Justice Roberts: I Am A Coward

[Voodoo-king]

Quote from Ricter:

When I see this kind of statement in the context of human behavior I'm always immediately suspicious. Humans bring their values to every calculation, so what are the values not mentioned in your statement, I wonder; it appears to bridge indifferent calculations of energy efficiency with... laissez faire economics?

Hacking out some approaches, efficacy comes to mind, and the time over which simple efficiency is measured, and barriers to entry, and the time value of money, and to whom the benefits of improved efficiency/efficacy accrue.

So, when you say "simply means energy has more efficient uses elsewhere", do you mean, more efficient cooling uses elsewhere?

productive capacity can be understood as energy, if something is more costly to produce it takes more energy to produce, a more efficient AC will be built if energy savings are greater than energy costs.

incentivising the building of only a slightly more efficient AC by subsidy or penalty will by necessity create an energy loss.

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from Free Thinker:

exactly. there are some things a competitive market cant handle. no manufacturer wants to be the first to build air conditioners that are more effecient because they cost more. if they built them they would be at a competitive disadvantage. but if the government sets minimum standards all manufactures have an even playing field.
when i was in business i wanted to give my employees health insurance. i eventually did but it was tough. most of my competitors did not so they had a cost advantage over me. every time i bid a job i had a tough time making money. if the government had mandated that everyone furnish health insurance the playing field would have been level.

why stop there why not have the govt dictate the amount you can pay your employees . how many contracts you can bid on, how much profit you can make etc etc all in the name of creating a level playing field.

Sounds great eh?

Then it comes, somebody who has the right skin color (or some other preferred class attribute) is more equal than you so he gets breaks you don't "just to make things fair" .

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:



Then it comes, somebody who has the right skin color (or some other preferred class attribute) is more equal than you so he gets breaks you don't "just to make things fair" .

I knew, sooner or later, we would get to the crux of your ultimate position. It always come down to this, doesn't it?

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from RCG Trader:

I knew, sooner or later, we would get to the crux of your ultimate position. It always come down to this, doesn't it?

1) It seems he's advocating for a return of the NRA

About 23 million people were employed under the NRA codes. However, violations of codes became common and attempts were made to use the courts to enforce the NRA. The NRA included a multitude of regulations imposing the pricing and production standards for all sorts of goods and services. Individuals were arrested for not complying with these codes. For example, one small businessman was fined for violating the "Tailor's Code" by pressing a suit for 35 rather than NRA required 40 cents. Roosevelt critic John T. Flynn, in The Roosevelt Myth (1944), wrote:

“ The NRA was discovering it could not enforce its rules. Black markets grew up. Only the most violent police methods could procure enforcement. In Sidney Hillman’s garment industry the code authority employed enforcement police. They roamed through the garment district like storm troopers. They could enter a man’s factory, send him out, line up his employees, subject them to minute interrogation, take over his books on the instant. Night work was forbidden. Flying squadrons of these private coat-and-suit police went through the district at night, battering down doors with axes looking for men who were committing the crime of sewing together a pair of pants at night. But without these harsh methods many code authorities said there could be no compliance because the public was not back of it. ”
The NRA was famous for its bureaucracy. Journalist Raymond Clapper reported that between 4,000 and 5,000 business practices were prohibited by NRA orders that carried the force of law, which were contained in some 3,000 administrative orders running to over 10 million pages, and supplemented by what Clapper said were "innumerable opinions and directions from national, regional and code boards interpreting and enforcing provisions of the act." There were also "the rules of the code authorities, themselves, each having the force of law and affecting the lives and conduct of millions of persons." Clapper concluded: "It requires no imagination to appreciate the difficulty the business man has in keeping informed of these codes, supplemental codes, code amendments, executive orders, administrative orders, office orders, interpretations, rules, regulations and obiter dicta."[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration
[edit]Judicial review

2) It's designed to end competition and limit business newcomers.
3) couple the govt's tendency towards the nra and special favors to preferred groups and all sense of impartiality and equality transforms into a cesspool blend of fascism and corruption ruled by political favoritism . I call it the anti-market

 

[nutmeg]

With the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare recently given the green light by the highest court in the land, the contest for the office of the president just got more interesting. Back in a 2009 interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Obama made sure to point out that the individual mandate within the Affordable Care Act which forces almost all Americans to purchase health insurance was not a tax. From the interview transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. ….we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

--------------------------------------------------------

Question I have unrelated to the tax issue.

Obama says you get hit by a bus. If you get hit by a bus the bus co insurance pays your medical costs, not your personal health insurance. Now if you get hit by a bus while on the job, workmans comp is going to pay your medical costs, not your personal health insurance.

So is WC and the bus co insurance getting a free pass?

 

[piezoe]

Quote from nutmeg:


Question I have unrelated to the tax issue.

Obama says you get hit by a bus. If you get hit by a bus the bus co insurance pays your medical costs, not your personal health insurance. Now if you get hit by a bus while on the job, workmans comp is going to pay your medical costs, not your personal health insurance.

So is WC and the bus co insurance getting a free pass?

That's a good question. I suppose the answer is somewhere in the 1000 pages of the ACAl. Maybe we are supposed to wait and see what's in the act as Nancy suggested.

Re Obama saying: "No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."

This is not much different from any other politician saying "I'll fight any raise in your taxes." and then going right ahead and spending money we don't have and then you and I having to pay even more than a direct tax, because of the interest, in the form of inflation.

Wouldn't we all be better off if politicians would just fess up and speak the truth? Of course the reason they don't is that they have learned that most Americans are gullible, and if you lie to them and tell them you won't raise their taxes they will vote for you.

Most politicians lie outright, or severely stretch the truth if you prefer. Obama is no different. But the Court wasn't fooled, and the majority got it right when they recognized that no matter the label, it is still a tax.

With regard to the "contest for... president... [getting] more interesting" I suppose you're right in that both candidates have advocated everyone getting health insurance or paying a tax penalty. As for Romney trying to draw a distinction between national legislation and state legislation to achieve essentially the same thing, as if that was a good idea, is ridiculous. Doing this kind of thing State by State would create even more chaos.

The contest between Romney and Obama may come down to which candidate is the more skilled liar. So far, Obama seems to have the edge.

 

[pspr]

Quote from nutmeg:

With the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare.....

I think we need to rename ObamaCare to ObamaRobertsCare.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from pspr:

I think we need to rename ObamaCare to ObamaRobertsCare.

Or even more accurate RomneyObamaRobertsCare

 

[piezoe]

Quote from mrbill:

Of course they should legalize drugs, lower the prison rate, save zillion $$ on the drug war. But then the big pharm companies wouldn't be happy.

Look everyone, I hate partisan politics, but admit I'm a social liberal. I don't want gov't in my bedroom, or telling me about God. I don't want gov't telling women what to do about sex or lack thereof. We should come together on the things we agree about instead of just fighting because we have to based on Obama or Romney or whatever.

You are far too sensible, therefore you must be a socialist libtard.