilbo Baggins statement. but....

        Did you give Adam Smith his royalty payment for use of his flawed concepts? The paradox does not describe immediate needs. In that context it falls apart.

        For the price of anything is based on the needs of the seller. What is the price of a cure for (substitute any lethal disease here) to you. If you possessed a pant load of diamonds what would you do. Donate to family and find a grave? Or start shelling out the bling?

        I would get a rash from digging for diamonds!
        • thumb
          Jan 14 2014: calm down, or you will develop heart disease, and/or present yourself as uncivilized.

          if the price is determined by the seller, why don't they raise the price to earn more money? maybe studying the law of supply and demand helps. hint: all the buyers and the sellers together determine the price.
      • Jan 14 2014: Sorry for coming across as growling dog, I will temper my passion in the future.

        I find it interesting that folks can argue economics and health in the same breath.

        My misguided point was that in life or death situations economics does not play a position to the sick or injured.

        The seller of the services brings economics into play, until the role is reversed. Then they lie in bed because their fortunes have run out.

        Why do we allow this paradox to continue?
        • thumb
          Jan 14 2014: on the other hand, i find it interesting that folks can simply dismiss an idea because boo. either you put up an actual argument why would health be any different than many other needs human beings desire, or you risk looking not very serious in the debate.

          the truth is, health is exactly like many other goals. we want shelter, heating, cloths, food, better shelter, better heating, better food, better cloths, entertainment and all sort of things. and valuations (preferences) are largely subjective and personal.

          economics is the science of allocating scarce resources. the input of the economy is the set of wants (preferences) of people. the output is a plan that starts with ores, wood, sand, coal, oil and above all, time, and builds up gradually to products and services. if you provide something, it means you don't provide another thing. if we allocate one engineer hour to build an xbox, that is an engineering hour missing from building an x-ray device. or one piece of metal used in the x-ray device is a piece of metal not used in a bridge or aircraft.

          the only one thing that can successfully control this enormous system of intertwined production procedures is money. money measures what is needed, and how badly it is needed. the price controls production by balancing the supply and demand, driving the economy toward optimum output.

          by taking money out of the picture, or messing with it, hindering its function is nothing short of blinding the economy. it will lead to overproduction of some goods, and underproduction of others. at the end, the created satisfaction is less than the destroyed satisfaction. it only looks good if you only look at the created goods, and forget about the goods forgone.
      • Jan 14 2014: I am a bit confused by your first sentences, are we not seeking common ground and meaningfull discourse?

        Then I am very amused by the "economics is a science" statement. Could you elaborate on where that comes from.

        The equivalent of tossing chicken bones on the pavement and gleaming the future, does not meet the rigours of scientific methods.
        • thumb
          Jan 14 2014: it is funny that you talked about meaningful discourse, then presented none. i, unlike you, actually studied austrian economics for a year. during this, i read thousands of pages and listened to 100+ hours of video and audio lectures. if i need to choose whether i want to rely on my economics knowledge, or your naive 99% crypto-marxist sentiments, no question what the choice will be.
      • Jan 15 2014: Beautiful! Now we are talking! I had you down for a Chicago man.

        Back to topic…… Due to a much higher self worth the individual will always choose health over wealth. We are programmed to view loss as the greater threat .

        Could you expand why you chose to lump health ( “better clothes, entertainment”) into a macro model. It appears to fall squarely into micro theories

        While you were studying Austrian economics I was developing adaptive devices and autistic learning aids. I see where we differ so much, Homo Economicus meet Homo Reciprocan not neo-Marxist
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: i already gave examples, but you don't seem to care, so i won't give more.

          any chance you are using other names on these forums as well?
      • Jan 15 2014: “any chance you are using other names on these forums as well?”

        Nope, those are the other voices of reason you hear.

        “on the other hand, i find it interesting that folks can simply dismiss an idea because boo. either you put up an actual argument why would health be any different than many other needs human beings desire, or you risk looking not very serious in the debate.”

        Remember your writing above, I pasted it for continuity

        As I stated health is a micro economic factor, you grouped it into macro. I asked why, you dismissed via cognitive bias so here we are.

        Examples are not reasons.

        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: "As I stated health is a micro economic factor, you grouped it into macro."

          i don't recall that part :) especially because in my view, there is no distinction between the two..
      • Jan 15 2014: Yes you did not supply that distinction, priori economics, I keep forgetting. Sorry

        Now that I have reached into the back corners of my brain and dug up Hayek, I am very surprised that you are not jumping mad at the lack of market forces in health care.

        We have the right!, as the ambulance dumps are mangled bodies at the nearest hospital, to peruse the price list and walk our besodden carcass to the next available hospital. Free market forces at work!

