Re: Does the Fear of Jail Actually Prevent Crime? Yes.

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:b12bce41-6948-4d56-bfeb-92d1009b1bda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 30, 3:25 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a48cc230-acc8-4069-90c2-12cad6d07a3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Nov 30, 11:10 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:2a727820-e46c-403b-b6fe-b0dc2f541af1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > On Nov 29, 1:38 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >>news:140419c9-0c3d-426f-aecf-defa84e1be1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Let's take a simple example of what I see as being a problem with >> > the
>> > "market". There is much hand-wringing about the "nursing shortage".
>> > But it could be solved immediately, and simply. If gauranteed >> > living
>> > stipends were provided for everyone choosing to try nursing school,
>> > for as long as they continued and were successful in school, the
>> > "shortage" would disappear overnight. This is an option for anyone
>> > entering medical school in the U.S., if they agree to a "hardship
>> > posting" following completion of the program.
>> > It isn't done for nurses,
>> Yep, it is:
>>http://www.federalgrantswire.com/national-health-service-corps-schola...
>> > There are many other examples of this type of, what I would call,
>> > "market inefficiency", where trying to make money obstructs social
>> > progress.
>> But you're using other people's money to further YOUR version of >> "social
>> progress."
>> If you're going to use other people's money then THEIR version of >> "social
>> progress" needs to be considered.
>> > This is where higher taxes and redistribution of wealth in
>> > terms of job creation and social programs have their function. >> > These
>> > aren't "fake" jobs. Just government subsidized social >> > restructuring.
>> > Which has its uses, I'm afraid.
>> I think where you go off track is when you want other people's money
>> BEFORE
>> you've identified and defined a problem.
>> We've done this before, we have Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid,
>> fifteen
>> zillion other things that we've determined are valid social
>> needs/problems
>> and then we jacked what we needed from the taxpayers.
>> The difference is that we as a Nation had the debate and as a >> reflection
>> of
>> our votes did or didn't establish or expand a program.
>> The gov't's role is to create and maintain opportunity so job creation
>> will
>> occur naturally, and to solve problems that negatively impact
>> opportunity.
> As usual, we get muddled in the details. Yes, there are scholarship
> programs, but very few people will actually be awarded full
> scholarships, for nursing. That's why there's a nursing shortage.
I don't think that's why we have a nursing shortage BUT I can't begin to
prove what I think the two main causes are....
> I used the example of medical school, because ALL successful applicants
> to medical school are given the opportunity to receive a full living
> stipend plus tuition in return for agreeing to a hardship posting
> following gradutation. No competition required.
No competition required, that's an excellent point.
> What do you mean by "naturally" occurring job creation? When should
> the government intervene, and how?
Big Huge Assumption (BHA): We have a normal amount of basic capitalist
greed in the society. (Not enough greed and capitalism fails, too much and
capitalism fails. Capitalism is a high maintenance socio-economic system,
unlike Socialism and Communism.)
If people are making money they spend money, when they get bored spending
money they invest money. Whether they invest in the economy directly
(starting businesses that create jobs) or they invest indirectly (their
money is indirectly loaned to people to start businesses that create jobs)
doesn't much matter. Eventually money finds the opportunity and that
creates jobs. So, in addition to BHA above we need an environment
characterized by plentiful opportunity. When we have that we get "naturally
occuring" job creation.
The gov't is like the bus driver. Foot on the accelerator (lower interest
rates, speed up the ecomony), foot on the brake pedal (lower interest rates,
slow it down if it gets going to fast). Sometimes opportunity is timid and
has to be prodded, and we see the gov't fund (or squash) an emerging
industry. The gov't has to always monitor the environment of opportunity.
> All governments collect people's
> money, and use it in ways they see fit. What makes you think that
> bombing Iran is a useful use of people's money, while solving the
> nursing shortage is not? What makes you think that more people agree
> with you than with me?
We have Polls for that, we have politicians and we have debates and
elections for that. In the bigger picture that has worked pretty well to set
national priorities.
I'm not necessarily so confident about the future. When we run low on oil
the oil companies will run low on what? Power. Then cash.
This is humorous in a perverted way. Which is driving up the cost of oil
today: The US saber-rattling over Iran's nuclear weapons development, or
Iran persuing nuclear weapons? The former is the key factor today. But in
five years when Iran successfully tests a nuclear warhead the price of oil
will automatically double before the US says or does anything.
You think we should have a referendum-based govt. I think you should think
bigger.
We should planetize our oil reserves.
Oh, I think big enough. We should develop controlled nuclear fusion.

They're working on it.

Ten thousand micro-lasers, pointed at a focal point. A technique
quite consistent with inertial containment technologies classified by
the U.S. Department of Defence. Gee, I wonder why they classifed that
particular technology, and not the more commonly employed
electrostatic and magnetic containment technologies? Because inertial
containment -- basically just making the area fused small enough that
energy released is easily manageable using conventional methods --
works. And a lot of people DON'T WANT CONTROLLED NUCLEAR FUSION!!!!
Free energy would change things a bit, wouldn't it?

It wouldn't be free, but it would be BOTH price-stable and market-driven.

Pick a number. I'll say $32 a barrel for oil. That the official on-Earth price for a barrel of oil. Everybody was making a nice profit when it was $23 a barrel so this shouldn't hurt anybody. That covers the total cost for a nation to find, drill, pump and transport oil to be sold.

How each nation finds, drills, pumps and transports oil is their business. All I'm saying is that the official price cannot exced or be less than $32 per barrel. If a particular nation doesn't want to sell any of its oil or some of its oil fine. Its their oil anyway.

Who do they sell it to? Don't care. The market would then determine the prices of the refined products of crude, including gasoline.

The high maintenance aspects of Capitalism make certain items, like gasoline, critically important. Our economy could be operating just fine and fluctuating gas prices can swing it in and out of minor inflation and recession. This then requires TOO much maintenance.


.