Managing The Decline

[MSimon]

I guess it depends on whether you would prefer to depend on the natural healing of the body (not certain) or would prefer to be poisoned by your doctor for a few extra months of life and a guaranteed death. And bankrupting you children and grandchildren and their grandchildren to boot.

I'll take death so that my children can live.

Of course if you have no children and can bankrupt other people's children to pay for the medicine.....

[seedload]

Maui's argument:

Bad management theory and practice are ruining the company. But to change management while the company is failing is a dumb idea.

A patient comes in with a headache. His choices are Dr. Hayek who won't so much as put a band-aid on someone spewing blood out of their carotid artery (years ago he made headlines by praying for rather than treating his now dead daughter) or Doctor Keynes who likes to send people with splinters into surgery. He goes to doctor Keynes who puts him on a heavy regime on experimental "derivate" pills (along with some FDA approved though somewhat controversial interest-rate regulating medication)

A few days later he is rushed into the emergency room with severe heart palpitations and rapidly deteriorating vitals.

Obviously it makes sense to switch to Dr Hayek at that very moment and risk very possible death rather than let Dr Keynes stabilize you first...

Maybe not going to the doctor was the answer. Take a break. Close your eyes. Let the headache heal itself.

regards

[Maui]

Maybe not going to the doctor was the answer. Take a break. Close your eyes. Let the headache heal itself.

Yes, but that's not the point I'm disputing. If you accept that the initial visit to Keynes is in the past and accept that the patient has realized his mistake and intends to switch to Hayek, the point I'm arguing is that regardless of how much the patient may regret the mistake, it does not make the sense to switch doctors as soon as he arrives at the E.R. Let Keynes do what he needs to do to stabilize the patient. Dump Keynes when comes to check on the patient after things have calmed down.

I think it's extremist to suggest we shouldn't have done anything to retard this recession and I certainly think the current spending is good. IMO, it's only Obama's budget from this point forward that is dangerous (and dangerous it is).

FWIW, While Hayek certainly disagrees with interst-rate regulation, it's not entirely clear to me that Hayek would have have disagreed the derivate pill regimine Keynes implemented. After all, it is a 100% "natural" herb that grows only when undisturbed by taxpayer-funded drones. Do you know?

Simon, I neglected to mention that while the patient does have a baby boy, they were planning on having another kid. That kid might not ever exist if he doesn't let Keynes take care of him when he comes into the E.R.

[MSimon]

Maui,

If the doctor is going to kill you best not to take the medicine.Esp if you know in advance the medicine, the dose, and the outcome.

And Keynes was not in favor of deficit spending. The economic boosting was supposed to come out of funds saved in good times.

But here is a nice bit that will help you sleep better at night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEJdeWvGIZU

[MSimon]

And I neglected to mention that every patient the doctor had never survived his treatment.

[MSimon]

The insurance cost explosion is entirely predictable and government engineered.

The government mandates treatment for people who can't pay. It gets covered by insurance premiums rising. It pays for medical services for the old and poor at 70 cents on the dollar. Insurance gets to cover the difference.

Used to be we had charity hospitals but government rules and regs made them impractical.

But I know. More government intervention will solve the problem.

Tell you what. There is a new treatment out for cancer. Tuberculosis. Combined with ebola. Government approved. Step right up.

[MSimon]

Those bankers feed the conservatives.

Where do you get your fantasies?

The article describes how Wall Street -- which poured massive amounts of money into the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party over the last several years, ensuring unparalleled access and influence -- is now threatening to support the Republicans if Obama keeps saying mean things about them.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... all_street

[Jccarlton]

Maui,

And Keynes was not in favor of deficit spending. The economic boosting was supposed to come out of funds saved in good times.

You mean the 1.3 TRILLION dollars that was basically given to the top 5% of the rich through tax breaks from the 80's to present might have been useful to balancing the budget last year, or have a war fund for long term conflicts? Just so happens to match the estimated waste of dollars going to the insurance industry during the yet to come insurance cost explosion?

Nay, The medicine looks bitter, smells like socialism as described by the RE-puppies in control by the top 5%, might save the whole body of the patient from the perspective of doing the most good for the whole system.
Don't drink the conservative kool-aid.
The conservatives didn't let the banks fail and honor their true fundamentals of their belief. Those bankers feed the conservatives.
Just what are they trying to conserve then?

So tax cuts and letting people keep their own money is stealing from the poor. And that !.3 trillion, just a product of the imagination:

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1443.cfm
I'm tired of that same stupid lie. And I have to question the sanity of anybody who doesn't think that this is a real problem:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... h_8_2.html
The current spending and confiscation of peoples assets and property is unsustainable:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... esity.html
It's the spending that's the problem:
http://www.artdiamondblog.com/archives/ ... vernm.html
It's going to get worse:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post.html
As for the bankers, it seems to me that it was Progressives in Congress feeding their fat cat friends in Fannie and Freddie, along with Goldman Sachs that was the problem. Unless Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd are Conservative Republicans.

Anybody who spouts off what you are trolling has already been to revival with Rev Jones and already has the cup of Kool-Aid in his hand.

[Maui]

Maui,

If the doctor is going to kill you best not to take the medicine.Esp if you know in advance the medicine, the dose, and the outcome.

Hmmm, but you dodged my question-- isn't this medicine that Hayek would have been okay with as well? And we've gotten too tied up in the anology-- I've been using Keynes to represent Washington, but I wonder who would have been more likely to support the Glass–Steagall Act, Keynes or Hayek?

Really, doesn't the repeal of Glass–Steagall Act kind of go against the everything Hayek railed against except that instead of the gov getting drunk printing money, it was private industry?

And Keynes was not in favor of deficit spending. The economic boosting was supposed to come out of funds saved in good times.

Sure, but you certainly can't blame the state of the federal budget pre-recession on Obama.

[MSimon]

Sure, but you certainly can't blame the state of the federal budget pre-recession on Obama.

No you can't. You can blame the American people for installing a Democrat Congress in 2006..





I believe the problem with Congress will be fixed this November.