        No economic theory can be applied when the life and death needs of people force the behavior into an irrational economic choice. You and I wish to go the least expensive yet most effective hospital, but that is not a rational choice when your life is on the line.

        Make health care a priority in society. Simple.
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: but market forces can be trusted to deliver food? or you want "free money" to buy food too?

          don't be too much surprised if i don't reply to one or more of your posts in the future. for example this time you just reiterated your previous points. unfortunately, repeating statements does not make them any more true.

          everything is economics. not applying economics to a problem is pretty much the same thing as not applying mathematics, physics or logic. you can, obviously, move something out of the realm of logic. but the consequences will be, as it happens from time to time, dire. for economics is a descriptive science, not a normative one. you don't decide what does it apply to.

          you also can't make something a priority. something either is a priority or not. all you can do is to ignore the priorities of the people. that strategy has many faces, socialism, fascism, corporatism, interventionism, mercantilism. the name is not important. the catastrophic consequences are.
      • Jan 15 2014: Thank goodness , I was wondering how to let you down easy.
      • Jan 15 2014: Food delivery and emergency room visits are the same from a personal economic view?
        I did not see compositional fallacy on the pyramid.
        I respect your opinions and look forward to reading from your future post. Yet on this issue we are too far apart to come to any understanding.
        I learned a little more about Austrian economic theories and for that, Thanks!
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2014: in fact, you didn't learn anything about the austrian school. i advise you against thinking you understand the tiniest bit of it.
    • Jan 10 2014: Human perception of value is directly linked to availability, the more available is a resource the less value it has, the less available resources are the most valuable ones, that is why many cultures old and current use gold to measure value and not water, gold is scarce and hard to get so it has a huge economic value, water is abundant and easy to obtain so it has very title economic value. Which means, if you print money to pay for medical care, and then that money is introduced in the global economy, you will be automatically reducing its value, depending on the amount of money you printed. If every body would do that, money would become worthless sooner than you read this.
      • Jan 13 2014: Hi Demetrius , water is by far the most valuable commodity, but you know this.Perhaps we can discuss fictionalized value?

        Taken in economic terms waters value is diminished due to the fact that it is a very difficult resource to contain and control. I think the value we place on items are due to who has control of them. Control water and you are extremely powerful.

        Control gold and you can be marginalized, unless you artificially increase its value, by making it a means of trade or a symbol of power.

        Then to maintain that power gold’s value must be constantly inflated and dispersed to a select minority.
        Hmmm history of man?
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2014: just sayin: the water-diamond paradox was solved 150 years ago. it is called "the marginal revolution". hmm. maybe contemporary history counts too?
        • Jan 13 2014: Water is indeed and undeniably the most valuable RESOURCE we have, however it is not a commodity. Don't get confused, one thing is a resource and another very different a commodity.

          Let's think a little bit about the bottling companies, if you think they are selling you water then you are absolutely wrong... why should I buy a bottle of water when I have plenty of it just by opening the faucet? they simply cannot compete with the faucet!!!... instead they put lots of money on the media in order to make you believe that if you drink from the faucet you'll get sick and that their purification process is the only way to keep you healthy, so what they really sell you is a purification process, not the water itself!!!! Now, water has no expiration date but the containers do, so if you think of water as a commodity then it is a commodity with an expiration date, which means you better sell it fast or risk to loose your investment, which implies you cannot push the price too much.

          You say: "Control water and you are extremely powerful"... Please, tell me how such a thing can be accomplished, how do you plan to prevent the rain from falling? or the rivers from flowing? how do you plan to own the lakes in order to prevent access to them?... although true, it's a silly idea, so come on, let's be realistic.

          Although I agree gold price is subject to manipulation at some degree, most of its value is subject to its availability, like I said before. Find a huge gold mine and the gold price will plunge.

          If you want to discuss more on this subject it's ok, but that is not the main issue of this conversation.
      • Jan 14 2014: Exactly as I described you would need to be very powerful indeed to control water. Has it been done yes..

        "or the rivers from flowing"
        Ever heard of damns on rivers? Wow seriously damning of the Colorado river is unrealistic LOL

        In several states in the US it is illegal to capture rainwater.

        Water is a commodity! Palisades water index strike a bell.

        And this is very relevant to the conversation, where both water and life are commodities.
        • Jan 14 2014: Certainly, only governments can do that, but if you live in a democracy and you allow the government to commoditize water, then... well... don't blame anyone but yourself.
      • Jan 14 2014: If I could change it myself, I would no longer be in a democracy. I would be king, So we debate and discuss, but foremost we must educate ourselves