Gullible's Travels
Dear readers,
Want to experience a stealth-haredi political hack job in the guise of an educational talk about health care reform?
Then have we got an event for you! RSVP at the New York Birthright Next website for September 9th’s “Q&A with Grace-Marie Turner, President of the Galen Institute“!
This media darling and shill for the pharmaceutical industry will be happy to take a few hours out of her busy lobbying schedule to educate you on “what is happening with health care reform and what you need to know about the bill before Congress”!
No, there is nothing unseemly about this arrangement at all. Just like there’s nothing untoward about having all Birthright Next programming in the largest BRI alumni community in the world be under the sole jurisdiction of an ultra-Orthodox kiruv organization.
What’s next? A weekend at Ohr Somayach with Orly Taitz?
If you’d like to tell the fine folks at Birthright Israel what a great job their Birthright Next providers in NYC are doing, here‘s their contact page.
…and if anyone still had doubts about birthright and their intentions.
And Orly Taitz is crazy. The birthers couldn’t find a face that spells “lunacy” less blatantly.
Oh no! It’s the stealth-haredi-pharmaceutical-Zionist-Birthright complex on the warpath! There are people with non-leftist opinions on health care — all hands on deck! If anything reveals Birthright’s infernal stealth-haredi-pharmaceutical-Zionist agenda, this is surely it.
Meanwhile I’ll be happy to join you in denouncing and attacking the evil pharmaceutical industry…. well, ummm, just as soon as my friend who just got out of surgery completes her postoperative course of anti-infective Levaquin treatment.
Um, yes, it is.
Oh – and if anyone can give me a real reason for *not* supporting a real healthcare reform (ahem, Eric) – one that has no party lines behind it, then I’d like to meet them. Coffee’s on me.
Libs smearing Orly Taitz again! Dems are really afraid of her because she speaks the truth. Republicans are FACT BASED and demand FACTS from Obama. Only Republicans know that this REPUBLIC is a nation of LAWS! You libs make me sick! WITH FAKE AMERICAN BO IN CHARGE YOUR LIFE IS IN DANGER! VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2010 AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT.
and if anyone can give me a real reason for *not* supporting a real healthcare reform
Is the Republican Party trying to lose every presidential election for the next half-century?
Just to be clear. I don’t think any conspiracy theory is needed to explain this. BRI is neglecting their oversight, and JEC believes that the only true Judaism is ultra-Orthodox and republican and tries to educate the public to that fact.
Jane: A perfect case for comment moderation.
Seriously – we disagree on many issues on this blog, but this takes the case. And you probably think the ne- er, ACORN stuffed the ballot boxes and forged that forged Australian birth certificate, too.
Jon: Actually, the Dems are beating them to the punch with this unnecessary hand-wringing.
Actually, the Dems are beating them to the punch with this unnecessary hand-wringing.
It’s hard to understand how anybody could oppose universal healthcare as a goal.
Jane-
We’re afraid of Orly Taitz because we’ve been trying to cover up the FACT that the Republic of Kenya briefly came into existence for a day in February 1964 (10 months before it was officially declared a republic), but then invaded South Australia in 1959, and Barack Hitlerpenis Muhammed Obama has been a part of this conspiracy since birth (and before), and now she’s exposing the FACTS we’ve been trying to hide for so long!
She also says that the President’s mother wanted “to avoid paying legal fees”, but as any American born abroad knows – there are no legal fees associated with registration of birth abroad, except maybe $75 for the consulate or something.
Also – does it not look bad that the attorney of the idiot-birthers movement is operating out of Tel Aviv? Would it be akin to Ismail Haniyyah setting up shop in DC?
That rule should be changed anyway. Why shouldn’t a person born outside of America be able to be president?
Why shouldn’t a person born outside of America be able to be president?
Or at least merge the native-born citizen requirement with the age requirement to say that a president must have been a US citizen for at least 35 years.
Hi All,
I’m an employee at the Birthright Israel NEXT National Office. Daniel Brenner, our Executive Director (and Jewschool.com devotee,) recently wrote a compelling piece about this very debate on Reb Blog. I encourage all of you to check it out:
http://rabbidanielbrenner.blogspot.com/2009/08/few-thoughts-on-grace-marie-turner.html
This is a ridiculous post. You don’t mind that BRI did this, just that they swung to the right. BRI has no business putting on events that cater to a political agenda, period. Their job is to connect Jews with Judaism and with each other. That has NOTHING to do with health care coverage in America.
