Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Pat]

Public spending does a lot of damage, because it misallocates resources. For instance, the economy is generally pretty good at shutting down unproductive sectors and shifting the money and other resources to more productive areas. This is the creative destruction that drives economic growth. But when the government props up entire sectors, those resources are basically frozen in stasis, and can't be reallocated. This doesn't just hurt those individual sectors, there are also some theories that say misallocation is what drives the boom/bust cycle.

There's always been a wide consensus to support the less fortunate, but it's needs to be targeted and limited. The idea that if we can just throw money and vague feelings at a problem and solve it is fundamentally a broken one.

Let us also remember that furlough schemes have also encouraged massive fraud. It's endemic in this country, our tax authorities have had to devote a lot of their already stretched resources (largely due to their own staff taking the piss and "working" from home) to investigating all sorts of elaborate schemes to grift money from the government.

Medicare in the US found a perfect govermental solution to that problem: They just don't investigate fraud. That lets them brag their administrative costs are low, as well, because they don't have to spend all that money on fraud prevention.

[Pat]

The first stimulus was sent out too soon. People were buying TVs and making downpayments in automobiles. They should have waited till about now to release a decent lump sum. I'm almost certain a last check will come thru with likely a proof of vaccine requirement.

How does that make any sense at all? A year ago, some people were going under. Today, some people are still doing fine. An equal lump sum given to everyone at any random point in time will help some people who desperately need it, but be too late to really help others (who have already been kicked out for failure to pay rent, lost their jobs because they didn't have childcare or couldn't pay for car repairs, and ruined their credit ratings), and be a side of gravy to the rest. The number of people in the first category, who really need it at that exact moment, is going to very small no matter what date you pick.

The main advantages of a lump sum are two: 1) It's easy to administer. The checks wouldn't have gone out, if they needed to do casework. Look at the disaster surrounding all that unused rent assistance, for instance. 2) It creates a new government dependency. (The real reason.)

If they really wanted to help, then they'd be handing out most of what they're spending. But the CARES Act cost $2.2 trillion. That works out to a cost of $15,000 per taxpayer, but they only gave each taxpayer $1,200.

[oggsmash]

And unlike war spending, it produced nothing of value in the process. People were paid to stay at home and not create economic activity. Money literally pissed down the drain.

Depends how you look at it. If you go to the mall you'll see people who weren't likely to be there spending money. In a way, they're jumpstarting the economy. Then you have the people who saved, and think they're a step ahead when in reality hyper inflation kept them in the same financial level. Restaurant owners in particular, are the ones crying the most about lack of staff. Did you know waiters get paid as low as $5/hr? Without costumers there's no tips. I don't think it's fair we allow the less fortunate to suffer in the middle of a global crisis. It's the whole point of paying taxes!

  If you pay people solely to consume, there will be a price to pay.  I am guessing you do not get out much, do many projects around the house, etc.  to not notice there are supply chain issues all over the place in the USA.  From individual 50 packs of doritos to vinyl.  Chips in cars.  And so on and so on.    Paying taxes IS NOT to prevent the less fortunate from suffering.  It is to provide a safety net, not a cushy effort free existence.

You skipped the global crisis part, and jumped to assumptions. I don't pay taxes to keep the less fortunate comfy, I pay taxes so in a moment of crisis everyone gets the assistance they need. I come out daily and still to experience a shortage of anything. With the exception of next gen consoles and graphics cards due to yes, a chip shortage.

Maybe some regions are affected more than others, but if you're in either coast you're unlikely to experience shortages. What I'm experiencing is Biden inflation, and here's a interesting point... Did you know only 8% of the past 'covid relief' bills were actually stimulus and payment assistance? A lot of money was used for a lot of unrelated crap.

Public spending does a lot of damage, because it misallocates resources. For instance, the economy is generally pretty good at shutting down unproductive sectors and shifting the money and other resources to more productive areas. This is the creative destruction that drives economic growth. But when the government props up entire sectors, those resources are basically frozen in stasis, and can't be reallocated. This doesn't just hurt those individual sectors, there are also some theories that say misallocation is what drives the boom/bust cycle.

There's always been a wide consensus to support the less fortunate, but it's needs to be targeted and limited. The idea that if we can just throw money and vague feelings at a problem and solve it is fundamentally a broken one.

The first stimulus was sent out too soon. People were buying TVs and making downpayments in automobiles. They should have waited till about now to release a decent lump sum. I'm almost certain a last check will come thru with likely a proof of vaccine requirement.

  This is more to my point, giving people money will only fix their problems if money is their problem.  People buying TVs and Cars with money from the government do not have a money problem.  They have a serious judgement problem.

