The current problem in North America

[Kaz The Original]

The largest problem in North America at the moment is not crime, or unemployment. It is not ignorance or apathy. The largest problem in our society is that many parasitic lifestyles are rewarded. Poker players, marketing executives, the idle rich and celebrities all create nothing (or almost nothing) while consuming large amounts of resources. Justify this however you like, no society should have such a large gap between useful behaviour for the society and the reward one gets.

It is as ridiculous as saying "greed is a virtue".

[Broken Glass Can]

I am more concerned with those professions that are a negative drain on our society, like most lawyering. Lawsuits may seem to be a zero sum game, but they waste resources and disuade people from starting productive endeavors.

I am not concerned much about the entertainment industry (poker, celebs, etc.) because the pursuit of happiness is a beneficial thing to a society.

[dcoles11]

[ QUOTE ]
I am more concerned with those professions that are a negative drain on our society, like most lawyering. Lawsuits may seem to be a zero sum game, but they waste resources and disuade people from starting productive endeavors.

I am not concerned much about the entertainment industry (poker, celebs, etc.) because the pursuit of happiness is a beneficial thing to a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

God forbid anything ever happen to you or your family due to medical malpractice, but if it ever does, let me know if you hire a lawyer and let me know how much you sue for.

[Broken Glass Can]

Perhaps you noticed I said "most" lawyering. Nobody has a problem with reasonable lawsuits.

Did you know several hospitals in North Carolina were closed after John Edwards sucked them dry in questionable malpractice cases? How many people suffered or died as a result?

Lawsuits should not be lotteries. A reasonable award is fine, but the lawyers and the family should not become the wealthiest citizens of the county because a ridiculous award is awarded. Normal people suffer as a result.

Think how much in medical premiums are paid in this country to cover to extreme lawsuits. Some people have no health insurance due to the lawsuit padded health insurance premiums.

One family's medical tragedy should not suck so much out of the medical system that other tragedies are extended to their neighbors. I don't care how badly you feel you have been treated, you don't have the right to harm the whole neighborhood.

The lawyers take much much more than they truly deserve. That is why so many of them are "bad citizens". They try to spin it, but they are acting badly against society's best interests.

[Il_Mostro]

I don't really know how it works in the US, but am I correct in assuming that if the person that sue for malpractice wins, (s)he get's all the money from the settlement/verdict?

I think that is strange indeed, over here (s)he would get damage, but the punitive damage would go to the state. Plus lawyers can't really work for a percantage. I find this to be a better system...

[nicky g]

"Lawsuits should not be lotteries. A reasonable award is fine, but the lawyers and the family should not become the wealthiest citizens of the county because a ridiculous award is awarded."

I agree with that, but on the other hand, if you want a fine to have any kind of punitive/deterrent effect and you're dealing with a large business, the fine has to be of an anmount that would make the average person extremely wealthy. It's no good fining ExxonMobil fifty grand, they're not going to care. So what's the solution? Force the company to pay a large fine to a charity? Force them to burn the money? I don't know.

[nicky g]

The state's a possibility, but the libertarian types here aren't going to like it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[Il_Mostro]

I know /images/graemlins/smile.gif I still find it to be better than giving it to the individual though.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you noticed I said "most" lawyering. Nobody has a problem with reasonable lawsuits.


[/ QUOTE ]

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Most lawyering is done outside of a courtroom. Many (if not most) lawyers never step foot inside a courtroom.

[Koller]

I agree with Broken Glass Can, (American) lawyers are greedy bastards.

[dcoles11]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you noticed I said "most" lawyering. Nobody has a problem with reasonable lawsuits.

Did you know several hospitals in North Carolina were closed after John Edwards sucked them dry in questionable malpractice cases? How many people suffered or died as a result?

Lawsuits should not be lotteries. A reasonable award is fine, but the lawyers and the family should not become the wealthiest citizens of the county because a ridiculous award is awarded. Normal people suffer as a result.

Think how much in medical premiums are paid in this country to cover to extreme lawsuits. Some people have no health insurance due to the lawsuit padded health insurance premiums.

One family's medical tragedy should not suck so much out of the medical system that other tragedies are extended to their neighbors. I don't care how badly you feel you have been treated, you don't have the right to harm the whole neighborhood.

The lawyers take much much more than they truly deserve. That is why so many of them are "bad citizens". They try to spin it, but they are acting badly against society's best interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you should mention North Carolina since I live there. If you really knew the people in these cases you'd understand, the little girl that was injuried by the pool drain deserved every single penny that she got and that was a case the Republicans pointed to alot during the election. I'm sure there are lawsuits that are a joke and end up winning but as I understand it, Republicans want to put a cap on how much you can actually win in a settelment, something like $250,000. $250,000 is a joke compared to the condition that little girl is in, if that company ever stops paying for her damages it will be too soon.

Medical premiums go up because of the number of people without health insurance. Everyone wants to point to the lawsuits that drive up the cost, cost is also driven up when a car accident victim for instance is taken to the hospital and he dosen't have health insurance to cover whatever surgery or care is given to him.

[dcoles11]

[ QUOTE ]
The largest problem in North America at the moment is not crime, or unemployment. It is not ignorance or apathy. The largest problem in our society is that many parasitic lifestyles are rewarded. Poker players, marketing executives, the idle rich and celebrities all create nothing (or almost nothing) while consuming large amounts of resources. Justify this however you like, no society should have such a large gap between useful behaviour for the society and the reward one gets.

It is as ridiculous as saying "greed is a virtue".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think actors/comedians produce alot. Entertainment and laughter are pretty important.