That said, while I understand this is a liberal blog, the responses here, particularly to Eric’s remarks, range from uninformed to pure hysterical.
People don’t oppose universal health care in America – that we already have, it’s called an “emergency room” – they oppose governmentalizing that care and creating yet another massive, inefficient bureaucracy that stifles medical innovation and destroys private wealth through confiscatory tax rates.
And if you think the Repubs are going to be losing elections for the next 50 years you spend too much of your time on dkos. Obama’s approval rating have plummeted 15 points since Summer began, half of it due to the failure of the stimulus, the other half due to increasing public resistance to these “health care reforms”. The devil is in the details, and people are learning about these details.
Amit, you want a reason not to support socialized health care? Cost.
First, though, let’s remember that Democrats control the Presidency and BOTH houses of Congress. There should be absolutely NO REASON why they can’t pass universal government health care. Republicans can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop them. The reason why Obama is failing is simple – no one can find the money to pay for this monstrosity without massive expansion of taxes on the middle class, and everyone knows that raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of a recession is a political death sentence.
I don’t really care what happens. I think socialized health care is a pre-destined failure. Our government can’t even run a $3 Billion “cash for clunkers” program without delays in reimbursing dealerships. Medicare today pays out only 40% of the actual cost of medical care, creating a situation where tens of thousands of doctors are leaving the Medicare system, when we already have a shortage of 100-300,000 doctors, just as the baby boomers are starting to retire.
If the Democrats pass this, it is THEY who won’t be elected for 50 years. And if they DON’T pass it, enough bad blood has been created with them and the voters that all the Blue Dog seats will revert to the Republicans in ’10 and ’12, creating some semblance of balance of power in Washington. It couldn’t come soon enough.
As for reasonable alternatives to socialized medicine? They exist.
That rule should be changed anyway. Why shouldn’t a person born outside of America be able to be president?
Why should a person born outside America be able to be president? Why should we trust that their loyalties are with America, and not their birth country? The current law has worked out just fine for us Americans in 233 years. Are you saying that amidst 300 million natural born people we Americans cannot find one competent individual to be President?
“Democrats control the Presidency and BOTH houses of Congress. There should be absolutely NO REASON why they can’t pass universal government health care.”
Well said.
Though for arguments sake… how is it that a good few other countries are able to sustain national health care?
No. I’m saying that a naturalized citizen presumably has the same status as a native-born citizen.
The current law has worked out just fine for us Americans in 233 years
Weren’t the first seven presidents not born in the USA?
I didn’t vote for Obama–and believe me I wish he weren’t president–but this whole birther movement is insane, as is this whole movement of shouting down politicians at the town hall meetings aimed at discussing the health care system.
This is a ridiculous post. You don’t mind that BRI did this, just that they swung to the right. BRI has no business putting on events that cater to a political agenda, period. Their job is to connect Jews with Judaism and with each other. That has NOTHING to do with health care coverage in America.
I think it’s weird that you agree with me — that Birthright Next should be apolitical — while claiming that (unlike you) I have a secret nefarious ulterior motive for making a point you agree with.
If you can find evidence of my hypocrisy, I’d be glad to see it. Otherwise, I’d appreciate fewer thin-air personal attacks.
The shouting down is a natural response from people who feel like being given the cold shoulder. They’re protesting… and since when is that frowned upon?
(1) BRI has nothing to do with “Judaism”. Stop conflating Israel with the Jewish religion.
(2) You want a reason for socialized healthcare? Cost. Everyone knows you Americans spend more on healthcare and get less of it. And an emergency room is not “healthcare”, it’s a way to squeeze more money out of people too desperate not to pay.
Just wanted to give a shout-out to Rafi above, and to Rabbi Brenner at Birthright Next for replying.
Amit:
Judaism is a lot more than the ‘religious’ parts of Jewish heritage. I may only be a Reconstructionist by association, but old Mordy Kaplan had something when he defined it as “the civilization of the Jewish people”.
