Re: R U a T&S Liberal

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Prescription drugs for all is more a pricing problem than an income
distribution problem.  With all the complaints about oil prices, its a
puzzled why american are so docile about run-away frug prices.  Most of
the cost incurred by drig companies are not spent in R&D, but in
advertization and lobbying.  Further, drug prices should be income
related, i.e. those making 100 times more than the average should pay
100 times more.

Henry C.K. Liu

John Gelles wrote:

>         ARE  YOU  A  TAX  AND  SPEND  LIBERAL ?
>
>     Bob Kuttner, an editor at The American Prospect, offered
>     this opinion (6 May, page 2 TAP,):
>
>             "most Americans say they would pay higher taxes
>              to support things like universal health insurance,
>              high quality child care, and prescription drugs for
>              all."
>
>     Kuttner would agree that most Americans would also like
>     to receive these benefits without paying higher taxes.
>
>     He would also agree most Americans would like to pay
>     no visible taxes and file no tax returns--and they would
>     be glad to pay invisible taxes ONLY if they believed that
>     their own earnings were increasing yearly on account
>     of the invisible taxes (which were a last resort element
>     in a system that used inflation-protected money to
>     support democracy, human rights, the environment
>     and a guaranteed fair share of the economic pie for all
>     those who baked it.).
>
>     Kuttner would also agree that the system of money and
>     price, as we know it, does not require government to spend
>     only from moneys borrowed or received from taxes. The
>     system can tolerate a great deal of government spending
>     that is divorced from any "resevoir of money"--provided
>     spending by the private sector leaves slack in the markets
>     where things are sold and bought.
>
>     In fact Kuttner knows that the metaphor "resevoir of
>     money" is incomplete. There is wealth that is not money,
>     but can become money by borrowing against it. Such
>     wealth is far larger than any resevoir of money.
>
>     There is also potential wealth that can be produced very
>     rapidly to further augment "demand" when "supply" is
>     increased and the "system" connecting demand, supply
>     and price is functioning in the public interest.
>
>     Now Kuttner (and everyone on the PKT list) wants the
>     above system (call it the money-price system) to
>     function in the public interest.  But politicians and bankers
>     want the system to function first in their own interests
>     and, only after that, in the public interest.
>
>     The great middle class, of course, has no time to learn
>     how to do its taxes--much less how to improve the
>     system. How about Kuttner and all of us?  Do we think
>     we can continue to be seen as tax and spend liberals
>     and still move the middle class to vote for necessary
>     reform?
>
>     If taxes had never been invented, but fiat money had,
>     the price of non-money wealth (capital assets) would
>     rise as inflation-protected savings played the role of
>     taxes relative to hyperinflation.
>             In such a world, lawmakers as money-creators
>     (spending money into circulation) would be balanced
>     by money-makers as political campaign contributors.
>
>     No doubt the reforms implied above are not easy. But
>     they are necessary.  Until they are made we have not
>     enough money to protect us from avoidable disaster.
>
>     Until we admit they must be made the logic of our
>     positions on the budget surplus or deficit and on the
>     trade surplus or deficit and on interest rates, foreign
>     exchange rates and tax rates, is tragically flawed.
>
>     Milton Friedman believes the ad hoc nature of mass
>     decision making in the market as it is (with undue
>     advertising allowed and crooked business tolerated)
>     is superior to the ad hoc nature of lawmakers as
>     money-creators (instead of money-stealers--their
>     current role).
>                 I think it is time to look away from the
>     mindless mass of gamblers in the market and
>     toward rational political compromise--if we
>     want better results.
>
>     Many on PKT believe there is a "theory" to be
>     found that finesses ad-hocracy. If there is, perhaps
>     it is "a nation can afford whatever it can produce."
>                 That is the 1944 theory recognized by the
>     ILO (International Labor Organizaion), in Montreal,
>     to have set the stage for winning WW II.
>                 If we would win a war today we better
>     remember that theory.
>
>         John Gelles
>