Pessimism v. Optimism

[Tris]

The two extreme positions are this is the worst of all possible worlds and this is the best of all possible worlds. Interestingly, these positions by their nature can generate the opposite effects. If the world, right now, is the worst of all possible options, then that offers some hope. Why? Because things could never get worse than they are today. If the world is the best of all possible options, then, that creates utter despair, because nothing could ever improve. So, surely, those two viewpoints must look at a moment to moment situation that means, each moment is either the best or the worst that can exist.

I was reading job descriptions, and found some in IP that said: we want attorneys who tell us we can do X, not attorneys who tell use we can't. I read a CAFC opinion (one of many in my experience where infringers trot out letters) where a patent infringer obtained crap loads of opinion letters from attorneys of that type saying, sure your product is fine, no infringement problems at all. What would have happened to the attorney who said, no, no you can't produce the product this way... it needs some modifications? The answer is simple, never would get business from the company again. The company's ultimate price for this? Extensive litigation, and cost outlays regarding infirngement.

Sadly, because business/industry is so wrapped up in the "we can do this" or "we can do that" mindset people don't listen to reason. Attorneys who say this needs changing get blackballed, while the company seeks out those who agree with their silly optimism about their products.


On the ancient cliche of the 8oz. glass with 4oz. of water in it. Where does the person fit who asks, WTH is in the water, and is it safe to drink?


A pessimist is merely an informed optimist -- one of the best lines I've heard. Of course, I guess one can become very optimistic about a product's chances if one is paid enough, even if you know of problems.

A pessimist is a person who has had to listen to too many optimists -- Don Marquis

An optimist is one who thinks that this is the best of all worlds, a pessimist fears that this is true. -- James Branch Cabell (paraphrased); see all Oppenheimer

There is no sadder sight than a young pessimist, except an old optimist -- Mark Twain

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -- Woody Allen

Things are never so bad they can't be made worse. -- Humphrey Bogart

Of course, it's possible to love a human being - if you don't know them too well -- Charles Bukowski

Hey, this isn't over until they beat us tomorrow. -- Cito Gaston

I've heard it said that a pessimist is a man who believes all women are bad, and an optimist is a man who hopes they are. -- Jackie Gleason

A pessimist? That's a person who has been intimately acquainted with an optimist. -- Elbert Hubbard


I don't consider myself a pessimist. I think of a pessimist as someone who is waiting for it to rain. And I feel soaked to the skin. -- Leonard Cohen

An optimist is merely an ex-pessimist with his pockets full of money, his digestion in good condition, and his wife in the country. ~Helen Rowland

The place where optimism most flourishes is the lunatic asylum. ~Havelock Ellis

I find the pessimist to be, if not exactly pleasant, then at least sincere. You always know what a pessimist is thinking, and if you don’t he will likely tell you anyway. The optimist, on the other hand, has always struck me as an imposter, walking around with her nose toward the heavens as if she inhabited a better world than you and me, a land of warm green meadows where the sun always shines and there is never a drought because of it. Not only that but the optimist is forever hypocritically criticizing your negativity as though it were some kind of birth defect. The pessimist does not go around saying, "Quit being so dadgum happy!" Or "Stop that smiling will you!" But the optimist has no problem trying to change your natural disposition. "Smile!" she snaps. "Quit being so pessimistic!" It may also be that I associate the optimist with the affected cheerfulness of the politician angling for votes, or the faux-friendly, chirpy male or female who goes into public relations, used car sales and telemarketing. And anyone who has spent any amount of time with one of these phonies can testify that once off the clock they morph into the most cynical, black-hearted bastards in the land. -- Christopher Orlet, from "The Optimist's Slaughter"

[Tal]

Knowing you as a pessimist Tris I bet you thought folks would forget its your birthday today. But not this optimist!

Happy Birthday Tris! Have a lolcat on me:

[Tris]

Knowing you as a pessimist Tris I bet you thought folks would forget its your birthday today. But not this optimist!

Happy Birthday Tris! Have a lolcat on me:

Thanks I guess. I haven't celebrated birthdays in a long, long time, haven't see a reason to celebrate recognizing that another year of hell has passed, with more on the horizon.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Knowing you as a pessimist Tris I bet you thought folks would forget its your birthday today. But not this optimist!