You know how much non-ritual, non-theological, non-faith-based stuff is tied up in Jewishness, Judaism, and Jewish identity. Like gefilte fish, Israel is always there. (Whether you like to eat it or not, or only like the kind in jelly/broth, or put horseradish or mayonnaise on it)
I think the birther movement is irrelevant. I don’t know where Obama was born and I don’t care. To some people it is important to deny Obama legitimacy. Let’s remember that the left did this to Bush for his entire first term by saying that he didn’t really win Florida.
Obama is the President. I don’t agree with the birthers, and I don’t disagree with them. I don’t care about their message and I wish they would shut up, because they are draining public attention from things that actually matter.
My own uncle thinks Obama is a hidden Muslim who wants to destroy Israel. Same thing. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. I don’t care and wish for those people to shut up as well.
The President of the United States has a big microphone but only a marginal impact on the specifics of policy. There is a Congress and a bureaucracy of tens, hundreds, thousands and millions which translates the rhetoric into a practical agenda, implements that agenda, and unless they are all in on this super secret conspiracy, whether that’s “destroying America” or “selling out Israel to the Muslims”, it’s all a bunch of nonsense.
If Obama IS selling out Israel to the Arabs, it’s because the current consensus in American policy circles is that we should do it. Israel has lost the support of American think tanks, particularly among the realists, by failing to liquidate Hezbollah and Hamas.
We support Israel for one simple reason – it solves difficult strategic problems for America. Those include keeping Egypt in the American orbit, ensuring the survival of Jordan, containing Syrian influence in the Levant, fighting destabilizing non-state actors (most Palestinian militant factions, Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, Hezbollah) and acting as a strategic regional spine to Iran. If Israel can not solve these problems, its utility to American Middle East policy is very limited, if not in the negative.
Unless Israel wants to spend the next ten years fighting with the US over whether Ariel is a settlement, it better start solving some of these problems. What Obama wants matters very little. The real thinkers in American foreign policy don’t care about the Palestinians and they don’t care about Israeli settlement of the West Bank. They want Israel to solve problems, and to not create new ones, the way it did in ’67, ’73, even in ’82. They need someone with skin in the game to take care of the sloppy, bloody messes that Americans don’t have the stomachs for. That means no more half-hearted wars that only complicate American policy.
Israel WILL serve America one way or another – either it will be hung out to dry to appease the Arabs, or it will be the fulcrum on America’s spear. This is all Israel’s choice.
(2) You want a reason for socialized healthcare? Cost. Everyone knows you Americans spend more on healthcare and get less of it.
Amit, maybe you know more than Congress, President Obama and the Congressional Budget Office? Perhaps you should go help them find the $10 Trillion we will need over the next 10 years to pay for universal coverage, in addition to ballooning Medicare and Medicaid costs.
America spends a lot on health care. Our paying a premium subsidizes the development of new technology and drugs that are then sold at much cheaper prices overseas. So, in fact, our paying more for health care displaces a hidden cost that is not payed by the rest of the world.
Perhaps we should simply mandate that American pharmaceutical companies charge the same for drugs in Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Central Asia and… oh why not, Europe, that they do here in the US. And if the Europeans refuse to pay higher prices and authorize their pharma to illegally copy our drugs we’ll sue them under WTO.
After all, fair is fair, right, Amit?
For anyone actually interested in having a reasoned discussion on how to reduce costs, read the article I posted earlier. It’s written by the CEO of Whole Foods and discusses private health care practices which have led to cost savings, and which are preferred to government health care in the UK and other “civilized” countries.
America spends a lot on health care.
And let’s not forget everything we spend to pay people at insurance companies to deny coverage. Eliminating that would be un-American!
Jonathan1,
Obviously, the nation and its laws did not exist prior to 1776. Saying the first seven US Presidents were not born in America is disingenuous, for it implies they were foreign to our shores.
George Washington was born in Virginia.
John Adams was born in Massachusetts.
Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia.
James Madison was born in Virginia.
James Monroe was born in Virginia.
John Quincy Adams was born in Massachusetts.
Andrew Jackson was born in the Carolinas.
a naturalized citizen presumably has the same status as a native-born citizen.
