Since only the audiobook is available in my library, I ended up just buying the book on Amazon for about $10. I have to get through one baseball book before though (As They See ‘Em about umpires–it’s a great book so far). Maybe I’ll be done by the time it arrives!

Yes, true. However, Michael Moore was making the point that nothing was wrong. The wealthy were just fine, and the middle-class was thriving… families could be supported by just the father working. Moore places a lot of the blame on Reaganomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics), which also was an era where the US greatly increased its debt and reduced tax burdens on the wealthy.

I didn’t know about A Woman’s Concern… sounds like a great organization! The problem is that there just doesn’t see to be enough of them, and non-profit organizations usually don’t have the advertising budget to make themselves known to the people who need them most.

I don’t believe deregulation was the cause
The financial crisis is very complicated, and I don’t think radical changes proposed by Austrian economics would have been the best short-term approach. I would have favored a bailout with stricter restrictions… the bailout was rushed and seems to not really had much of an effect. I don’t have time to get sources for this (apologize), but I’m pretty sure most economists agreed that we just couldn’t let banks fail (though they didn’t like the bailout either).

Woods doesn’t blame deregulation because his definition of “deregulation” is different. He claims that true deregulation would mean the banks would be forced to fail (i.e. there would be no Federal Reserve as a safety net). He also argues that it was a “perfect storm” that coincided a normal business cycle. I don’t think there’s any debate that removing lending restrictions (that is, :ahem: regulations) caused the credit crisis. But whether you want to call it “deregulation” or not… that’s different.

I will read Economics in One Lesson, though I will do so as a skeptic of the Austrian School since it is not without criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Criticism

In particular, Bryan Caplan stands out to me, as he is a libertarian economist that but has criticized the Austrian School for not being scientifically rigorous.
http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Anyway, I am looking forward to reading more on different schools of economic thought (and I will treat Economics in One Lesson as free-market biased, though I recognize its use as a textbook nation-wide). But, I am entering the field as a skeptic, and due to its seemingly complicated nature, I may leave a skeptic too. I have always found that what usually works best is a mixture.

Just because taxes were higher at some time doesn’t make it right or good?

I actually have heard that he is a catholic.

A Woman’s Concern is a non-profit organization that we support that counsels women with surprise pregnancies at no cost. I am sure it does save many lives.

Since you said you won’t see the movie, one startling fact it presents is that tax rates on te wealthy used to be very high:

The Tax Foundation posts historical tax rates on their website. From 1950 to 1963, individuals paid 91% or 92% of their income above $200,000 to the federal government.

Nobody complained about those rates and the rich were still rich (I am talking the top 1% which currently has 40% of the wealth).

I’ll run to my library and pick the book up this week. I’ll let you know when I do. One big irony with Michael is that he is a big capitalist himself.

It might surprise you to learn that Michael Moore is a lifelong catholic, and even wanted to be a priest. A few preists are interviewed in the movie.

You are mostly correct regarding single-payer. When I said private companies, I should have said private hospitals/clinics. Private insurers would provide supplemental insurace (which is 15% of the industry in Canada). Anyway, I think we have spun our wheels on that issue.

Regarding abortion, I imagine a system just like Switzerland’s assisted suicide. If we can provide mental care to pregnant women then perhaps they will choose to either keep or put their baby up for adoption. The system would save a lot of lives, sometimes 2 for each incident! The problem is that health insurance is expensive and people don’t have access to that care (hey, do you think universal healthcare might solve that?).

“Then, you clearly haven’t been paying attention.”

Just saying I haven’t heard it. I wasn’t trying to claim he didn’t. I don’t actually have a TV. I just subscribe to various blogs and watch videos on youtube, etc.

“I think there’s a major difference between giving government power to control our health care (like the UK) and giving the government the ability to control our insurance (like Canada).”

- I am sure there is but I am against giving more power to the federal government on any level. I think they have way too much and they need to reduce their size significantly.

“I think we can agree that as long as private insurance companies compete with the public plan, we’ll be in good shape.”

- I don’t consider this ideal but it might work out to be ok in the short run.

“If the public plan is really that much cheaper (which if it’s self-sustaining, that would be impressive), then hopefully private plans will make necessary adjustments and still compete.”

- The problem is that isn’t not real competition. The government can be as cheap as they want and just print, borrow or tax the difference. No company can really compete with that.

“To me, it seems that single-payer is a better way to ensure that private companies stay in business and have low, competitive rates.”

- I guess I don’t understand what single payer means. I thought that meant that the government would be the only insurance company. In that scenario there would be no other competition.

“My opinion on abortion (and assisted suicide for that matter) stems from the fact that we can’t prevent what people do. The suicide barriers on bridges exist for a reason. If abortion is illegal, women will find another way to get rid of their child. I believe Switzerland has it right–they allow abortions in the first trimester and have a lower abortion rate than the US. Switzerland also has organizations that provide suicide counseling and assisted suicide. Most citizens opt against assisted suicide after the counseling. Switzerland may also have a good healthcare model for the US to follow (but that’s questionable, as they are said to be considering a switch to single-payer):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731”

I would agree with you in regards to suicide but not for abortion. I see abortion as different because to me it involves one person killing another person. What is the difference between killing a baby out of the whom and one that is inside the whom? Why is one illegal and the other not? Why does the baby only have rights after it has left the whom?

