Is New Jersey Really that Horrible? (camp, salaries, centers)

[Ninjahedge]

You get what you pay for.

[JG183]

for anybody who thinks NJ is expensive :

World's Most Expensive Cities 2009 : Japanese Cities Rise to the Top - BusinessWeek

the only US city to make the list, NYC, came in 16th...

[The Michigan Man]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

Why would you think I had a problem understanding it? Did you struggle through it? It is written in plain english with very simplistic concepts. And, it makes perfect sense. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor does it mean it sufficiently addressed my points. Some of the lightheartedness in which the post was written was not lost on me, so I responded in kind in a way that didn't force me to respond to at least 10 different points that either didn't tell the whole story or that I just flat out disagree with at 1AM.

It's pretty clear that we are not going to get anywhere with each other, so why waste any more time on it?

I wasn't saying you didn't understand it. I was asking what didn't add up since you said you would stick to "common sense." Hands-off economics seems like common sense to me.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by The Michigan Man

I wasn't saying you didn't understand it. I was asking what didn't add up since you said you would stick to "common sense." Hands-off economics seems like common sense to me.

OK, I'll bite. "Hands off economics" can only be applied fairly if it applies to everybody, which it doesn't. As long as there are caveats, someone is getting screwed. Economists find ways to package these caveats in a nice neat little package and give them nice sounding names like "neighborhood effect" to justify their departure from their own rules. So basically, a free market should only be applied to "businesses" as we accept them as "businesses". AND THEN, only when a free market is favorable to business. Many of the same economists calling for a free market suddenly decided that some businesses were "too big to fail". Suddenly, the free market is not such a good idea.

Everyone else, who are working for the public good need to be regulated by the government. The compensation is NOT subject to bilateral informed consent as the other poster mentioned because the government changes the rules in the middle based on their own perceived needs. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just that if it applies to one sector, it is only fair that it can be applied to another (even business) without some neatly packaged little theory of why it is economically sound to be unjust.

Although many economics students seem to believe that economics is a science, and defend it as such, it is not a science. It is just theory. Science attempts to remove all bias, economists may claim to do the same, but it just doesn't work out that way. In science, the theory follows the evidence. In economics, the theory often is formed around what will work in a particular model. In science, a proven law is a law. There is no "too big to fail". Different schools of thought can vary prior to research, but are very limited when it comes to scientifically proven data. Economics has many different schools of thought that are completely different from one another. This is fine that it is all based on theory instead of evidence, just dont try and push it off as scientifically proven fact. Notice, I mentioned "economic students" because in my experience, the older, more experienced economists seem to learn this through their years of work/study. They become more flexible and less hard lined (in general). Ben Bernanke is an economist and he is often wrong in my opinion, as were many of his predicessors. Science didn't get us where we are today, theory did.

[The Michigan Man]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

OK, I'll bite. "Hands off economics" can only be applied fairly if it applies to everybody, which it doesn't. As long as there are caveats, someone is getting screwed. Economists find ways to package these caveats in a nice neat little package and give them nice sounding names like "neighborhood effect" to justify their departure from their own rules. So basically, a free market should only be applied to "businesses" as we accept them as "businesses". AND THEN, only when a free market is favorable to business. Many of the same economists calling for a free market suddenly decided that some businesses were "too big to fail". Suddenly, the free market is not such a good idea.

Everyone else, who are working for the public good need to be regulated by the government. The compensation is NOT subject to bilateral informed consent as the other poster mentioned because the government changes the rules in the middle based on their own perceived needs. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just that if it applies to one sector, it is only fair that it can be applied to another (even business) without some neatly packaged little theory of why it is economically sound to be unjust.

Although many economics students seem to believe that economics is a science, and defend it as such, it is not a science. It is just theory. Science attempts to remove all bias, economists may claim to do the same, but it just doesn't work out that way. In science, the theory follows the evidence. In economics, the theory often is formed around what will work in a particular model. In science, a proven law is a law. There is no "too big to fail". Different schools of thought can vary prior to research, but are very limited when it comes to scientifically proven data. Economics has many different schools of thought that are completely different from one another. This is fine that it is all based on theory instead of evidence, just dont try and push it off as scientifically proven fact. Notice, I mentioned "economic students" because in my experience, the older, more experienced economists seem to learn this through their years of work/study. They become more flexible and less hard lined (in general). Ben Bernanke is an economist and he is often wrong in my opinion, as were many of his predicessors. Science didn't get us where we are today, theory did.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm not even sure what prompted this response, either. "Hands off" economics is keeping the government out of my business. That includes gas stations.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by The Michigan Man

I wasn't saying you didn't understand it. I was asking what didn't add up since you said you would stick to "common sense." Hands-off economics seems like common sense to me.

This prompted it.