Happy Birthday Tris! Have a lolcat on me:

To Tris: happy birthday. Yeah, it's hell being a year older, but it beats the alternative.;)

To Tal: thank you. I was having (another) bad day and that picture made me laugh. Now life is only half bad:)

-Pete

[Tal]

To Tal: thank you. I was having (another) bad day and that picture made me laugh. Now life is only half bad:)

-Pete

Anytime Pete. =)

[kandrathe]

I think biologically, the optimist is the person who leaves the camp to explore beyond the next bush, and the pessimist is the one who says, "Be careful out there." or "Can I have your stuff if you die?"

[Jester]

I think biologically, the optimist is the person who leaves the camp to explore beyond the next bush, and the pessimist is the one who says, "Be careful out there." or "Can I have your stuff if you die?"

The pessimist would have said "Can I have your stuff *when* you die?"

Or, at least, Tris probably would have. :lol:

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think biologically, the optimist is the person who leaves the camp to explore beyond the next bush, and the pessimist is the one who says, "Be careful out there." or "Can I have your stuff if you die?"

Total non sequitor: Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite films, "When ye die, can I give that to me daughter?"

--Pete

[Nystul]

Hey, this isn't over until they beat us tomorrow. -- Cito Gaston

I've heard it said that a pessimist is a man who believes all women are bad, and an optimist is a man who hopes they are. -- Jackie Gleason

Pure gold right there.

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Total non sequitor: Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite films, "When ye die, can I give that to me daughter?"

--Pete

:) I remember that one. Give an Arab a sword, he makes a knife.

[eppie]

Knowing you as a pessimist Tris I bet you thought folks would forget its your birthday today. But not this optimist!

Happy Birthday Tris! Have a lolcat on me:

Is that beer he is drinking?

[pakman]

I consider myself a pessimist. However, the view I take as the optimists can only be disappointed because things don't turn out as they expected, and pessimists can only be pleasantly surprised because things might happen that they didn't expect. Whether the results are positive or negative, the pessimist will say, "I told you so" or "I did not expect that."

As long as I set my expectations low, I can't be disappointed.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I consider myself a pessimist. However, the view I take as the optimists can only be disappointed because things don't turn out as they expected, and pessimists can only be pleasantly surprised because things might happen that they didn't expect. Whether the results are positive or negative, the pessimist will say, "I told you so" or "I did not expect that."

As long as I set my expectations low, I can't be disappointed.

Note that this post is from 2008. Then note the (soon to be deleted) spam that bumped it above yours.:P

[Jim]

Hi,

Before the Spam delete:)

I was a Pessimist pre Obama, soon after Obama became the MAN I became an Optimist. Now that we have a 4th Party "the Party of NO & TEA" I'm a Pessimist again :(

At my age this could give me a heart attack :P

Note that this post is from 2008. Then note the (soon to be deleted) spam that bumped it above yours.:P

[kandrathe]

Hi,

Before the Spam delete:)

I was a Pessimist pre Obama, soon after Obama became the MAN I became an Optimist. Now that we have a 4th Party "the Party of NO & TEA" I'm a Pessimist again :(

At my age this could give me a heart attack :P

It will not survive as a third party. The Tea party movement will evaporate unless it acts to give the Republicans the conservative populist spine to begin to massively cut back Federal spending. Of course, the other choice is to raise taxes like 250%. Simply put, we are spending 4 trillion (and growing), and income is now a little under 2 trillion. We have about 63.3 trillion in unfunded liabilities to spend on the baby boomers for their Social Security and Medicare costs, but the government spent all the money and there is not enough income to keep those promises anymore.

Before GWB I was naive enough to think the government would make little difference either way, now we've seen the worst of both sides and its getting worse not better. Now I'm just disillusioned in both parties. I'm wondering if the John Galt strategy "stop the motor of the world" is perhaps best, in that we thinking people all just need to go on strike and quit earning income for awhile. Perhaps the best strategy for surviving the next few decades would be to find a small out of the way place and return to self sufficiency and agrarianism. Yeah, tax my tomatoes. I'll deal in the commodity of food, rather than my rapidly depreciating US currency.

But, rather than just complain about what's wrong, I've been writing to my representatives and getting more active in local politics trying to talk some sense into them. I'm working on an idea with the libertarians here, which probably has a snowball's chance in Hades, but what the heck, you never know unless you talk to someone. Right? So, if we are going to implement a nanny state, there are options for doing it in a private market manner rather than just capitulate to big government tyranny.