[elwoodblues]

I posted this article from the Wall Street Journal in November ---- don't know if you read it. Basically, the article suggests that reports of huge settlements are overstated.
----------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 30, 2004


Suit Wrinkle: In Malpractice Trials, Juries Rarely Have the Last Word


---


Large Awards Grab Attention But Often Aren't Paid Out; Fodder for Debate on Caps


---


Pennsylvania's Big Three


By Joseph T. Hallinan

Earlier this year, a New York state jury awarded Elizabeth and John Reden $112 million in a medical-malpractice case filed on behalf of their brain-damaged daughter. But the Redens didn't get $112 million. They got $6 million.

In the debate over medical-malpractice lawsuits, multimillion-dollar verdicts have become an important rallying cry for advocates of legislation to curtail jury awards. From emergency rooms to state houses to the White House, the advocates point to the heavy cost of large malpractice awards.

Behind the big dollar numbers, the reality is more complex. Many plaintiffs settle for less than a jury's verdict, to eliminate delays and the uncertainty of appeal. Sometimes, even before a jury rules, a plaintiff has signed an agreement that limits how much money actually changes hands.

The Redens, for example, hedged the outcome of their case through a common device known as a "high low" agreement. No matter what the jury ruled, the two sides agreed to settle for between $2 million and $6 million. Such agreements protect plaintiffs from a lengthy appeals process and typically set the top end of any potential award close to the limit on the physician's insurance policy.

Proponents of tort reform acknowledge that verdicts for plaintiffs are often reduced to amounts that are kept confidential. But even if the headline-grabbing numbers are never paid out, proponents of limits say, big jury awards create benchmarks that raise the costs of future settlements.

"The verdict amount for a given case sets the bar for the value of that type of case during future settlement negotiations on similar cases," says Lawrence E. Smarr, president of the Physician Insurers Association of America, which represents physician-owned or operated companies that insure an estimated 60% of the nation's doctors.

The debate over big awards focuses on a small minority of malpractice cases. The insurance industry wins most cases that go to trial. By far, the majority of lawsuits settle long before they reach a jury. Jury verdicts account for just 4% of payouts.

More than $4 billion a year is paid out to settle malpractice claims against doctors, and plaintiffs lawyers receive a portion of that. The contingent fees charged by the lawyers vary widely and are often limited by law, but a common charge is 33% of any payment.

Across the country, advocates of tort reform have made large verdicts Exhibit A in their case for stronger curbs on malpractice awards. Often these curbs come in the form of caps on so-called noneconomic damages -- the amount a jury can pay out for things like pain and suffering. Earlier this year, Mississippi's Republican governor, Haley Barbour, signed a law that limits large jury awards, proclaiming it a big step forward in eliminating "outrageous" verdicts in his state.

In 2000, Pennsylvania reported three of the largest medical-malpractice verdicts in its history, all of them rendered in Philadelphia: one for $100 million, another for $55 million and a third for $49.6 million.

News of the verdicts riled many in the state's medical and insurance communities. Doctors protested high malpractice rates on the steps of the state capitol. The then-president of the state's largest malpractice insurer was quoted at the time as saying "Philadelphia has gone haywire."

Many in the public agreed. A 2002 poll of 1,100 Pennsylvanians funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 65% identified excessive jury awards as a "major reason" for the rising cost of malpractice insurance; 62% said these awards were a "bad thing because they increase everyone's health-care costs."

In a major address on the subject of malpractice delivered in Scranton, Pa., last year, President Bush cited reports of "startling" malpractice awards from Philadelphia juries -- so big they exceeded all malpractice payments in the state of California for the previous three years. "You've got a problem in Pennsylvania," the president said.

But each of the three biggest Philadelphia verdicts was settled for much smaller sums, according to plaintiffs lawyers and court records. The $55 million case settled for $7.5 million, according to the lawyer for the plaintiff. The $49.6 million case settled for $8.4 million, according to court documents. And the $100 million case settled for an undisclosed sum. Andrew J. Stern, the lawyer representing the plaintiff in that case, says the amount of the settlement was significantly less than $100 million.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy says those reductions wouldn't have caused the president to alter his remarks. "There are instances across the country . . . where the insurance costs that go with malpractice insurance premiums are really driving caregivers out of business and out of states," says Mr. Duffy. "And that's why the president feels it's very critical for the improvement of our health-care system and our economy that we address medical liability reform."

It is unknown how many malpractice verdicts in favor of plaintiffs are ultimately settled, or for how many cents on the dollar -- in large part because of the confidentiality pacts insisted upon by insurers.

But Neil Vidmar, a Duke University law professor, and colleagues of his there and elsewhere have come up with estimates based on studies in several states. After examining a pool of 105 malpractice verdicts from 1985 to 1997 in the New York City area, they found that 44% of jury awards were reduced after the verdict. The eventual payments to plaintiffs were, on average, 62% of the awards. Prof. Vidmar says this estimate is "very conservative" because the data he looked at covered only a short time after the verdict. Had the time been longer, he says, the study would have likely found that more of the awards had been reduced.

Prof. Vidmar also found that the larger the award, the steeper the discount. Large malpractice verdicts in New York were typically reduced to between 5% and 10% of the original verdict amount. One case with a total award of $90.3 million settled for $7 million. Another award, for $65.1 million, was reduced to $3.2 million.

"The whopping big ones really get knocked down and they get knocked down incredibly," says Prof. Vidmar, who has worked as a consultant for both plaintiffs and defendants in medical-malpractice suits.