[HappyDaze]

Public spending does a lot of damage, because it misallocates resources. For instance, the economy is generally pretty good at shutting down unproductive sectors and shifting the money and other resources to more productive areas. This is the creative destruction that drives economic growth. But when the government props up entire sectors, those resources are basically frozen in stasis, and can't be reallocated. This doesn't just hurt those individual sectors, there are also some theories that say misallocation is what drives the boom/bust cycle.

There's always been a wide consensus to support the less fortunate, but it's needs to be targeted and limited. The idea that if we can just throw money and vague feelings at a problem and solve it is fundamentally a broken one.

Let us also remember that furlough schemes have also encouraged massive fraud. It's endemic in this country, our tax authorities have had to devote a lot of their already stretched resources (largely due to their own staff taking the piss and "working" from home) to investigating all sorts of elaborate schemes to grift money from the government.

Medicare in the US found a perfect govermental solution to that problem: They just don't investigate fraud. That lets them brag their administrative costs are low, as well, because they don't have to spend all that money on fraud prevention.

They don't? My compliance department says otherwise.

[Garry G]

Public spending does a lot of damage, because it misallocates resources. For instance, the economy is generally pretty good at shutting down unproductive sectors and shifting the money and other resources to more productive areas. This is the creative destruction that drives economic growth. But when the government props up entire sectors, those resources are basically frozen in stasis, and can't be reallocated. This doesn't just hurt those individual sectors, there are also some theories that say misallocation is what drives the boom/bust cycle.

There's always been a wide consensus to support the less fortunate, but it's needs to be targeted and limited. The idea that if we can just throw money and vague feelings at a problem and solve it is fundamentally a broken one.

Let us also remember that furlough schemes have also encouraged massive fraud. It's endemic in this country, our tax authorities have had to devote a lot of their already stretched resources (largely due to their own staff taking the piss and "working" from home) to investigating all sorts of elaborate schemes to grift money from the government.

How are staff being told to work from home taking the piss? Surely doing what your employer tells you to the exact opposite.

[Pat]

Public spending does a lot of damage, because it misallocates resources. For instance, the economy is generally pretty good at shutting down unproductive sectors and shifting the money and other resources to more productive areas. This is the creative destruction that drives economic growth. But when the government props up entire sectors, those resources are basically frozen in stasis, and can't be reallocated. This doesn't just hurt those individual sectors, there are also some theories that say misallocation is what drives the boom/bust cycle.

There's always been a wide consensus to support the less fortunate, but it's needs to be targeted and limited. The idea that if we can just throw money and vague feelings at a problem and solve it is fundamentally a broken one.

Let us also remember that furlough schemes have also encouraged massive fraud. It's endemic in this country, our tax authorities have had to devote a lot of their already stretched resources (largely due to their own staff taking the piss and "working" from home) to investigating all sorts of elaborate schemes to grift money from the government.

Medicare in the US found a perfect govermental solution to that problem: They just don't investigate fraud. That lets them brag their administrative costs are low, as well, because they don't have to spend all that money on fraud prevention.

They don't? My compliance department says otherwise.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1148376
(avoiding the paywall: http://files.mccn.edu/media/ds/Berwick%20et%20al%202012.pdf)

[Kiero]

How are staff being told to work from home taking the piss? Surely doing what your employer tells you to the exact opposite.

They can't do their jobs remotely because that requires access to systems which don't leave the office. Furthermore, a lot of their work is based on letter correspondence. HMRC has a backlog of a million unopened letters because there was no one to process them for months.

They're taking the piss and so are their employers. But I'm not surprised that you leapt up to defend the workshy public sector once again.

[Garry G]

How are staff being told to work from home taking the piss? Surely doing what your employer tells you to the exact opposite.

They can't do their jobs remotely because that requires access to systems which don't leave the office. Furthermore, a lot of their work is based on letter correspondence. HMRC has a backlog of a million unopened letters because there was no one to process them for months.

They're taking the piss and so are their employers. But I'm not surprised that you leapt up to defend the workshy public sector once again.

It's mainly because everything you say is a piece of nonsense. HMRC left 20% of people in the workplace, I agree that's far short of the 80% for the lower paid DWP,  under direction of their employers. The 80% that worked from home did this because they were directed to which in no way implies that they were workshy. These are people in mostly low paying jobs who have to do what they're telt.

Perhaps if you lived in the real world of people who don't get paid all that much you'd understand that doing what your boss says isn't being workshy.

[Mistwell]

War spending produces nothing of value.

In unrelated news, China admitted there are covid-19 outbreaks in at least 15 cities. Which of course means the real outbreak is much, much bigger.