They do, with two exceptions – certain types of security clearance and the US Presidency. Given the threat of espionage, allegiance to or manipulation by a foreign power, these are reasonable restrictions.
Anonymouse, essentially what you’re saying is that Americans should just bear the brunt of their privatized system and shell out money so that more companies can go on treating erectile dysfunction for piles of money, making TV ads and taking doctors to expensive resorts, while paying them for research.
Fine. I’ll take my chances with the amazing system we have here in Israel, which whips your american system any day. You can continue to pay for my medication.
You can continue to pay for my medication.
We will, either way, unless we nationalize the pharmaceutical and biomedical engineering industries as well. Is that what some of you here are proposing?
The price of something is determined by market forces – costs of production and profit. Raise your profit too high, and competition will eat you for lunch. Lower your profit too low, and you won’t make enough money to survive. If someone can’t make enough profit from their investment in one industry, they’ll invest it in another. This is why profit margins are so stable in most industries. The only ways to change this cost equation are technology/innovation or very messy, very costly and ultimately unsustainable government mandates.
This is a very simple problem. There is no money to pay for what Obama has proposed – more specifically, what is in the House bill. You can scream and moan and scratch yourselves to death, but the money is just not there.
To raise this revenue, you can increase taxes, shift money from other programs (like Medicare, Social Security and the Military), or borrow. Over the long term, the CBO says, there are no savings over the existing system, and instead more deficits.
If Obama and Congressional Democrats believe that they have the magic bullet, let them bite it. If they win and Americans love the result, Republicans will be finished for a generation. If they fail, they will blow their own head off. The Democrats have the votes to do whatever they want.
So again, what’s the problem?
It is important to note that while some countries have restriction on advertising for prescription medication, or all together illegal as in the UK.
A substantial amount of costs is just covering the advertising.
The issue of the first several Presidents of the US (obviously born before there was a USA in existence) is covered explicitly by Article II Section 1 of the Constitution: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…” The founders were kinda smart enough to figure that one out.
>>“Anonymouse, essentially what you’re saying is that Americans should just bear the brunt of their privatized system and shell out money so that more companies can go on treating erectile dysfunction for piles of money, making TV ads and taking doctors to expensive resorts, while paying them for research.”
OK Amit. Here’s how it works. Pharmaceutical companies advertise for the same reason that shoe, computer, window and granola companies advertise: it brings in more customers, increases revenue and increases profit. If advertising didn’t do those things then nobody would advertise.
I’m glad when I hear that Pfizer or GSK or Astra Zeneca is earning hundreds-of-millions or billions of dollars of profit. You know why? Because that’s hundreds-of-millions of dollars that’s now available for research and development of the next generation of antibiotic, anticancer and anti-MS drugs.
It’s also money that’s available for the research and development of “orphan” drugs — medicines that address a disease that only a very few people have and whose enormous costs of development are economically unjustifiable.
So I definitely do hope that pharmaceutical companies continue to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from erectile dysfunction medications, and skin care medications and all of the many different drugs that humans all over the world now have access to. Every dollar of profit is a dollar’s more likelihood that the scientists and doctors at those companies will discover a new medicine to fight deadly infections and other illnesses.
Unless, of course, you’re ready to invest $500 million of your own cash to find and develop the method that will allow targeted delivery of chemotherapeutic agents inside a cell-specific nanocapsule. Or find the next generation of anti-infective agents that can overcome antibiotic resistance and induce pathogen autolysis. And that’s the cost for just one drug if you’re lucky. Pick either goal. I’ll buy the sugar for the coffee for your research team.
>>Fine. I’ll take my chances with the amazing system we have here in Israel, which whips your american system any day. You can continue to pay for my medication.”
Sure, take Israel any day. Just keep in mind that Israel’s biggest pharmaceutical company, Teva, stays in business by leeching off of the medical and pharmaceutical IP developed by the billion-dollar work of American and European drug companies. Israel has created virtually no unique medicines. Without Western pharmaceutical research and the American market, Israel’s “amazing” system would be dead in the water.
Eric, that’s not how profit works. Profit is what you take home and use to buy homes and yachts. Non-profits reinvest their earnings for the purpose of furthering their work. Sure, profit drives a desire to find the next profit-generating product, but let’s not overstate the case.