My idea is that rather than all of us forking over X% per paycheck for social security, and Y% per paycheck into Federal run health care, and Z% for a bunch of other run away entitlement spending... How about we all just get a special account at a private bank which acts much like a IRA, or 401K. But, it also can be used to spend say up to $5000 per year on health care costs. Then, return health insurance to a *real* insurance plan with a $5000 deductible (the same as is allowed to be spent from your "personal care taking account". By *real* insurance, I mean the insurance company pays for things based on risk again. You don't have auto insurance that covers oil changes, right? If your head lamp burns out, you pay for that out of pocket usually. Currently, health insurance acts more like pre-paid health care. You pay $6000 per year for "coverage" whether you use it or not, so people keep using it for everything to get some value for their dollars spent.

But then, the non-profit group health insurance companies find the entire groups health care consumption went up as well as the prices for new technologies, treatments and drugs, so they have to jack the prices up again to remain solvent. Time to re-read Henry Hazlitt's book on inflation, and his book on the inflation crisis (even though we are some years before it will hit). Isn't it funny how we are right back at the mid 1920's again, and we've not learned a darned thing? In a nutshell, since the government's spending is with the most newly printed money, it has the most inflating effect. Ever stop and wonder why things like college educations are inflating so fast? Could it be because almost every college applicant receives some amount of federal grant or subsidized loan? Being involved now in the post-secondary education industry, I see it first hand.

So, why not use this account for college as well? Parents can open the account for their children when they are young and divert some limited amount of money tax free into their childrens future "life account". Now we have government out of taking money from everyone to pay for everyone's retirement, health care, and college education. With this idea, people would be in control of their own savings again in their own account, with the stipulation that it be spent on college when they are young, medical costs throughout their life, and after 65 (or 70), they can begin to draw a pension from it until they die (or it's drained). If they die with money to spare, their account gets divided up to the survivors life accounts. It also keeps the money out of the hands of soul less bureaucrats who want to spend it on useless projects to please constituents, or to export democracy to depose puppet dictatorships we created in some former intervention.

The difference with this "life account" is that it is your own money you are spending, so you will be frugal with how you spend it. You are contributing to your own health care and old aged fund, and then also I would recommend this be open for employers to divert their benefit contributions toward as well. A matching contribution for health care, as well as for retirement. There would probably need to be some controls on how the money is invested (bonds, etc.) to assure it continues to grow over time and doesn't disappear in some stock market bubble.

Now, I'm not so optimistic to think that everyone will be able to earn enough to keep their account in the black, and so the taxpayer would in the worst case scenario need to contribute up to $5000 per year to cover the HSA portion of their health care costs. This is where we take care of those who can't care for themselves and have never saved enough in their lives to pay for their health care needs. I expect the costs of taking care of only those who really need it to be under 100 billion. It's a big number, but its affordable socialism that won't destroy the world economy. The devil is in the details, and how one might migrate from the broken ponzi scheme we have now, into something sensible that brings power back to the people.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . .

Two problems that I see right away: first, how do you handle the transition? People like me who've paid into social security all their life can't jump into a time machine and invest that 15% in a 401K. So, do I just get screwed out of those funds? Second problem: how does your plan work if 150 million of those people you're depending on to be intelligent, responsible, rational individuals all spend their funds on pizza and beer? Because they will. A plan predicated on the intelligence of the population is a plan doomed to failure before it starts.

And, who is John Galt?;)

--Pete

[Jester]

Of course, the other choice is to raise taxes like 250%. Simply put, we are spending 4 trillion (and growing), and income is now a little under 2 trillion.

These last two years are wildly exceptional. Stimulus does not work without increasing spending or cutting taxes - that's what stimulus *is*. Current expenditures will not continue, and existing one-off tax cuts with expire. This is not "4 trillion and growing".

For that matter, it's not even 4 trillion - Wikipedia has 3.518 trillion for expenditures, and 2.105 trillion revenue, FY 2009. That's a 1.413 trillion gap, which is a hell of a lot of money, but it's not the 2 trillion plus you're talking about. (Projected 2010 is about a 1.2 trillion deficit. We'll count the chickens after they hatch, but 800 billion is a hell of a lot to go missing.)

Raising tax revenue by 250% would increase federal revenues to seven trillion dollars. Perhaps you mean 150%? Even then, that's totally unnecessary. Once the stimulus spending ramps down, taxes can be raised by a much more moderate amount. Just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would itself fix a very large portion of the medium-run budget problem.

In the long run, you need to take a long, hard look at entitlement spending, for sure. But even that scary looming crisis is based on the idea of perpetually increasing health care costs, based on current levels and rates of growth. I would argue that current levels could be brought closer in line with OECD average expenditures with sensible reform, and that there is no reason this rate of cost increase must go on forever. Eventually, sharp diminishing returns from health care kick in. Surely it's not worth bankrupting the nation to give people an extra 15 minutes of life after age 110.