One of the most common ways this happens is through high-low agreements like the one used by the Redens. Under such bargains, plaintiffs are guaranteed a minimum amount of money (the "low") no matter what the jury decides. But if the jury comes back with a large award, the amount of money the plaintiff receives is capped by the high end of the high-low.

In 1997, the Redens' daughter, Danielle, was born and soon developed severe neurological problems that have rendered her a quadriplegic. The family alleged that the doctors involved in the case failed to deliver Danielle in a timely fashion after her mother reported an absence of fetal movement.

The Redens reached the high-low agreement of $2 million to $6 million just before the jury began its deliberations, says their attorney, Steven E. Pegalis. "My thinking on our side was 'OK, we won't have to wait to be paid and we won't have to worry about appeals,' " says Mr. Pegalis. The Redens, through Mr. Pegalis, declined to comment.

Clifford A. Bartlett Jr., the attorney for the physicians involved, says there are many things that enter into such a decision. But bottom line, the rationale for the high-low is this: "It protects the one person from getting a runaway verdict, and it protects the other from getting nothing."

Last month, the Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Health Care, a Washington-based group that advocates for tort reform on behalf of hospitals, doctors and others, cited in a news release a $269 million verdict in Texas.

Although the release didn't say so, the case involved Rachael Martin, a 15-year-old Texas girl who died in 1998. Rachael had cerebral palsy, and in 1998 she was taken to Medical City Dallas Hospital for surgery to fix a narrowed trachea. There, she was allegedly given 10 times the recommended dose of the sedative propofol. Her muscle cells began disintegrating, and the content of those cells was secreted through her kidneys. Her urine changed color and eventually turned black. A short while later, Rachael went into cardiac arrest and died.

Rachael's parents sued the hospital and three physicians who treated their daughter, accusing them in Dallas County court of being grossly negligent -- charges the defendants denied.

In 2000, a jury awarded the Martins nearly $269 million. That is the largest medical-malpractice verdict in Texas ever recorded by VerdictSearch, a division of American Lawyer Media that compiles verdict information from cases around the country.

The Martins got a fraction of that amount. The jury assigned 25% of the liability in the case -- or $67 million -- to the doctors. But before the trial had even begun the doctors and their professional group had agreed with the Martins to settle the case for just $3 million, says Charla Aldous, the Martins' attorney. That sum was just under the total policy limits of the three physicians involved and their practice group, each of which was insured for $1 million.

The hospital also reached a settlement with the Martins, according to attorney David G. Moore, who represented the hospital. But the settlement amount, he says, is confidential.

Mr. Moore says the settlement was reached just before the jury returned its verdict, making the jury's award moot. "It was meaningless," he says.

Nonetheless, CARH cited the verdict as evidence that such awards are "driving medical liability insurance premiums up over 500%."

Asked whether the settling of the Martin case affected CARH's assertion about verdicts, Jan May, the organization's executive director, says "absolutely not." She says the case, even though it was subsequently settled, prompted local hospitals to set aside larger litigation reserves. It also prompted the formation of CARH, she says.

(MORE)

Defendants in malpractice cases usually win most of their cases before a jury. Earlier this year, for instance, the U.S. Department of Justice published a study of medical-malpractice trials and verdicts rendered in 2001 in the nation's 75 largest counties. Plaintiffs, it found, won only 27% of the time. That win rate, it noted, has changed little in the previous decade and is consistent with other studies that have examined the same issue.

Emboldened by this success, insurance companies are often willing to roll the dice with a jury. This happened two years ago during a trial in Lenoir County Superior Court, in eastern North Carolina. In that case, the family of John Waters, a 66-year-old retired manufacturing worker, sued Kinston surgeon Wayne T. Jarman and others. Dr. Jarman allegedly misdiagnosed Mr. Waters's ruptured appendix, then went on vacation without making arrangements to monitor the man's condition. Seven weeks later Mr. Waters died, and his family filed suit.

Dr. Jarman denied the allegations, and the Waters family offered to settle the case for as little as $250,000, says Bill Faison, the Waters' attorney. But Dr. Jarman's insurance carrier, Atlanta-based MAG Mutual insurance Co., refused.

MAG is one of the largest physician-owned malpractice insurers in the Southeast, and a leading proponent of tort reform. One piece of legislation it successfully opposed earlier this year was the Georgia Sunshine in Litigation Act, which would have made it difficult for insurers like MAG and others to keep medical-malpractice settlements confidential.

MAG is also highly successful in the courtroom. Last year, says the company, it won 84% of its trials. In court filings, the company acknowledged that its highest offer to Mr. Faison on Dr. Jarman's behalf was $75,000.

Mr. Faison rejected that offer and the case went to trial. After three weeks of testimony and two hours of deliberation the jury awarded Mr. Waters's family $4.5 million. This was the largest medical-malpractice verdict involving a physician in North Carolina in 2002, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, a legal publication based in Raleigh.

Such missteps by insurers -- or by plaintiffs lawyers -- rarely become public. That is because settlement discussions are typically secret. But Dr. Jarman was so troubled that the insurer hadn't reached a settlement before the trial's end that he sued his own insurance carrier in Wake County Superior Court, making the issue public.

The case was dismissed last year, after the court ordered a mediated settlement conference. Dr. Jarman didn't respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for MAG Mutual says the company declines to comment on litigation involving Dr. Jarman.

Mr. Faison says MAG Mutual eventually agreed to settle the Waters case for less than the jury award. The amount of the settlement is confidential.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The largest problem in our society is that many parasitic lifestyles are rewarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would do you mean by rewarded? Do you mean that the government subsizes them?