Ok. But it is still undeniable that the first seven U.S. presidents were not born in the USA (because there was no USA, Anonymouse), and they were not even born USA citizens (because there was no USA).
The question is moot anyway. Even if, somehow, it’s proven that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, the Constitution should be changed to allow him to stay on–he won the election.
And you’re right, Anonymous, Bush won the 2000 election, no ifs ands or buts about that either–I voted for the loser that time as well (meaning Gore.)
Jonathan1
You expect they wait a good generation for the first president ripen up, or to add an exception clause for the first president…? O Wait, as Eric pointed out: “or a citizen… at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”
Why should the constitution be changed just because someone won the election (under false pretense)? If it is changed I think there would be precedent to have a re-election.
I also don’t think it is very likely but there is no justification if proven otherwise.
Look, achi. First you implied that we’ve always had presidents born in the USA. Now, you’re admitting that’s not case. That’s fine too. Maybe I was confused, maybe you meant that we always had USA-born presidents, except for the first seven, who were grandfathered in. Fine.
If it’s somehow proven then Obama wasn’t born in the U.S., he would have to resign, and Joe Biden would become president.
You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to understand this.
There’s no precedent to have a re-election, achi. When has that happened in U.S. presidential history?
What the hell does any of this have to do with healthcare reform anyway?
Jonathan1 writes:
If it’s somehow proven then Obama wasn’t born in the U.S., he would have to resign, and Joe Biden would become president.
Have we seen Joe Biden’s birth certificate?
BTW here’s the link to the Constitution text (see paragraph 5 on that page) in case anyone is interested. (And no I have no clue how birtherism became part of this discussion and I wish we could just drop it.)
Dlevy, profit is what’s left over after a company pays for all of its expenses. It generally pays for those expenses out of the revenue it’s taken from the sale of products. Pfizer (for example) earned a pre-tax income of $3.049 billion last quarter. Taxes ate almost $800 million off of that figure and their final net profit was $2.261 billion.
I can guarantee you that the CEO and executive team of Pfizer are not taking home $2.261 billion with which to “buy homes and yachts”.
A large amount of that money will be directed back into ongoing and novel, and high-risk high-reward, biological and medical research. For one thing Pfizer’s shareholder wouldn’t accept less than that. They want their company to remain the world leader in terms of developing cures and bringing novel solutions to diseases.
And in the meantime the net profit will be very beneficial to the (no doubt) millions of people who have Pfizer stock in the long term accounts that form the basis of their retirement plan.
Also important is the fact that when a company has earned $2.261 billion in one quarter, it’s going to become rather more difficult for bean counters inside the company to tell their scientists and doctors that there’s “not enough money” to do certain types of research, or pursue drug development avenues that are expensive but also hold great potential.
That’s why if there’s any company in the world that all of us should pray earns a profit it’s a pharmaceutical company.
I never implied that at all. All I am saying is that the first presidents aren’t in any way an example of Obamas situation.
You are right, he would resign. I thought you were arguing that he would want to stay and IF the constitution were to be changed (unlikely) then for him to stay I would only assume there would be a re-election (less likely), but thats just me.
Achi, I wasnt the one to bring up Presidential qualifications.
Eric – if the pharmacuticals were barred from advertising, they’d have tons more money to re-invest in research. It’s not crazy, almost every other country does it.
And I wasn’t talking about Teva, I was talking about Kupat Holim.
A quick google turns up this page, which says the Pfizer CEO pulls in about $14 million a year. It’s not $2.3 billion, but it’s a pretty significant chunk and he’s just one guy.
If it’s somehow proven then Obama wasn’t born in the U.S., he would have to resign, and Joe Biden would become president.
Not true. Someone born to a U.S. citizen mother living abroad is still a “natural born citizen,” that is, they are citizens by birth. John McCain was born to a U.S. citizen mother living abroad.
dlevy, you idiot, those $14 M are the guarantee that your erectile dysfunction can be treated any day of the week (not that you have it, G-d Forbid), and that someone with cancer can pay $14M to be treated too. Without them, we would all be sick and die.
>>Eric – if the pharmacuticals were barred from advertising, they’d have tons more money to re-invest in research. It’s not crazy, almost every other country does it.