We have about 63.3 trillion in unfunded liabilities to spend on the baby boomers for their Social Security and Medicare costs, but the government spent all the money and there is not enough income to keep those promises anymore.

If only there was some well-known, internationally tested method of reducing health care costs...

Yeah, tax my tomatoes. I'll deal in the commodity of food, rather than my rapidly depreciating US currency.

If I recall from my fridge, tomatoes depreciate rather rapidly themselves. :lol:

As for the savings idea, I'm all for the creation of tax-free savings accounts for socially beneficial things like education and health care. Sounds great. However, a 5000 dollar deductible would eliminate almost all of the beneficial effects of the program. The poorest would not end up with savings, but rather, in the hole, unless they got damn lucky. For those earning a median income, that's a deductible of 10% of their annual income. For those at the bottom, that might be as high as 30% of their income. Heaven help you if you have kids. Thus, this becomes a regressive tax - if everyone gets sick equally, the poorest pay exactly the same, not as a proportion of their income, but as an absolute amount. But, of course, the poor get sick more than the rich, not less.

The system would create a strong perverse incentive to never go see your doctor until you have something truly crippling, which, from a medical standpoint, is crazy. You could at least sort of solve the problem with a buffer system - say, the first 1000 dollars of medical costs are free, then the next "X" dollars are yours to pay (preferably fixed on an income formula), and then then everything over that sum (catastrophic costs) are free.

Should this not be its own thread?

-Jester

Afterthought: If you see him at the Gulch, say hi to Andrew Ryan for me.

[Kevin]

I was optimistic that this thread would not turn into a Kandrathe/Jester/Pete/etc political discussion that we have in every other thread. :D


I've now become a pessimist and believe that all threads in The Lounge sub forum will turn into the same discussion. :P


;):P

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Two problems that I see right away: first, how do you handle the transition? People like me who've paid into social security all their life can't jump into a time machine and invest that 15% in a 401K. So, do I just get screwed out of those funds? Second problem: how does your plan work if 150 million of those people you're depending on to be intelligent, responsible, rational individuals all spend their funds on pizza and beer? Because they will. A plan predicated on the intelligence of the population is a plan doomed to failure before it starts.

And, who is John Galt?;)

--Pete

Yes, I agree, the transition is hard. I guess I would break the population into three groups; the ones young enough to abandon the old way and begin the new way (<30), the ones who will dabble in both(30-50), and the ones too old to get any benefit from the new way(50>). For the ones in that later category we will still need to probably raise the retirement age to 68 or 70 (people live longer now anyway), trim things back to make them more affordable (probably by doing what Medicare does by fixing the price that will be paid for a service), add means testing to federal benefits, and definitely use the personal account as the medium for allowing the person to make the best decisions possible. For those people in the middle, I would suggest a fixed government contribution into their accounts over 20 years from tax revenue inversely proportional to their age.

Your second part is not a problem, since the spending can only be for certain services and can be managed just as HSA's are administered currently (special debit card usable at Dr's office and pharmacy, or reimbursement). If you wanted to ensure that people (acted smartly and) had something in their accounts you could mandate a minimum percentage of the gross pay get directly deposited. As a libertarian, it makes me feel queasy to force people to do the right thing, but again if we are going to play nanny, then we can do it in a way that lets people to take care of themselves in a less fascist manner. The most important part of this is to remove the temptation of big money and spending from the US Congress.

[kandrathe]

These last two years are wildly exceptional. Stimulus does not work without increasing spending or cutting taxes - that's what stimulus *is*. Current expenditures will not continue, and existing one-off tax cuts with expire. This is not "4 trillion and growing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_S..._federal_budget While the current CBO forecast shows the deficit dropping below 1 trillion by 2014 (and then rising again through 2018), I'm pessimistic that the federal budget will ever drop below 3 trillion again, and certain it won't drop below 2 trillion (unless the Tea party folks get into power and dismantle the federal spending machine).

One note on *stimulus* -- what we had passed in Feb 2009 was not very stimulative. To be stimulus, the government spending would need to encourage business and consumers to spend their money. What it did do was to pay for a litany of wasteful future projects which would have very little economic benefit even if they were all done in 2009 or 2010. For example, the 9.3 million dollars given to Harvard University to build robotic bees. http://robobees.seas.harvard.edu/ The truth is that the government doesn't create jobs unless it is by growing government bureaucracy. So, if they wanted to create jobs in the private sector, they should pretend they are like an entrepreneur and act like a new venture business incubator. Let everyone who has a good idea for expanding or building a new business come forward to present their ideas, costs, and benefits, let rational people judge the feasibility, then award either grants or low interest loans for them. But, that can also be done in the private sector.

