The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth • Hacker News Board

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#241

Post by kasey_junk » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 10:52 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #237

kasey_junk wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what most people consider a 'good' health care package. That would be considered a 'high deductible' plan. When people talk about 'good' health care plans in the US they tend to think of traditional low deductible PPO. Those tend to have family deductibles in the $500-1k range. Though the employee premium differences might add up to more than 10K in the face of a 'good' health care plan so its largely not…

There's no real correlation between the "goodness" of an insurance plan and its deductible. In the end all that really matters is the quality of care you receive and how much you have to pay for it. Many employers offer high deductible plans but also contribute into the employee's HSA which can be used to pay deductibles. In theory that incentivizes the employee to shop around and get the best possible deal on care.

Agreed but in this anecdote what do you think would happen in that case? I’d guess the person would complain about the deductible even though in real terms it might be cheaper than premiums on a low deductible plan.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#242

Post by roenxi » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 11:21 PM UTC

cjmb wrote: post #204

roenxi wrote: post #80

> But unlike the prophecies of talking cartoon bears, all this money didn’t drive inflation through the roof and crash the stock market. It doesn’t seem to have really gone…anywhere. This essay is obviously backed by a lot of thought, but this specific conclusion is a bit glib. Talking of things which are exponential, 2 trillion dollars is a few magnitudes bigger than 2 million dollars. That is more than the annual G…

Hey, OP here. Thanks for reading. For sure, this was a bit intentionally glib. My own understanding of macroeconomics is relatively light, so I linked to two different perspectives on this event and glossed by it a bit. The point I was trying to make (suggest? raise?) was that regardless of your views on printing $2,000,000,000,000, the crazy Cost-Disease-funded-by-debt does not appear to be a symptom of a banking sy…

:D Hey OP.

I didn't put it in my comment because I have no evidence, but my first guess was that the cost-disease-funded-by-debt was exactly caused by those 2 trillion. My instinct is as follows:

* The reserves for fractional reserve banking are excess reserves at the Fed + other reserves.

* Fed is safer than other, so large portions of the banks reserves sit with the fed.

* New money is created by the banks as loans.

* The excess reserves allow massive lending (the multiplier was something like 20x if I recall).

* Banks now have an income stream & massive cash reserves. Actors willing to take on debt push any capitalists smaller than a bank out of capital markets.

Basically, I assume these "excess" reserves are misleadingly labeled and are actually in use relative to the fractional reserve system.

That is obviously a complicated guess with no evidence, and you look like you've put more effort into research than me, but it fails the sniff test that 2 trillion exists and is having literally no impact. I bet it is and it is just complicated enough that it is hard to pin down.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#243

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #142

kasey_junk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You (or one of your countrymen) pay for it with taxes, that isn't the same as it costing $0. Now, it likely a) does cost a lot less in Denmark than in the States in real terms and b) paying for it with taxes might absolutely make the most operational sense. But it isn't free.

wooo, I hadn't realized we pay for it with taxes! Wow thanks for correcting me, this sure has been a week for me, why yesterday I just barely learned that water was wet - imagine that!?!

Please be more civil. And notice that you've contradicted yourself; you said upthread "you pay 0", and now are clarifying the mechanism you use to pay a nonzero amount of dollars for it.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#244

Post by nradov » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 11:58 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #238

nradov wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shelter is more expensive because there are more people. Increased regulation is a minor factor.

I disagree. Shelter is only bound by what it costs to build a new shelter. This is where regulation has had a dramatic impact over time. Nobody would ever allow you to build a pioneer log cabin as a primary dwelling these days, even though the costs would be minimal to erect such a structure. There are very strict standards that must be adhered to in order to build shelter now. Land is also necessary on which to buil…

Log cabins are perfectly legal as residences in many areas provided they're up to code. Drive around any ski area and see. You can even buy them in kit form.

Hardly anyone wants to live in rural areas where land is cheap because there are no good jobs or services nearby. In desirable areas, land acquisition costs are far higher than construction costs. Regulation has little to do with it, although in some areas zoning laws that limit density are a factor.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#245

Post by sailfast » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

sailfast wrote: post #132

jandrese wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are health plans that don't cover a childbirth?

Because of the affordable care act, no (thankfully, as pregnancy was a pre-existing condition) but your insurance may not cover a doctor or hospital which could (even accidentally) add up to thousands of dollars. Ask who people are when they walk into your room, and whether their treatment is covered depending on your insurance.

Not sure why this got downvoted - pre-existing conditions are covered by law but that doesn’t mean the procedure at that hospital is covered at the same level as an in-network shop.