And I wasn’t talking about Teva, I was talking about Kupat Holim.
Amit I’m sorry but this one’s kind of obvious: companies advertise because it earns them increased profit. Companies don’t undertake marketing activities if they don’t earn them more money than they would earn otherwise. Would you? That’s it and it’s Business 101. “Almost every other country” is trying to deny this basic fact of economics.
Oh you were only “talking about Kupat Holim”? Oh, OK. Well exactly how effective do you think the Kupat Holim would be without modern pharmaceuticals??!! Please!
>>the Pfizer CEO pulls in about $14 million a year. It’s not $2.3 billion, but it’s a pretty significant chunk and he’s just one guy.
Mmmmm-hmmmm. Let’s work out the math on this. $14 million is 0.61% of $2.3 billion. So in 2008 Pfizer’s CEO earned 0.61% of Pfizer’s profit from a single quarter. But if we look at Pfizer’s finances from all of 2008 the company earned a total of $8.1 billion after taxes, expenses, etc. $14 million is all of….0.17% of that.
Compared to some of the compensation packages in private equity and banking I’d say the Pfizer CEO’s take home pay is downright paltry. He could be earning a hell of a lot more elsewhere.
Amit I’m sorry but this one’s kind of obvious: companies advertise because it earns them increased profit. Companies don’t undertake marketing activities if they don’t earn them more money than they would earn otherwise.
It’s a simple prisoner’s dilemma: companies advertise because if their competitors advertised and they didn’t, they’d lose out. But if they were all barred from advertising, then they’d all come out better off.
Eric, I agree with you. $14mil is surprisingly pathetic. His board must have their hands around his throat.
The most egregious statement made since the last time I commented came from dlevy, so I will address it:
Eric, that’s not how profit works.
Here we go…
Profit is what you take home and use to buy homes and yachts
Who collects this profit, dlevy? Let’s go with Pfizer. Who owns Pfizer? Is it the CEO? No, shareholders own Pfizer. Who are the shareholders of Pfizer? People who invested their money, or their clients monies – that’s your mom dad’s mutual fund – so that Pfizer could have the capital to order hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment and hire thousands of researchers. And for what? Mostly to fail, a lot. Scientist risk their reputation, managers risk their careers, investors risk their money, all this risk just to fail, a lot, and maybe even succeed. It’s a beautiful system that rewards success, because their success is our success.
Non-profits reinvest their earnings for the purpose of furthering their work.
That is not true. Non-profit means that taxes are not levied on most revenues. You can make a hefty amount in “non-profit” work. The following figures are from BBB’s Wise Giving Reports. I am listing CEO pay of some famous non-profits:
American Red Cross: $1,183,811
American Cancer Society: $1,101,119
United Way of America: $973,535
Starting to get the picture? Professional non-profit work can be highly lucrative. The above mentioned non-profits operate on a much smaller scale than Pfizer, a company which:
“In 2007… earned $48.4 billion in revenues and invested $8.1 billion in research and development.”
Sure, profit drives a desire to find the next profit-generating product, but let’s not overstate the case.
No, let’s not overstate it. Profit is the ONLY incentive capable of corralling tens of thousands of people into an efficient, streamlined organization which, combined with vast sums of investment in the latest scientific equipment, can produce a little blue pill so that your grandpa and grandma can revisit their youth.
Which non-profit has spent $8.1 billion in one year on biomedical research and development? Which non-profit has spent $1 Billion? Not even the Gates Foundation could keep that up for long.
dlevy, I’m not sure if you understand how for-profits or non-profits work. I’m not sure if you understand how capital markets work. I’m not sure if you understand how biomedical research works. I don’t know what you do understand, quite frankly, but I would ask that before you make such broad remarks in the future, you educate yourself on the issues.
“Professional non-profit work can be highly lucrative.”
I just had milk shoot out of my nose laughing. And I don’t drink milk.
Anonymous and Eric — oh my Lord, you guys are just parroting market principles but not SAYING anything with them. Here, I have an economics degree, let’s have this out:
Yes, profit drives market but where is the line between market efficiency and social equity? (Look up the technical definitions of those words before replying, please, they have specific meanings.) You’ve not addressed the critiques of dlevy or others that our present model can sacrifice a minute bit of efficiency in exchange for broad equity and *still* remain the world’s most unfettered economy. Obama has proposed nothing less.