[andyfox]

You're right. The tens of millions of poker players, marketing executives, idle rich, and celebrities dwarf all other problems. I don't know why Iraq and Social Security are in the headlines when people are playing poker and appearing in the tabloids with such impunity.

[adios]

...

[MMMMMM]

None of the lifestyles you mention are parasitic.

Example of parasitic lifestyles would be:

-Professional extortionist/shakedown artist/blackmailer

-Professional burglar

-Professional welfare recipient

-Professional tenant (one who almost never pays rent and has to be evicted from every domicile he inhabits. Some, through opportunistic use of various laws, can manage to live in a location for over a year rent-free--as well as causing great legal problems for the landlord via unintended use of building code inspection laws, etc. Heck some even sabotage the wiring or plumbing, or deliberately make the apartment unsafe, so the landlord can't charge them rent for a specified period).

All the lifestyles you listed such as entertainer or poker player or idle rich do however provide value to society, either directly or indirectly--even if you can't see it all on the surface. I think if you look a little deeper however you will discover it.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Well said....

Trial lawyers became insanely greedy and if they found a nitwit jury, they bankrupted companies. My father works as a expert consultant in civil cases. Sometimes for the defense and sometimes for the plaintiffs. He has some very good stories.

In Texas, the trial lawyers greed was rewarded by tort reform which capped their damages at $250K. Personally, I think this is WAAAAAAY too low. $1M would be reasonable. So in Texas if you are injured, you could get screwed because of the caps. But whose fault is this?

Answer: the trial lawyers. They refused to police themselves so the legislature drop the hammer on them.

[Felix_Nietsche]

It takes a very healthy economy to support highly paid singers, actors, poker players, athletes, etc... These are signs of success not signs of a problems.

In Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" he tells a story at his concentration camp where some of the inmates would get up and entertain the other prisoners with songs and jokes. Despite being starved by the Nazi's, the prisoners chipped in a portion of their meagre rations to "pay" these entertainers. Some prisioners actually skipped their evening ration to attend these shows. They chose laughter over food.

[CORed]

I'm not so sure. The entertainment industry often does better when the economy is weak. E.g., the movie industry did very well during the great depression. People often seek entertainment to escape from their problems.

Also, even if you buy into the notion that high pay for entertainers is a problem, I can't think of any cure that isn't much worse than the diseaes.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I'm not so sure. The entertainment industry often does better when the economy is weak. E.g., the movie industry did very well during the great depression. People often seek entertainment to escape from their problems."
****My point is a country like the USA can support more highly paid entertainers than Rwanda.

"Also, even if you buy into the notion that high pay for entertainers is a problem, I can't think of any cure that isn't much worse than the diseaes."
****I do not not buy into this. I'm not sure how you thought I did.

[CORed]

That was a generic "you". Perhaps it would have been better phrased "Even if one buys into the notion...". If anything, it was directed at the OP. Pay for entertainers, atheletes, etc. is market-driven. I think trying to regulate it throught some kind of legislation or government regulation would be a really bad idea.

[Richard Tanner]

Actually I'm a libertarian, and yeah that system kinda sucks. But just to assume that libertarians don't like the government isn't exactly true. We (that is most of us) just don't like alot of government, not all of it. Certain things are inherient (sp?) to the function of society (Armed forces, Sanitation, etc.) and the government needs to do those things.

Cody

[Kaz The Original]

They do not produce a good and they consume resources. This is parasitic behaviour.

[Kaz The Original]

One argument many people make in response to this thread is that celebrities produce a good, namely comedy and entertainment.

I have no objection to entertainment as an essential part of our society. Indeed, many years in the future, I can see entertainment as being a primary focus of our economy, once all primary and secondary industries are automated. I can even appreciate artists like Quentin Tarintino, David Mamet and Guy Richie, who while are grossly overpaid for their work, create excellent products.

I do object to the vast maddening crowds of Hollywood that produce third rate, flashy movies who deny content in favour of style. These individuals are producing waste and consuming large amounts of what we produce.

What we need is meritocracy.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

They do not produce a good and they consume resources. This is parasitic behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is ridiculous.

Do doctors "produce a good"?--no, rather, they offer services.

Entertainers offer entertainment. If it wasn't of value, nobody would pay for it. So the fact that they receive compensation from willing consumers proves that they are producing something of value to some people.

Poker players add to the bottom line of cardroom owners and help pay the salaries of those who work in the gaming insustry. They also help in providing entertainment value by being a part of the overall picture. Without poker players there would be more people out of work.

Both entertainers and poker players PAY for the resources they consume. They don't get free gasoline put in their cars do they? They pay the grocery store for the food they buy, don't they? So they are exchanging value for everything they consume.

Same for the idle rich. They PAY for what they use and others benefit from their PAYMENT. Parasitic behavior is taking and giving nothing in return. When you buy something you are giving money to others which they can use to their benefit. You are trading not merely taking.

Hope this helps.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
They do not produce a good and they consume resources. This is parasitic behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this the biggest problem in North America? I'm fairly certain you'll say it's the cause of the low savings rate in the United States which ultimately puts downward pressure on the U.S. greenback. Don't think Canada has this problem nor does Mexico if I'm not mistaken.

[Kaz The Original]

Entertainers are already covered in another post by me below, so I wll not rehash that again.

The argument that professional poker players help pay the salaries of those who work in the casino is flawed. If they instead worked in the lumber industry, they would pay the salaries of people who supply flannel shirts and big axes. If they were scientists they would cause the salaries of lab technicians etc.

The difference in this situation is that the lumber jack and the scientist are doing things which are useful to our society. And there could be poker without professional poker players. Just a crazy dance of J5o chasing Q7s.

