To be clear, this logic only applies during a recession, and more specifically when resources (both labor and capital) appropriate to these tasks are unemployed. Under normal circumstances, requiring firms to hire people to do one thing will divert resources from other activities, rather than leading to the employment of idle resources.
Observation: regulations are always job-killing, entrepreneur-slaying burdens. Also, regulations are pointless because clever entrepreneurs will always find a way around them. Something isn’t clicking here.
Perhaps not strictly correct in all cases, but certainly not contradictory. Profit-maximizing behavior under regulations is often not in keeping the original intention of said regulations--i.e., people find a way around them. But they are a drag on the economy, because while the workarounds may be optimal from a private perspective, they often entail rent-seeking and/or deadweight loss.
I'd like to add, also, that the Interstate Highway System is one of the top ten examples libertarians and federalists are given of why we're wrong, wrong, wrong, and we can't live without an activist federal government.
It's arguably not a subsidy to trucking companies at all, but rather a subsidy to consumers of goods shipped by truck. In a competitive (yes, even imperfectly) industry, when a subsidy is made available to all firms on a more-or-less equal basis, there is a one-time subsidy to the firms which move quickly to take advantage of it, but once competitors jump in, profits normalize and the subsidy is passed through to consumers.
Though arguably this has a lot to do with the fact that pizza has a shelf life of about half an hour and thus has to be made locally and can't benefit from economies of scale nearly as well as canned and bottled beverages can. If you look at the market for soft drinks, the picture looks very similar to beer, with three big-name brands (Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper-Snapple) with almot 90% market share and a bunch of bit players dividing up the rest.
Colloquially, pedophilia refers not only to a sexual preference for children, but also to the actual act of child molestation. It's technically imprecise, but was this really worth calling out?
I think you can, if by "pro-life" you mean pro-innocent-life. One possible way that sentiment can manifest itself is by a strong desire, even enthusiasm, for vengeance against those who commit murder.
I think that the political context is a factor, too. There are people who want to put murderers to death. And there are other people who want to stop them from doing so. I suspect that the applause is as much for Perry basically telling that latter group of people to go to hell as it is for the executions themselves.
Well, yes. I have no objection to the claim that repealing those regulations was a good thing. I do object to the claim that it's a good thing that the composition of beer is so strictly regulated in Germany because it means that breweries aren't allowed to make the kind of beer he doesn't like.
A 2006BBC story listed additives typically found in corporate beer, none of which you’ll find in the stuff brewed in Germany: betaglucanase, ammonia caramel, rhoiso-alpha acids, sulphur dioxide, protease, amyloglucosidase, propylene glycol alginate, and silicone. Nor will German beers ever be dumbed down with cheap filler grains like corn and rice, which are part of the reason American brews like Bud and Miller taste so insipid.
I'm having trouble not reading this as "Stupid rednecks who can't tell a good beer from donkey piss chose to support companies which produce cheap beer that I don't like over more expensive beer that I do like."
The real problem, it should be obvious in retrospect, isn't that mass-market breweries were allowed to produce products that Tom Philpott doesn't like---it's that niche breweries weren't allowed to produce products he does like.
If self-employment isn't an option for you, then my comment wasn't about you. I was specifically responding to the claim that the cost of health insurance is a particularly insurmountable barrier to entrepreneurialism.
I did some more research, and it turns out that Washington's in the minority on this. All but a handful of states do allow insurers to ask about pre-existing conditions, even for those who've maintained continuous coverage.
In the state of Washington, at least, I don't think insurers are even allowed to ask about pre-existing conditions if you've maintained uninterrupted coverage. And all states have COBRA, and most have high-risk pools for people who have been denied insurance on the individual market.
And really, how many people meet all of the following criteria?
1. Can't obtain health insurance on the individual market.
2. Are healthy enough to start a business.
3. Want to start a business.
4. Are ineligible for COBRA coverage due to employer size.
5. Live in states which do not have high-risk pools and which permit insurers to ask about pre-existing conditions for people with continuous coverage.
I can see how people who already think that single-payer health care is a great idea might regard this as a killer argument in its favor. But there are solutions to this problem that don't involve socializing the entire health insurance industry.
That's about what I expected. Maybe a bit more. I don't really see that it invalidates anything I've said in this thread.
First off, you seem to be assuming that if you were self-employed, you'd be making what you make now, only without the health insurance. I don't see any reason to expect that particular outcome. It's not like your employer gives you an insurance subsidy as a gift because you're such a swell guy. As part of your total compensation package, it comes out of your cash income.
Assuming that you'd be just as productive on your own, you should expect to make as cash what your current employer is paying for your health insurance. Of course, in reality you might be significantly more or less productive, and you probably don't know for sure what you'd actually be making. I mean, unless the nature of the market for whatever you do is such that you can accurately predict what your income would be if you were self-employed.
Really, though, I would think that the uncertainty about how much you'd be making if you were self-employed should be a bigger factor than the health insurance costs.
The coverage is adequate for my needs. There's a $3500 deductible and $5000 out-of-pocket limit, which is fine because I want insurance, not a middleman for routine expenses. And the premium is actually offset by the tax savings for the HSA the plan qualifies me for, so I'm basically getting the insurance for free.
Have you actually researched the cost of obtaining health insurance on the individual market? What would it cost you, as a percentage of the total of your other living expenses?
If I didn't have any money saved up, then I wouldn't be able to pay any of my other living expenses, either.
My point is that for all but the very ill, health insurance premiums are a tiny to smallish fraction of total living expenses. The idea that health insurance is a unique obstacle to entrepreneurialism seems to me to be on very shaky ground. Do you also think that we need single-payer housing and single-payer food?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Unleashing the power of capitalism on talk radio”
To be clear, this logic only applies during a recession, and more specifically when resources (both labor and capital) appropriate to these tasks are unemployed. Under normal circumstances, requiring firms to hire people to do one thing will divert resources from other activities, rather than leading to the employment of idle resources.
"
Observation: regulations are always job-killing, entrepreneur-slaying burdens. Also, regulations are pointless because clever entrepreneurs will always find a way around them. Something isn’t clicking here.
Perhaps not strictly correct in all cases, but certainly not contradictory. Profit-maximizing behavior under regulations is often not in keeping the original intention of said regulations--i.e., people find a way around them. But they are a drag on the economy, because while the workarounds may be optimal from a private perspective, they often entail rent-seeking and/or deadweight loss.
On “The fact that I’m a beer snob is beside the point”
I'd like to add, also, that the Interstate Highway System is one of the top ten examples libertarians and federalists are given of why we're wrong, wrong, wrong, and we can't live without an activist federal government.
"
It's arguably not a subsidy to trucking companies at all, but rather a subsidy to consumers of goods shipped by truck. In a competitive (yes, even imperfectly) industry, when a subsidy is made available to all firms on a more-or-less equal basis, there is a one-time subsidy to the firms which move quickly to take advantage of it, but once competitors jump in, profits normalize and the subsidy is passed through to consumers.
"
I strongly suspect that most people will enjoy any taste they've learned to associate with getting drunk.
"
Though arguably this has a lot to do with the fact that pizza has a shelf life of about half an hour and thus has to be made locally and can't benefit from economies of scale nearly as well as canned and bottled beverages can. If you look at the market for soft drinks, the picture looks very similar to beer, with three big-name brands (Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper-Snapple) with almot 90% market share and a bunch of bit players dividing up the rest.
On “There Will Be Blood”
Colloquially, pedophilia refers not only to a sexual preference for children, but also to the actual act of child molestation. It's technically imprecise, but was this really worth calling out?
"
Obviously not. Are you going anywhere with this?
"
I think you can, if by "pro-life" you mean pro-innocent-life. One possible way that sentiment can manifest itself is by a strong desire, even enthusiasm, for vengeance against those who commit murder.
I think that the political context is a factor, too. There are people who want to put murderers to death. And there are other people who want to stop them from doing so. I suspect that the applause is as much for Perry basically telling that latter group of people to go to hell as it is for the executions themselves.
"
Arguably it's a requirement to functioning as a politician.
On “Craft Beer and the Human Economy”
Well, yes. I have no objection to the claim that repealing those regulations was a good thing. I do object to the claim that it's a good thing that the composition of beer is so strictly regulated in Germany because it means that breweries aren't allowed to make the kind of beer he doesn't like.
"
Also, "dumbed down?" Is drinking beer now an intellectual pursuit?
"
A 2006BBC story listed additives typically found in corporate beer, none of which you’ll find in the stuff brewed in Germany: betaglucanase, ammonia caramel, rhoiso-alpha acids, sulphur dioxide, protease, amyloglucosidase, propylene glycol alginate, and silicone. Nor will German beers ever be dumbed down with cheap filler grains like corn and rice, which are part of the reason American brews like Bud and Miller taste so insipid.
I'm having trouble not reading this as "Stupid rednecks who can't tell a good beer from donkey piss chose to support companies which produce cheap beer that I don't like over more expensive beer that I do like."
The real problem, it should be obvious in retrospect, isn't that mass-market breweries were allowed to produce products that Tom Philpott doesn't like---it's that niche breweries weren't allowed to produce products he does like.
On “Aging boomer trends”
That there's some pretty hardcore prole drift.
On “What’s Your “Go-To” Lesson in Politics?”
You can’t go to the bathroom without passing a salsa stand (much worse than passing a kidney stone).
I kind of suspected that you were a closet Marxist.
On “Friday Night Jukebox: Japan Edition”
More at my blog, which I really ought to get back to updating.
Also! Yutaka Ozaki's "Tainted Bond."
On “We Need Countercyclical Spending, Not Counterintuitive Spending Cuts”
What this guy said.
Also, I'm not convinced that failure of governance isn't an inevitability, at least in the context of mass democracy.
On “Misguided Attack on Libertarians (Prompts Some Reasonable Discussion)”
Isn't "organize for political purposes" very often a euphemism for conspiring to violate the rights of others?
On “Unions and Corporations”
If self-employment isn't an option for you, then my comment wasn't about you. I was specifically responding to the claim that the cost of health insurance is a particularly insurmountable barrier to entrepreneurialism.
"
See my other comments in this thread for a response to your first paragraph.
Maybe you’re just way smarter than everyone else though.
Apparently you and Corey Robin think so.
"
I did some more research, and it turns out that Washington's in the minority on this. All but a handful of states do allow insurers to ask about pre-existing conditions, even for those who've maintained continuous coverage.
"
In the state of Washington, at least, I don't think insurers are even allowed to ask about pre-existing conditions if you've maintained uninterrupted coverage. And all states have COBRA, and most have high-risk pools for people who have been denied insurance on the individual market.
And really, how many people meet all of the following criteria?
1. Can't obtain health insurance on the individual market.
2. Are healthy enough to start a business.
3. Want to start a business.
4. Are ineligible for COBRA coverage due to employer size.
5. Live in states which do not have high-risk pools and which permit insurers to ask about pre-existing conditions for people with continuous coverage.
I can see how people who already think that single-payer health care is a great idea might regard this as a killer argument in its favor. But there are solutions to this problem that don't involve socializing the entire health insurance industry.
"
That's about what I expected. Maybe a bit more. I don't really see that it invalidates anything I've said in this thread.
First off, you seem to be assuming that if you were self-employed, you'd be making what you make now, only without the health insurance. I don't see any reason to expect that particular outcome. It's not like your employer gives you an insurance subsidy as a gift because you're such a swell guy. As part of your total compensation package, it comes out of your cash income.
Assuming that you'd be just as productive on your own, you should expect to make as cash what your current employer is paying for your health insurance. Of course, in reality you might be significantly more or less productive, and you probably don't know for sure what you'd actually be making. I mean, unless the nature of the market for whatever you do is such that you can accurately predict what your income would be if you were self-employed.
Really, though, I would think that the uncertainty about how much you'd be making if you were self-employed should be a bigger factor than the health insurance costs.
"
The coverage is adequate for my needs. There's a $3500 deductible and $5000 out-of-pocket limit, which is fine because I want insurance, not a middleman for routine expenses. And the premium is actually offset by the tax savings for the HSA the plan qualifies me for, so I'm basically getting the insurance for free.
Have you actually researched the cost of obtaining health insurance on the individual market? What would it cost you, as a percentage of the total of your other living expenses?
"
If I didn't have any money saved up, then I wouldn't be able to pay any of my other living expenses, either.
My point is that for all but the very ill, health insurance premiums are a tiny to smallish fraction of total living expenses. The idea that health insurance is a unique obstacle to entrepreneurialism seems to me to be on very shaky ground. Do you also think that we need single-payer housing and single-payer food?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.