I’ve been charged out of network at an in-network hospital because the physician didn’t identify themselves or their network. If they’re not your primary doc it might be worth asking for someone who is covered to save you hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#246

Post by randomdata » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 12:17 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #244

randomdata wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Shelter is only bound by what it costs to build a new shelter. This is where regulation has had a dramatic impact over time. Nobody would ever allow you to build a pioneer log cabin as a primary dwelling these days, even though the costs would be minimal to erect such a structure. There are very strict standards that must be adhered to in order to build shelter now. Land is also necessary on which to buil…

Log cabins are perfectly legal as residences in many areas provided they're up to code. Drive around any ski area and see. You can even buy them in kit form. Hardly anyone wants to live in rural areas where land is cheap because there are no good jobs or services nearby. In desirable areas, land acquisition costs are far higher than construction costs. Regulation has little to do with it, although in some areas zonin…

There is a pretty large chasm between a log cabin that is up to code and a pioneer home. And the cost to build reflects that.

Desirable areas are expensive because regulation has allowed some people to make vast fortunes, allowing them to spend almost limitlessly on living in those desirable area.

Tech is the prime example of that. Without regulation like that which surrounds intellectual property, software would be quite literally worthless.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#247

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 12:52 AM UTC

nobody271 wrote: post #227

lotsofpulp wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be in society's interest to know the credibility of someone repairing and selling 2 tons of metal that will go out on the road and pose considerable risk to others' and the driver's lives on the road. See the limo crash that just killed 18 in New York state. There might be situations where corrupt government is inhibiting competition for the gain of particular parties, but some things do make sense,…

The bond, I think, is mainly for if someone sues you. For a $1000-$2000 car $75,000 is overkill. They could make a class for people who aren't dealers where you only need to buy a bond for the car you are selling or something like that.

An vehicle with improperly installed brakes or other unsafe mechanisms can easily cost far more damage than the value of the car.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#248

Post by manquer » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 3:38 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #225

manquer wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem is that education was priced traditionally priced using a cost + plus or a %cost basis what you can pay. Today education is getting priced using value pricing, if in theory you can get a job which pays X you can pay sum of multiple of X. The second problem is that even if this was a reasonable system, people estimate the risk associated with getting the job paying X very poorly, colleges explo…

> Today education is getting priced using value pricing, if in theory you can get a job which pays X you can pay sum of multiple of X Doubtful. If that were true, you would pay differently for a English degree than a Chemical Engineering degree. And I've never seen that.

That is surprising to me. In my country the cost of english degree is totally different than a chemical engineering degree.

Even without the commercial angle , the cost of teaching English is not remotely the same as chemical engineering, you need lot more labs , more depts with different expertise , more courses to cover etc. why is it costed the same ? Unless both are heavily subsidized and cost is a just token amount it doesn't make sense.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#249

Post by bryanrasmussen » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 6:41 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #243

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wooo, I hadn't realized we pay for it with taxes! Wow thanks for correcting me, this sure has been a week for me, why yesterday I just barely learned that water was wet - imagine that!?!

Please be more civil. And notice that you've contradicted yourself; you said upthread "you pay 0", and now are clarifying the mechanism you use to pay a nonzero amount of dollars for it.

I believe I was the appropriate level of civil given the context, so I shan't be more.

Re: The Bermuda Triangle of Wealth

#250

Post by bryanrasmussen » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 7:20 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #240

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that there's less than 10 million Danes I guess that's a good bet. how much did it cost me to have a baby in Denmark, gee I don't know how much did you pay for the crosswalks on your street? What I do know is that when I went to hospital and the baby was born nobody hit me with a $15000 bill afterwards just like when they installed a new crosswalk where you live nobody came by your house and billed you $15000.…

Look, I’m not some anti single payer guy. In fact given the option I’d bet on it being the best of the options. But it’s just untrue that you paid $0 to have a kid. You don’t know how much you paid & that’s ok. But it’s a valid criticism of single payer. Further it is also true that the US system has deep flaws but it’s fundamentally untrue that the many Americans get the full boat costs of a birth. So comparing your…

The article says that people in the U.S are not having children because of prohibitive costs, 15000 dollar bill from a hospital was mentioned somewhere. Various Europeans said they paid 0 in their country, somebody said that even in Europe you pay and the cost is approximately the same (the implication being that you pay a bill, not a tax) which is quite the lie and prompted me to join the people saying hey, we pay 0 (implying not getting a big bill all of a sudden that you might not be able to afford at that particular moment)

I'm pretty sure every other person reading my initial comment understood huh, the government pays for it and he pays his taxes. But you seemed to need to make a gotcha argument about it which again, given how human conversation is structured and the literal impossibility of defining everything down to constituent atoms in every communication it is generally assumed that people in good faith take some things as given which is why in response to your taxes comment I was sarcastic because who among us is so lightheaded that they don't understand taxes exist and are used to pay for things the government provides us?

I don't think the people who upvoted the comment thought I had made a brilliant refutation of your point about taxes, I think they just thought what is this guy with taxes on about - because that's not what the point under discussion is and you would have to be rather obtuse to think it was. That's ok, I certainly have my own issues that I am thickheaded about, but really people do know taxes pay for the births in European hospitals.

As to whether it is fundamentally untrue that many Americans get the full boat costs of a birth, I don't know. I do know the article seemed to think they were getting enough of a boat that they were sinking. Hence all of us Europeans saying, he we're doing swell with the kids and all started up. I don't think that's such a futile exercise.