My ideal society would allow companies to become large and profitable because they have delivered the best product at the best price not because they have the best lobbyists.

This movie I am sure will put the blame on capitalism. I would put the blame on government interventionism.

Take high salaries for example. If a CEO is making 5 million a year making staples. Another company can come along with a cheaper product and put the larger company out of business unless they start paying their top management less money.

When large corporations have government subsidies and regulations that make it hard for newcomers to enter the market then you have an example of government intervention that distorts the free market and allows corporations to become larger, more powerful, etc.

I will tell you this. If you read Economics in One Lesson I will watch this movie if you want.

Nothing really to take issue with there, but it should be noted that there are many different types of oligarchies and republics. Of course, I’m in favor of maintaining our republic. Though, with the corporate influence in recent years, I would argue that we have leaned toward an oligarchy for the past 30 years.

By the way, I would encourage you to see Michael Moore’s Capitalism when you get a chance and provide a response on the site. There was one scene that was not very funny and hard to watch (it was a scene with Bush giving a speech and he adds hellish animations in the background), but I think he sums up the opinions of the left pretty well. He also criticizes both republicans (Reagan for starting an era of corporate influence in government; Bush for many reasons) and democrats (Clinton for deregulating the banking industry; representatives for voting for the bailout). Facts are provided on his site. My major problem with the movie was that it left me feeling kind of hopeless. There were only a few suggestions in the credits about what to do about our current problems (including a note about Pennies for Pilots)…

Then, you clearly haven’t been paying attention. Throughout the campaign and the health insurance debate, Obama has consistently said that he supports a single-payer system if starting from scratch, but we cannot implement one with our current infrastructure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAPLb-HVcM

And here’s the text from his health care speech:

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html

- Handing it over to government is not the way to do it. We need to get rid of all government subsidies to corporations and any regulations that make it harder for smaller companies to compete.

I think there’s a major difference between giving government power to control our health care (like the UK) and giving the government the ability to control our insurance (like Canada). I think we can agree that as long as private insurance companies compete with the public plan, we’ll be in good shape. If the public plan is really that much cheaper (which if it’s self-sustaining, that would be impressive), then hopefully private plans will make necessary adjustments and still compete. If it puts some money-hungry private health insurance companies out of business, good for it. There just needs to be some lasting competition to ensure competitive rates. That’s the goal set out by the Obama Administration. To me, it seems that single-payer is a better way to ensure that private companies stay in business and have low, competitive rates.

My opinion on abortion (and assisted suicide for that matter) stems from the fact that we can’t prevent what people do. The suicide barriers on bridges exist for a reason. If abortion is illegal, women will find another way to get rid of their child. I believe Switzerland has it right–they allow abortions in the first trimester and have a lower abortion rate than the US. Switzerland also has organizations that provide suicide counseling and assisted suicide. Most citizens opt against assisted suicide after the counseling. Switzerland may also have a good healthcare model for the US to follow (but that’s questionable, as they are said to be considering a switch to single-payer):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

“But, I will choose to believe our elected administration that claims that single-payer would be impossible to implement.”

- I haven’t heard Obama say this. We seem to continue a path away from a true free market and that will cause problems.

“The bottom line is that we need to get the power away from health insurance companies and into our own hands.”

- Handing it over to government is not the way to do it. We need to get rid of all government subsidies to corporations and any regulations that make it harder for smaller companies to compete.

“In theory, the self-sustaining, no-agenda, government-operated health insurance company forces them to compete.”

It might serve in a way as competition if the plans were prices just right but if a government option is too cheap they will put the “competition” out of business and I don’t think that is really a good thing. I would prefer new efficient companies to put old inefficient companies out of business. But that can’t happen right now because of government interference in the free market.

Anyway…

I am against abortion because I believe it is the same as murder. You are focusing on the rights of the mother while I am focusing on the rights of the child.

At what point would you consider the fetus life and worthy of human rights? Are partial birth abortions right?

We are actually suppose to be a republic.

I’ll have to watch that video, but from my understanding it is not known exactly what our founding fathers meant by “republic”. “Republic” in the US has come to mean “representative democracy” (much like calling “football” in the US “soccer”), where citizens elect government officials. I agree that we should have a representative democracy (though I am in favor of NPVIC for eliminating the Electoral College–I think the popular vote should decide all elections).

If a self-sustainable public option can be created, then I don’t see what the problem is. I don’t care who gives me my health insurance… I care about how it is delivered. As I stated before, I’m in favor of single-payer with all private health insurance companies. But, I will choose to believe our elected administration that claims that single-payer would be impossible to implement. The bottom line is that we need to get the power away from health insurance companies and into our own hands. In theory, the self-sustaining, no-agenda, government-operated health insurance company forces them to compete. And, if they can’t compete with a self-sustaining independent company, then there are probably some shady practices going on. Anyway…

I don’t know all of your views, but based on comments and posts, I’d say you are “conservative” on a “very conservative” to “very liberal” scale. That’s because you are in favor of limited government but also a non-interventionist foreign policy (which both should be conservative, but the latter has been liberal since Vietnam). I would rate myself as “liberal” because I am skeptical of government actions, but I do understand that sometimes we have to spend more money upfront to see a greater return later. I am also very liberal when it comes to social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion).