Yes, single payer would fix some problems, but it would also create a lot of new ones. The problem with a single payer system is that if the government pays, then the government sets the price. Therefore, advocating single payer is the same as advocating that every health care service be price controlled. The problem with price controls is always the same: if the price is too high, we will have a surplus, and if the price is too low, we will have a shortage.

The government, in order to keep taxation levels from skyrocketing, will probably set the prices too low and create shortages. These shortages are likely to be exacerbated by the inevitable increased demand that comes when people no longer have to spend their own money. People will have every reason to consume as much healthcare as they can get their hands on, and they will have no financial reason to moderate risky and unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking and overeating. In summary, we can expect many shortages (i.e. rationing, wait lists, etc.) in a single payer system.

The fundamental problem here is that the government has coupled health care and employers together. For some strange reason, the ACA did not fix this problem. We need to decouple health care and employers by eliminating the tax break that employers get. If we do that, then we'll no longer care what health care plan our employer offers, just as we don't care what car insurance plan our employer offers.

How often are these things "sudden"? The process of automation is not developed and deployed overnight. It is up to you, as a worker in an industry, to stay informed of the threats to your job security by new technological advancements. As the possibility of automation gets closer to reality, you should be preparing for your next job while you still have a stable income, as opposed to sticking your head in the sand and hoping the world doesn't change around you.

It sounds like we have a very basic disagreement here on the definition of words. I mean, I don't understand why you would say that Reserves (with a capital R?) are a debt instrument. Reserves are not a debt instrument. They are money, ready to be loaned out at any time. And if money is not "highly liquid", then I don't know what is.

Also, this entire thread started because you claimed that the Fed doesn't "print money", and I still don't understand how you can say that. If I go to a printing press and print money, then I have "printed money". And if I do the same thing electronically, then I have still "printed money". If I spend that money to buy assets, you can call my transaction an "asset swap", but clearly my "asset swap" was preceded by "money printing".

What? We do have such a mechanism. Reserves enter the economy whenever banks loan out those reserves. After all, the word "reserve" means "Something kept back or saved for future use or a special purpose." If a reserve can never be used as a loan in the future or in the case of an emergency, then in what sense is it a "reserve"?

Reserves do not constrain bank lending, but lack of reserves do in a system with minimum reserve requirements. Adding reserves does not necessarily increase bank lending, but adding reserves immediately increases the potential amount of lending.

Yes, because of the Fed. The Fed inflated the monetary base like crazy, and then paid interest to the banks to hold on to those excess reserves. Because of that, excess reserves went from 2 billion in 2008 to 1.8 trillion now.

So, what happens when interest rates start to rise and the economy starts to improve? Suddenly, the Fed's 0.25 interest rate is not going to be enough to keep the banks from loaning out all of those excess reserves. And that's when the inflation crisis is really going to take off. Check out this article if you want to know more.

Are you talking about Operation Twist? That began in September, 2011 and ended in December, 2012, and that was always in addition to QE. QE, or quantitative easing, is when the Fed buys fixed-income securities on the open market. So, you are correct that the Fed is swapping assets, if you mean they are swapping "newly printed money" in exchange for "mortgage-backed securities/U.S. Treasuries".

Anyway, have you seen what has been happening to the monetary base since 2008? If that is not "rapidly printing money", then what is?

Greenspan caused interest rates to fall by printing money. Low interest rate, in a system rife with government-created moral hazard (FDIC, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc.), is a recipe for disaster. The Fed is really less of a firefighter and more of a pyromaniac.

Of course, all of this money printing hasn't led to a big spike in consumer prices, nor has it been able to push the unemployment rate below 7% for almost 5 years now. But, we'll have to see what happens when the Fed starts tapering. My guess is that the economy will start tanking, and then it will be time for QE4. And, much like a drug addict, we'll need a larger dose if we want to stay high. How many doses do we need before stagflation begins? I'm not sure, but I know we'll find out.

Zimmerman's claim is that he got out of the car and walked in the same direction to see the name of the street to phone it in. If true, that would explain why he didn't argue with the operator.

