Hmm, still not sure that analogy holds. The used car salesman provides both a good (the used car) and a service (advertising/buying/selling of cars). The used car salesman analogy would apply I think if you were talking about the services provided by the traders themselves to clients. But within the actual trades themselves, theres nothing there.

I think a better analogy for HFT is this: lets say that using an ultra-sensitive, high-speed camera system, you could calculate with a high degree of accuracy the movement of the ball on a roulette wheel. And for whatever reason, this roulette system allowed betting during movement of the roulette wheel. Then I'd say you could make a fair amount of money using this setup if you had an automatic betting system. But I wouldn't say any value is being created here.

In response to your point 1), I think your analogy is flawed. Yes, both cab drivers and waiters don't 'create' anything, but they both provide a service for the money they earn. On the other hand, what useful product/service/etc does HFT provide? What value is created by HFT (other than the $$$ coming out)? Its just shuffling money around and taking advantage of fractional differences in markets. Nothing more than a shell game.

I'm not sure I agree with you. As you say, roads and bridges aren't given to a single person, they're provided for all to use. And police and fire provide a public service as well. But at the same time, all of these, while benefitting society, are also provided to individuals, which you seem to be against. Take for example the fire department - if my house is on fire, the fire department comes to put out the fire. Is this aiding an individual? I'd say arguably yes, while at the same time as aiding society. Sometimes the two go hand in hand. Roads and bridges are the same way... they're a public infrastructure, but used by individuals, for their individual needs (and at different rates of usage, I should add).

So along these same lines, healthcare is arguably a public service. I'm not saying people shouldn't have to pay for it... but like many of the other public services the government provides which most people will likely need and use at one point or another in their lives (roads, bridges, fire, police), the government has the responsibility to provide healthcare as well.

So whats a 'basic level of healthcare'? I'll use France as an example (I live there so I have experience in the system). In France, everybody is automatically covered under 'Security Social' or 'Secu' for short. Essentially, Secu is a system of reimbursement (like insurance) for health care needs. For most things, Secu covers about 60% of the cost, but can cover up to 100% depending on the procedure. However, Secu doesn't cover dental visits, corrective eyewear, or most prescriptions. If you want more coverage on medical procedures, plus dental, presription and eyewear coverage, then you have the option of getting a 'top-up' private insurance (mine for example costs 30€/month).

So as an example, when I go see a general practitioner, I pay 23€ (the cost of a visit at any public general practitioner). If I had just Secu, I would get reimbursed 60% of that about a week later, so the final cost to me is around 9€. With my 'top-up' insurance, I pay 0.

So by your reasoning that the government shouldn't take resources from everyone to pay for things individuals use, the government also shouldn't provide:
-roads
-bridges
-fire/police/EMT services
-water utilities
etc...

I would argue, that healthcare, like many of the other services the government offers, is precisely the type of thing a government should offer for these reasons - A) It is a common, public service. Everyone at some point in their life will need healthcare. EVERYONE. So it stands to reason that if everyone is paying in to a healthcare system, they'll eventually benefit from it. B) The government exists to 'provide for the common Welfare'. It stands to reason that a healthy population, like a robust transport network and public safety, are in the best interests of the government. A healthy population means more productivity, higher GDP growth, less uncertainty among the populace and better overall satisfaction.

Its hard to see any reason why the government should NOT provide a basic level of healthcare as a public service.

Its so darn expensive because hospitals have to subsidize those who come in without insurance with payments from those who do have insurance. So in effect, those with insurance are already paying for everyone else.

If there was a base level of insurance for everybody, a hospital could count on recouping some of their costs for caring for the indigent, and wouldn't have to charge such outrageous fees.

First Post!

So what happens if mail delivery isn't profitable? Do you really think its profitable to deliver mail cheaply as USPS does to po-dunk Alaska? How about having post offices in every community large and small around the country? How profitable would this be? If this was a 'profitable business' model, I'd expect my local FedEx or UPS office to be much closer, instead of having to drive to the outskirts of town to the warehouse district to get a package.

Business doesn't always provide the best solution, especially when we're talking about equal provision of services across the country. It reminds me of the Rural Electrification Act in the '30s. Basically, electricity companies at the time had refused to electrify rural communities and farms because it wasn't profitable to do so. The REA corrected this by providing government backing to provide electricity across the country, and by doing so, greatly raised living standards and productivity of the rural and farm sector.

They have this here in France - order online and stop at the store to pick it up. Since the store itself does pickup only, prices are actually pretty competitive with regular grocery stores, as there is no need to stock, clean and organize aisles for customers. The service is extremely useful for families with young children - it lets them avoid an hour in a regular grocery store with a screaming, cranky kid.

Soviets might have been inferior technology-wise to the West, but in all of the Cold War conventional land battle scenarios I've read, the numerically superior Soviet forces would deplete NATO and US forces within a week. Thats why there was such an emphasis on building up short to medium range nuclear weapons by NATO, as this would be their only hope of fending off any Soviet aggression on the European continent.

And it was NATO who was focused on a defensive war - they had absolutely no way to ever hope of reaching far into Soviet territory in an offensive battle. Their ground forces were sufficient to blunt an initial Soviet attack, and thats about it.

Shoot, I hope there weren't any fallouts around when this guy was killed... I hear those things are nasty!

Yeah, those high speed trains are totally vulnerable... just look at all the fatalities that have occurred on the TGV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents /sarcasm

Ah, so you use the Cropper for your caper to keep the capture of Claude Coopers clean copper clappers he kept in a closet?

Why do you pay 100 times more? Because you're dependent on all the services and roads provided by the government to make that kind of money. And because you have so much more to lose if the protections, stability and infrastructure provided by the government weren't there.

Lets assume you make $1,000,000 in the US. With that salary, you would have a pretty good standard of living. Now, imagine moving to Sudan with that same salary. Looks good at first, since you won't have to pay any of those pesky taxes to the government. But it gets more complicated if you want to keep your standard of living. You're going to have to hire a security force to keep your property safe, bribe some local officials to make sure you have electricity (or buy a generator + fuel), provide your own water and sewage system, etc. Pretty much everything you take for granted will have to be paid for separately... and I'm guessing it wont be cheap.

So the rich *should* pay more taxes because their use of the infrastructure, protection and stability provided by the govt has enabled them to make more. And providing for the poor with taxes is actually beneficial in the long run! Give the poor enough money to live, and enough stability in their lives (medicare, education, etc), will help prevent them for looking for money elsewhere (i.e. breaking into your mansion and stealing crap). Less crime = smaller need for police funding.

Thats indeed the case. Here in France, you have an account of days off. If you get sick for a day, you take a day off out of that account. However, if you have the flu, or something serious, your doctor can give you a note stating your needed recovery time, and you will be able to take that time off without burning vacation days.

Good article on the flaws of using GDP per capita to measure quality of life: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16GDP-t.html?pagewanted=all

That being said, 'socialist' Europe comes out way ahead when you consider the amount of vacation and leisure time all workers get, 'free' education, cheaper health-care, better public transport, etc (all which generally would decrease the GDP per capita).