You asked me what didn't add up in the other post. I was just giving SOME examples. I have more, but I dont want to seem long winded.
I guess as far as he gas station goes, I feel that the government regulates me so I cant charge whatever I want, so Im not going to shed a tear for the gas station owners over the gas station law

[Birney30]

NJ isn't all bad, I was born and raised in NJ. The one thing that irks me the most here in NJ is the huge ego-maniacs that walk around. With every one's big head it's amazing that everyone can fit in this state and it's everywhere, in public, at the work place, on the road while driving. If everyone would just take 5 mins, relax and not worry about what the next person is doing everything would be fine.

As to it being the worst roads then in Somalia I think is stretching it a bit far lol.

I'm not complaining but there are times I'm like is it really worth the hassle living here but NJ is situated just right for where I am. We can be anywhere in NJ or in another state and doing anything with anyone in reasonable time. I can be in at the Jersey shore depending on where I wanna go in as little as 40 mins, be in NYC by car in 45 mins with no traffic, be in Philly in 1 1/2 hour, PA 1 - 2 hours depending on which way your going and what part of PA you wanna go to.

Yes taxes are high but where aren't they high, the town that my parents sold their house in everybody says is so bad because for 3 quarters of and acre of land they were paying $6800.00 a year in taxes, is that high? yes, I somewhat think so for that town but it's one of the only few swith everything included such as garbage collection, trash collection, papers recyclables and other things.

As someone said in another post that they read other states forums on here and they see the same thing. If you notice the ones that ***** the most cannot be pleased no matter what and they don't want to try an fix the problem. They complain but yet if it's that bad for them I don't see noone leaving.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

OK, I'll bite. "Hands off economics" can only be applied fairly if it applies to everybody, which it doesn't. As long as there are caveats, someone is getting screwed. Economists find ways to package these caveats in a nice neat little package and give them nice sounding names like "neighborhood effect" to justify their departure from their own rules.

There is no "departure" from a set of "rules".

There are certain preconditions that must be met for markets to be efficient. Without these preconditions, it is not valid to draw conclusions that are based on them.

So basically, a free market should only be applied to "businesses" as we accept them as "businesses".

That's a straw man, and it simply isn't true. I've provided a number of examples where there are policy consequences of departure from free market efficiency prerequisites, that business and hard-code "free market" people would not be in favor of.

AND THEN, only when a free market is favorable to business. Many of the same economists calling for a free market suddenly decided that some businesses were "too big to fail". Suddenly, the free market is not such a good idea.

It's hard to address this without specifics (which economists ?) The "too big to fail" crowd were not in my opinion hard code free market people. A large number of people who believed in this would also be friendly to policies such as cap and trade, health insurance mandates, etc.

I do agree that if companies are "too big to fail" (that is, their failure has negative externalities), then they should be subject to more stringent regulation. One financial times columnist recently proposed "taxing" size (that is, increase capital requirements for larger institutions)

Everyone else, who are working for the public good need to be regulated by the government. The compensation is NOT subject to bilateral informed consent as the other poster mentioned because the government changes the rules in the middle based on their own perceived needs.

This isn't specific enough to tell what you're getting at here. If you're referring to health care, then there is generally more government involvement, because you have several departures from free market assumptions. For example, many, perhaps most transactions are not bilaterally informed.

Another reason is that it's the nature of government to overreach. Once they get involved, there is no stopping them.

I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just that if it applies to one sector, it is only fair that it can be applied to another (even business) without some neatly packaged little theory of why it is economically sound to be unjust.

The moral basis for using neighborhood effects as a basis for regulation, is that if your actions have an effect on third parties, there should be some intervention to prevent negative effect, and possibly some compensation if there are positive effects. Basically, you can't have a kickboxing contest with your friend on a crowded subway.

I'm not going to comment a whole lot on the rest of your post, except to note that I agree that there are large areas of economics that don't readily lend themselves to randomized control trials, but I'd also point out that there are some that do, especially at the intersection of economics and psychology. And though it's true that there are different schools of economics with differing viewpoints, there are many things they agree on.

[The Michigan Man]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

This prompted it.

You asked me what didn't add up in the other post. I was just giving SOME examples. I have more, but I dont want to seem long winded.
I guess as far as he gas station goes, I feel that the government regulates me so I cant charge whatever I want, so Im not going to shed a tear for the gas station owners over the gas station law

Fair enough, I don't think two wrongs make a right though.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by elflord1973

The moral basis for using neighborhood effects as a basis for regulation, is that if your actions have an effect on third parties, there should be some intervention to prevent negative effect, and possibly some compensation if there are positive effects. Basically, you can't have a kickboxing contest with your friend on a crowded subway.

Again, I'm not going to address all areas of disagreement, but this one stood out. The widget CEO's actions have an effect on third parties too. Who decides which actions are important enough to warrant regulation?