Yes these people "pay money", this is an obvious point. But in exchange for what they get, they give nothing USEFUL to our society. The problem is not they don't PAY, but that they shouldn't have the money in which to pay.

Do you think our society would be worse or better if there were no idle rich. Examine that in vacuum.

[Kaz The Original]

I do not have a solid enough grounding in economics to pinpoint what affects it has on economic indicators. I am looking at this from a philosophic perspective. Why is this worse than crime or unemployment? Look to rome.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

But in exchange for what they get, they give nothing USEFUL to our society.

Who cares? As long as a person doesn't demand that others support him, and does not initiate force or fraud, he owes precisely zero to society.

[Bez]

This post is very good. It explains the situation very well.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think the biggest problem in North America is self-righteous sh*theads who think they need to a) lecture the rest of us, or b) force their weltanschauung on the world.

[Kaz The Original]

I believe, any society which in the long term allows individuals to consume resources without producing anything will fail.

I do not believe this to be a moral issue, but one of whether or not a society can be successful in the long term.

[MMMMMM]

I disagree, Kaz.

By merely participating in the casino environment as customers, poker players are part of a larger picture which meets a need. There are only so many openings for research scientists and lab assistants. Everything tends to find its own level and niche. Poker and casinos wouldn't exist without a consumer-driven demand for it. All participants are producing in some fashion, even if indirectly.

As for the world being better without the idle rich again I disagree. The idle rich help make society better because they spend more than most others. They help stimulate the economy. They pay painters and window-washers and roofers to come work on their mansions. Without the idle rich our societies would be poorer and worse off. They also donate considerable money to charitable causes and things like art programs and scholarship funds.

[Kaz The Original]

Take all the pros out of the casino and the fish continue to play. In fact, they would have a more enjoyable time playing against all fish against all fish and a pro (as their -EV is not quite as - here, so they lose less. Right now fish have to pay for pros AND the rake, without pros they just have to pay the rake) Agree here? Naturally this is unenforceable, but a true none the less. There is no demand for professional poker players, merely a spot where people can make money and so they do.

You say the idle rich spend more than others, this is only because they have more. In fact, give money to poor people and they spend it more than rich people because they will spend it all, especially the poorest who actually have negative resources.

Without the idle rich, yes people would not wash their windows and paint their cars. Sure they spend and consume. But the aggregate production of our economy is going to be the same with or without these individuals. There is going to be just as many goods in our economy without these people, and since these individuals will not be using these goods it will mean other people will get them (supply goes up, price goes down).

In fact, the example of window washers and car painters just shows how much more of the economy they eat up. These people instead could be building bridges, or handling technical support telephone calls.

These people would not be out of work without the idle rich, they would simply have employment somewhere else, in a more efficent (for the society as a whole) manner.

[MMMMMM]

Kaz, I believe you are operating from a number of unfounded assumptions.

Cardrooms have for many years depended upon pros to keep their games going and the rake flowing. Mason has written about this in the past. Now, I know it may not seem like cardrooms need pros especially at the moment with the WPT boom packing a lot of cardrooms full of newbies, but it is true that without winning regular players the cardrooms would have fewer games, fewer dealers, fewer busy hours, and might even fail in the long run. Repeat business is the mainstay and bread and butter of many types of business, and cardrooms fall into this category. Now, who is much more likely to be a long-term regular customer of a cardroom: a winning player or a losing player? Will Johnny Winner or Joey Loser pay the cardroom more in rake this year?

Also, you seem to think that building bridges or handling technical support phone calls is better than painting houses or washing windows or mowing lawns, but I do not see why. All of the above provide needed services. And none of the above would exist without someone paying for those services.

Building bridges does not "help society" more than mowing lawns. A busy bridge-builder might need someone to mow his lawn so he can work his 50 hours per week and still have a couple of hours to spend time with his son and/or daughter.

You seem to be looking at complex things here in perhaps a bit of an overly simplistic manner. Your assumptions seem to be been hastily derived, and I don't think they really reflect what is going on behind-the-scenes, economically or otherwise.

[dcoles11]

[ QUOTE ]
Well said....

Trial lawyers became insanely greedy and if they found a nitwit jury, they bankrupted companies. My father works as a expert consultant in civil cases. Sometimes for the defense and sometimes for the plaintiffs. He has some very good stories.

In Texas, the trial lawyers greed was rewarded by tort reform which capped their damages at $250K. Personally, I think this is WAAAAAAY too low. $1M would be reasonable. So in Texas if you are injured, you could get screwed because of the caps. But whose fault is this?

Answer: the trial lawyers. They refused to police themselves so the legislature drop the hammer on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Def. agree that the $250K cap is too low

[lastchance]

We have the cash to allow for the idle rich as of now.

The minute money starts getting tight, trust me, that number will decrease very, very sharply.

Job Specialization increases as wealth increases.

If we ever start getting in major trouble, this is easily fixable by cutting down on the money one spends for entertainment.

[Kaz The Original]

"We have the cash to allow for the idle rich as of now. "
Why allow it?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Then why include *marketing executives* in your original post? In a mercantile economy, informing the consumer and competing for both the mindshare and the buying power of consumers is equally important to the act of producing the product.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"We have the cash to allow for the idle rich as of now."
------------------------------------------------------------
Why allow it?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell do you mean, "why allow it?"

It isn't YOUR money, it's THEIRS, Kaz. You want money, go make it somehow. There are plenty of ways.

Or are you going to order them to work just because YOU happen to think it would be best?

I've got news for you buddy: you should think a little bit more about minding your own business and a LOT less about minding the business of others. Who the hell appointed you god and emperor, to suggest ways to order others around?