For that matter, it's not even 4 trillion - Wikipedia has 3.518 trillion for expenditures, and 2.105 trillion revenue, FY 2009. That's a 1.413 trillion gap, which is a hell of a lot of money, but it's not the 2 trillion plus you're talking about. (Projected 2010 is about a 1.2 trillion deficit. We'll count the chickens after they hatch, but 800 billion is a hell of a lot to go missing.)

Yes, it is! Parlor tricks in accounting, but yes, we shall see. There is always a shell game with social security money, and the other shady area is supplemental spending for the war(s). I was rounding to the nearest trillion, but I fear the deficits will be above 1 trillion and closer to 2 trillion. I'm pessimistic about revenue coming in on plan, although Congress has no shortage of items to spend that newly minted money upon.

Raising tax revenue by 250% would increase federal revenues to seven trillion dollars. Perhaps you mean 150%? Even then, that's totally unnecessary. Once the stimulus spending ramps down, taxes can be raised by a much more moderate amount. Just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would itself fix a very large portion of the medium-run budget problem.

If you think 150% would do it? I fear there is a point of diminishing return though, ala Laffer. The Bush tax cuts were highest for quintiles 3 and 4, so Obama would be breaking his pledge to not raise taxes on the middle classes. The poorest 20%(Q5) don't pay much tax, but they would actually pay 11% more as well. We talked about this a long time ago... here is the chart to which I refer. Overall, it is only about a 12% (maybe about 250 billion a year) increase which I don't believe is enough to shore up the runaway spending.

In the long run, you need to take a long, hard look at entitlement spending, for sure. But even that scary looming crisis is based on the idea of perpetually increasing health care costs, based on current levels and rates of growth. I would argue that current levels could be brought closer in line with OECD average expenditures with sensible reform, and that there is no reason this rate of cost increase must go on forever. Eventually, sharp diminishing returns from health care kick in. Surely it's not worth bankrupting the nation to give people an extra 15 minutes of life after age 110.

It's pretty easy to see why costs go up. Demand is constant or increasing, supply is limited and the funds to pay for the goods and services are freely available. There are always new innovations in treatments which require new equipment or drugs, which the makers can charge large prices for and get them. People demand goods and services they cannot afford, and the government takes the money from everyone to pay it. The checks on consumer behavior are removed.

If only there was some well-known, internationally tested method of reducing <strike>health care</strike> costs...

Ah, yes, government controlled economies.

If I recall from my fridge, tomatoes depreciate rather rapidly themselves. :lol:

True, but I can make more in my own garden. A veritable (vegetable) printing press for produce.

As for the savings idea, I'm all for the creation of tax-free savings accounts for socially beneficial things like education and health care. Sounds great. However, a 5000 dollar deductible would eliminate almost all of the beneficial effects of the program. The poorest would not end up with savings, but rather, in the hole, unless they got damn lucky. For those earning a median income, that's a deductible of 10% of their annual income. For those at the bottom, that might be as high as 30% of their income. Heaven help you if you have kids. Thus, this becomes a regressive tax - if everyone gets sick equally, the poorest pay exactly the same, not as a proportion of their income, but as an absolute amount. But, of course, the poor get sick more than the rich, not less.

Then housing, food, clothing, automobiles (which the poor all pay the same price as everyone else) are regressive. There are ways to bring compassion into the system, whether it be some government contribution or some other discount on the prices of goods and services. As for families, the $5000 deductible is the per family rate, and you might also set a $3000 rate per individual if you like. The other way you might make this more progressive would be to adjust the deductible based on family income.

The system would create a strong perverse incentive to never go see your doctor until you have something truly crippling, which, from a medical standpoint, is crazy. You could at least sort of solve the problem with a buffer system - say, the first 1000 dollars of medical costs are free, then the next "X" dollars are yours to pay (preferably fixed on an income formula), and then then everything over that sum (catastrophic costs) are free.

You have the account freely available to spend on health care related goods and services. If you are pitching in $100 - $200 a month, and then you have an annual health check (~ $120) then if you are like most people you'd just use the account to pay for it. This is untaxed money, and another benefit is that the account would pay for OTC drugs you'd not usually bother an insurance company about. So, vitamins, cold medicine, birth control, and allergy relief would get cheaper too.