Case study: Toyota of Japan has 5 layers of management from welder to CEO; meanwhile Ford has (holy shit) 15 layers of redundant management. Their CEO is paid several dozens times their average line worker; Ford’s was several thousands. Yet Toyota can build a car in Japan, ship it across an ocean, sell it for less, and make more profit per car than Ford.
What is Toyota’s advantage? Health care. They don’t have to pay health care for employees, the government does. Notable that it does so well considering that it also lacks those other traits of business so common in American companies: excessive CEO pay, trying to market their way out of shitty products, compensating workers at a level that reduces production quality.
American business is stupid. And we know it. Just take a look at any business literature bookshelf.
Yes, profit drives market
That was for you, dlevy
You’ve not addressed the critiques of dlevy or others that our present model can sacrifice a minute bit of efficiency in exchange for broad equity and *still* remain the world’s most unfettered economy.
Where did “dlevy and others” make such claims?
our present model can sacrifice a minute bit of efficiency in exchange for broad equity and *still* remain the world’s most unfettered economy. Obama has proposed nothing less
Which of Obama’s proposals would do this, exactly?
What is Toyota’s advantage?
Toyota has many advantages. (I would have thought they taught you this for that economics degree?) Chief among these are labor costs and efficiency. Having never had to negotiate a union contract, including benefits and legacy costs, Toyota pays out around $40/hour per employee. GM pays out around $80/hour. Toyota benefits from newer plants and a more leaner network of suppliers, while GM is stuck retrofitting decades old facilities, meanwhile locked into long term parts supply agreements.
You argue that we Americans can sacrifice some market efficiency, and then go on to highlight a company – Toyota – which has fought its way to the top by vigorously pursuing the most efficient business model in the industry! Do you want us to be more like Toyota, or more like GM?
And how do we reward Toyota for its ingenuity? By bailing out and sponsoring the restructuring of its failing competition! GM is simply NOT ALLOWED to fail. That’s about as inefficient as you can get.
Coming from someone with an economics degree, being accused of parroting market principles is an honor. I’m an engineer… you know, a real job, where I am judged on results, not how I feel.
American business is stupid.
And American government is smart.
Lunch time!
Ach, I just erased my own comment.
Where did “dlevy and others” make such claims?
This is what we’re debating: how much efficiency is America willing to sacrifice (via taxation) to benefit society at large (via a national health option)? That’s what Congress is presently trying to do.
Toyota pays out around $40/hour per employee. GM pays out around $80/hour.
Har har har, pounce: that $80 includes health care costs, but Toyota’s $40 does not. You made my own point.
Do you want us to be more like Toyota, or more like GM?
Um, Toyota of course. Except American companies won’t have Toyota’s natural cost structure advantage without nationalized care. And GM is just more and more an example of how (a) American business models are bad and (b) other countries have business-government partnerships that are more efficient AND equitable than our present dynamic.
GM is simply NOT ALLOWED to fail.
The new GM will be much better poised to succeed if it doesn’t have to pay health care…just sayin’! If we don’t address the cost structure foundation, then it will fail against Toyota again.
I’m an engineer
This is turning into a Dilbert comic.
…you know, a real job, where I am judged on results, not how I feel.
As if I’m not?
Nex time I condescend about how to engineer a sproket, I’ll let you school me in your discipline. Tit for tat.
And American government is smart.
I’d say they’re both as “smart” as the other, since they have the same people involved: Americans. However, government has the potential to be moral, wheras the profit motive is notably amoral. That’s why government regulates business.
KFJ – thanks for sticking it to the “I’m an engineer”s of the world. My planned retort was not as good.
We are going to say do your house work before you Criticize the President, this Came from CNN they played this all day but they are not tell you that the President don’t believe in the Bush Tax’s Cut, what they’re saying it is OK to let the Bush Tax’s Cut Expire, all they want is really a Story, they don’t give a dare about the Folks, they to are looking out for themselves, they’ve hung around the Doors in Congress like Buzzards. We have never seen so a lot of BS.