You have actually demonstrated what's REALLY the biggest thing wrong in America today: it's meddling busybodies sticking their noses into everybody's business and trying to get laws passed to force people to do this or do that, or to forbid this or that.

Kaz...once you open the door to people ordering others about like that...you also open the door for others to order YOU to do things. But the things they might order you to do, you might think are terrible, and would hate to have to do them. Not like just going to work, but maybe much, much worse.

So if you want to be free to decide what to do with YOUR life, give others the same respect. Or you might just wake up one day and find that the Kommandant has ordered you to dig ditches in Alaska for the next 60 years. So wake up and realize that if you want to live your life as you see fit you have to give others the same opportunity to do so with theirs--even if you think it's a waste.

And don't be thinking, well it's a GOOD idea, everyone working "productively"...why not enforce it?...because again, if you can enforce your ideas on others like that, I guarantee you won't like it when the tables are turned and THEY are enforcing their BAD ideas on YOU. And don't think it couldn't happen. It could happen if enough people thought like you about this stuff. But it wouldn't be anything like you imagine it would be, it would probably be ten times worse.

Be glad you have the chance to do what you want with your life, and don't worry so much about others' lives.

If you're just mad at poker pros for beating you, well then either learn to play better yourself, or quit. What can I say. I suspect this is part of your problem in a nutshell.

You have answered your own question about the biggest problem in America today. It is precisely people who think along the same lines you have been thinking along. Meddlers in the lives of others are the bane of society, and the greatest danger to freedom.

[Kaz The Original]

Is this what advertiser's are doing? "Informing the consumer and competing for both the mindshare and the buying power of consumers"

First off, what is a mindshare.

I had considered the diea that advertising gives consumer's more choice. But when you consider that commmercials do not attempt to give a realisitc assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of various products when compared to eachother, but instead, simply attempt to say that everything is great, I believe they do not accomplish this goal.

[Kaz The Original]

Now you have some misconceptions about my post here. I am not running for office. I am not drafting laws for congress. I am attempting to understand our society, it's imperfections and it's strengths.

I do not appreciate the childishness of your post, but I will not respond to specific accusations as that is to even acknowledge them. Regardless, if you continue to lace your responses with them, I will have to discontinue this discourse. Which would be a shame because you raise some decent points.

I would not be advocating the outright taking of their money. Something like a 100% inheritence tax would solve the problem entirely. I do not want to debate this point (the inheritence tax), as I have not even decided whether or not I am in favour of it, I am simply showing you one option for which we could "eliminate" the idle rich.

We have to embrace change in our society, we cannot stagnate. Is this meddling or vision? There are certainly many problems in our society today and they must be addressed as we move forward. To accept things as they are is unnacceptable.

[CORed]

Who gets to decide what's useful and should be paid, and what isn't useful and shouldn't be paid? Currently, the people who are paying make that decision. Actors, musicians, and pro atheletes get paid a lot of money because a lot of people are willing to watch their movies, game and concerts or buy their records and videos. Somebody apparently believes they are producing something of value.

Professional poker players are maybe a little harder case to make, but again, nobody's forcing the fish to chase their gutshots, or indeed to sit down at the poker table in the first place. They must feel that they are getting some value for their money.

So, I guess my question to you is, are you just whining, or do you want to have some kind of government body deciding who is worth their pay and who isn't? Or do you have some other solution in mind that I can't think of? I'm not claiming that the free market provides a perfect solution to this problem, only that it works better than any other systems that have been tried (Look up Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They tried another way. Remember them?).

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not have a solid enough grounding in economics

[/ QUOTE ]

What a shock!

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I do object to the vast maddening crowds of Hollywood that produce third rate, flashy movies who deny content in favour of style. These individuals are producing waste and consuming large amounts of what we produce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree with your opinion of the quality (or lack thereof) of a lot of the product coming out of Hollywood, I ask you again: Who decides what movies are worthy of our continuing support? The people who spend their money to see the movies, or the government? Hollywood produces these movies because people pay to see them. Apparently you believe that your taste should govern what kind of movies are produced.

Whether you realize it or not, you are a socialist, if not a communist.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
We have to embrace change in our society, we cannot stagnate. Is this meddling or vision? There are certainly many problems in our society today and they must be addressed as we move forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

The very notion that we should be "doing things" to "improve" society is actually a large part of the problem.

The more you meddle with society, the worse it generally gets. The more others meddle, and the more others meddle, and pretty soon you have a nation of meddling busybodies who think their highest calling is to mind their neighbor's lives and businesses.

[ QUOTE ]
To accept things as they are is unnacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should that be? Why is it not acceptable to accept things as they are?

I see nothing "wrong" with so doing. What is counterproductive is thinking YOU have the answer for everybody else. Because guaranteed, just as surely as you think you have the answer for THEM, they think they have the answer for YOU. And believe me, you really don't want that.

I would suggest you read Walden by Henry David Thoreau, if you haven't already. It may give you a new perspective, and it is a terrific read, too.

Meddling busybodyness is the bane of society, not the cure-all for society's problems. Just as fences tend to make good neighbors, so too does leaving people alone tend to make for good society.

Sorry for the tone but it is really ideas like those you suggest, that if implemented, just make everything worse not better. I thought world history had pretty much showed that government is a necessary evil that is best kept relatively small and out of the lives of its citizens for the most part. Of all the horrible things that have happened in the world, most on large scale were committed under government auspices. So giving government more power, such as you suggest, is a very dangerous path to be treading down.

