I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money • Hacker News Board

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#171

Post by isostatic » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 6:18 PM UTC

jorvi wrote: post #166

isostatic wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fairly irellevent who pays, everyone ends up paying in the end. The Netherlands spends $5385 per year per person on healthcare, 80% of that is spent by the government. The UK spends $4192 per year, again 80% is by the government. The UK has trickier cost areas to handle too (healthcare in Scottish islands is far more per person than in Rotterdam) Measuring the objective quality of a health care system is almost…

As far as I know the EHCI (Euro Health Consumer Index) is the one that is considered a very accurate source, and they have ranked The Netherlands as having the best system for 8(!) years in a row so far, with the Swiss hot on our heels[1]. They're also coincidentally Sweden-based, in case you might feel they would be biased. The problem with comparing worldwide is that the WHO does an annual health report, but this f…

It's interesting. Looking at total healthcare spending from 1990 to 2005, Netherlands and Sweden were about the same per capita. From 2005 Netherlands costs shot up, overtaking countries like France, Germany, Iceland etc.

Sweden didn't shoot up until 2010.

The Netherlands has spent a lot on healthcare, especially after 2006 - not as much as Norway (which I suspect has higher costs due to sparsely populated areas), Switzerland, and Luxemburg, but more than the rest of Europe. If you pay more, you get more.

Are you sure the benefits of your hybrid system aren't because you increased health spending by over 50% (about 7% pa) from 2004 to 2010, where Sweden only increased by about 30% (about 4% pa)?

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#172

Post by iamatworknow » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 7:12 PM UTC

meestaahjoshee wrote: post #116

iamatworknow wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tim Duncan's another example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nba-duncan-adviser/financ...

he got screwed over but he's far from bankrupt.

Fair, I somehow missed that word my first time reading the comment, but he's an example of someone who "did the right thing" and still got "punished".

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#173

Post by beat » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

savanaly wrote: post #162

beat wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what corporations are, too?

Corporations can take on a role as a monopolist but it's not inherent to their nature. I would hazard to say that most corporations are in a market where they can't affect the equilibrium market price of the good they're selling by very much, and thus don't resemble a union in that respect.

What about exclusive contracts? They're common as dirt in the business world... "You commit to us, you have to buy this only from us for the next X years". I don't see how this is different from unions.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#174

Post by pwinnski » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 8:20 PM UTC

otherme1234 wrote: post #85

carlmr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of things I always wonder about. Libertarians and other free-market enthusiasts should actually be for collective bargaining and unions. Because in an actual free market it's legal to form unions, just like it's legal to form a corporation. Collective bargaining is a feature of a free market. If you don't like the idea of unions and collective bargaining, you don't like free markets.

As a libertarian, what bothers me is the mandatory union. If you want to unionize, go on a strike or whatever, I'm OK with that. But if I don't want to, respect me and leave me alone.

This is a variation on the tragedy of the commons.

For each person, the most advantageous outcome is if everybody but them participates in a union. The end result is that nobody participates in a union, making things worse for everybody.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#175

Post by motohagiography » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 8:32 PM UTC

Invictus0 wrote: post #163

motohagiography wrote: post #161

So she's a family office for single people. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_office ) The Varian Rule, which is about how the future resembles how the rich live today, the middle and poorer classes will have tomorrow, may apply here. Multi-family offices for middle net worth individuals seem like a plausible future. I can't seem to convince my lawyer and accountant friends that this is a viable service because…

Lots of these services are being created piecemeal. Professional management works for these people because the clients are overwhelmed and don't know what they're doing. They don't know how to budget X million dollars for 4 years. Most average people think that they do know what they're doing. They have a few hundred in the bank, they're paycheck is the same and comes every 2 weeks, and they know the price and value…

Arguably, that Lamborghini is even a thing suggests otherwise. There is tons of new and younger money out there that could be deployed to build real lasting foundations for families, at least enough for grandchildren to have private school and college taken care of.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#176

Post by omarchowdhury » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 12:29 AM UTC

catsmat837 wrote: post #168

omarchowdhury wrote: post #4

The actor that "died suddenly" sounds like it might have been Anton Yelchin.

"I felt like I had failed him, or could have done more." -- This sounds like the actor died as a result of a wrong choice, not from a freak car accident.

Maybe she feels like she could have researched a better car for him? The parents did sue the car manufacturer after all. Just speculating.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#177

Post by troydavis » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 12:53 AM UTC

Here’s a detailed view of the outcome she’s trying to prevent: https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/features/johnny-depp-law...

> It's estimated that Depp has made $650 million on films that netted $3.6 billion. Almost all of it is gone.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#178

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 1:28 AM UTC

holman wrote: post #17

If any of this is at all interesting to you, I'd recommend checking out the very excellent ESPN documentary "Broke": http://www.espn.com/30for30/film?page=broke ESPN's 30 for 30 docs are really great, even if you're not particularly huge into sports. Broke is one of my favorites (after a "The Two Escobars"). It goes into a lot of detail about how ill-prepared many professional athletes are for the lifestyle, how they…

[deleted]

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#179

Post by RA_Fisher » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 3:37 AM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #87

wildmusings wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say they “support unions” they mean that they support laws that “artificially increase one side’s bargaining power”, which you say you don’t. The most important of such laws are ones that inhibit employers from replacing striking workers.

Without this law and the corollary of reasonable firing (as in with a lawful reason), unions are dead on arrival as anyone willing to unionize will get fired on the spot. This is similar to the procedural loophole of registering manifestations where the mayor or other redeposit body can virtually countermand the right to organize. It happens all the time.

If conditions are bad workers have an increased ability to unionize. If they're not bad they don't. That seems like a fair incentive for businesses to keep conditions good. I think unions got a bad rap precisely because they used the government as a lever (and the trappings of that, e.g. UAW bosses in Detroit). If the government steps back the system balances itself.

Re: I Stop Celebrities from Blowing Their Money

#180

Post by RA_Fisher » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 3:38 AM UTC

carlmr wrote: post #81

RA_Fisher wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Though we're a rare breed I'll admit, I'm an American libertarian and I'm supportive of unions and collective bargaining. I have a caveat in that I don't support laws that interfere with such bargaining or artificially increase one party's market power (closed shop laws). In the US this identifies me as being "right to work" which is often seen as anti-union. For example I don't support the UAW due to their long…

>For example I don't support the UAW due to their long history of using the state to increase their market power. That's a fair caveat from a libertarian standpoint. It's just that most of the self-declared libertarians I meet seem to have the idea that the state should forbid unions from interfering with their idea of a free market. Which sounds very unlibertarian to me.

I agree that does sound unlibertarian too me too.