One of the cities is Wuhan, where they want to test 12 million people for sars2. How are they doing it?

Automated testing stations! Where you put your mouth on the plastic dildo and a robot shoves a cotton swab down your throat! And it's completely contact free, except for the part you and the next person and the next person all put your mouths on!

Who would've thought China would come up with something even more fun than anal probing diplomats!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eX4oy_5E8s

Nope. The part you put your mouth on is attached to it by you, and removed by you when you leave. I mean, it's almost like you linked to a site which is intended as counter-propaganda which itself employs propaganda?

You can see the actual test here, and you will see the patient places the nozzle on themselves and then removes it when they are done:

https://www.scmp.com/video/china/3117816/robotic-arm-conducts-covid-19-tests-china-fights-coronavirus-flare

[Pat]

War spending produces nothing of value.

In unrelated news, China admitted there are covid-19 outbreaks in at least 15 cities. Which of course means the real outbreak is much, much bigger.

One of the cities is Wuhan, where they want to test 12 million people for sars2. How are they doing it?

Automated testing stations! Where you put your mouth on the plastic dildo and a robot shoves a cotton swab down your throat! And it's completely contact free, except for the part you and the next person and the next person all put your mouths on!

Who would've thought China would come up with something even more fun than anal probing diplomats!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eX4oy_5E8s

Nope. The part you put your mouth on is attached to it by you, and removed by you when you leave. I mean, it's almost like you linked to a site which is intended as counter-propaganda which itself employs propaganda?

You can see the actual test here, and you will see the patient places the nozzle on themselves and then removes it when they are done:

https://www.scmp.com/video/china/3117816/robotic-arm-conducts-covid-19-tests-china-fights-coronavirus-flare

Yes, that's literally what I said. I know it's hard to remember everything you just quoted, but remember where I said "you put your mouth on the plastic dildo"? Surprise, surprise it's a reference to the part you put in your mouth. The "you" should have given it away.

And remember the "robot shoves down your throat" part? Notice it's immediately followed by the words "cotton swab". I know verbs and objects are tough concepts, but it's referring to the part (the swab!) that the robot inserts.

All of which is demonstrated in the video I linked. Which you'd know, if you watched it.

I can see why you were scared away, though. China Uncensored doesn't employ propaganda, they employ sarcasm, and you're clearly confusing the two. For instance, when the bald guy refers to the Global Times as "my favorite Chinese state-run media", he's not supporting their blatant attempts at propaganda. No, he's mocking them.

I have to say, it's entertaining when someone tries to debunk me by by agreeing with every point I made.

[HappyDaze]

Public spending does a lot of damage, because it misallocates resources. For instance, the economy is generally pretty good at shutting down unproductive sectors and shifting the money and other resources to more productive areas. This is the creative destruction that drives economic growth. But when the government props up entire sectors, those resources are basically frozen in stasis, and can't be reallocated. This doesn't just hurt those individual sectors, there are also some theories that say misallocation is what drives the boom/bust cycle.

There's always been a wide consensus to support the less fortunate, but it's needs to be targeted and limited. The idea that if we can just throw money and vague feelings at a problem and solve it is fundamentally a broken one.

Let us also remember that furlough schemes have also encouraged massive fraud. It's endemic in this country, our tax authorities have had to devote a lot of their already stretched resources (largely due to their own staff taking the piss and "working" from home) to investigating all sorts of elaborate schemes to grift money from the government.

Medicare in the US found a perfect govermental solution to that problem: They just don't investigate fraud. That lets them brag their administrative costs are low, as well, because they don't have to spend all that money on fraud prevention.

They don't? My compliance department says otherwise.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1148376
(avoiding the paywall: http://files.mccn.edu/media/ds/Berwick%20et%20al%202012.pdf)

Your source is dated, and much has changed with CMS since 2012.

[Pat]

Public spending does a lot of damage, because it misallocates resources. For instance, the economy is generally pretty good at shutting down unproductive sectors and shifting the money and other resources to more productive areas. This is the creative destruction that drives economic growth. But when the government props up entire sectors, those resources are basically frozen in stasis, and can't be reallocated. This doesn't just hurt those individual sectors, there are also some theories that say misallocation is what drives the boom/bust cycle.

There's always been a wide consensus to support the less fortunate, but it's needs to be targeted and limited. The idea that if we can just throw money and vague feelings at a problem and solve it is fundamentally a broken one.

Let us also remember that furlough schemes have also encouraged massive fraud. It's endemic in this country, our tax authorities have had to devote a lot of their already stretched resources (largely due to their own staff taking the piss and "working" from home) to investigating all sorts of elaborate schemes to grift money from the government.

