Oops! Sorry little guy, Obama screws you again.
- Thread starter ChkitOut
- Start date
Quote from bigdavediode:
"[I'm] Extremely fiscally conservative."
dave claims to be fiscally conservative??
I'm curious, how does a tow the party line flaming liberal make such a claim?
Oh Davie, how would you propose Obama care gets paid for, without increasing the budget deficit of course? And don't tell me yet another behemoth federal bureaucracy isn't going to increase the deficit without taking significant counter measures.
Same question for dealing with your MMGW?
For that matter how do you propose we balance the budget?
And please, be specific.
"[I'm] Extremely fiscally conservative."
dave claims to be fiscally conservative??
I'm curious, how does a tow the party line flaming liberal make such a claim?
Oh Davie, how would you propose Obama care gets paid for, without increasing the budget deficit of course? And don't tell me yet another behemoth federal bureaucracy isn't going to increase the deficit without taking significant counter measures.
Same question for dealing with your MMGW?
For that matter how do you propose we balance the budget?
And please, be specific.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQFEY9RIRJA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQFEY9RIRJA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Sigh. Most HDI measures use GDP at PPP. Since you're a wikipedia fan it even says that in the Wikipedia article. PPP is also referred to as "purchasing power parity" to accommodate for different costs of goods. As well, life expectancy includes things like cancer survivors.
So yes, it does include things like prices, goods and cancer survivors.
Okay, be honest now -- how many people here who don't even know what PPP is are "investors?"
Well that's absolutely correct. The fact that you see these pregnant women as freeloaders illustrates that you value independence over maternal health. Nothing wrong with that -- well, I wouldn't, but apart from any moral judgment -- that helps to explain a prevailing attitude of why many US states do worse than places like Cuba or Uruguay for prenatal care.
In Uruguay, for example ('cause you guys freak out so badly if I bring up Cuba) there is no charge and afaik few barriers to prenatal care, whereas in Alabama or other states there are forms to complete because society in the US is more concerned with payment and subsidization concerns than 100% prenatal care.
Quote from Trader666:
littledaviedumbass claims he's "extremely fiscally conservative" yet he slanders taxpayers who provide Medicaid because he apparently feels welfare should be bigger and better
Well what costs more? Prenatal care or lifetime care for a disabled child or crippled mother?
Yes, the fiscally conservative choice is "an ounce of prevention." It's also the moral choice.
We do know what PPP is, that's why we know it doesn't mean much. It's based on false assumptions, and nobody even takes it to normalize for actual costs of living anymore, except for maybe you. PPP doesn't include housing prices (the largest expense of a household). PPP basically just factors out any exchange rate differential. It also doesn't include income taxes, consumption/vat taxes, which are HUGE factors.
No HDI doesn't include cancer survival rates, it just includes average lifespan. Cancer survival has nothing to do with the HDI calculation. The fact is the united states has higher cancer survival rates than europe or canada.
Since you can not educate yourself, I'll do it for you.
The main reasons why different measures do not perfectly reflect standards of living are
PPP numbers can vary with the specific basket of goods used, making it a rough estimate.
Differences in quality of goods are hard to measure and thereby reflect in PPP.
PPP calculations are often used to measure poverty rates.
The goods that the currency has the "power" to purchase are a basket of goods of different types:
Local, non-tradable goods and services (like electric power) that are produced and sold domestically.
Tradable goods such as non-perishable commodities that can be sold on the international market (e.g. diamonds).
The more a product falls into category 1 the further its price will be from the currency exchange rate. (Moving towards the PPP exchange rate.) Conversely, category 2 products tend to trade close to the currency exchange rate. (For more details of why, see: Penn effect).
More processed and expensive products are likely to be tradable, falling into the second category, and drifting from the PPP exchange rate to the currency exchange rate. Even if the PPP "value" of the Chinese currency is five times stronger than the currency exchange rate, it won't buy five times as much of internationally traded goods like steel, cars and microchips, but non-traded goods like housing, services ("haircuts"), and domestically produced crops. The relative price differential between tradables and non-tradables from high-income to low-income countries is a consequence of the Balassa-Samuelson effect, and gives a big cost advantage to labour intensive production of tradable goods in low income countries (like China), as against high income countries (like Switzerland). The corporate cost advantage is nothing more sophisticated than access to cheaper workers, but because the pay of those workers goes further in low-income countries than high, the relative pay differentials (inter-country) can be sustained for longer than would be the case otherwise. (This is another way of saying that the wage rate is based on average local productivity, and that this is below the per capita productivity that factories selling tradable goods to international markets can achieve.) An equivalent cost benefit comes from non-traded goods that can be sourced locally (nearer the PPP-exchange rate than the nominal exchange rate in which receipts are paid). These act as a cheaper factor of production than is available to factories in richer countries.
PPP calculations tend to overemphasise the primary sectoral contribution, and underemphasise the industrial and service sectoral contributions to the economy of a nation.
In addition to methodological issues presented by the selection of a basket of goods, PPP estimates can also vary based on the statistical capacity of participating countries. The International Comparison Program, which PPP estimates are based off, require the disaggregation of national accounts into production, expenditure or (in some cases) income, and not all participating countries routinely disaggregate their data into such categories.
Some aspects of PPP comparison are theoretically impossible or unclear. For example, there is no basis for comparison between the Ethiopian laborer who lives on teff with the Thai laborer who lives on rice, because teff is impossible to find in Thailand and vice versa, so the price of rice in Ethiopia or teff in Thailand cannot be determined. As a general rule, the more similar the price structure between countries, the more valid the PPP comparison.
PPP levels will also vary based on the formula used to calculate price matrices. Different possible formulas include GEKS-Fisher, Geary-Khamis, IDB, and the superlative method. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
Linking regions presents another methodological difficulty. In the 2005 ICP round, regions were compared by using a list of some 1,000 identical items for which a price could be found for 18 countries, selected so that at least two countries would be in each region. While this was superior to earlier "bridging" methods, which is not fully take into account differing quality between goods, it may serve to overstate the PPP basis of poorer countries, because the price indexing on which PPP is based will assign to poorer countries the greater weight of goods consumed in greater shares in richer countries.
No HDI doesn't include cancer survival rates, it just includes average lifespan. Cancer survival has nothing to do with the HDI calculation. The fact is the united states has higher cancer survival rates than europe or canada.
Since you can not educate yourself, I'll do it for you.
The main reasons why different measures do not perfectly reflect standards of living are
PPP numbers can vary with the specific basket of goods used, making it a rough estimate.
Differences in quality of goods are hard to measure and thereby reflect in PPP.
PPP calculations are often used to measure poverty rates.
The goods that the currency has the "power" to purchase are a basket of goods of different types:
Local, non-tradable goods and services (like electric power) that are produced and sold domestically.
Tradable goods such as non-perishable commodities that can be sold on the international market (e.g. diamonds).
The more a product falls into category 1 the further its price will be from the currency exchange rate. (Moving towards the PPP exchange rate.) Conversely, category 2 products tend to trade close to the currency exchange rate. (For more details of why, see: Penn effect).
More processed and expensive products are likely to be tradable, falling into the second category, and drifting from the PPP exchange rate to the currency exchange rate. Even if the PPP "value" of the Chinese currency is five times stronger than the currency exchange rate, it won't buy five times as much of internationally traded goods like steel, cars and microchips, but non-traded goods like housing, services ("haircuts"), and domestically produced crops. The relative price differential between tradables and non-tradables from high-income to low-income countries is a consequence of the Balassa-Samuelson effect, and gives a big cost advantage to labour intensive production of tradable goods in low income countries (like China), as against high income countries (like Switzerland). The corporate cost advantage is nothing more sophisticated than access to cheaper workers, but because the pay of those workers goes further in low-income countries than high, the relative pay differentials (inter-country) can be sustained for longer than would be the case otherwise. (This is another way of saying that the wage rate is based on average local productivity, and that this is below the per capita productivity that factories selling tradable goods to international markets can achieve.) An equivalent cost benefit comes from non-traded goods that can be sourced locally (nearer the PPP-exchange rate than the nominal exchange rate in which receipts are paid). These act as a cheaper factor of production than is available to factories in richer countries.
PPP calculations tend to overemphasise the primary sectoral contribution, and underemphasise the industrial and service sectoral contributions to the economy of a nation.
In addition to methodological issues presented by the selection of a basket of goods, PPP estimates can also vary based on the statistical capacity of participating countries. The International Comparison Program, which PPP estimates are based off, require the disaggregation of national accounts into production, expenditure or (in some cases) income, and not all participating countries routinely disaggregate their data into such categories.
Some aspects of PPP comparison are theoretically impossible or unclear. For example, there is no basis for comparison between the Ethiopian laborer who lives on teff with the Thai laborer who lives on rice, because teff is impossible to find in Thailand and vice versa, so the price of rice in Ethiopia or teff in Thailand cannot be determined. As a general rule, the more similar the price structure between countries, the more valid the PPP comparison.
PPP levels will also vary based on the formula used to calculate price matrices. Different possible formulas include GEKS-Fisher, Geary-Khamis, IDB, and the superlative method. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
Linking regions presents another methodological difficulty. In the 2005 ICP round, regions were compared by using a list of some 1,000 identical items for which a price could be found for 18 countries, selected so that at least two countries would be in each region. While this was superior to earlier "bridging" methods, which is not fully take into account differing quality between goods, it may serve to overstate the PPP basis of poorer countries, because the price indexing on which PPP is based will assign to poorer countries the greater weight of goods consumed in greater shares in richer countries.
I would cap the military budget at the total of the top three countries in the world for military expenditures.
I would slowly change the tax structure to match the 1950's or 60's.
The health care budget is actually deficit negative, so that doesn't concern me. And as I stated above prevention is cheaper than cure.
I would index SS rates to income.
I would partially uncap the payroll tax or change the tax rate slightly (or a combination of the two); gradually increase the retirement age to 68; and adjust the inflation calculation for annual benefits slightly. Also I would reduce benefits for high earners.
I would eliminate farm subsidies. Slowly.
I would slash doctor's reimbursements from Medicare, and if they didn't like it, I would outsource Medicare doctor's services to high end clinics in Mexico. I would create a public option which would drive insurance companies' rates into the ground.
I would eliminate the Republicans' prescription drug benefit for high earners, and I would mandate caps on prescription drug costs by averaging other countries' retail prescription drug cost for the same medication. (Thus reducing expenditures on pharmaceuticals.)
I would mandate no private election expenditures by corporations, nor their principals, nor their directors by legislating that corporations are no longer people under the law. (Thus preventing future holes in the budget.) I recognize this one is problematic.
Yes, the PPP isn't entirely accurate. However, despite your arm waving, it DOES INCLUDE a basket of goods to accommodate for differing costs. Some HDI measures include standard PPP, some include the Big Mac Index, or other methods of adjusting for costs. And yes, life expectancy includes cancer survival rates -- if the cancer survivors were dead, then life expectancy would be lower. Think about it.
Are you going to wave your arms this much every single time you're proven wrong? It gets boring, especially when you cut and paste an entire page of text.
What's absolutely correct? That you're a disingenuous troll?
Also, I said SOME are freeloaders -- which is a fact -- so don't misrepresent me. And that doesn't illustrate that I "value independence over maternal health," it illustrates that I value work over welfare and personal responsibility over a nanny state.
Also, I said SOME are freeloaders -- which is a fact -- so don't misrepresent me. And that doesn't illustrate that I "value independence over maternal health," it illustrates that I value work over welfare and personal responsibility over a nanny state.