[Kaz The Original]

Ahh... the red scare. This is not the 50's. You are not McCarthy. I am a free thinker, which means I will consider any and all ideas and not be thrown off by labels.

I do not think their should be a government deciding who is worth their pay. Not because this resembles communism (what kind of thinking is that) but because I do not think this would be any more effective.

For now, I have not answered with a solution to this problem, merely identifying it for now. That is half the solution in itself, is it not?

[Kaz The Original]

Dear CORRed : Please keep your red smear campaign to one subsection of this thread please : )

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

"mindshare" refers to the percentage of consumers who are aware of your brand or product.

The purpose of advertising is to keep your name in the consumer's mind when he shops. The onus to make a "realistic assessment" is on the buyer.

In reality, most competing products are roughly equal in actual value. Do you really expect businesses to invest millions in product development and not try to influence buying decisions?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Meddling busybodyness is the bane of society

I said as much earlier, but I was so much less polite. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Kaz The Original]

It is not a matter of expect, merely of "this is bad and counterproductive. It should not be."

[The once and future king]

Cultural artefacts are a recoursce. So therefore they produce a good/product/recoursce.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a matter of expect, merely of "this is bad and counterproductive. It should not be."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice fallacy there, Kaz.

Just because something is "bad" (a subjective view too, one might add) does not imply that it should not be. Especially if the alternatives are either worse or unfeasible.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The idle rich help make society better because they spend more than most others

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very wrong. The idle rich spend much less of there wealth as a proportion. They save/invest the vast majority of it.

Of course our economy wouldnt function without this.

For any given economy the most important question would be who is spending the most outside of their local economy as this is money leaving the system.

[The once and future king]

Actualy whilst there are obvious problmes with markets, one of which is that we have economies producing large amounts of junk and cultural mediocrity, what else can you do?

You cant have an economy run by commitee.

Given that the market dictates ultimately the artifacts and products we find in our communities, that the consumer decides what is made, then we can conclude that the general quality of what is made is dependent on level of englightenment of the consumer.

I would therefore posit that the parasites in our society are those elements of the cultural superstructure that seek to make/keep the conumer ignorant. Market ignorance = Consumer ignorance

Is not consumer ignorance the major function of advertising and marketing?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
The idle rich help make society better because they spend more than most others

[/ QUOTE ]



This is very wrong. The idle rich spend much less of there wealth as a proportion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, either you are looking at this wrong, or I am misunderstanding you.

The amount of help the idle rich provide to society through their spending is determined by absolute dollars, not proportional dollars.

Jack The Plumber doesn't care what proportion of your wealth you are paying him when he fixes your toilet or installs your jacuzzi, but he'd probably rather take on a $1000 service call than a $100 service call. The $1000 service call also does more towards helping Jack make a good total income for the year.

Suzy has a net worth of $15 million and pays $3,000 per year for professional gardening and lawn care services. Jessica has a net worth of $30,000 and buys a cheap lawnmower and mows the lawn herself.

Suzy has helped society through her spending much more than has Jessica, even though Suzy has spent a much smaller fraction of her wealth. Suzy's spending has provided employment and other benefits for others to a much greater degree than has Jessica's purchase.

[The once and future king]

Its very simple.

An economy dosnt care who is spending the money, just how much and where.

If the iddle rich had there money taken away from them, and redistributed amongst the poor folk, that money would still be spent, just on different things.

The money supply remains constant at a given number regardless of who is actualy spending it.

So you must see how proportions are important.

100 million$ (X) owned by 100,000, poor folks = 100% being translated directly into goods and services.

100 million (Y) owned by 1 idle rich peroson = 75% in savings/investments

Therefore we can see that a greater amount of quantity X is circulated through the economy via consumer spending though it is of equal value to quantity Y.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If the iddle rich had there money taken away from them, and redistributed amongst the poor folk, that money would still be spent, just on different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that wasn't the initial argument, OnceAndFuture.

Here was the initial argument:


[ QUOTE ]
The idle rich help make society better because they spend more than most others

[/ QUOTE ]

and your response to it:

[ QUOTE ]
This is very wrong. The idle rich spend much less of there wealth as a proportion. They save/invest the vast majority of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

and my response to that was that it is the absolute terms not proportion that matters when evaluating how much someone's spending helps the economy (or society).

You seem to have changed the question and to be answering something else, by virtue of introducing the notion of complete confiscation and redistribution. That isn't necesasarily the only alternative to there being some idle rich. And that isn't necessaarily the only alternative even if there is a fixed money supply (and a fixed money supply is not the same as a fixed amount of wealth. Wealth is continually being created. And if the idle rich came by their wealth by creating wealth, then even your redistributive assumptions are jeopardized, since it is essential to retain the incentive for creating wealth in the future).

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Just for future reference:

There (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=there&x=0&y=0)
Their (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=their&x=0&y=0)
They're (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=they%27re&x=0&y=0)

[The once and future king]

Just for future reference

Pedantic
[censored]

No links because you know what they mean.

If you read the my posts most of them have far worse typos than that, because I am posting the majority of time and playing 4-8 tables of poker and I dont seem able to do that and create grammaticaly perfect posts at the same time.

My apologies.

[The once and future king]

If we posit that society is helped by the velocity of exchange or in laymens terms spending, then the idle rich do not help.

Your arguement seems to be

Spending = good/helps society
Idle rich spend alot = good/helps society.

However my arguement is that the more of the finite amount of money ends up in idle rich hands the less of it is spent as a higher proportion of that money will go into savings and or investments.

Therefore Money in hands of Idle rich = less spending = bad for society.

Its simple.