Medicare in the US found a perfect govermental solution to that problem: They just don't investigate fraud. That lets them brag their administrative costs are low, as well, because they don't have to spend all that money on fraud prevention.

They don't? My compliance department says otherwise.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1148376
(avoiding the paywall: http://files.mccn.edu/media/ds/Berwick%20et%20al%202012.pdf)

Your source is dated, and much has changed with CMS since 2012.

Definitely. But it's also hard to find any decent studies on the subject, and all the more recent sources I found referred back that study. It's heavy obfuscated.

[HappyDaze]

Public spending does a lot of damage, because it misallocates resources. For instance, the economy is generally pretty good at shutting down unproductive sectors and shifting the money and other resources to more productive areas. This is the creative destruction that drives economic growth. But when the government props up entire sectors, those resources are basically frozen in stasis, and can't be reallocated. This doesn't just hurt those individual sectors, there are also some theories that say misallocation is what drives the boom/bust cycle.

There's always been a wide consensus to support the less fortunate, but it's needs to be targeted and limited. The idea that if we can just throw money and vague feelings at a problem and solve it is fundamentally a broken one.

Let us also remember that furlough schemes have also encouraged massive fraud. It's endemic in this country, our tax authorities have had to devote a lot of their already stretched resources (largely due to their own staff taking the piss and "working" from home) to investigating all sorts of elaborate schemes to grift money from the government.

Medicare in the US found a perfect govermental solution to that problem: They just don't investigate fraud. That lets them brag their administrative costs are low, as well, because they don't have to spend all that money on fraud prevention.

They don't? My compliance department says otherwise.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1148376
(avoiding the paywall: http://files.mccn.edu/media/ds/Berwick%20et%20al%202012.pdf)

Your source is dated, and much has changed with CMS since 2012.

Definitely. But it's also hard to find any decent studies on the subject, and all the more recent sources I found referred back that study. It's heavy obfuscated.

Without bogging down on details, CMS does do audits, and they expect participants to self-audit too. Their own audits get much more involved if the self-audits are not up to par (solid self-audits with disclosed fallouts won't get you scrutinized nearly so much as half-assed self-audits that come up "clean"). It's a feedback loop to get participants to honestly self-report for fear of drawing the eyes of the inquisition.

[Pat]

Without bogging down on details, CMS does do audits, and they expect participants to self-audit too. Their own audits get much more involved if the self-audits are not up to par (solid self-audits with disclosed fallouts won't get you scrutinized nearly so much as half-assed self-audits that come up "clean"). It's a feedback loop to get participants to honestly self-report for fear of drawing the eyes of the inquisition.

It should be obvious, but in case it wasn't, I was being hyperbolic when I said they don't investigate fraud. They do, but the amount they spent on fraud prevention is tiny, compared to say a credit card company. In general, they've used that to claim their administrative costs are low, even though it's a bad trade off, because each additional dollar they spend on fraud prevention would reduce fraud by a multiple of that. Medicaid is even worse. The reason this happens is purely political; waste is just a number, but if you make life slightly inconvenient for even a single family, that's a sob story your enemies can run forever.

To your initial point, compliance costs are another big source of waste. It's not just the byzantine requirements, but how subjective many of them are. It's really hard to properly CYA, and that uncertainty adds to costs. That's why even modest doctors' offices often have half a dozen or more staff in the basement or a back office somewhere just to deal with medical billing.

[Mistwell]

War spending produces nothing of value.

In unrelated news, China admitted there are covid-19 outbreaks in at least 15 cities. Which of course means the real outbreak is much, much bigger.

One of the cities is Wuhan, where they want to test 12 million people for sars2. How are they doing it?

Automated testing stations! Where you put your mouth on the plastic dildo and a robot shoves a cotton swab down your throat! And it's completely contact free, except for the part you and the next person and the next person all put your mouths on!

Who would've thought China would come up with something even more fun than anal probing diplomats!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eX4oy_5E8s

Nope. The part you put your mouth on is attached to it by you, and removed by you when you leave. I mean, it's almost like you linked to a site which is intended as counter-propaganda which itself employs propaganda?

You can see the actual test here, and you will see the patient places the nozzle on themselves and then removes it when they are done:

https://www.scmp.com/video/china/3117816/robotic-arm-conducts-covid-19-tests-china-fights-coronavirus-flare

Yes, that's literally what I said. I know it's hard to remember everything you just quoted, but remember where I said "you put your mouth on the plastic dildo"? Surprise, surprise it's a reference to the part you put in your mouth. The "you" should have given it away.

No you said it was the opposite. "except for the part you and the next person and the next person all put your mouths on!" No, that part you put your mouth on is replaced each time.