So, unless he is lying, he didn't "chase down" Martin. I suppose you could argue that Martin felt threatened when Zimmerman reached into his pocket to get his cellphone. But that argument only makes sense if you start with the assumption that any civilian who shoots an unarmed teenager must be in the wrong and you reason backwards from there.

Um, how about spending as a percent of GDP? Here is a link.

If a robot takes care of all of your needs, why do you need a job in the first place?

You might reply, "But I don't have a robot." Okay, so go to to one of the employable people (scientists, artists, etc.) and say, "I notice that you happen to have an army of robots. Could you do me a small favor, and have one of your robots build me a robot? I will then take that robot and have it build robots for all of my friends, and anyone else who wants one. You can raise us all out of poverty, and you won't even have to a lift a single finger!" Given the large number of people who will have robots, I'm sure you will be able to find at least one person willing to do such a small, trivial favor for you.

In a world of robots, only a small fraction of wealth is needed to meet the needs of the unemployable. There is no need for socialism.

There is no such thing as peaceful taxation.

The government owns the roads, which means it controls who can dig up the roads in order to run cable. Local governments use their road monopoly to stifle ISP competition. Local governments justify this stifling by using your "natural monopoly" theory. In other words, the natural monopoly theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You control your property. You should decide what makes sense and what doesn't. Perhaps if we never had "right-of-way" laws (which usurp individual property rights), people would insist on owning the cable running through their properties. And even if people were content to allow cable companies to own the actual cable, cable companies would still be more inclined to be more competitive in such a scenario, because of the constant threat that individual property owners could choose to run a second line at any time (Oh no, two cables in the ground! The horror! Who would have thought that competition involved duplication?)

There is nothing natural about the way our infrastructure has evolved.

First off, it doesn't hurt anyone to be able to trade quickly. I'm not saying it is necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything. Think of the stock market like an auction. At an auction, does it matter if someone is able to bid quickly? No. Let them make their bid as quickly as they want. You can respond by making an even higher bid.

That being said, the current latency war is indeed unnecessary. It is caused by SEC Rule 612, also known as the Sub-Penny Rule. This rule prevents market makers from competing on price, so they are forced to compete on speed. For more information, see Part 1 and Part 2 of "A High Frequency Trader's Apology".

Okay, suppose these newcomers build some plants before they are driven into bankruptcy by the oligarchs. The plants would still be in existence after the bankruptcy, and could be picked up for a song at an auction by more newcomers. Eventually, the oligarchs will be driven into bankruptcy, or they will have to raise their prices. Why should the newcomers stop coming, when they can pick up capital at firesale prices and they know the practices of the oligarchs are unsustainable? The "scorched earth" metaphor fails, because the companies are not literally at war with each other; there is no literal destruction. Capital doesn't disappear into the night, it simply changes hands.

At least, until the monopoly or duopoly raises prices and then it becomes economical again for new competitors to enter. And so, virtual competition regulates the market: The monopolist is forced to keep their prices low, lest they invite new competition.

Now, you might argue that's a bad thing, because a monopoly means there are few choices. But that assumes that more choice is always a good thing, no matter what it costs. The reality is that, every time you have multiple competitors in a market, you have duplication of resources. Thus, the fact that the market discourages competition, until it is actually needed, is a good thing, because it discourages the unnecessary duplication of resources that competition brings (i.e. the market puts up with a certain amount of crap from the monopolist, but eventually consumers get so fed up they actively seek out new competition).

Amen to that. What the submitter is asking is similar to asking, "How can I get this girl to like me?" The answer is, don't bother. You won't change her opinion, and trying to only builds resentment. Just move on to better opportunities.

It doesn't matter if executives/owners/investors can "afford" to give up profits or not. As long as their profits came through voluntary trade, they are morally entitled to those profits.

Also, sometimes owners and investors lose money. Suppose that a business owner paid you a nice pay check for several months, but eventually his business failed due to lack of sales. Do you feel obligated to give him some of your earnings, because you can "afford" to do so? No? Well, then if the business turned out to be successful instead, why should the owner pay you any more than what the market can bare? Talk about double standards...