Also I only mentioned redistribution as an illustration.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

If we posit that society is helped by the velocity of exchange or in laymens terms spending, then the idle rich do not help.

Your arguement seems to be

Spending = good/helps society
Idle rich spend alot = good/helps society.

However my arguement is that the more of the finite amount of money ends up in idle rich hands the less of it is spent as a higher proportion of that money will go into savings and or investments.

Therefore Money in hands of Idle rich = less spending = bad for society.

Its simple.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, it's not nearly that simple.

First of all, the original argument to which I was responding specified "wealth", not just "money". Wealth is not finite, in the sense that it can keep on growing indefinitely giving the right conditions; nor does wealth remain constant.

Also, your argument is trying to have it both ways without you realizing it.

That wealth you are referring to, in the hands of the idle rich, was largely created (though perhaps created over generations). Introduce complete and total redistribution, and you no longer have a system capable of creating that amount of wealth.

Inherent to capitalism, the system which creates by far the most overall wealth, is the fact that a lot of that wealth will end up concentrated. However, as an example, it is generally better to be poor in America than rich in Cuba (where even doctors have turned to prostitution or other unsavory sidelines in order to augment their meager incomes). Put another way, a small slice of a capitalist pie is generally bigger than a big slice of a communist pie (not comparing socialism here since that would muddy the waters).

So you can't just presume that all that wealth would be there for redistribution in the first place were it not for the system which helped create it. And if you redistribute it all, completely, you start a new system...and under that new system, overall wealth will not increase at nearly the same rate.

If you redistribute all of a farmer's tools and land (his capital) as well as his produce, why yes, everyone will have more for a while and the economy will be stimulated this month. But future crops will not be nearly so good. And if you keep that system in place, well 100 years from now you won't have idle rich with tons of money for your redistribution pleasure--because there just won't be all that surplus wealth. Not the perfect analogy; I'm just trying to show how your argument is trying to have it both ways (the fruits of capitalism, for redistribution purposes, yet without the long-term inequalities inherent to a capitalist system).

So I'm not sure if I am explaining it very well, but you can't have one without the other (at least not in the sustainable long-term); thus your example does not really show that which you are supposing it does.

One different point, too: the "surplus" money the idle rich have invested is money that is working: helping finance home mortgages; providing small business loans; providing corporations with capital for expansion. But again, that "surplus" money wouldn't be there in the first place were it not for the system which helped create it. And that system was not redistribution.

[ACPlayer]

it is generally better to be poor in America than rich in Cuba

True, but it is better to be poor in some of the European countries than in America.

Of course capitalism/democracy has its pluses and minuses. The problem with a lot of conservative thinking (specially those who say that we should be mandating this type of society all over the world) is that it does not allow for experimentation or even considerations that may lead to a different kind of society that is even better.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
True, but it is better to be poor in some of the European countries than in America.


[/ QUOTE ] Ship all our poor people to France, hand them a croissaant and wish them better luck in their new homeland. Problem solved, I wonder why the Liberals never considered such a simple and elegant solution?

[lastchance]

Besides that it's illegal and nearly impossible to pull off? :P

Honestly, AC made a pretty good point in the rest of the thread. While capitalism is generally +EV, there's got to be something even more +EV, and I really wish I had a good enough grasp of game theory and economics to say more on the matter.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Wealth is not finite

[/ QUOTE ]

The inverse of this is the fundemantal starting point of market economics, e.g. the competition for scarce recources. Scarcity or finity of wealth is the basis of all economics.

My point depends entirely on you understanding that at any given point there is only so much mony in the money supply. Yes this amount expands over time, this is why prices expand over time.

You said one sentence. Thye idle rich are good because they spend more.

I am only trying to point out the error of that statement. It should be intuitively obvious to you.

Money supply = fixed amount X. For good to occur under your intial statement this must be spent. Because the idle rich have some of the money supply this will be spent = good.

This is wrong. The more of fixed amount X in idle riches hands the more savings and investments there will be and less of amount X will be spent meaning a slower velocity of money.

What I am trying to say is that to anaylise the good in an economy you cannot pick out specific instances.
You must look at everything in aggregate

The economy only cares about the total sum being spent in the economy. How this sum total is divided up amognst specific individuals is irrelevant. The more money held by the idle rich (Sum Y) the more the proportion of Y will go into investments meaning that in aggregate there is less spending in the economy and moe saving.

You said Idle rich Spend more = good. That is all I am trying to disprove.

As I said in my intial reply, if you had said Idle rich = good because they invest I would not have had a problem with that. Investment is also vital to the running of the economy.

[MMMMMM]

I see your point, King; but I fear you may be missing mine.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The idle rich are good because they spend more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats to miss?

Also my posts are no way ment as arguement for redistribution, I only mentioned poor folk as they spend a higher proprotion of their capital.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Ship all our poor people to France

[/ QUOTE ]

Then sit back and laugh as the sudden inflation in labour costs deystroys the American economy.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ship all our poor people to France

[/ QUOTE ]




Then sit back and laugh as the sudden inflation in labour costs deystroys the American economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just attempting to help AC make the poor people happier.

As long as we have another country to invade our economy will thrive just fine thank you. BTW, where do you live? You might not be too far down the list.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
The idle rich are good (for the economy) because they spend more.



[ QUOTE ]
Whats to miss?

Also my posts are no way ment as arguement for redistribution, I only mentioned poor folk as they spend a higher proprotion of their capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the flaw in your argument is that you are presuming that without the idle rich, there would be the same amount of overall wealth--which is true only at the present moment. The path of events leading up to the current amount of overall wealth would have been different were it not for the rich and their wealth.